See other Resistance Articles
Title: U.S. military pressed to design special line of combat boots just for women
Source:
The Washington Times
URL Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news ... e-of-women-friendly-/?page=all
Published: May 14, 2015
Author: Rowan Scarborough
Post Date: 2015-09-07 07:23:39 by GreyLmist
Keywords: None
Views: 180
Comments: 11
The Washington Times - Thursday, May 14, 2015 Congress is prodding the armed forces to come up with a special line of women’s combat boots, in different styles, as studies show that military women are more susceptible to stress fractures from marching and training. Female troops in Afghanistan have complained to a member of the House Armed Services Committee that they have limited options for acquiring combat boots designed for them. The congressional move comes as selected women have undergone direct land combat training to determine if they can meet tough physical standards to become an infantryman or a commando. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter predicts that he will open most, if not all, such units to women by Jan. 1. On the eve of such momentous social and battlefield change, Army women lack boots specially designed for generally smaller and narrower feet, say 10 congressional sources. The Army buys different boot styles for hot and cold weather, mountain and desert warfare and the rain. Prompted by the Obama administration’s 2013 decision to strike down a ban on women in direct land combat units, a new report by the Armed Services Committee on fiscal 2016 spending says it’s time to feminize the combat boot to increase performance in marches, long hikes and combat. A spokesman for Rep. Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts Democrat and sponsor of the footwear provision, said the Army does not provide “a female option for combat boots.” “The congresswoman’s provision, however, encompasses all the branches by requiring the DOD to examine its ability to provide women-specific combat boots across all branches and devise a strategy to ensure that women are outfitted with the best combat footwear possible,” said spokesman Michael Hartigan. “A major part of that strategy will be an analysis of the adequacy of any female- specific combat boots that may already be available.” Army public affairs did not respond to queries. The congresswoman heard about the boot gap from female soldiers while on a visit to Afghanistan. “The committee believes it is important the Department of Defense ensure that female service members have equipment and clothing tailored to the physical requirements of women in order to operate effectively and not be hampered by equipment that is ill-fitting, uncomfortable, and potentially harmful during operations in the field,” says the committee report. Stress fractures The report said the armed forces should plan to provide “a greater range of boot sizes and types for women service members as well as the advisability and feasibility of developing combat boots specifically designed for female service members.” Robert Maginnis, a retired Army infantry officer and author of “Deadly Consequences,” which argues against women in ground combat, said it is possible that women’s boots could cut down on injuries overall. “Specialized boots may help with stress fractures,” he said. “There are numerous studies indicating women are far more likely than men to [experience] exercise- related stress fractures.” Mr. Maginnis said he doubts new boots will help stem injuries from a basic military requirement: long marches. “Men and women walk with different stride lengths and frequency,” he said. “As I explain in ‘Deadly Consequences,’ when a mixed platoon of recruits marches at the male stride of 45 centimeters rather than the shorter female stride of 38 centimeters, there is an increased incidence of stress fractures of the pubic ramus [a part of the pelvis] among women. That finding was reported in the sports medicine literature in [the] early 1990s. Bottom line is new boots won’t do anything about stride-length issues.” Last winter, Elaine Donnelly, who heads the Center for Military Readiness, analyzed a new public report by the British military on women in experimental training for close ground combat. Great Britain currently bans women from such units, as the U.S. did until 2013. The report offered a rare glimpse into the physical toll combat training can take on women. The U.S. military closely guards the release of such data, forcing outside researchers to file Freedom of Information Act requests. The British report states: “The high and unaccustomed physical demands of initial training are associated with increased risk of Musculoskeletal injury (MSK) injury in recruits. The overall risk of MSK injury is higher for women, reaching seven-fold in some studies of British Army training.” The report also said “the rate of trauma and overuse lower limb MSK remains two- fold higher in women and the rate of hip and pelvic stress fractures is ten-fold higher in women (2.8 per 1000 vs. 28.1 per 1000 trainees).” ‘Best combat footwear possible’ The British press widely reported in 2013 that three young female recruits were awarded $162,000 each on their claims that being forced to march like men resulted in spinal injuries and pelvic fractures. The Daily Mail said other women have filed similar claims with the Ministry of Defense. Former Defense Minister Gerald Howarth told The Mail, “This case is completely and utterly ridiculous — it belongs in the land of the absurd.” Mr. Howarth said the women were awarded more money than soldiers who suffered serious wounds in Afghanistan. A 2011 study by three researchers at Florida State University found that military and athletic women in both populations experienced higher numbers of stress fractures than did men. For the military, men had a 3 percent rate and women a 9 percent rate. The House committee’s report on boots, Ms. Tsongas said, “requires DOD to examine its ability to provide women-specific combat boots and devise a strategy to ensure that women are outfitted with the best combat footwear possible.” An advocate for military women, Ms. Tsongas also sponsored bill provisions ordering the Army to create a policy for workplace breastfeeding and requiring a Pentagon briefing on “its ability to provide the best prosthetics for female amputees while meeting their physical and mental health needs.” The Army boasts an extensive boot inventory. None is listed on its Program Executive Office Soldier website as being specifically for women. The site does list an “Army combat uniform-alternate for female and smaller- statured soldiers.” There is also a “female improved outer tactical vest” to go along with body armor. “The vest incorporates design changes that are more form fitting to female soldiers while maintaining fall ballistic properties,” the website says. Poster Comment: National Security is the Military's business -- not "Equal Rights", "Gender Equality" and "Political Correctness" engineering. None of the following are authorized to lift a ban against women in combat units: "Defense Secretary Ashton Carter predicts that he will open most, if not all, such units to women by Jan. 1 [2016]." UN Women – Headquarters Only Congress has the power to remove such a ban by legislation but they aren't authorized to provide America with a combat-feminized Defense or any sort of "Political Correctness" Defense for special interests. "the Obama administration’s 2013 decision to strike down a ban on women in direct land combat units"
www.unwomen.org/
UN Women is the United Nations organization dedicated to gender equality and the empowerment of women.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
(Edited)
From the Comment section at the article-site: "How much will this endeavor cost the tax payer? New body armor specifically for women, new dress uniforms to make women look like men under the guise of gender neutrality but new female boots are needed for a gender neutral military? What's next new female specific mortars and parachutes?" "They said they could do the program without any special accommodation; now that their foot is in the door, so to speak, they say they can't. What's next? Some poor Schmuckattelli minding his own business will be ordered to the front to take her place while she sits in an office and draws combat pay." "Make the entire military female, let's see how that plays out. I have zero issues with that plan of action because it will be self-correcting in no time." "Combat boots for women, in women's sizes are issued by the thousands each week. Moreover commercial, fancy combat boots are available for women, in women's sizes, at every clothing sales shop on base, and in many of the PX's too." "They are wearing the same model boot in their foot size." ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
The 2 best times to keep your mouth shut are when you’re swimming & when you’re angry. “Anti-semitism is a disease–you catch it from Jews”–Edgar J. Steele "The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth." --H. L. Mencken “I would like to express my heartfelt apologies for the unfortunate and tasteless quotes I published in my tag lines. I am very sorry and ashamed. I never wanted to offend anyone, or to encroach human rights."- Hmmmmm
Term women and combat hitched together does not pass the smell test. Kill or be killed is tough work for any man, depending on females in such affairs is beyond comprehension.
Similarly: Citation: Cohn, Carol. 2000. “‘How Can She Claim Equal Rights When She Doesn’t Have to Do as Many Push-Ups as I Do?’: The Framing of Men’s Opposition to Women’s Equality in the Military.” Men and Masculinities 3 (2): [pdf file pgs. 131–51.] doi:10.1177/1097184X00003002001. Author: Carol Cohn [From the] Abstract: The author shows that her agenda is not only to obscure issues of lowered Military effectiveness from lowered standards for women, as if the problem is just men complaining about loss of "privilege", but idiotically advises on pg. 140 that standards be lowered for men to the standards of women so that women can meet those standards of "fairness" and fit in. She also racializes such concerns as a cover for "resistance to giving up white male privilege". Ref. pgs. 146 and 147. See that doc cited at books.google.com: Handbook of International Relations, edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, Beth A Simmons - pg. 190 references, top-left ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I thought that was laughable at first ... until I realized that might be what some of the feminazis expect, as if the stiletto heels would be lighterweight weapons for them. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Term women and combat hitched together does not pass the smell test. Kill or be killed is tough work for any man, depending on females in such affairs is beyond comprehension. Women in combat units would jeopardize National Security against America's General Welfare, as well as weaken our Military to lose more casualties and equipment. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
So much for the old saying "your mother wears army boots".......
Haaaa! There ya go.
I still wonder why some women want to be a part of that whole environment of waging war. Stateside nurses, clerks, and doctors....those are the only roles I've ever seen for women in the military. "C'mon people-think! Why spend money on new boots when you can just order men to shorten their strides to 38 [
inches centimeters]? Those huge [45 centimeter] strides are just intimidating micro-aggressions of male dominance anyway. I can just hear the new commands..."Forwaaaard, mince!"
#2. To: GreyLmist (#0)
#3. To: GreyLmist (#0)
women’s combat boots,
#4. To: All (#0)
UN Women – Headquarters
www.unwomen.org/
UN Women is the United Nations organization dedicated to gender equality and the empowerment of women. The Global Human Rights Regime - Council on Foreign Relations
www.cfr.org › Human Rights
National governments sometimes resist adhering to international norms ... formation of the UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women),"PT (physical training) protest," a variance of "standards discourse." Having different physical training standards for men and women is seen as special treatment for women, lowering standards for women, and/or evidence that women cannot cut it in the military. Although standards discourse invokes an apparently "objective" and neutral ideology that links equal status with same standards, the author shows that ...
#5. To: Hmmmmm (#2)
Pic
#6. To: Cynicom (#3)
women’s combat boots,
#7. To: GreyLmist (#0)
#8. To: Hmmmmm (#2)
#9. To: Cynicom (#3)
Kill or be killed is tough work for any man, depending on females in such affairs is beyond comprehension.
-Alex Kurtagic
#10. To: X-15 (#9)
Drunk, drinking until blind, listening to men cry is difficult. All they want is TO GO HOME, kill no one or to be killed. Add females to that mixture? Family member in discussion last night said he finally came out of Vietnam, weighing 108 pounds. Try going in at that weight.
#11. To: All (#0) (Edited)
The [public British] report offered a rare glimpse into the physical toll combat training can take on women. The U.S. military closely guards the release of such data, forcing outside researchers to file Freedom of Information Act requests. The British report states: “The high and unaccustomed physical demands of initial training are associated with increased risk of Musculoskeletal injury (MSK) injury in recruits. The overall risk of MSK injury is higher for women, reaching seven-fold in some studies of British Army training.” The report also said “the rate of trauma and overuse lower limb MSK remains two-fold higher in women and the rate of hip and pelvic stress fractures is ten-fold higher in women (2.8 per 1000 vs. 28.1 per 1000 trainees).” The British press widely reported in 2013 that three young female recruits were awarded $162,000 each on their claims that being forced to march like men resulted in spinal injuries and pelvic fractures. The Daily Mail said other women have filed similar claims with the Ministry of Defense. Former Defense Minister Gerald Howarth told The Mail, “This case is completely and utterly ridiculous — it belongs in the land of the absurd.” Mr. Howarth said the women were awarded more money than soldiers who suffered serious wounds in Afghanistan. News & Commentary - Center for Military Readiness Similarly at onenewsnow.com August 21, 2015: Donnelly: When did our generals become politicians? [also sourced as a 4um topic article] In one example, the CMR report points out statistics in the U.S. Marine Corps, when women were toting a simulated 95-pound howitzer round for an artillery unit. The report states: Less than 1% of men, compared to 28.2% of women, could not complete the 155 mm artillery round liftand-carry [95 lbs.] in the allotted time [2 min.]. "Assignment policies cannot rely on a few 'physical elites' who might join the Army," CMR writes, "any more than the 82nd Airborne division would rely on parachutes known to fail 28% of the time." Article August 18, 2015: Co-Ed Combat Tests Hazardous to Women’s Health - News & Commentary - Center for Military Readiness See also: Article October 3, 2014: CMR Releases Interim Report on Marine Corps Research Findings - News & Commentary - Center for Military Readiness Last winter, Elaine Donnelly, who heads the Center for Military Readiness, analyzed a new public report by the British military on women in experimental training for close ground combat. Great Britain currently bans women from such units, as the U.S. did until 2013.
Article February 20, 2015: New British Report Shreds Case for Women in Direct Ground Combat - News & Commentary - Center for Military Readiness
CMR [the Center for Military Readiness] has released an eight-page report on women's health and injuries in the U.S. military. The report was authored after the organization requested and received documents from the U.S. Army through a Freedom of Information Act request.
[the 8-page pdf report August 2015] Co-Ed Combat Tests Hazardous to Women’s Health: Research Reveals High Costs of “Gender Diversity Metrics” [quotas]
[a 65-page pdf report October 2014] U. S. Marine Corps Research Findings: Where is the Case for Co-Ed Ground Combat?: Interim CMR Special Report
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest