Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
October 20, 2014, 06:30:53 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Defense chief Panetta to clear women for combat roles  (Read 1330 times)
Skip8282
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6484



« on: January 23, 2013, 08:19:58 PM »

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has decided to clear the way for women to serve in many combat positions in the U.S. armed forces, a senior defense official told NBC News on Wednesday afternoon.


 

The Pentagon chief will announce on Thursday that he is eliminating the direct ground combat exclusion — the Department of Defense policy that excluded women from assignment to units below the brigade level if the unit would be engaged in direct combat.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This will allow women to be assigned to select positions in ground combat units at the battalion level, opening approximately 237,000 individual jobs to women across service branches, including 5,000 positions for female Marines in ground combat elements.
 




Advertise | AdChoices
 


"I support it. It reflects the reality of 21st century military operations," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, in anticipation of the announcement.

"We are moving in the direction of women as infantry soldiers," one senior defense official said.

Longstanding opponents of lifting the ban on women in combat lambasted the move as a show of "political correctness."

"The point of the military is to protect our country," said Penny Nance, President and CEO of Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, a conservative lobbying group. "Anything that distracts from that is detrimental. Our military cannot continue to choose social experimentation and political correctness over combat readiness. While this decision is not unexpected from this administration, it is still disappointing."

Panetta, who is expected to leave his position as Defense Secretary in February, will call on the military services to study whether it is possible to open all jobs to women, and the services must come back with their individual plans and recommendations by May 15, a senior defense official said.  He will call for all changes to be in place, and women serving in the new roles by Jan. 1, 2016.

But a senior defense official who spoke to NBC News said they expect exceptions to remain. Elite Special Operations positions in Navy SEALS, Army Rangers, and Delta Force were likely to remain closed to women, the official said, while the Army is likely to open up jobs for female pilots in the elite 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment.


Karim Sahib / AFP - Getty Images file


Female soldiers from the US 1st Cavalry on patrol in Baghdad's al-Jihad quarter in this Mar. 21, 2004, file photograph.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., called the decision "historic."

"In fact, it's important to remember that in recent wars that lacked any true front lines, thousands of women already spent their days in combat situations serving side-by-side with their fellow male servicemembers," said Murray, who heads the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee.

In November, a group of women in the military and the non-profit American Civil Liberties Union sued the Pentagon over the policy of excluding women from combat roles. Their complaint argued that they were already serving in combat roles, but not getting recognized for it.

So far, 152 women have died while deployed in support of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and at least 958 have been wounded in action.

"This is really the implementation of a policy that has been a reality for women for years," one senior defense official said.

According to the most recent Defense numbers, there are 1.4 million active duty members of the military, and nearly 15 percent of them are women.

This new military-wide rule — distinct from a law — will replace the 1994 policy memo barring women in combat roles, which was signed by then-Secretary Les Aspin.


http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/23/16664507-defense-chief-panetta-to-clear-women-for-combat-roles?lite
Report to moderator   Logged
Jadeveon Clowney
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5954


The life is like a case of chocolate bonbon.


« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2013, 08:21:57 PM »

about time.
Report to moderator   Logged
Shockwave
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20587


Decepticons! Scramble!


« Reply #2 on: January 23, 2013, 08:25:50 PM »

90% of women can't physically take it... there was an interesting article by a WM (woman Marine) where she was talking about how her body was simply breaking down and was not capable of handling the same workloads that the grunts were taking, especially day in and day out with little sleep (and this woman was in excellent shape)...

I'm kind of on the fence, but I don't really agree with it.
Report to moderator   Logged
GigantorX
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5462


GetBig's A-Team is the Light of Truth!


« Reply #3 on: January 23, 2013, 08:36:11 PM »

90% of women can't physically take it... there was an interesting article by a WM (woman Marine) where she was talking about how her body was simply breaking down and was not capable of handling the same workloads that the grunts were taking, especially day in and day out with little sleep (and this woman was in excellent shape)...

I'm kind of on the fence, but I don't really agree with it.

She was interviewed on the news today, said the same things and was against allowing women to serve in front line combat roles.

It isn't if it's "right" or not it is if it is safe, effective and if the women can physically perform there roles.

It is a Yes or No.
Report to moderator   Logged
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 25256



« Reply #4 on: January 23, 2013, 08:40:00 PM »

90% of women can't physically take it... there was an interesting article by a WM (woman Marine) where she was talking about how her body was simply breaking down and was not capable of handling the same workloads that the grunts were taking, especially day in and day out with little sleep (and this woman was in excellent shape)...

I'm kind of on the fence, but I don't really agree with it.
I was thinking the same thing, I think if these women can pass the same type of physical requirements the men can then its ok but if not they need to step aside and not put other ppl at risk.
Report to moderator   Logged
Shockwave
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20587


Decepticons! Scramble!


« Reply #5 on: January 23, 2013, 09:04:10 PM »

She was interviewed on the news today, said the same things and was against allowing women to serve in front line combat roles.

It isn't if it's "right" or not it is if it is safe, effective and if the women can physically perform there roles.

It is a Yes or No.
Exactly.

Political correctness has absolutely no fucking place in a warzone.
Report to moderator   Logged
GigantorX
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5462


GetBig's A-Team is the Light of Truth!


« Reply #6 on: January 24, 2013, 09:20:55 AM »

Exactly.

Political correctness has absolutely no fucking place in a warzone.

And as an addendum to this the female Marine that was interviewed was part of the 3 female Marines that tried to do and pass the normal Marine physical training. All 3 failed and failed hard. The Marines, I believe, opened up pathways for women to serve in direct combat but none of passed the tests.

Plus, I think at the heart or near the heart of this matter is that woman are being passed over for promotions because they lack their combat stripes.
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3564


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #7 on: January 24, 2013, 10:38:55 AM »

Anywhere you can find people to help prop up the fraud, I suppose...

What a fucked up world.
Report to moderator   Logged

Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9200


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #8 on: January 24, 2013, 10:49:58 AM »

Put Mobacaa RATlosi Boxer Feinstein DeLauro Madcow Hitlery and Fat ass Claire on the front line! 
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 4066


You've given me multiple traumatic brain injuries!


« Reply #9 on: January 24, 2013, 11:01:41 AM »

And as an addendum to this the female Marine that was interviewed was part of the 3 female Marines that tried to do and pass the normal Marine physical training. All 3 failed and failed hard. The Marines, I believe, opened up pathways for women to serve in direct combat but none of passed the tests.

I don't know who failed at what and how hard. I remember reading that some women did fail a Marine test, so let's assume that's all 100% accurate and true. My question is this: do those three women who failed to pass mean that no women (today or in the future) could pass this test? The answer is clearly no. So the follow-up question is, should women at least have the opportunity to take this "test" and pass or fail on their own merits, instead of their chromosomes?
Report to moderator   Logged
GigantorX
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5462


GetBig's A-Team is the Light of Truth!


« Reply #10 on: January 24, 2013, 11:25:02 AM »

I don't know who failed at what and how hard. I remember reading that some women did fail a Marine test, so let's assume that's all 100% accurate and true. My question is this: do those three women who failed to pass mean that no women (today or in the future) could pass this test? The answer is clearly no. So the follow-up question is, should women at least have the opportunity to take this "test" and pass or fail on their own merits, instead of their chromosomes?


Never said they shouldn't have the opportunity, just as long as they must pass the same exact tests and have to meet the same exact standards as their male counterparts. No gender-norming, no gimmicks, no dual standards. Anything less will put peoples lives at risk and hurt the effectiveness of said combat units.
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 4066


You've given me multiple traumatic brain injuries!


« Reply #11 on: January 24, 2013, 11:37:20 AM »

Never said they shouldn't have the opportunity, just as long as they must pass the same exact tests and have to meet the same exact standards as their male counterparts. No gender-norming, no gimmicks, no dual standards. Anything less will put peoples lives at risk and hurt the effectiveness of said combat units.

I just want to understand your position. Thanks for clarifying. We are (more or less) in agreement.
Report to moderator   Logged
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16047


Getbig!


« Reply #12 on: January 24, 2013, 01:22:17 PM »

Exactly.

Political correctness has absolutely no fucking place in a warzone.

Exactly!! Dollars to donuts, not one of these politicians would want an all-female security team, guarding their hides (unless they're all built like Beth Phoenix;; and even that's a stretch), much less an all-female combat battalion.

Report to moderator   Logged
Skip8282
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6484



« Reply #13 on: January 24, 2013, 03:12:35 PM »

Exactly!! Dollars to donuts, not one of these politicians would want an all-female security team, guarding their hides (unless they're all built like Beth Phoenix;; and even that's a stretch), much less an all-female combat battalion.





No, I haven't heard that.  I thought they would be integrated with the men...which they mostly are now.
Report to moderator   Logged
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16047


Getbig!


« Reply #14 on: January 24, 2013, 03:40:20 PM »



No, I haven't heard that.  I thought they would be integrated with the men...which they mostly are now.

That's my point. If this is all about "equality", then (in theory) you could have an all-female unit.
Report to moderator   Logged
Hugo Chavez
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31873


« Reply #15 on: January 24, 2013, 03:46:12 PM »

what's the point of this in the first place?  I know there have been a few voices over the years promoting the idea but it hasn't been that big.  They'll probably lose recruitment of women on this.

Report to moderator   Logged
Roger Bacon
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21019


Roger Bacon tries to be witty and fails


« Reply #16 on: January 24, 2013, 03:48:51 PM »

I watched an older documentary about a female soldier from Iraq with PTSD.  She claimed she was a gunner on a Humvee.


Huh
Report to moderator   Logged

blacken700
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10933


Getbig!


« Reply #17 on: January 24, 2013, 03:55:55 PM »

if they're qualified let them have at it
Report to moderator   Logged
Hugo Chavez
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 31873


« Reply #18 on: January 24, 2013, 04:28:03 PM »

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjwtdhpcUzw" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjwtdhpcUzw</a>

The Marine Corps Times recently published a handful of articles in regard to opening Infantry Officer Course (IOC) to females and the possibility of integrating women into the infantry community. In mid-April the Commandant directed the “integration” of the first wave of female officers into IOC this summer following completion of The Basic School (TBS). This action may or may not pave the way for female Marines to serve in the infantry as the results remain to be seen. However, before the Marine Corps moves forward with this concept, should we not ask the hard questions and gain opinions of combat-experienced Marines (male and female alike) as to the purpose, the impact, and the gains from such a move? As a combat-experienced Marine officer, and a female, I am here to tell you that we are not all created equal, and attempting to place females in the infantry will not improve the Marine Corps as the Nation’s force-in-readiness or improve our national security.

As a company grade 1302 combat engineer officer with 5 years of active service and two combat deployments, one to Iraq and the other to Afghanistan, I was able to participate in and lead numerous combat operations. In Iraq as the II MEF Director, Lioness Program, I served as a subject matter expert for II MEF, assisting regimental and battalion commanders on ways to integrate female Marines into combat operations. I primarily focused on expanding the mission of the Lioness Program from searching females to engaging local nationals and information gathering, broadening the ways females were being used in a wide variety of combat operations from census patrols to raids. In Afghanistan I deployed as a 1302 and led a combat engineer platoon in direct support of Regimental Combat Team 8, specifically operating out of the Upper Sangin Valley. My platoon operated for months at a time, constructing patrol bases (PBs) in support of 3d Battalion, 5th Marines; 1st Battalion, 5th Marines; 2d Reconnaissance Battalion; and 3d Battalion, 4th Marines. This combat experience, in particular, compelled me to raise concern over the direction and overall reasoning behind opening the 03XX field.

Who is driving this agenda? I am not personally hearing female Marines, enlisted or officer, pounding on the doors of Congress claiming that their inability to serve in the infantry violates their right to equality. Shockingly, this isn’t even a congressional agenda. This issue is being pushed by several groups, one of which is a small committee of civilians appointed by the Secretary of Defense called the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS). Their mission is to advise the Department of Defense (DoD) on recommendations, as well as matters of policy, pertaining to the well-being of women in the Armed Services from recruiting to employment. Members are selected based on their prior military experience or experience with women’s workforce issues. I certainly applaud and appreciate DACOWITS’ mission; however, as it pertains to the issue of women in the infantry, it’s very surprising to see that none of the committee members are on active duty or have any recent combat or relevant operational experience relating to the issue they are attempting to change. I say this because, at the end of the day, it’s the active duty servicemember who will ultimately deal with the results of their initiatives, not those on the outside looking in. As of now, the Marine Corps hasn’t been directed to integrate, but perhaps the Corps is anticipating the inevitable—DoD pressuring the Corps to comply with DACOWITS’ agenda as the Army has already “rogered up” to full integration. Regardless of what the Army decides to do, it’s critical to emphasize that we are not the Army; our operational speed and tempo, along with our overall mission as the Nation’s amphibious force-in-readiness, are fundamentally different than that of our sister Service. By no means is this distinction intended as disrespectful to our incredible Army. My main point is simply to state that the Marine Corps and the Army are different; even if the Army ultimately does fully integrate all military occupational fields, that doesn’t mean the Corps should follow suit.

I understand that there are female servicemembers who have proven themselves to be physically, mentally, and morally capable of leading and executing combat-type operations; as a result, some of these Marines may feel qualified for the chance of taking on the role of 0302. In the end, my main concern is not whether women are capable of conducting combat operations, as we have already proven that we can hold our own in some very difficult combat situations; instead, my main concern is a question of longevity. Can women endure the physical and physiological rigors of sustained combat operations, and are we willing to accept the attrition and medical issues that go along with integration?

As a young lieutenant, I fit the mold of a female who would have had a shot at completing IOC, and I am sure there was a time in my life where I would have volunteered to be an infantryman. I was a star ice hockey player at Bowdoin College, a small elite college in Maine, with a major in government and law. At 5 feet 3 inches I was squatting 200 pounds and benching 145 pounds when I graduated in 2007. I completed Officer Candidates School (OCS) ranked 4 of 52 candidates, graduated 48 of 261 from TBS, and finished second at MOS school. I also repeatedly scored far above average in all female-based physical fitness tests (for example, earning a 292 out of 300 on the Marine physical fitness test). Five years later, I am physically not the woman I once was and my views have greatly changed on the possibility of women having successful long careers while serving in the infantry. I can say from firsthand experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not just emotion, that we haven’t even begun to analyze and comprehend the gender-specific medical issues and overall physical toll continuous combat operations will have on females.

I was a motivated, resilient second lieutenant when I deployed to Iraq for 10 months, traveling across the Marine area of operations (AO) and participating in numerous combat operations. Yet, due to the excessive amount of time I spent in full combat load, I was diagnosed with a severe case of restless leg syndrome. My spine had compressed on nerves in my lower back causing neuropathy which compounded the symptoms of restless leg syndrome. While this injury has certainly not been enjoyable, Iraq was a pleasant experience compared to the experiences I endured during my deployment to Afghanistan. At the beginning of my tour in Helmand Province, I was physically capable of conducting combat operations for weeks at a time, remaining in my gear for days if necessary and averaging 16-hour days of engineering operations in the heart of Sangin, one of the most kinetic and challenging AOs in the country. There were numerous occasions where I was sent to a grid coordinate and told to build a PB from the ground up, serving not only as the mission commander but also the base commander until the occupants (infantry units) arrived 5 days later. In most of these situations, I had a sergeant as my assistant commander, and the remainder of my platoon consisted of young, motivated NCOs. I was the senior Marine making the final decisions on construction concerns, along with 24-hour base defense and leading 30 Marines at any given time. The physical strain of enduring combat operations and the stress of being responsible for the lives and well-being of such a young group in an extremely kinetic environment were compounded by lack of sleep, which ultimately took a physical toll on my body that I couldn’t have foreseen.

By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change. My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions. At the end of the 7-month deployment, and the construction of 18 PBs later, I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment. Regardless of my deteriorating physical stature, I was extremely successful during both of my combat tours, serving beside my infantry brethren and gaining the respect of every unit I supported. Regardless, I can say with 100 percent assurance that despite my accomplishments, there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement. I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females.

There is a drastic shortage of historical data on female attrition or medical ailments of women who have executed sustained combat operations. This said, we need only to review the statistics from our entry-level schools to realize that there is a significant difference in the physical longevity between male and female Marines. At OCS the attrition rate for female candidates in 2011 was historically low at 40 percent, while the male candidates attrite at a much lower rate of 16 percent. Of candidates who were dropped from training because they were injured or not physically qualified, females were breaking at a much higher rate than males, 14 percent versus 4 percent. The same trends were seen at TBS in 2011; the attrition rate for females was 13 percent versus 5 percent for males, and 5 percent of females were found not physically qualified compared with 1 percent of males. Further, both of these training venues have physical fitness standards that are easier for females; at IOC there is one standard regardless of gender. The attrition rate for males attending IOC in 2011 was 17 percent. Should female Marines ultimately attend IOC, we can expect significantly higher attrition rates and long-term injuries for women.

There have been many working groups and formal discussions recently addressing what changes would be necessary to the current IOC period of instruction in order to accommodate both genders without producing an underdeveloped or incapable infantry officer. Not once was the word “lower” used, but let’s be honest, “modifying” a standard so that less physically or mentally capable individuals (male or female) can complete a task is called “lowering the standard”! The bottom line is that the enemy doesn’t discriminate, rounds will not slow down, and combat loads don’t get any lighter, regardless of gender or capability. Even more so, the burden of command does not diminish for a male or female; a leader must gain the respect and trust of his/her Marines in combat. Not being able to physically execute to the standards already established at IOC, which have been battle tested and proven, will produce a slower operational speed and tempo resulting in increased time of exposure to enemy forces and a higher risk of combat injury or death. For this reason alone, I would ask everyone to step back and ask themselves, does this integration solely benefit the individual or the Marine Corps as a whole, as every leader’s focus should be on the needs of the institution and the Nation, not the individual?

Which leads one to really wonder, what is the benefit of this potential change? The Marine Corps is not in a shortage of willing and capable young male second lieutenants who would gladly take on the role of infantry officers. In fact we have men fighting to be assigned to the coveted position of 0302. In 2011, 30 percent of graduating TBS lieutenants listed infantry in their top three requested MOSs. Of those 30 percent, only 47 percent were given the MOS. On the other hand, perhaps this integration is an effort to remove the glass ceiling that some observers feel exists for women when it comes to promotions to general officer ranks. Opening combat arms MOSs, particularly the infantry, such observers argue, allows women to gain the necessary exposure of leading Marines in combat, which will then arguably increase the chances for female Marines serving in strategic leadership assignments. As stated above, I have full faith that female Marines can successfully serve in just about every MOS aside from the infantry. Even if a female can meet the short-term physical, mental, and moral leadership requirements of an infantry officer, by the time that she is eligible to serve in a strategic leadership position, at the 20-year mark or beyond, there is a miniscule probability that she’ll be physically capable of serving at all. Again, it becomes a question of longevity.

Despite my personal opinion regarding the incorporation of females into the infantry community, I am not blind to the fact that females play a key role in countering the gender and cultural barriers we are facing at war, and we do have a place in combat operations. As such, a potential change that I do recommend considering strongly for female Marine officers is to designate a new secondary MOS (0305) for a Marine serving as female engagement team (FET) officer in charge (OIC). 0305s would be employed in the same way we employ drill instructors, as we do not need an enduring FET entity but an existing capability able to stand up based on operational requirements. Legitimizing a program that is already operational in the Corps would greatly benefit both the units utilizing FETs and the women who serve as FET OICs. Unfortunately, FET OICs today are not properly screened and trained for this mission. I propose that those being considered for FET OIC be prescreened and trained through a modified IOC with an appropriately adjusted physical expectation. FET OICs need to better understand the infantry culture and mindset and work with their 0302 brethren to incorporate FET assistance during specific phases of operations to properly prepare them to serve as the subject matter experts to a regimental- or battalion-level infantry commander. Through joint OIC training, both 0302s and FET OICs can start to learn how to integrate capabilities and accomplish their mission individually and collectively. This, in my mind, is a much more viable, cost-effective solution, with high reward for the Marine Corps and the Nation, and it will also directly improve the capabilities of FET OICs.

Finally, what are the Marine Corps standards, particularly physical fitness standards, based on—performance and capability or equality? We abide by numerous discriminators, such as height and weight standards. As multiple Marine Corps Gazette articles have highlighted, Marines who can run first-class physical fitness tests and who have superior MOS proficiency are separated from the Service if they do not meet the Marine Corps’ height and weight standards. Further, tall Marines are restricted from flying specific platforms, and color blind Marines are faced with similar restrictions. We recognize differences in mental capabilities of Marines when we administer the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery and use the results to eliminate/open specific fields. These standards are designed to ensure safety, quality, and the opportunity to be placed in a field in which one can sustain and succeed.

cont... http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal
Report to moderator   Logged
Mr. Magoo
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9794


THE most mistaken identity on getbig


« Reply #19 on: January 24, 2013, 04:35:18 PM »

I don't think she understands what the phrase means.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 41676

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #20 on: January 24, 2013, 05:13:20 PM »

I'm ok with this, so long as they don't lower the physical fitness requirements.  If a female can physically do what a man can do, then let them compete. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Jack T. Cross
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3564


Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)


« Reply #21 on: January 24, 2013, 05:36:11 PM »

I watched an older documentary about a female soldier from Iraq with PTSD.  She claimed she was a gunner on a Humvee.


Huh

This is simply making the concept official business.
Report to moderator   Logged

Shockwave
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20587


Decepticons! Scramble!


« Reply #22 on: January 24, 2013, 05:38:13 PM »

I'm ok with this, so long as they don't lower the physical fitness requirements.  If a female can physically do what a man can do, then let them compete. 
The biggest problem I see with this isn't necessarily them passing the fitness test, it's the sustained day in day out grind that comes from the extremely unforgiving workload day in and day out that being a grunt entails.
Report to moderator   Logged
blacken700
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10933


Getbig!


« Reply #23 on: January 24, 2013, 05:41:18 PM »

The biggest problem I see with this isn't necessarily them passing the fitness test, it's the sustained day in day out grind that comes from the extremely unforgiving workload day in and day out that being a grunt entails.



so how are they testing the males on this day in day out grind that comes from the extremely unforgiving workload day in and day out that being a grunt entails.
Report to moderator   Logged
Shockwave
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20587


Decepticons! Scramble!


« Reply #24 on: January 24, 2013, 05:45:47 PM »


so how are they testing the males on this day in day out grind that comes from the extremely unforgiving workload day in and day out that being a grunt entails.

They don't really.... SOI is only 8 weeks, and then you're in your MOS and getting ready to go out in the field.... No way really to simulate what a nearly year long deployment would do to a womans body.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!