[Vwar] Women should be allowed in combat, report says

Cooper Addison cadd at grandecom.net
Mon Jan 17 06:25:23 PST 2011


Good post Andy but you're such a dinosaur that you just can't seem to understand that nothing is more important than diversity- - - at least according to Casey.

Cooper



On Jan 16, 2011, at 10:18 PM, "Nicholas Andreacchio" <tanker634 at comcast.net> wrote:

> Some Women Facts
>  
>  
> The Atlantic Monthly
> August 1990                                           
> Army Women by Charles Moskos
>  
> SNIPED FROM; Army Women by Charles Moskos
>  
> > Only 60 percent of female senior NCOs are married, and of those only half have children. A military career works powerfully on military women to keep them single and childless....Women officers feel the same pressures not to marry or raise children that female NCOs do  pressures that male soldiers do not feel. ....In 1989 among male senior officers 94 percent were married, and 90 percent of these had children; among female senior officers only 51 percent were married, and only half of these had children....Many women officers believe that the demands of an Army career preclude having children, and they leave the service.
>  
> > "....some 15 percent of all enlisted Army women are single parents. Before 1975 pregnant women were routinely discharged from the Army. ....
>  
> > "...Foote says. "Anyone, male or female, who can't perform their mission has no place in the Army." She [ret female Gen.  Foote] ... notes that female officers were never consulted on the changes that allowed pregnant women and single parents to remain in the Army. The "male hierarchy caved in to so called liberals without thinking what this would mean for Army readiness." ....
>  
> >> Statistically speaking, average female upper body strength is 42 percent less than average male upper body strength. Looked at another way, the statistics mean that on the average the top fifth of women in lifting capacity are the equal of the bottom fifth of men on the same measure. This means that any work requiring heavy lifting or carrying a great deal of weight  the burden of the combat soldier  puts women at a serious disadvantage. ... The irreducible fact remains that physical strength and endurance are still the hallmarks of the effective combat soldier on the ground; indeed, such qualities may be more important in the future, when we make use of rapid deployment forces, whose members must carry most of their equipment on their backs.
>  
> >> Contrary to popular belief, women in Israel, which is the only country with a female draft, are not assigned to duty as combat soldiers; they played only a limited, mainly defensive, role in the War of Independence, in 1948.
>  
> >> Among the enlisted women . . .  about three quarters said that women should not be allowed in combat units and about a quarter said that women who were physically qualified should be allowed to volunteer for combat roles. None of the enlisted women favored forcing women into combat assignments.. . . not a single woman, officer or enlisted, said that she would volunteer to be an infantry rifleman.
>  
>  
> >> The core question  the one avoided in public debate, but the one that the women soldiers I spoke with in Panama were all too aware of  is this: Should every woman soldier be made to confront exactly the same combat liabilities as every man? All male soldiers can, if need arises, be assigned to the combat arms, whatever their normal postings. True equality would mean that women soldiers would incur the same liability. To allow women but not men the option of entering or not entering the combat arms would  rightly or wrongly  cause immense resentment among male soldiers; in a single stroke it would diminish the status and respect that female soldiers have achieved. To allow both sexes to choose whether or not to go into combat would be the end of an effective military force. Honesty requires that supporters of lifting the ban on women in combat state openly that they want to put all female soldiers at the same combat risk as all male soldiers  or that they don't.
>  
>  
>  
> THE RAND STUDY--various papers see below after this.
> "Recent Gender Integration in the Military: Effects Upon Readiness, Cohesion and Morale"
> By the Rand Corp prepared by two female researchers
>  
> >>" . . . . Male soldiers, the Rand Corp. examination of sex integrated units found, live in fear of bogus complaints and in some cases avoid contact with female colleagues, even though such isolation damages combat cohesion...."
>  
> >>".... . . . The Rand researchers, who visited sea, air and land units over four months, said male troops, citing fear, say they treat women differently than they treat fellow soldiers.
> . . . . "Men were reluctant to push women, especially during physical activities, such as unit runs, because of fear that the women would retaliate with an unfounded charge of sexual harassment," the report said. "Men were also reluctant to counsel women privately, as they would men, because of the innuendo that would accompany them if they were alone together and because of the lack of any witness who could speak on their behalf if the woman was displeased with the counseling and threatened to accuse them of having harassed her while he was alone with her."...
>  
> >> ".... . . . Rand quoted an unnamed male soldier as saying, "Women are held to lower standards in [physical training], marksmanship, work, because they are women and leaders are afraid to do anything about it because it will hurt [the leaders'] careers."..."RAND
>  
> >>".... . . . Investigators found that the Army employs a double standard for men and women deployed in the field. Women get a shower at least every 72 hours; some men wait weeks between showers....RAND
>  
> >> "... . . . "One of the most troublesome gender based morale problems was the unit impact of co workers engaged in consensual relationships," Rand said. "When couples were fighting or had just broken up, revenge was often reported to be in the form of workplace sabotage or false sexual harassment charges."
>  
> . . . . One soldier complained: "I get tired of seeing a junior enlisted female and her boyfriend [at mess]. This place is like high school all over again. Everyone is dating others. To me, this is not the military."...RAND
> >>Only 10 percent of female privates and corporals agreed to the statement "I think that women should be treated exactly like men and serve in the combat arms just like men." Less than one quarter of midgrade sergeants answered yes. .... . . . "Much of the agenda for women in combat is driven by the careerism of women officers, not by the wishes and desires of enlisted women, who have no illusion about what combat service means to them. They are the grunts," said Kate O'Beirne, who served on a 1992 presidential commission on women in the military. RAND
>  
> >> . . . . In the Rand survey, the highest ranking female enlisted personnel, such as Navy chief petty officers and Army master sergeants, were split 50 50 on the question of ordering women into ground combat. Just over 40 percent of female officers agreed, while just 17 percent said they were happy with regulations that exclude them from combat.
>  
> >> . . . . A large percentage of male officers, 63 percent, think the ban should stay in place. And only 22 percent say women should be treated as men in serving in combat.
>  
> >> . . . . Mrs. O'Beirne said the momentum will not shift until commanders speak out publicly on why women in ground fighting will not work.
> . . . . "I do not understand how combat vets whose decorations speak to their physical bravery quake in the face of a feminist assault," she said. "Men who are willing to die for their country should be willing to retire early with one less star if it means defending the troops in their charge, which is their moral duty."
>  
>  
>  
> Women Servey on Combat
> Women who would Þght closest to front support combat exclusion
>                                                                        
> By Rowan Scarborough
> THE WASHINGTON TIMES, July 9, 1997
> "Recent Gender Integration in the Military: Effects Upon Readiness, Cohesion and Morale"
> By the Rand Corp prepared by two female researchers
>  
> >>Only 10 percent of female privates and corporals agreed to the statement "I think that women should be treated exactly like men and serve in the combat arms just like men." Less than one quarter of midgrade sergeants answered yes. .... . . . "Much of the agenda for women in combat is driven by the careerism of women officers, not by the wishes and desires of enlisted women, who have no illusion about what combat service means to them. They are the grunts," said Kate O'Beirne, who served on a 1992 presidential commission on women in the military. RAND
>  
> >> . . . . In the Rand survey, the highest ranking female enlisted personnel, such as Navy chief petty officers and Army master sergeants, were split 50 50 on the question of ordering women into ground combat. Just over 40 percent of female officers agreed, while just 17 percent said they were happy with regulations that exclude them from combat.
>  
>  
> >> . . . . A large percentage of male officers, 63 percent, think the ban should stay in place. And only 22 percent say women should be treated as men in serving in combat.
>  
> >> . . . . Mrs. O'Beirne said the momentum will not shift until commanders speak out publicly on why women in ground fighting will not work.
> . . . . "I do not understand how combat vets whose decorations speak to their physical bravery quake in the face of a feminist assault," she said. "Men who are willing to die for their country should be willing to retire early with one less star if it means defending the troops in their charge, which is their moral duty."
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
> Army Moves to Toughen Fitness Standards for Women
>  
> By Dana Priest
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Saturday, September 13, 1997; Page A01
> From the Army Study on Sexual Harrasment.
>  
> >> Representative Steve E. Buyer, a Republican from Indiana, discovered on a fact finding tour this spring of the Fort Leonard Wood Army base in Missouri that "women were not passing the hand grenade toss, so they changed the standards."
>  
> >>According to a War College monograph by Lieut. Col. Donald E. Fowler 2d, female Army soldiers shipped home from the Persian Gulf shortly after they arrived because they turned out to be pregnant received a combat patch and a medal like the other soldiers who stayed on    once again because the military officials were worried about appearing biased against women.
>  
> >>  Lieut. Emma Cuevas, on whom the Army spent thousands of dollars to train as a pilot, redid her flying schedule to allow time to breast feed her infant. She is now suing the Army for the right to leave the force before her contracted time is up so she can become a full time mother.
>  
> >> results of a survey of 30,000 troops conducted by the panel, which found many men believe women receive favorable treatment in the service. Only 50 percent of the male soldiers said they believe women "pull their load."
> By contrast, almost all soldiers, men and women, believe male soldiers "pull their load."
>  
> >>Male soldiers also believe the Army's pregnancy policy, which allows pregnant women to remain in the service but requires them to transfer to nonhazardous jobs, puts an unfair burden on colleagues.
> This burden is most acutely felt, Foote said, when women have jobs that only a few people hold. In focus groups, for example, men complained about a battalion level fuel handler who became pregnant and was assigned a desk duty until she gave birth so her unborn baby would not be exposed to chemical hazards.
>  
> There were only a few fuel handlers assigned to the battalion and because she technically remained on the unit payroll, the battalion could not request a temporary substitute.
>  
>  
> Mixed Training.
> By Rowan Scarborough
> THE WASHINGTON TIMES 5 June 97
> The Army Research Institute conducted the 1995 study
>  
> >>"Male soldiers complained that female soldiers 'got over' on the male drill sergeants, fraternized with drill sergeants, and 'rode codes' to get out of training." "Got over" is parlance for receiving special treatment. "Rode codes" refers to a medical excuse.•"A concern that gender integrated [training] encouraged more fraternization among male and female soldiers. Drill sergeants felt they had to keep the soldiers focused on training while the soldiers were focused on one another."•"Some of the female drill sergeants felt that male drill sergeants often gave females different types of details or favored those who were more attractive. ... Some male drill sergeants said standards had to be lowered to accommodate females, especially for PT [physical training]."•"Some of the drill sergeants felt training female soldiers forced them to be too inhibited    they were afraid to 'act naturally' for fear of being charged with use of improper language or with sexual harassment."
>  
>  
>  
> From Newsweek, 12 May 1997.
> >>Every three days a women is evacuated from Bosnia due to pregnancy.       
> >>In Gulf War, the repair ship “Arcadia” with 360 females, had 36 evacuated for pregnancy.
>  
> >>The Army has developed the “Freshette Complet System” to allow women to urinate standing up.
> >>Women are on average, five inches shorter with half the upper body strength.
>  
> >>Female recruits are injured at twice the rate of male recruits.
> >>”Because of their lighter skeltons, women are particularly plagued by stress fractures.  As many as 30% of female colonels have some kind of Permanent orthopedic conditions: only 7% of male colonels do.
> >Gulf War: Male KIA = 142.  Female KIA - 16
>  
>  
>  
> Coed military: Gals gripe, guys quake By Rowan Scarborough
> THE WASHINGTON TIMES, 7 Jul.  1997
>  
> >> . . . Male soldiers, the Rand Corp. examination of sex integrated units found, live in fear of bogus complaints and in some cases avoid contact with female colleagues, even though such isolation damages combat cohesion.
>  
>  
> >>  . . . "Men reported that they were told 'Don't talk to them, don't sit near them in the mess, don't breathe near them,'" said the report.. . . . "Not surprisingly, the women reported that the men seemed 'scared to death of us.'"
>  
> >> . . . The Rand researchers, who visited sea, air and land units over four months, said male troops, citing fear, say they treat women differently than they treat fellow soldiers.
> . . . . "Men were reluctant to push women, especially during physical activities, such as unit runs, because of fear that the women would retaliate with an unfounded charge of sexual harassment," the report said. "Men were also reluctant to counsel women privately, as they would men, because of the innuendo that would accompany them if they were alone together and because of the lack of any witness who could speak on their behalf if the woman was displeased with the counseling and threatened to accuse them of having harassed her while he was alone with her."  RAND
>  
> >> . . . A majority of junior enlisted women said their co workers treated them differently because of their sex. Forty six percent of female officers agreed.
> . . . . Rand quoted an unnamed male soldier as saying, "Women are held to lower standards in [physical training], marksmanship, work, because they are women and leaders are afraid to do anything about it because it will hurt [the leaders'] careers."  RAND
>  
> >> . . . Investigators found that the Army employs a double standard for men and women deployed in the field. Women get a shower at least every 72 hours; some men wait weeks between showers.  RAND
>  
> >> . . . . The two female researchers also found a good deal of dating in the ranks.
> . . . . "One of the most troublesome gender based morale problems was the unit impact of co workers engaged in consensual relationships," Rand said. "When couples were fighting or had just broken up, revenge was often reported to be in the form of workplace sabotage or false sexual harassment charges."
> . . . . One soldier complained: "I get tired of seeing a junior enlisted female and her boyfriend [at mess]. This place is like high school all over again. Everyone is dating others. To me, this is not the military." RAND
>  
>  
>  
> Panel backs decision on pilot, criticizes Navy
> By Rowan Scarborough
> THE WASHINGTON TIMES, 2 Ju;y 1997
>  
> >> A special Navy panel yesterday supported an air wing commander's decision to disqualify a female pilot from carrier aviation and criticized the Navy for rushing women into combat aviation.  . . . The report also concluded there was "no evidence of record to conclude" that Lt. Carey Dunai Lohrenz received preferential treatment in qualifying for carrier aviation, despite testimony to the contrary from instructors.
>  
> >>  . . . The Navy inspector general's panel differed with the aircraft carrier's officers on the exact factors that led to Lt. Lohrenz's problems in landing the twin engine F 14 fighter.
>  
> . . . . Commanders on the USS Abraham Lincoln blamed her failure on a lack of motor skills and poor motivation and noted she didn't respond to corrective directions from landing signal officers, known as LSOs.. . . . The IG investigators, in a report dated Feb. 10 and released yesterday at the Pentagon, put more emphasis on the stress she was under in 1995 when a Field Naval Aviation Evaluation Board on the Lincoln ended her carrier career.    . . . . The report said the stress stemmed from the death of a female flying colleague, Lt. Kara Hultgreen,...
>  
> >> . . . . But the 241 page IG report criticized the Navy for pushing women ahead of men in the backlog of pilots waiting to qualify for carrier based planes.
> . . . . "The decision to move females ahead of males in the training pipeline, necessary to get them to the targeted carrier/air wing before deployment, contributed to the perception that women would receive preferential treatment to satisfy political objectives    a message that hurt morale and team work," the report said.
>  
> >> . . . . Though it concluded that Lt. Lohrenz didn't receive preferential treatment, the IG's report contains testimony from instructors who said she did.
> . . . . Asked by an IG panel member if she received preferential treatment, an unidentified instructor answered: "Yes, ma'am. And again as I stated before, the instructors at VF 124 wanted to see the females succeed, and I believe that we went to some extraordinary lengths to have them do so."
> . . . . Another instructor said: "We want all aviators to get through it, but there comes a point where the lines were drawn for males and I think she exceeded that to a certain extent. But I think there was a lot of people that wanted to see her succeed and which she ultimately did. And I honestly believe that if Lt. Lohrenz was a male, that she may not have made it through the tactics syllabus."
>  
> CONTINUED BELOW FROM OTHER SOURCE
>  
>  
>  
> The Navy's poster girls
>  
> By Richard Grenier
> THE WASHINGTON TIMES
> 14 Oct.  1997
>  
> >>The Navy felt a "race" was on to beat the Air Force and become the first service to place women in a combat aviation squadron. It was very eager for all the good publicity it was sure would ensue if it won the race, establishing the Navy as the shining, exemplary, woman friendly military service. The Navy was thus in something of a fix when Kara Hultgreen went and killed herself, since if the Navy knowingly sent to the fleet substandard female pilots it bore itself a heavy share of responsibility.
>  
> . . . . "I owed it to the Navy," said training officer Patrick Burns, speaking of his sworn testimony to the Naval Inspector General's office on the F 14 training records of Lt. Carey Lohrenz    who trained right along with Kara Hultgreen    and has now been removed from carrier flight status on being graded "dangerous" as a pilot. As is the fashion these days Carey Lohrenz is of course now suing the Navy, accusing it of gender discrimination    although training records disclosed by Lt. Burns show she's a far worse pilot than even Kara Hultgreen, who killed herself in 1994 on her approach to the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln.
> . . . But why did these training officers graduate substandard pilots? Because, testified training officer Burns, they were told by their commanding officer, "You guys don't understand, this is bigger than all of us. These women are going to graduate no matter what."
> . . . . The Navy has subsequently felt obliged to do quite a bit of lying, first claiming the Hultgreen accident was due to "mechanical failure" (a claim shown to be quite false). And it was only when Lt. Patrick Burns, knowing the training records of these ladies, decided to provide them to Elaine Donnelly of the independent Center for Military Readiness that the true story began to leak out.
> . . . But it's hard to miss the Pentagon's general slant on gender issues given a childishly simple fact. Women in the military services are not only allowed but encouraged to strut about wearing their uniforms and decorations before Congress and television cameras whenever advancing the feminist cause. But the Pentagon forbids male active duty officers like Lt. Burns to appear in uniform when testifying on gender issues (and when interviewed by me), apparently fearful that their uniforms might give the "male" viewpoint too much authority.
> . . . . When they appear on television in civilian clothes these male witnesses give the impression of being some sort of Pentagon civilian employee. Whereas, all spiffy in Navy blue and gold, Carey Lohrenz and Kara Hultgreen, with their failing and near failing grades in flight training, must have appeared the very model of the modern female warrior. How the Pentagon justifies this quite rigid discriminatory policy, so obviously stacking the deck in favor of feminist agitators, has never been explained.
> . . . . But it will take more than spiffy uniforms to make up for the miserable training records of Lts. Lohrenz and Hultgreen. With a year long investigation on "Integration of Women into Carrier Air Wing ll," the Naval Inspector General's office, after stalling for more than two years, has finally released a report including excruciatingly detailed records to substantiate Carey Lohrenz's commanding officer's judgment that her flying was "dangerous," "unsafe," "undisciplined," and "unpredictable." She "scared everyone but herself." Her training records show Lt. Lohrenz to be a far worse pilot than even the late Kara Hultgreen.
> . . . . But the Inspector General's report confirms some embarrassing facts: the late Kara Hultgreen was retained in the training program and graduated to the fleet despite a failing grade and four major flying errors (called in Naval Aviation lingo "Downs"), two of which were similar to mistakes she made on the day she died. Lt. Lohrenz earned even lower scores and an astonishing seven "Downs"    her last failing grade not recorded as it would have categorically prevented her deployment to the fleet.
> . . . . But the most disturbing general fact is that America's military services now habitually grovel before congressional feminists. And since the Soviet collapse alleviates outside pressure, our feminists have gone into overdrive in their grand mission to turn our military into a wonderful social experiment proving women are men's equal in absolutely everything. The Navy has something to show for its efforts to accommodate feminists' demands, of course.  Naval Aviation already has no fewer than two Poster Girls. One has been removed from carrier flight status as a danger not only to herself but to anyone who came near her. And the other is dead. I suppose you'd have to call it a qualified success.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> >>Flynn's Lawyer
> Time Mag of June2, 1997, page 33.
> "He [Spinner,her lawyer] that in all his adultery or fraternization cases, none of his clients had got off so lightly."
>  
> >> British Open SF to Females
> Washington Times, 7 April 97
> By Richard Grenier
> THE WASHINGTON TIMES
>                                                                        
> <"... I was in Britain when it opened its Special Forces to female volunteers. Many thousand women stepped forward, but the number able to pass the physical exam, with requirements not lowered to accommodate them (which Americans do invariably), was: eight. And the number that passed Special Forces training was exactly: one. A female general appeared on BBC television to announce that the whole idea had been a disaster..."
>  
>  
>  
> >> "...A special Navy panel yesterday supported an air wing commander's decision to disqualify a female pilot from carrier aviation and criticized the Navy for rushing women into combat aviation.... . . . "The decision to move females ahead of males in the training pipeline, necessary to get them to the targeted carrier/air wing before deployment, contributed to the perception that women would receive preferential treatment to satisfy political objectives    a message that hurt morale and team work," the report said.
>  
> > ...A ruling by Canada's Human Rights Commission ... held that women could no longer be excluded from any military role except in submarines. ... Only seventy nine women were recruited into the infantry training program and only one completed the course. She has since requested a transfer out of the infantry.
>  
>   None of these address the other little problem that no one wants to address.  How do you think unit cohesiveness will fair when in a platoon of forty  thirty men and ten women   the men start competing for the women's favors?  Women start trading those favors for preferential treatment.
>     These are NOT theoretical problems, just the way it is.  Like one female sociologist said:>
>   "Women have what men want."   Sellers market.
>  
> ME
>  
> the Army conducted a study of gender in basic training companies in the early 1980s. There were three test groups: companies composed only of men, companies composed only of women and mixed companies. The men only companies performed best, in just about all of the basic soldiering tasks (not only the merely physical), and the women only units performed somewhat worse. In the mixed gender companies, the women performed better than they did in women only units, but the men performed worse than they did in men only units. Since less than 20 percent of the Army is composed of women, logic dictates that the men be kept in male only units as much as possible in order to maximize results.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Kemp
> Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 7:46 PM
> To: Vietnam War and its Effects
> Subject: Re: [Vwar] Women should be allowed in combat, report says
>  
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Rachael Pettus <rachael at cytanet.com.cy> wrote:
> > I don't get why the military doesn't make the physical requirements the same
> > for women as for men.  That would take care of all but the very few who
> > could make the grade.  That's what the Canadians did, and it seemed to work
> > for them.
>  
>  
> Some of the Canadian officers and NCOs on Lightfighter said the women
> who did keep up still suffered higher rates of training injuries and
> rarely completed a first enlistment. Instead they'd end up medically
> retired and permanently disabled at a higher rate than their male
> counterparts which wasn't exactly fair to the women either.
>  
> Dan
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Vwar mailing list
> Vwar at lists.opn.org
> http://lists.opn.org/mailman/listinfo/vwar_lists.opn.org
> _______________________________________________
> Vwar mailing list
> Vwar at lists.opn.org
> http://lists.opn.org/mailman/listinfo/vwar_lists.opn.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opn.org/pipermail/vwar_lists.opn.org/attachments/20110117/ba25e380/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Vwar mailing list