Talk:Women's Army Corps
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
There is a lot of resources and information about the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC)/Women's Army Corps (WAC), unfortunately very little has been contributed to this article. Please help expand this article. --Signaleer15:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before marriage, Oveta Culp Hobby was Parliamentarian for her state's House of Reps and she served Houston as Asst. Atty. After wedding in 1931, she began to be noticed at the Federal level. We have room to assume the marriage gave her political career more prominence.Binksternet (talk)16:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The assertions, "Some men feared that if women became soldiers they would no longer serve in a masculine preserve and their masculinity would be devalued.[4] Others feared being sent into combat units if women took over the safe jobs.[5]" appear to be controversial, and are not properly documented. The reference in footnote 4 is incomplete, and the reference in footnote 5 does not make or support the statement, at least on the cited page. Given that the statementssound much more like a recentopinion about the reasons for male resistance than a historical finding of the reasons for it, these assertions should be either correctly documented, deleted, or transferred to a section that clearly labels them as modern opinion.—Precedingunsigned comment added by65.5.123.40 (talk)17:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the section "Evaluation" is the disputable interpretation of one writer, asserted as fact and quoted at length.
I don't assert this material is wrong, but it does not seem well supported, and does seem to reflect a particular viewpoint.Rich Rostrom (Talk)00:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
== WACs were not allowed to be trained in their use until 1978 and were not issued firearms until the 1980s. == We were trained with the M16 and M23 in 1977. We were not issued weapons. I was in the next to last battalion of WACs that went through Basic Training at Ft. McClellan Alabama.
how is that if the corps was disbanded in 78?— Precedingunsigned comment added by75.186.86.53 (talk)11:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's close the loop on this issue. In July 2016, I edited the main article to remove erroneous information re WACs/women soldiers and weapons. The WAC as a separate administrative corps of the Army was disbanded in 1978, however, prior to that year, there were some women soldiers (primarily officers in the Military Police Corps - enlisted Military Policemen were not authorized until after the disbanding of the WAC) who were trained in the use of, and obviously were issued and carried, weapons (M16, M1911, M203, M60, & M72 - all of the basic infantry weapons normally found in an MP company at that time). The majority of women soldiers, especially enlisted WACs, did not receive weapons training (M16 and M203) until beginning in 1977 (as the former WAC attests to above). Enlisted women soldiers began receiving weapons issue beginning in 1978 (depending upon unit, rank, MOS, and location), after completing required training (if not already completed in their initial entry or advanced individual/branch qualification training.) Thus endeth the saga of women and weapons in the United States Army, amen.CobraDragoon (talk)17:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at thenomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk)00:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
