You guys need to find a copy of "Weak Link, The Femenization Of The US Military." It was written a few years ago and promptly quashed by the media AND the Pentagon. That was the start, you guys have no idea....jorge
Those of us in the military in the late 60's and early 70's do. I was in just at the tail end of the WAC's. The primary reason that the Army went to the M-16 was because of the small stature of our allieds and women in combat. Our allieds used the M-1 carbine which I think most of them were just fine with. The M-1 Garend and the M-14 were just too big and heavy for small people and women. Case in point is me. In my prime I was between a 158 to 165 pounds, 5'5" tall with small hands. I could handle the M-14 reasonable well, the M-1 not at all and the M-1 carbine the best of all. I like the M-1 carbine better than the M-16 even though I had no trouble with M-16 except for being left-handed and having hot brass fly down my shirt. Normal size men with normal size hands do not have any trouble with the M-1 or M-14.
When women started being put into infantry outfits you would see them coming back from field excersises dragging the M-16 by the strap in one hand and dragging the field pack by the strap in the other hand. There is no way the average size women is going to use a full size, full weight battle rifle hence the M-16. The women probably would have been better served with the M-1 carbine.
About the middle of the 70's the Army dropped the hand grenade throw in basic because women could not throw a live grenade to save their life or anyone elses. I understand the grenade throw is back in but I wonder how many lives were lost because of the lack of training.
So yup those of us who lived through this crap understand.
