View Full Version : Breaking News: Panetta opens combat roles to women
AP- Senior defense officials say Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is removing the military's ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war.The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule banning women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta's decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/23/panetta-opens-combat-roles-to-women/#ixzz2IpjcFM1K
Interesting... This could either go really well or fail miserably... thoughts?
Gives me great pause.
I guess I would rather have a woman who wants to be on the front line than a man who does not, POW issues aside.
I have been flying in and out of combat zones with female flight crew members since before Desert Storm. One set of rules, one set of standards. It has been working on the avaition side of the house for a long time.
I have no problem with it at all. About time.
RCCrawler
01-23-2013, 14:54
They've wanted equal treatment since the dawn of time, no reason they shouldn't be able to fight for our Freedom.
muddywings
01-23-2013, 15:15
I have been flying in and out of combat zones with female flight crew members since before Desert Storm. One set of rules, one set of standards. It has been working on the avaition side of the house for a long time.
I have no problem with it at all. About time.
Ditto.
Ever fly into Pakistan and have the female flight crew member make the radio calls? Silence....it's golden, LOL.
Flying out of K2, back in the day, we had a female AC and ATC would never talk back to her....but I digress.
I think the way it could go well is that there are already cases where women are on the front (ish) lines, with the way we're fighting in Afghanistan now I've had women by my side on patrols, heard of them getting involved in firefights, and they were all in POG jobs. I think the downside to this who ordeal could be that there may be a lot of psychological issues involved. USASOC did a study back in 2002 on Women in combat and found that men have an underlying "protective" desire around women, and that it can lead to clouded judgement, and issues if/when one is injured. Not to mention the countless POW issues that Mark touched on- there is speculation that Jessica Lynch was raped while in captivity in Iraq...
I don't care. If they're qualified, capable, and receive the same training, then fine by me. I know a cool lesbo marine who's fast, not scared of anything, and pretty damn strong. I'm positive she's going to be a good marine. She enlisted right after the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was removed.... guess it was a dream of hers for a while.
Fucking stupid. 98% of them would be more of a problem than anything else.
Fucking stupid. 98% of them would be more of a problem than anything else.
Oh you mean like getting pregnant to get out of deploying? Saw that so much in our HHC...
CrufflerSteve
01-23-2013, 15:43
I think it makes sense in these insurgencies where there really aren't any front lines. The POW issue will be big but as we go drone it will hopefully lead to fewer captives. In our current big war it isn't such an issue since the opponents prefer goats and little boys.
Pregnancy will be the biggest problem. Essentially is's the same as being disabled for a long time. It should be policy that in any unit listed as combat ready any women are on the implant.
That. Light Duty. The next WM I meet that isn't worthless or damn near will be the first one. Before any of you jump my shit, nothing you say will change the years of experience that I have with this subject. It might sound fun and "equal" to include women in these roles, but sometimes the real world doesn't work they way that it does in fantasy world. I would not like my life to depend on any of the WM's I've ever met period.
Fucking stupid. 98% of them would be more of a problem than anything else.
I do not agree with this.
There may well be a change in the women who enlist if they know there is a good chance of getting shot at. Pretty sure there would a different group of men willing to enlist if they knew they could avoid lead. The women that volunteer to enlist will do their job just as well as men do.
They've wanted equal treatment since the dawn of time, no reason they shouldn't be able to fight for our Freedom.
This.
Fucking stupid. 98% of them would be more of a problem than anything else.
Can you expand on that?
I do not agree with this.
There may well be a change in the women who enlist if they know there is a good chance of getting shot at. Pretty sure there would a different group of men willing to enlist if they knew they could avoid lead. The women that volunteer to enlist will do their job just as well as men do.
So the difference in physiology makes no difference? Again speaking from experience, all of the women that I served with were next to useless. None of them were good at their jobs. They get treated differently. Now they they open these jobs up to women this is supposed to magically change?
Can you expand on that?
Out of all of the women that I served with, I didn't ever see one that was an asset to have around. They were physically weaker, Often pregnant, and often on light duty (due to medical problems). Maybe it's different in the Air Wing or in a different service, but our women, in the engineers were a waste of a spot in our company. Again everybody will say, but I knew such and such and she was tuff. I'm telling you this is the way it is in the real world. It might sound good on paper, but it doesn't work. Someone who doesn't pull their weight creates problems within the platoon environment. In a situation where lives are on the line there is no room for shit that sounds good on paper or feel good regulations.
So the difference in physiology makes no difference? Again speaking from experience, all of the women that I served with were next to useless. None of them were good at their jobs. They get treated differently. Now they they open these jobs up to women this is supposed to magically change?
I do not think physiology will make a significant difference. You say they get treated differently, this is a step to remedy that.
The women I work with are good at their jobs.
I do not think physiology will make a significant difference. You say they get treated differently, this is a step to remedy that.
The women I work with are good at their jobs.
I don't really care what you think. I speak from experience. These women were hand picked to prove that women would be a good fit in these combat roles and look what happened.
First women drop out of Marine officer infantry training
http://www.stripes.com/news/marine-corps/first-women-drop-out-of-marine-officer-infantry-training-1.193228
(http://www.stripes.com/news/marine-corps/first-women-drop-out-of-marine-officer-infantry-training-1.193228)
I have to agree with Fmedges on this- and this is coming from experience. I served in a Headquarters Company for a support BN, so we had a ton of females in our unit. Hardly any of them put forth more than 60% or so effort. About 3/4ths of our company after we returned from Afghanistan that were females were either pregnant or riding a profile (of the profiles most were permanent). This shattered my views from basic where our Iron Solider for the rotation was a female. Get to my unit and 90% of the females are shitbags that do not put out the same effort that their male counterparts did. I would love to be surprised, but they would need to maintain a certain degree of combat readiness and that would be an illegal order saying that females aren't allowed to get pregnant. Yes, we even had a JAG officer tell our CSM that he can't tell the females in our BN they "are not allowed to get pregnant."
The other problem is the standards. PT and fitness standards for the armed forces are different due to physiology reasons between males and females. There is also the hygiene issues that come up- most field units do not have the adequate facilities for females to maintain a healthy hygiene standard outside the wire for extended periods. You also have to consider the legal issues- currently, downrange, female and male sleeping quarters are segregated... in infantry, outside the wire, that is impossible at times. I foresee sexual assault cases to go up as well.
jreifsch80
01-23-2013, 16:52
look at the women of the IDF also look at the women units the russians used in ww2
HBARleatherneck
01-23-2013, 16:58
delete
Gotta go with Ronin and Fmedges on this. I knew a few females in the Army that wanted to pull their own weight, but the majority were a waste, especially in the field or in the sandbox. I was sent to Kosovo in 1999 in mid rotation because that unit had one male get injured from falling off the top of an aircraft and a female got knocked up. It got me out of half a Texas summer and some deployment pay, so I wasn't upset about going. When my unit in Hawaii went to Bosnia in 2002 we had a female officer, a warrant officer pilot and about 6 enlisted females all get pregnant, practically all of the females in the battalion. And by that time Bosnia shouldn't have even been a hostile fire zone, it was the easiest deployment ever. When I went to Afghanistan with the 10th Mtn in 2003 it was about the same thing, either pregnant, permanent profiles or single mom can't leave her kids behind because the baby daddy left town right before deployment. While in garrison all the females seemed to have 2-3 times the amount of appointments men did, they had a higher percent that were content with minimally passing the PT test and were so poor at the range they celebrated when they finally passed rifle quals after 4 attempts.
If they are going to be in front/behind the lines units then they need to setup a new standard for females going in. I'd hate to be infantry and get slowed because the one next to me isn't in combat shape physically.
Just like the majority of gun owners aren't criminals, the majority of women are horrible war fighters. Sure you can outliers in both, but does that invalidate the majority?
Gotta go with Ronin and Fmedges on this. I knew a few females in the Army that wanted to pull their own weight, but the majority were a waste, especially in the field or in the sandbox. I was sent to Kosovo in 1999 in mid rotation because that unit had one male get injured from falling off the top of an aircraft and a female got knocked up. It got me out of half a Texas summer and some deployment pay, so I wasn't upset about going. When my unit in Hawaii went to Bosnia in 2002 we had a female officer, a warrant officer pilot and about 6 enlisted females all get pregnant, practically all of the females in the battalion. And by that time Bosnia shouldn't have even been a hostile fire zone, it was the easiest deployment ever. When I went to Afghanistan with the 10th Mtn in 2003 it was about the same thing, either pregnant, permanent profiles or single mom can't leave her kids behind because the baby daddy left town right before deployment. While in garrison all the females seemed to have 2-3 times the amount of appointments men did, they had a higher percent that were content with minimally passing the PT test and were so poor at the range they celebrated when they finally passed rifle quals after 4 attempts.
If they are going to be in front/behind the lines units then they need to setup a new standard for females going in. I'd hate to be infantry and get slowed because the one next to me isn't in combat shape physically.
I totally forgot, our entire Rear-D element was females with the exception of four males that were all legitimate permanent profiles (two from very extensive surgery). Our own company commander (female) when I first got to the unit and was assigned to RSO/instructor duty for the pistol range couldn't even qualify on her M9... She refused to let a PFC tell her how to shoot a pistol, and after 5 attempts she finally qualified by the skin of her teeth. Not to mention, the females in our unit were the first to bitch about the Ft. Drum winter, Dave, I'm sure you know exactly what I'm talking about.
HBARleatherneck
01-23-2013, 17:03
delete
and what job is that?
engineering, most of my managers are women actually up to the VP level. Not many actual female engineers around.
Quite a few women on the physical design side as well.
edit to add:
When women know they are going to get shot at in the military you will get a different caliber of women enlisting. Your experiences may be tainted.
HBARleatherneck
01-23-2013, 17:06
delete
engineering and combat are two different things.
but, since you made the comment, I assume you never served or especially in the combat arms. its easy for people with no experience to think its ok.
im sure thats why oblowme pushed this. "need more voters. open borders...check... gays... in the military.. check....women in combat units...check.. well that should give me a larger voting block"
you are correct I have not served in the armed forced.
HBARleatherneck
01-23-2013, 17:08
it was obvious.
from my experience, I think having women in a front line combat unit would be bad. yes, there are lots of jobs they can do in the military.
Our S-1 gals were awesome at their jobs! Uh, well the NCOs were, the E-1 thru E-3s were atrocious- especially when it came to training records.
Our S-1 gals were awesome at their jobs! Uh, well the NCOs were, the E-1 thru E-3s were atrocious- especially when it came to training records.
I'm thinking that you'd better pray there are no women involved with your BGC at Jeffco. They find a trail to your posts and you'll be working with pops for a long time.
Shootersfab
01-23-2013, 17:43
I'm thinking that you'd better pray there are no women involved with your BGC at Jeffco. They find a trail to your posts and you'll be working with pops for a long time.
^^^ this
Rooskibar03
01-23-2013, 17:55
Maybe I've been watching to much Beck lately but I have to ask the question, why? Everyone has an agenda anymore. What's the bigger picture here and who is trying to make what point with this decision.
Not having served (kinda regretting as I get older) I can't speak to the battlefield experience others have. But when I hear more soldiers died as a result of suicide then combat I have to wonder if putting women into these roles is a great idea?
How will the public react to women with combat PTSD start killing themselves? Seems like a way to paint the military in an even darker light, and push the anti military movement further ahead.
tmjohnson
01-23-2013, 18:07
If they can do the same as their male counterparts, I say power to them. Just don't be a liability to the men
I'm thinking that you'd better pray there are no women involved with your BGC at Jeffco. They find a trail to your posts and you'll be working with pops for a long time.
Vagina power!
My next question is: when are women going to be required by law to register for the draft?
My only concern would be jobs like AF Pararescue and Navy Rescue Divers. In those instances I would say no female PT/Physical standards, everybody passes the exact same test, man or woman. If you pass good on ya, if not find a different job.
OneGuy67
01-23-2013, 18:29
I hate it when I have to agree with Ronin...but he and the rest of the vets here are on target with their assessments. I've deployed for Desert Storm with an Infantry unit (all male) and I've deployed for Iraqi Freedom with an MP unit (men and women) and it was so much easier with all males. The women just bring chaos with them, need special accommodation, play far too many games and are a pain to supervise.
I see lawsuits in the future, when the standards aren't immediately changed to accommodate them, then demands for Ranger and SF school and lawsuits for accommodation. It goes on and on.
Batts1911
01-23-2013, 18:30
I've never served in the military but alot of my friends are retired or active duty and we've had this conversation before. Over Xbox live about 6 of us talked about this. 4 army, 1 marine, all infantry and they all said no way in hell should women be in combat roles. They basically echoed exactly the reasons you guys have talked about. Especially the pregnancy thing. One of my best friends who finished his service as a staff sergeant has so many stories about the women in the army and their pregnancies.
Teufelhund
01-23-2013, 18:30
The problem is not so much with the women, but with the men who serve next to them. Men instinctively feel a need to protect women and will sacrifice themselves unnecessarily to do so in combat. Additionally, there is a significant negative impact to the morale of men who witness a female who is wounded in combat. The breakdown in discipline and morale, and overall degradation of operational effectiveness is not worth making some kind of political statement about gender equality. There's nothing misogynistic about it; it has been tried before and is a proven, failed experiment. Lt. Col. Grossman touches on this subject in his book, On Killing.
mcantar18c
01-23-2013, 19:24
Our FET girls in Trashcanistan handled things well enough, as far as taking care of "womanly issues" in a combat zone (I've seen this argument against females in combat), and didn't cause tooooo much drama (there was one girl that slept with a few people and then the drama really started when we got home, ended up getting in a fight with one of the guys and broke his nose with a better punch than he could dream of throwing, but I digress...). Granted, there were only 3 of them (well, for the first half of the deployment... one took an 82mm to the face, and then there were 2) assigned to our entire company, and I can definitely see problems starting if there were a larger number.
My problem with women on the front lines is the physical aspect of it. Obviously there are SOME females that would be up to the task, but as a whole I don't trust a female to be able to carry anyone in my squad (180-220lb male), their 40 or so lbs of kit, their 75lb ruck, and their weapon, to safety in the middle of a firefight when he gets hit. There are plenty of males that aren't up to that task, and I see no need to increase the amount of incapable people in the Infantry.
Sharpienads
01-23-2013, 19:56
There are plenty of duty positions in the military in which women should be allowed to serve. Infantry and infantry like jobs should not be among them for the already stated reasons.
Isn't there a front-line cook position or something?
Isn't there a front-line cook position or something?
LOL a front line sandwich maker?
http://www.ar-15.co/attachment.php?attachmentid=5024&d=1289286368
That PFC needs to learn how to wear those gloves right. Always pisses me off how all the non aircrew types wear our gear improperly. [Bang]
That PFC needs to learn how to wear those gloves right. Always pisses me off how all the non aircrew types wear our gear improperly. [Bang]
That's what you got out of that picture?
That's what you got out of that picture?
Other than he's trying to teach land nav to an Air Force female? And she isn't using the compass in the most accurate way.
Citizen_Soldier
01-24-2013, 00:51
I agree with the things Ronin and Fmedges are saying. An overwhelming majority of females I've served with don't pull their weight 100%. And yes, lots are on profiles and other BS reasons to get out of work and PT. I will say that I've met some females in the military who are pretty hardcore, and in shape, so I guess it's cool that women like them now have a chance at serving in combat arms, but I feel if they want to do this then they should be held to the same exact standards (especially PT) as males in combat MOS's. Doesn't matter if you're a guy or girl, when a 180 pound guy wearing 50+ pounds of gear and armor goes down next to you- then you had better be able to do your part in getting them to safety if the situation allows.
rustycrusty
01-24-2013, 03:41
I say go for it. But go all the way! No more excuses- equality is equality. They need to pass THE EXACT SAME tests as all men.
why not open it up, let them try, and watch them fail. Maybe they will adapt and pass! Not likely, and when they see they can't hack it they will move on. How many of the jobs occupied by women during WWII still have women in large numbers?
what sucks is that it isn't true equality- the PT test standards are different and the chicks going for officer STILL QUIT!? Wtf... You suck, because you proved you couldn't meet basic standards. Sometimes you just have to let people fail really hard so they are their own example.
Mick-Boy
01-24-2013, 04:43
The purpose of the United States military is to fight and win wars. If this doesn't help that end, shitcan it.
Equality isn't something you should get to pick and choose about. You want to be equal? Fine. Be equal. That means passing the same PFT, Humping the same rucks and getting the same treatment across the board. No lower standards. No exceptions.
Men and women are different. Period. Millions of years of evolution made us so. The Olympics segregates athletes based on gender because of the disparity in performance. That's a game. War is not.
I'll just say this much. Back a lifetime or so, I went through through the Combat medical specialist course at FT. Sam. We had a young lady, Might have been 4'11", and maybe 90 lbs right after dinner. One of the better students we had, however, when it came to The "fun stuff" field wise, She just wasn't up too it physically.
When I was infantry (a lifetime ago), there were no women anywhere close to my unit, support or otherwise. Good or bad, it was what it was.
The biggest problem I see is with a shift in the mindset of the males during combat operations. I'd be worried of my fellow soldiers going out of their way to protect females. By that I mean more so than a male team member. Males have been protecting females for centuries. I'm guessing it's a survival instinct deeply wired into our DNA (I'm not a psychologist). Is that bad? No, but I think it could seriously change the dynamic of ground fighting. Especially considering long-range operations where you'll be far away from support for a long time. The other terrifying thing is what happens when a male (or god forbid, a group of males) decide to blow off steam. It's only matter of time before there's an incident.
I'm glad I'm way too old to get first-hand experience. :)
The purpose of the United States military is to fight and win wars. If this doesn't help that end, shitcan it.
Equality isn't something you should get to pick and choose about. You want to be equal? Fine. Be equal. That means passing the same PFT, Humping the same rucks and getting the same treatment across the board. No lower standards. No exceptions.
Men and women are different. Period. Millions of years of evolution made us so. The Olympics segregates athletes based on gender because of the disparity in performance. That's a game. War is not.
Exactly. Women have asked for it. Now they have it.
Mick, your last post is true... However, all that will come from it, is Obummer lowering the bar for the military, I can see it now, it will be the "No soldier left behind" act.
trlcavscout
01-24-2013, 09:18
They will still get preferential treatment for different reasons. Thats how it is, its not good. Like has been said, if they want equal jobs they need to meet equal requirements, no BS.
I'm all for it, unless we face a nation that has trained battle bears. Its a well known fact that bears can smell a menstrating women from a distance of up to 2.5 miles away. It's rumored the Soviets experimented with this concept during the Cold War, in case we put women on the front lines at the Fulda Gap.
My vote is no..I have worked with enough WM’s in the past to agree with what most Vets here have already said. If this plan moves forward, you can be assured standards will be lowered as to not seem biased. This is going to be a big problem. But then again, O could give a shit.
I thought we were having an earthquake yesterday until I read this headline and I realized it was just America's collective enemies quaking in their boots[panic][ROFL1]
A military of packers and fur traders[ROFL1]
Although Rush once made a great suggestion. of having 4 battalions of amazons. It is a known fact that when a group of females spend extended periods of time together they end up with synchronized periods which means at any given moment we would always have at least one battalion of angry, irrational feminazis to unleash[ROFL3]
I thought we were having an earthquake yesterday until I read this headline and I realized it was just America's collective enemies quaking in their boots[panic][ROFL1]
A military of packers and fur traders[ROFL1]
Although Rush once made a great suggestion. of having 4 battalions of amazons. It is a known fact that when a group of females spend extended periods of time together they end up with synchronized periods which means at any given moment we would always have at least one battalion of angry, irrational feminazis to unleash[ROFL3]
[LOL]Oh man... I can see it now: "Colonel, unleash the 22nd PMS BN!"
Hi apple, you are now an orange because I say so... This makes no sense whatsoever comparing to women in combat... Not even in the same league. Put the straw down and stop making figures out of them.
Wow, who pissed in your cheerios today? I guess since you're putting me on blast I'll call you out too, you didn't make it the first time, you think this attempt will be more or less successful?
So be it. My advice is worth exactly what you paid for it. But what do you want to bet that there is at least one person on this board who works for Jeffco and is tired of your whiny, dear diary, this how I feel about everything and everybody posts. Type away.
The problem is not so much with the women, but with the men who serve next to them. Men instinctively feel a need to protect women and will sacrifice themselves unnecessarily to do so in combat. Additionally, there is a significant negative impact to the morale of men who witness a female who is wounded in combat. The breakdown in discipline and morale, and overall degradation of operational effectiveness is not worth making some kind of political statement about gender equality. There's nothing misogynistic about it; it has been tried before and is a proven, failed experiment. Lt. Col. Grossman touches on this subject in his book, On Killing.
+1
Also, all females should be required to adhere to the male standards of physical fitness requirements along with fat %'s. Joke I heard the other day was a guy saying, "well according to the female requirements I scored over a 300." Which makes you a....
So be it. My advice is worth exactly what you paid for it. But what do you want to bet that there is at least one person on this board who works for Jeffco and is tired of your whiny, dear diary, this how I feel about everything and everybody posts. Type away.
Perhaps... But projecting your opinion on what I post and calling it whiny or dear diary or what have you is unfair and unjustified. I would hope that I would be entitled to my opinion just like anyone else. And how I present myself in the professional realm would probably surprise you. Sometimes yes, I let my opinions go off on tangents or what not, but who are you to decide what is inappropriate or not? I would hope that perhaps if there is someone on here who is employed by JCSO that they would be upfront and honest enough to either let me know or PM me that I'm crossing a line or something.
JM Ver. 2.0
01-24-2013, 17:06
Perhaps... But projecting your opinion on what I post and calling it whiny or dear diary or what have you is unfair and unjustified. I would hope that I would be entitled to my opinion just like anyone else. And how I present myself in the professional realm would probably surprise you. Sometimes yes, I let my opinions go off on tangents or what not, but who are you to decide what is inappropriate or not? I would hope that perhaps if there is someone on here who is employed by JCSO that they would be upfront and honest enough to either let me know or PM me that I'm crossing a line or something.
Blahhhhhh. Happy thoughts. Happy thoughts!!!!!!
I've PM'd you more than once telling you to shut the hell up! You don't listen!
Incorrect... You sent me a single, vague PM not indicating anything outside of "You're on the edge of a fine line," which provided no clarity or specificity as to what line and where and what was said that you think could be over a line. I do listen, but when it's vague and hostile in nature it leads me to believe that your level of professionalism and candor could be slightly improved- something I've been working on a lot lately. Oh, for clarity, this is what you said:
I'm not going to advise you of this again... You wanna be a cop, watch what you say... You're on the edge of a very fine line.
You never advised me prior to this, and with no reference to specifics I cannot be sure what line or what was said that could potentially put me "on the edge" of said line...
Demodave
01-24-2013, 17:35
The problem is not so much with the women, but with the men who serve next to them. Men instinctively feel a need to protect women and will sacrifice themselves unnecessarily to do so in combat. Additionally, there is a significant negative impact to the morale of men who witness a female who is wounded in combat. The breakdown in discipline and morale, and overall degradation of operational effectiveness is not worth making some kind of political statement about gender equality. There's nothing misogynistic about it; it has been tried before and is a proven, failed experiment. Lt. Col. Grossman touches on this subject in his book, On Killing.
Agree 100%
I've PM'd you more than once telling you to shut the hell up! You don't listen!
Incorrect... You sent me a single, vague PM not indicating anything outside of "You're on the edge of a fine line," which provided no clarity or specificity as to what line and where and what was said that you think could be over a line. I do listen, but when it's vague and hostile in nature it leads me to believe that your level of professionalism and candor could be slightly improved- something I've been working on a lot lately. Oh, for clarity, this is what you said:
You never advised me prior to this, and with no reference to specifics I cannot be sure what line or what was said that could potentially put me "on the edge" of said line... [/COLOR]
ENOUGH WITH THE PERSONAL ATTACKS. TAKE IT OFFLINE OR FACE TO FACE.
Exactly. Women have asked for it. Now they have it.
here is the problem. You know how it works. They get in but we have to make special allowances so we don't hurt feelings or have MEO complainants. We all agree the should meet the exact same standards for combat roles but the reality is they don't have the spine at the top to do that. How many traditions suffer today because somebody's feelings got hurt along the way
USAFGopherMike
01-24-2013, 19:48
Minus the in your face comments that aid the discussion in no way, shape, or form... almost every comment is valid. I've spent 20 years in mixed environments, plenty of which deployed. Until we get to a starship troopers environment where we're meeting the same standards and showering together without distraction, there will always be problems derived from men and women in the same duty position with different expectations and standards. If a woman can't do everything that a man is expected to do, there will always be resentment. The prego/kid/profile/duty restriction/getting out of deployments issue is real and a real detractor from esprit de corps and unit cohesion. Sure, I've met several women that do very well in the jet and carry their weight, but they are the exception not the rule. In my current careerfield women are regularly given preferential treatment and nobody will admit it. Their odds of getting promoted or pushed to better jobs are twice as high per capita which I think is total bullshit. I just watched GI Jane the other day and although Demi Moore's character walked the walk, in the end, she wasn't able to carry the Master Chief out of the line of fire when he got hit. Is it a movie? Sure. Is it far from the truth? I'd argue it's not. I work with several females that are overweight and wouldn't be worth a shit in a combat situation, but because of the skewed PT standards, they pass. I saw a congressional research team come to PJ school back in the 90s to do a study on the feasibility of females in training. They shot it down after two days for all the reasons above. If you ask me, this is just the administration trying to get more votes for the libs and get the heat off of that incompetent retard Hillary.
Monky, take care of your bitches, they're starting to fight.
ENOUGH WITH THE PERSONAL ATTACKS. TAKE IT OFFLINE OR FACE TO FACE.
My apologies... I shouldn't have let the derail get so far. :/
hollohas
01-25-2013, 12:09
Women in the military. Great. Women on the ground in combat? I'm not so sure, because I haven't been there. But I want to pose this question for guys who have served in combat. You count on the guy next to you, no? You are a team, a family. You count on them to watch your back as you do theirs and you count on them to help you if you go down. Could you count on a woman to throw you over their shoulder or even drag you out if of a firefight if you get shot or blown up?
I have zero opinion of the social dynamics of who women on the front lines fit in, I have never been there. However, I do think they need to be held to the EXACT same physical standards as men if they want to be on the ground, going door-to-door. Run just as far, carry just as much, do just as many push-ups and sit-ups, shoot just as well, etc.
hollohas
01-25-2013, 12:15
Men and women are different. Period. Millions of years of evolution made us so. The Olympics segregates athletes based on gender because of the disparity in performance. That's a game. War is not.
This is a pretty accurate assessment IMO.
Women in the military. Great. Women on the ground in combat? I'm not so sure, because I haven't been there. But I want to pose this question for guys who have served in combat. You count on the guy next to you, no? You are a team, a family. You count on them to watch your back as you do theirs and you count on them to help you if you go down. Could you count on a woman to throw you over their shoulder or even drag you out if of a firefight if you get shot or blown up?
I have zero opinion of the social dynamics of who women on the front lines fit in, I have never been there. However, I do think they need to be held to the EXACT same physical standards as men if they want to be on the ground, going door-to-door. Run just as far, carry just as much, do just as many push-ups and sit-ups, shoot just as well, etc.
I could count on a woman to have my back, and engage the enemy... But if go down and need to be dragged out of the fight, some of the women I served with wouldn't have been able to carry me- and I only weigh about 165! Now imagine if they had to carry my LT, he came in at 230! Most of the women in my unit, the ones that did pass PT and H/W standards- were only 150 max and were relatively easy to spot for at the gym. I trust their judgement, work ethic and dedication, but some just lack the strength that would make them asset instead of a liability under fire in constant combat situations. Not to mention the other aspect of men feeling a need to protect women (it's ingrained in our psyche) that could lead to the men in combat taking unnecessary risks.
Katastrophic
01-25-2013, 23:10
First and foremost I'm not against women in the military, however we need to think about the little things that add up. Sorry if I'm being redundant.
Cons- Our physiology is different. We cannot go weeks without a shower without risking infections. Men can. Then there's always the sexual tension. What happens, especially if she's attractive, if she gets hurt? Will the men subconsciously act more recklessly to protect her? If she gets kidnapped, what atrocities will become her? Before I read the other posts I hadn't even considered the pregnancy thing. I guess I assumed that most women would be on BC during deployment. It's easier.
But then again I know how valuable I am in other roles in society. I'm not saying I'm weak, I'm just talking evolution.
Pros - The whole underestimated Silent But Deadly thing... They won't see a woman coming! And check out Ronda Rousey. She's fricken awesome. I would put all of the men in my family's life in her capable hands. She's one reason why my 9 year old daughter is currently in Jiu Jitsu.
KestrelBike
01-25-2013, 23:53
Just like the Olympics comparison, why not have segregated detachments? All female troupes or whatever.
RonMexico
01-25-2013, 23:57
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_TFo8AYw_4Wk/SJyxHoSLVTI/AAAAAAAABQc/BtXug8j5gQk/s400/Wookies.JPG
First female infantry BN
Ronda Rousy is a decent female fighter, a one trick pony that these other ladies are too dumb to figure out. She's had what 6 or 8 fights? Once she punched in the face for 25 minutes she'll be done fighting, just like Gina Carano and every other woman that has fought Cyborg Santos. She will realize it is far more lucrative for a woman to be pretty than tough.
Back on subject can a woman really deal with the emotional toll taking a life takes on a person? It seems a lot of men have a problem with that these days, ptsd anyone?
When are lib dumbasses going to realize "equal under the law" doesn't equate to equal in the real world?
Mick-Boy
01-26-2013, 12:07
Back on subject can a woman really deal with the emotional toll taking a life takes on a person? It seems a lot of men have a problem with that these days, ptsd anyone?
I don't see why not. The "emotional toll" taken by war is a very personal thing and differs from person to person. Some people approach the conflict with steal resolve and an understanding of what will be required. Others come into it thinking it's going to be like an action movie. Some people never put a moments thought into the toll of combat. In the end everyone has their own limit. I don't think gender would play that big a part in it.
TheBelly
01-26-2013, 12:20
I agree with Mick. It differs from person to person.
war is not a pretty sight. If it is, you're probably doing it wrong...... Or you're at bagram.
I agree with Mick. It differs from person to person.
war is not a pretty sight. If it is, you're probably doing it wrong...... Or you're at bagram.
Or you're fighting the Israeli's.
http://globalpeaceandconflict.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/israeli-women-soldiers.jpg
My only concern would be jobs like AF Pararescue and Navy Rescue Divers. In those instances I would say no female PT/Physical standards, everybody passes the exact same test, man or woman. If you pass good on ya, if not find a different job.
We needed this BEFORE. Everybody should be able to meet at least the SAME minimum. So if you're a female or a male, and you can't do it, then you can't do it. This should be a military wide thing.. I understand different requirements are needed for different jobs, i.e. truck drivers vs. infantry standards. But a system needs to be enacted because there are definitely males that can't ruck worth a damn.
Our FET girls in Trashcanistan handled things well enough, as far as taking care of "womanly issues" in a combat zone (I've seen this argument against females in combat), and didn't cause tooooo much drama (there was one girl that slept with a few people and then the drama really started when we got home, ended up getting in a fight with one of the guys and broke his nose with a better punch than he could dream of throwing, but I digress...). Granted, there were only 3 of them (well, for the first half of the deployment... one took an 82mm to the face, and then there were 2) assigned to our entire company, and I can definitely see problems starting if there were a larger number.
My problem with women on the front lines is the physical aspect of it. Obviously there are SOME females that would be up to the task, but as a whole I don't trust a female to be able to carry anyone in my squad (180-220lb male), their 40 or so lbs of kit, their 75lb ruck, and their weapon, to safety in the middle of a firefight when he gets hit. There are plenty of males that aren't up to that task, and I see no need to increase the amount of incapable people in the Infantry.
I definitely agree here. In Afghanistan i was about 210 in my birthday suit, well over 300+ lbs on every daily dismount. My other two team members were the same. The 3 of us could all drag or fireman carry each other. I've not met a female in my career field that could ever carry or drag a male of that size except for one. A female Marine that was strongman competitior... 6', roided out, mustache.. my god that woman was a beast.
But like you said.. There are definitely plenty of men that can't do the same.
If you can't by yourself, get a fellow soldier, Marine, or whatever into the fireman carry, then you should not be in any combat role.
When I was infantry (a lifetime ago), there were no women anywhere close to my unit, support or otherwise. Good or bad, it was what it was.
The biggest problem I see is with a shift in the mindset of the males during combat operations. I'd be worried of my fellow soldiers going out of their way to protect females. By that I mean more so than a male team member. Males have been protecting females for centuries. I'm guessing it's a survival instinct deeply wired into our DNA (I'm not a psychologist). Is that bad? No, but I think it could seriously change the dynamic of ground fighting. Especially considering long-range operations where you'll be far away from support for a long time. The other terrifying thing is what happens when a male (or god forbid, a group of males) decide to blow off steam. It's only matter of time before there's an incident.
I'm glad I'm way too old to get first-hand experience. :)
I'll admit i can see this problem happening. Survival instinct or attraction. Men will always have that 'protection' gene hard wired into their brains.
..................
Back on subject can a woman really deal with the emotional toll taking a life takes on a person? It seems a lot of men have a problem with that these days, ptsd anyone?
I don't see why not. The "emotional toll" taken by war is a very personal thing and differs from person to person. Some people approach the conflict with steal resolve and an understanding of what will be required. Others come into it thinking it's going to be like an action movie. Some people never put a moments thought into the toll of combat. In the end everyone has their own limit. I don't think gender would play that big a part in it.
I don't see a difference here between male and females. Given the huge numbers of weak minded people in today's society, it's just going to be an equal problem i think. To many men now can't handle their own shit, and i figure plenty of women will have the same problem.
There will always be strong-minded and weak-minded and just don't think sex matters.
Well, this is quite the interesting thread.
If I may, I'd like to weigh in with a female's perspective.
I was in the military. I was in for four years, and I was there when the Berlin Wall came down. The closest I came to Desert Storm was alerting the base when it kicked off, and loading pallets with chem warfare gear, and dancing my tail off with any soldier that was flying out to war the next day. (I elected myself morale officer. [Beer] ) I had no idea if any of them were coming back again, and it not only scared me to death, but made me actually seriously consider combat, and what it entails.
Clearly, there are many opinions on this thread that carry more weight. I've never been in combat, but it only makes sense that the same physical standards would need to be met. Then again, I've seen some pretty out-of-shape male soldiers that may have passed the standards in the beginning of the year, but let themselves go to beer and junk food for the rest of the time. What are the requirements for a combat troop? Is it a requirement to bench 180 pounds while carrying all of that equipment? If so, damn skippy female troops should have to follow that as well.
As for drama and skating on appointments and having some sort of waivers to get them out of things....for the most part, AMEN. There was a reason I went into a male-dominated field. I don't play well with most females. That being said, I saw a hell of a lot of the same thing with guys. You XYers are no more exempt from the "stop being a little bitch" rule than females. Instead of the bitchy drama, I received a hell of a lot of hazing, sexual harrassment and outright dismissal if I opened my mouth. There were times when I was actually right about things, but at that point it was moot. You men have your drama, too. It's just called by different names and excused. It ALL needs to stop, men and women.
Many of the men had problems in their marriages; many more were such alcoholics that they would pass out against their doors while trying to get the key in the lock. It was distressing to see our squadron leaders in such a state. I only wish I knew of a solution to stop the drama and the politicking that goes on. Does that happen in combat scenarios? I hope not.
I don't think I was mentally and emotionally cut out for front-line combat. What I was prepared to do was support those that were, and keep myself ready to protect items/secrets/objects that were behind the walls. I had a sharpshooter ribbon. I was pretty sure I could defend, if I had to. I took my oath very seriously, despite the attitude of some of the assholes I had to work with. The Good Ol' Boy network is part of a glass ceiling that keeps those of us that aren't malingerers down with the rest of them. To dismiss outright those few that may help to pave the way for a new outlook and attitude that may improve the military actually is a little counterproductive.
There are female soldiers. Some of them stink at their jobs. There are male soldiers. Some of them stink at their jobs. Men are not automatically more perfect.
I believe that if we set the standards for female soldiers so they are equal to males, there's a decent chance that this could be a good thing. But there's got to be an attitude change, too, or none of this means shit. The favoritism to females has to go, but the mysogynistic attitudes do, too.
Anyhow, that's my opinion.
Mick-Boy
02-03-2013, 14:54
TheGrey,
Thank you for your service and thank you for you perspective.
Thank you, Mick-Boy. I'd like to pass that thanks on to the others on this thread (and forum) that have served or are still serving.
Two main issues with this.
1. Physical ability. There is a difference so don't say there isn't. All I know is that I want the person dragging me because I just got wounded to be able to do so.
2. POW issues. Not only is being tortured bad enough but getting brutally gang banged by a pack of assholes daily shouldn't be a part of the problem.
Well, this is quite the interesting thread.
If I may, I'd like to weigh in with a female's perspective.
I was in the military. I was in for four years, and I was there when the Berlin Wall came down. The closest I came to Desert Storm was alerting the base when it kicked off, and loading pallets with chem warfare gear, and dancing my tail off with any soldier that was flying out to war the next day. (I elected myself morale officer. [Beer] ) I had no idea if any of them were coming back again, and it not only scared me to death, but made me actually seriously consider combat, and what it entails.
Clearly, there are many opinions on this thread that carry more weight. I've never been in combat, but it only makes sense that the same physical standards would need to be met. Then again, I've seen some pretty out-of-shape male soldiers that may have passed the standards in the beginning of the year, but let themselves go to beer and junk food for the rest of the time. What are the requirements for a combat troop? Is it a requirement to bench 180 pounds while carrying all of that equipment? If so, damn skippy female troops should have to follow that as well.
As for drama and skating on appointments and having some sort of waivers to get them out of things....for the most part, AMEN. There was a reason I went into a male-dominated field. I don't play well with most females. That being said, I saw a hell of a lot of the same thing with guys. You XYers are no more exempt from the "stop being a little bitch" rule than females. Instead of the bitchy drama, I received a hell of a lot of hazing, sexual harrassment and outright dismissal if I opened my mouth. There were times when I was actually right about things, but at that point it was moot. You men have your drama, too. It's just called by different names and excused. It ALL needs to stop, men and women.
Many of the men had problems in their marriages; many more were such alcoholics that they would pass out against their doors while trying to get the key in the lock. It was distressing to see our squadron leaders in such a state. I only wish I knew of a solution to stop the drama and the politicking that goes on. Does that happen in combat scenarios? I hope not.
I don't think I was mentally and emotionally cut out for front-line combat. What I was prepared to do was support those that were, and keep myself ready to protect items/secrets/objects that were behind the walls. I had a sharpshooter ribbon. I was pretty sure I could defend, if I had to. I took my oath very seriously, despite the attitude of some of the assholes I had to work with. The Good Ol' Boy network is part of a glass ceiling that keeps those of us that aren't malingerers down with the rest of them. To dismiss outright those few that may help to pave the way for a new outlook and attitude that may improve the military actually is a little counterproductive.
There are female soldiers. Some of them stink at their jobs. There are male soldiers. Some of them stink at their jobs. Men are not automatically more perfect.
I believe that if we set the standards for female soldiers so they are equal to males, there's a decent chance that this could be a good thing. But there's got to be an attitude change, too, or none of this means shit. The favoritism to females has to go, but the mysogynistic attitudes do, too.
Anyhow, that's my opinion.
While I agree that there are both men and women who are shit birds, the problem that women are facing is the percentages. For example in our platoon of about 45. 7 were women and 38 were men. Of the 38 men three were useless. Or ~8%. Of the 7 women 2 were pregnant and 3 were on light duty. One was horrible at her job and one was really good. So of that group ~86% was useless. Since women are the minority in the military everything they do is magnified. If 9 out of 10 military women were good at what they did them that would change the conversation, but the fact is that is not the case. Also pregnancy is a big problem in units. Essentially you lose a member of your unit for about a year.
While I agree that there are both men and women who are shit birds, the problem that women are facing is the percentages. For example in our platoon of about 45. 7 were women and 38 were men. Of the 38 men three were useless. Or ~8%. Of the 7 women 2 were pregnant and 3 were on light duty. One was horrible at her job and one was really good. So of that group ~86% was useless. Since women are the minority in the military everything they do is magnified. If 9 out of 10 military women were good at what they did them that would change the conversation, but the fact is that is not the case. Also pregnancy is a big problem in units. Essentially you lose a member of your unit for about a year.
I can certainly agree that pregnancy would be a problem. If you're counting on numbers, and the woman gets pregnant, you're down a body. I'm wondering how to work around that. I would think that women that chose to be in combat would be on the Pill, or some sort of shot. Referencing the gangbang comment from a previous poster, there are more than psychological factors at work here. If captured, tortured, raped and so on, there is a real danger of unwelcome/unwanted pregnancy.
I saw many men and women on light duty or waivers while I was in. It usually occurred sometime before weigh-ins or the yearly physical fitness test. It was infuriating, because they were clearly well enough to do everything else, but when it came time to work, they gimped around and acted up. Unfortunately, they play the game by the rules. There's not enough medical follow-up to make sure that the malingerers are caught and punished.
If the strictures for combat were the same for men and women, I would think that the females that remained in combat positions would be as balls-to-the-wall as the rest of the men. Face it- peer pressure being what it is, I highly doubt any female is going to stubbornly remain in a grueling field if she did not want to be there. Again, I don't know this through personal experience. I am only going with what makes the most sense to me. I could be way off base here, but I think that the women that are in their jobs for the ease of the paychecks would not be the type to sign up for combat.
I would also think that the percentage of women that fit the bill and remained with a squad would be an even lower percentage than what there is now.
Anyhow, those are good points, Fmedges.
SideShow Bob
02-03-2013, 20:17
Two main issues with this.
2. POW issues. Not only is being tortured bad enough but getting brutally gang banged by a pack of assholes daily shouldn't be a part of the problem.
I am sure this has happened to male POWs as well. Probably not very many, and never talked about by them when they returned.
Just take a look what happens in our prisons and by fellow inmates to boot.
On another subject, the cultures of middle easterns and Asians would consider it adding insult to injury to be defeated by an enemy force that had a large percentage of women in it. So they would fight harder and to the last man to prevent such an insulting defeat.
My personal opinion is if women want to "Talk the Talk" they better be willing and capable to "Walk the Walk". Just as the women in Israel do.
Mick-Boy
02-03-2013, 23:30
On another subject, the cultures of middle easterns and Asians would consider it adding insult to injury to be defeated by an enemy force that had a large percentage of women in it. So they would fight harder and to the last man to prevent such an insulting defeat.
I actually got a lot of mileage out of that in Iraq in '04. Grab up a bad guy that just lived through a CAS strike or a mortar/arty mission and tell him that our pilots/gun bunnies are women (I had a picture of a female fighter jock to prove the point). Hearing that all his friends just got smoke checked by a chick *never* failed to get an emotional reaction. (people get mad, they don't think. People don't think, they let something slip...). Plus it was funny as hell.
Mick-Boy
02-04-2013, 00:29
http://www.tfp.org/tfp-home/fighting-for-our-culture/testimony-of-col-john-w-ripley-to-the-presidential-commission-on-the-assignment-of-women-in-the-armed-forces.html
Here's some twenty year old testimony from Col. John Ripley (If you don't know who he is, get to googling. If you are a Marine and don't know who he is, haze yourself.). He made some interesting points backed up with some very, very real experience.
http://www.tfp.org/tfp-home/fighting-for-our-culture/testimony-of-col-john-w-ripley-to-the-presidential-commission-on-the-assignment-of-women-in-the-armed-forces.html
Here's some twenty year old testimony from Col. John Ripley (If you don't know who he is, get to googling. If you are a Marine and don't know who he is, haze yourself.). He made some interesting points backed up with some very, very real experience.
This sums it up more than I ever could.
USAFGopherMike
02-04-2013, 05:23
http://www.tfp.org/tfp-home/fighting-for-our-culture/testimony-of-col-john-w-ripley-to-the-presidential-commission-on-the-assignment-of-women-in-the-armed-forces.html
Here's some twenty year old testimony from Col. John Ripley (If you don't know who he is, get to googling. If you are a Marine and don't know who he is, haze yourself.). He made some interesting points backed up with some very, very real experience.
Jeez. Get the service chiefs to read this now. I just read another article on the AF website about females being considered as viable for specops. Even if you could find the rare example, that triathlete that grew up with three older brothers and is tough as nails, the integration piece is a damn nightmare. There must be the same standards in those career fields and as the Col states, they cannot be softened or deminished. In the end, the PC agenda nazis will drive policy and combat units will suffer for it.
DavieD55
02-04-2013, 08:17
Some people just need to wake up and realize this politically correct BS is meant to weaken things.
I actually got a lot of mileage out of that in Iraq in '04. Grab up a bad guy that just lived through a CAS strike or a mortar/arty mission and tell him that our pilots/gun bunnies are women (I had a picture of a female fighter jock to prove the point). Hearing that all his friends just got smoke checked by a chick *never* failed to get an emotional reaction. (people get mad, they don't think. People don't think, they let something slip...). Plus it was funny as hell.
We had an Afghan who had never really encountered mainstream US military (just out in the villages) come work on our FOB- I had to do his enrollment into our Biometric system and my backup was a female while this took place. He spoke very little english, and via an interpreter asked me "You actually let that woman have a gun?" Having helped her qualify with her M4 I told the interpreter to inform this man that I trusted her as much, if not more, than any male counterpart with a rifle. But she sure as hell wouldn't be able to pull me out of danger wearing full kit. I just think there are some jobs that weaker individuals (regardless of gender) shouldn't be allowed to get into.
Pancho Villa
02-04-2013, 12:32
LOL HAY GUYS DID YOU KNOW ONLY FEMALES EVER GET BRUTALLY RAPED? Its true I heard it absolutely nowhere.
Anyway, a few things are very important in implementing this:
1. Physical standards for people getting into combat arms must not be changed for men vs women.
I can see lowering the standards for diesel mechanic or admin clerk - everyone is a potential fighter but let's just say some people we can let by and not see a tremendous drop-down in our combat effectiveness numbers - but not for 11bs, 03xxs, etc.
2. Mandatory birth control administered by a medical officer (NOT given to the soldier/marine and expected to be taken.)
I would be for this for males as well, actually, since enlisted have proven time and again that wrapping their dicks is far too complicated an operation to handle on their own.
3. No special barracks/showers/etc for females
Given this I actually think the best course of action would be to form a small (probably platoon or company sized) all-female unit and toss it into the rotation, see if any special issues come up and hopefully show that an all-female combat unit can be effective.
2. Mandatory birth control administered by a medical officer (NOT given to the soldier/marine and expected to be taken.)
I would be for this for males as well, actually, since enlisted have proven time and again that wrapping their dicks is far too complicated an operation to handle on their own.
[ROFL1]I can vouch for this! I bunked with a JAG soldier (aka Paralegal) in Afghanistan, he said that the most common thing they deal with is the SURPRISE! kids soldiers seem to have and the baby momma wanting child support. [facepalm]
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.