View Full Version : SecDef allows women in combat jobs
Streck-Fu
01-23-2013, 14:40
I guess they must be referring to Infantry and other currently designated Combat Arms roles as women already serve in a variety of positions that are exposed to combat.
LINK (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/23/panetta-opens-combat-roles-to-women/)
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.
I get the "equality" thing, but I wonder who is actually pushing for this. Womens groups who will never even be in a combat situation, just to push their agenda, or is actually driven by women who are serving.....and it would actually be their butts on the line???
griper23
01-23-2013, 15:27
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/panetta-opens-combat-roles-women
this will be good.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/women-in-combat_n_2535954.html
It looks like the real deal.
We should now be able to double our selective service numbers and make one streamlined physical fitness test that ensures troops will be able to carry their buddies to a casualty collection point in full kit.
If the Standards remain the same then no problem.
If the Standards are normed into male & female standards then the bottom level standards for doing the job were lowered.
If they are lowered to allow females in then why would males have to meet a higher standard?
Allowing females on ODA's would be a detriment to the teams ability to conduct its mission. It creates an extremely weak member of the team and that weak link is all it takes to put everyone in jeopardy.
If I got shot on a remote mountaintop this female better be able to climb up that mountain in full kit, pick my ass up, and carry me down the mountain. This is not an extreme example, I know men who have done it. Bottom line is that it cannot be done. No woman can pick up 220 pounds and carry it for extended distance. This isn't limited to SF, it occurs in all of the combat arms and you cannot allow them in any of them if this situation exists.
KILL THIS IDEA NOW!
If the Standards remain the same then no problem.
If the Standards are normed into male & female standards then the bottom level standards for doing the job were lowered.
If they are lowered to allow females in then why would males have to meet a higher standard?
Pete
I agree. Do not change the standards. If they can make it just like you and me then go for it.
DIYPatriot
01-23-2013, 16:01
“It will take awhile to work out the mechanics in some cases. We expect some jobs to open quickly, by the end of this year. Others, like Special Operations Forces and Infantry, may take longer,” a senior defense official explains. Panetta is setting the goal of January 2016 for all assessments to be complete and women integrated as much as possible.
The Pentagon has left itself some wiggle room, however, which may ultimately lead to some jobs being designated as “closed” to women. A senior Defense official says if, after the assessment, a branch finds that “a specific job or unit should not be open, they can go back to the secretary and ask for an exemption to the policy, to designate the job or unit as closed.”
Article (http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/23/military-to-open-combat-jobs-to-women/?hpt=hp_c1)
How many threads we gonna start on this same topic and how many times we gonna rehash the same opinions?
Sounds like a monthly SFA breakfast gathering. ;)
Just sayin'...
Richard :munchin
After seeing Julie Golob shoot, I say, "Welcome aboard!"
(As long as the standards aren't modified.)
Like most things it will depend upon the implementation....lets see what develops...then we can start pissing in someones cornflakes.
ddoering
01-23-2013, 17:23
After seeing Julie Golob shoot, I say, "Welcome aboard!"
(As long as the standards aren't modified.)
Until one files a complaint saying the standards are prejudiced against women. Remember how SF was prejudiced against minorities because of the swim test......
Until one files a complaint saying the standards are prejudiced against women. Remember how SF was prejudiced against minorities because of the swim test......
Understood, but the point I was trying to make is that, as long as it's understood that women have to meet the same standards as men-going in-with no grey areas-they should be allowed to join the club.
Now, I personally don't know, nor have I heard of, a female who can meet the same standards as a male BASED ON WHEN I WENT THRU THE Q COURSE.
I don't know how it is, now-been out of it for too long, and I suffer from Partzheimer's, anyway. (As well as clinical aggravation complex stemming from the actions of libdemons.)
Stiletto11
01-23-2013, 18:33
I want to see one poop in an ORP.:D
Panamazach
01-23-2013, 18:57
Absolutely amazing.
Next Executive Order of Business, Women can pee standing up.
Equality for all!!!
Snaquebite
01-23-2013, 18:57
Now that this has happened should women have to register for selective service at 18 as men have to do.
My wife is now humming that tune " Its the end of the world as we know it." I guess if the JCS wanted it. Who says the dems do not listen to our military leaders. It is social engineering at its finest and we better prepare ourselves for at least 4 more years of it.
Stiletto11
01-23-2013, 19:17
Now that this has happened should women have to register for selective service at 18 as men have to do.
Great point! :lifter
Absolutely amazing.
Next Executive Order of Business, Women can pee standing up.
Equality for all!!!
3 whole posts and this is your contribution to the discussion?
Now that this has happened should women have to register for selective service at 18 as men have to do.
If this doesn't happen, everyone should be screaming bloody murder.
Until one files a complaint saying the standards are prejudiced against women. Remember how SF was prejudiced against minorities because of the swim test......
Swiming is a skill, it was stupid to kick guys out of the pipeline if they couldn't swim...if you make it thru SFAS we can teach you to swim.
Sometimes we're not as smart as we think we are.
Panamazach
01-24-2013, 07:24
3 whole posts and this is your contribution to the discussion?
I did not intend for the post to offer much more than it did, just simply a sarcastic response to this announcement.
I believe that we all have our opinions on the matter, though this is little more than political folly for our "elected" Leaders to chew on while completing the agenda of "Equality for All'.
This includes the now possible talk of woman being able to serve in Special Operations, unless those Commands can have a Waiver approved to bar women from joining their ranks.
I do not mean any disrespect by saying this (or repeating what I have read on here before), but I do not believe that a woman can simply match a Man physically speaking. Yes, there are the exceptions, but they are not the norm.
How many threads we gonna start on this same topic and how many times we gonna rehash the same opinions?
Sounds like a monthly SFA breakfast gathering. ;)
Just sayin'...
Richard :munchin
Richard Sir,
Having read many, many threads over the years here on PS discussing this issue, I have finally arrived at a thought on the issue...(but it is of no importance because I am non military.):o
I am however curious what the female Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines think of this new proposal???:munchin
Holly
Swiming is a skill, it was stupid to kick guys out of the pipeline if they couldn't swim...if you make it thru SFAS we can teach you to swim.
Sometimes we're not as smart as we think we are.
That's not what they told me at pre-SCUBA.
As a woman, I'm going to have to agree with you. Just about all of you, actually.
In terms of the standards being "prejudiced" against women - anyone who has common sense would agree that the arguement is absurd. I hope it never comes to that and would be embarrassed if it did. I do believe that men and women were created equal, but different. Our brains and bodies are made/wired differently and because of this, what women are able to accomplish physically is different than men. That's science. That's not disrespectful or sexist, that's just the reality of our biology.
With regard to women in specops/sf - I am lucky enough to have the opportunity to watch JFKSWCS students on a daily basis and witness frequently what they go through in terms of rucking and some of the physical requirements of some of their training. I am tallish, athletic, a farm girl by former profession and "strong" (for a woman) - but there is no way, even if I completed the same workouts and trained at the same intensity, that I could buddy carry some of those guys (period) or stand up to the same physical requirements that they are held to. And that's just training - not even combat. And, to be quite frank, I can't imagine how many women would be up for deficating in a slit trench/patrol base. I only know a little about infantry training from a few friends who are 11b's in the 82nd, but from what I hear from them - my oppinion of women in the infantry is the same. Things would have to change for their accomodation, and I don't see that as a plausable solution to the "equality" issue or a way of improving combat operation overseas (from a civilian standpoint). Hopefully, waivers will be involved when all of this is implemented.
The only plausible solution I can imagine is if they instituted all-female infantry/combat mos units. Pardon my lack of propriety when I say - God help the enemy (and any sorry soul on the fob) when they all begin to cycle at the same time. :D
Just my $0.02 as a woman and concerned citizen.
As a woman, I'm going to have to agree with you. Just about all of you, actually.
In terms of the standards being "prejudiced" against women - anyone who has common sense would agree that the arguement is absurd. I hope it never comes to that and would be embarrassed if it did. I do believe that men and women were created equal, but different. Our brains and bodies are made/wired differently and because of this, what women are able to accomplish physically is different than men. That's science. That's not disrespectful or sexist, that's just the reality of our biology.
With regard to women in specops/sf - I am lucky enough to have the opportunity to watch JFKSWCS students on a daily basis and witness frequently what they go through in terms of rucking and some of the physical requirements of some of their training. I am tallish, athletic, a farm girl by former profession and "strong" (for a woman) - but there is no way, even if I completed the same workouts and trained at the same intensity, that I could buddy carry some of those guys (period) or stand up to the same physical requirements that they are held to. And that's just training - not even combat. And, to be quite frank, I can't imagine how many women would be up for deficating in a slit trench/patrol base. I only know a little about infantry training from a few friends who are 11b's in the 82nd, but from what I hear from them - my oppinion of women in the infantry is the same. Things would have to change for their accomodation, and I don't see that as a plausable solution to the "equality" issue or a way of improving combat operation overseas (from a civilian standpoint). Hopefully, waivers will be involved when all of this is implemented.
The only plausible solution I can imagine is if they instituted all-female infantry/combat mos units. Pardon my lack of propriety when I say - God help the enemy (and any sorry soul on the fob) when they all begin to cycle at the same time. :D
Just my $0.02 as a woman and concerned citizen.
Ma'am,
Thank you for posting your opinion. Which branch did you Serve in?:)
Holly
The only plausible solution I can imagine is if they instituted all-female infantry/combat mos units. Pardon my lack of propriety when I say - God help the enemy (and any sorry soul on the fob) when they all begin to cycle at the same time. :D
Just my $0.02 as a woman and concerned citizen.
Wait a minute-I heard you guys could synchronize those things. :D
Dozer523
01-24-2013, 10:11
I did not intend for the post to offer much more than it did, just simply a sarcastic response to this announcement. And all the rest of it. well you did, and among others you pissed off a seriously, hard charging AF LTC. We pink up for sarcasm. We also make a distinction between sarcasm and meanness and stupidity.
You need not worry yourself about SF ( for one thing you know nothing of it) we can take care of ourselves.
But, you might make an interesting contribution to the discussion. Share your experience with females on the flight deck as a B-52 crew chief. I'm interested in that.
1,000 posts is a long time, pace yourself.
Echos,
As stated, I am a civlian but am also interested in hearing the thoughts and oppinions of those who are female and currently serving or have served. Just stating my thoughts as an woman and concerned civilian - if they were unwarrented and are unappreciated, I apologize.
ZonieDiver
01-24-2013, 11:26
Speaking of the aged, if there is a 'standard' that needs to be met in combat units, why is the APFT age-normed? Shouldn't an 'older fart' have to meet the same standard as that 'young stud'?:munchin
By norming for age, don't we weaken our position as it regards females? Just askin', not advocating.:confused:
Personally, I always judged myself by the 'young stud' standard, and figured that the day I couldn't 'pass' using that was the time to hang it up.:lifter
(4 smiley icons...in a nod to Big Teddy, whom I miss...:(
- if they were unwarrented and are unappreciated, I apologize.
Ma'am,
Not at all by me, no way, I am just a guest here, and my question was sincere.
There are current service members here who are female, and in situtions like these, I bow out and listen to their opinion as they are the ones currently affected by decisions like these. (As well as All QP's);)
JMHO,
Holly
Personally, I always judged myself by the 'young stud' standard, and figured that the day I couldn't 'pass' using that was the time to hang it up.
(4 smiley icons...in a nod to Big Teddy, whom I miss
YOU are a "young stud," ZD! I know, 'cause I have met you in person!:D:lifter
Miss Big Teddy too...:(
He would definately have had something to say about all this I think...
Holly
YOU are a "young stud," ZD! I know, 'cause I have met you in person!
Miss Big Teddy too...
He would definately have had something to say about all this I think...
Holly
He would have said, "Females on a A-Team? :eek::confused::(:mad:
Utah Bob
01-24-2013, 17:22
I did not intend for the post to offer much more than it did, just simply a sarcastic response to this announcement.
I believe that we all have our opinions on the matter, though this is little more than political folly for our "elected" Leaders to chew on while completing the agenda of "Equality for All'.
This includes the now possible talk of woman being able to serve in Special Operations, unless those Commands can have a Waiver approved to bar women from joining their ranks.
I do not mean any disrespect by saying this (or repeating what I have read on here before), but I do not believe that a woman can simply match a Man physically speaking. Yes, there are the exceptions, but they are not the norm.
Beware the Siren's call to sarcasm, young grasshopper. It is a double edged sword.
Read more, post less.
ddoering
01-24-2013, 17:24
Swiming is a skill, it was stupid to kick guys out of the pipeline if they couldn't swim...if you make it thru SFAS we can teach you to swim.
Sometimes we're not as smart as we think we are.
Everything is a skill and given time, it can be taught. There is only a finite amount of time for the course so what will you drop? Perhaps non-swimmers should just be assigned to 5th Group since most of their AO has no water in it.....
The point being is that it was a known standard and anyone motivated enough to volunteer for SF would go out and try to learn how to do it. So what is the next thing we change? Plenty of man-based standards to attack.
Dozer523
01-24-2013, 17:38
Speaking of the aged, if there is a 'standard' that needs to be met in combat units, why is the APFT age-normed? Shouldn't an 'older fart' have to meet the same standard as that 'young stud'?
(4 smiley icons...in a nod to Big Teddy, whom I miss...:( shut your mouth, retired guy!
11 yr AD, 14 yr break in service, 8 yrs with the Guard, 8 months to my retirement letter and 4 yrs to MRA. I'll take all the help I can get! BTW there is a great deal of satisfaction to be had from finishing the 2 mi run 5 yards ahead of a 20 YO. I nail my PT patch and he fails the run.
Old age and treachery blah, blah, blah:p:D
shut your mouth, retired guy!
11 yr AD, 14 yr break in service, 8 yrs with the Guard, 8 months to my retirement letter and 4 yrs to MRA. I'll take all the help I can get! BTW there is a great deal of satisfaction to be had from finishing the 2 mi run 5 yards ahead of a 20 YO. I nail my PT patch and he fails the run.
Old age and treachery blah, blah, blah:p:D
Cool! You should be proud. Now, why don't you go get a PT Patch tattooed on your ass next to that picture of Al Pacino?
Panamazach
01-24-2013, 18:02
well you did, and among others you pissed off a seriously, hard charging AF LTC. We pink up for sarcasm. We also make a distinction between sarcasm and meanness and stupidity.
You need not worry yourself about SF ( for one thing you know nothing of it) we can take care of ourselves.
But, you might make an interesting contribution to the discussion. Share your experience with females on the flight deck as a B-52 crew chief. I'm interested in that.
1,000 posts is a long time, pace yourself.
Understood Sir.
And Ma'am, I apologize for the comment being out of line. Sometimes experiences are learned the hard way, and this was clearly one of them.
You are correct sir in that I am not familiar with SF, I spoke in regards to opinions of others(which was another hard learned experience). Will not happen again.
In reference to women involving maintenance on the B-52, there were many awesome women that i did work with while I turned a wrench on the BUFFs. As far as general job skills and the ability to identify/ rectify problems on the Plane, they were dead on accurate. But there were occasions, whether it be moving a 1000 lb. Power Cart or Air Cart to clear the plane for taxi, removing a ~200 lb. piece of engine cowling or even walking a ~250 lb. Drag Chute up a B-5 Stand, that the women could not complete the task. Of course there were some men also that were in the same boat.
And of course, I could never forget changing an 800 lb. tire. At least my back doesn't forget..
ZonieDiver
01-24-2013, 18:58
Understood Sir.
And Ma'am, I apologize for the comment being out of line. Sometimes experiences are learned the hard way, and this was clearly one of them.
You are correct sir in that I am not familiar with SF, I spoke in regards to opinions of others(which was another hard learned experience). Will not happen again.
In reference to women involving maintenance on the B-52, there were many awesome women that i did work with while I turned a wrench on the BUFFs. As far as general job skills and the ability to identify/ rectify problems on the Plane, they were dead on accurate. But there were occasions, whether it be moving a 1000 lb. Power Cart or Air Cart to clear the plane for taxi, removing a ~200 lb. piece of engine cowling or even walking a ~250 lb. Drag Chute up a B-5 Stand, that the women could not complete the task. Of course there were some men also that were in the same boat.
And of course, I could never forget changing an 800 lb. tire. At least my back doesn't forget..
Boat? I thought you were USAF, not USN!:D
Enough of this blather! On to important stuff... how close to reality was "Dr. Strangelove..." to real happenings on a B-52?????:D
Boat? I thought you were USAF, not USN!:D
Enough of this blather! On to important stuff... how close to reality was "Dr. Strangelove..." to real happenings on a B-52?????:D
In real life, the guys who ride the bombs in wear chaps. :D
AngelsSix
01-24-2013, 19:30
Doesn't matter to me...because I am retired! So there.:p
Panamazach
01-24-2013, 19:57
As tempting as it was to ride the Bomb, the thought of getting my Clearance pulled was enough to deter me.
Plus our CO said chaps were for horses and the bedroom.. :D
***In thinking about it, I remember on a training mission where we unloaded 45 750lb. GBU's on a inert range while the ACC Commander was in an F-16 on the same range and felt quite a violent amount of turbulence.. And of course there is the well known incident of being on the receiving end of a B-52 carrying Live Nuclear Cruise Missiles across the CONUS when they were supposed to be Dummy Cruise Missiles. Thankfully I wasn't on the starting side of that as the end result was not favorable for those who were.
51 % of American voters are going to be begging for someone to fix things as soon as they are treated to the full dose of what they have voted for...
...the trick is for the administration to figure out how to credit the republicans for everything that the democrats are trying to do
...the trick is for the administration to figure out how to credit the republicans for everything that the democrats are trying to do
Oh heck Billy, the current crop of GOP will probably fight over the credit. :rolleyes:
The Reaper
01-24-2013, 21:07
Speaking of the aged, if there is a 'standard' that needs to be met in combat units, why is the APFT age-normed? Shouldn't an 'older fart' have to meet the same standard as that 'young stud'?
By norming for age, don't we weaken our position as it regards females? Just askin', not advocating.:confused:
Personally, I always judged myself by the 'young stud' standard, and figured that the day I couldn't 'pass' using that was the time to hang it up.:lifter
(4 smiley icons...in a nod to Big Teddy, whom I miss...:(
Because it isn't rank normed.
A 45 y/o Bn CO or CSM isn't going to be doing the same job as a 25 y/o team guy.
Supervisory positions require more experience and less brute strength, if done properly.
Lots of wear and tear comes with those years and experience, and hopefully, some understanding.
I can hardly wait to see what incredibly stupid idea the Dims come up with next.
They must be pretty far down the list by now. :rolleyes:
TR
ZonieDiver
01-24-2013, 21:14
Because it isn't rank normed.
A 45 y/o Bn CO or CSM isn't going to be doing the same job as a 25 y/o team guy.
Supervisory positions require more experience and less brute strength, if done properly.
Lots of wear and tear comes with those years and experience, and hopefully, some understanding.
TR
True that. But, aren't there some "40-something" team guys? Don't "we" set ourselves up for a male-female debate with a young-old debate - if the standard is being able to do the job or not?
For awhile there, I found the PT standards getting tougher faster than I could get older... :rolleyes:
KTLA, L.A.'s Tribune affiliate, ran an interesting story on the SecDef's announcement yesterday evening. After the reporter framed the debate, the story aired three sound bites from interviews.
The first was a man who had served with the 82nd who said he think women could do the job. Next was a retired Marine--who, from her comments, was an aviator. She thought women would find it much tougher than they thought.
Finally a young-ish very, ahem, athletic civilian got the last word. She said that as long as the standards are the same and women are allowed to try, then they could succeed or fail and the outcome would be fair.
Badger52
01-25-2013, 04:29
standards are the same... allowed to try... succeed or fail... outcome would be fair.HERESY! :eek:
:D
Streck-Fu
01-25-2013, 07:03
LINK (http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/24/two-cheers-for-lifting-the-ban-on-women)
Two Cheers for Lifting the Ban on Women in Combat
Ronald Bailey|Jan. 24, 2013 5:02 pm
Real gun controlWomen and men are entitled to the same rights, period. Discriminating against an individual solely based on his or her sex is wrong and if you do that you are not my friend. So my initial reaction yesterday to reports that the Pentagon was lifting restrictions on women in combat was: It's about time. I was confident that I could find data that would show that women and men would perform equally well in combat, so I went looking for it. To my surprise, I could uncover very little data comparing the physical capacities of female and male recruits.
The most comprehensive analysis of the issue that I could find is a 2011 paper by social scientist William Gregor in the School of Advanced Military Studies at the US Army Command and General Staff College located at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Gregor's study, "Why Can’t Anything Be Done? Measuring Physical Readiness of Women for Military Occupations," (http://cmrlink.org/data/sites/85/CMRDocuments/GregorWJ-01October2011.pdf) [PDF] looks at what data is available and finds significant differences in ability of female and male recruits to meet the military's physical performance standards.
Take, for example, Gregor's analysis of how well ROTC cadets have done on the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) that looks at about 75,000 recruits who were commissioned by the U.S. Army through ROTC between 1992 and 2009. The performance of all cadets is evaluated based on how fast they can run two miles and how many push ups they can do. Gregor shows ...
.. the distribution of cadet scores on the 2-Mile Run in 2000, the Push-Up, and the distribution of cadets by weight. The difference in performance is clear. Only 2.9 per cent of the women, 23, were able to attain the male mean score. The strength comparison is somewhat worse, 1.5 per cent of the women achieved the male mean. Given the difference in stature between the cadet men and women, the difference in absolute strength is very large. [The relevant charts are on pages 20 and 21 of the study.]
Gregor then looks at a comparison of the aerobic capacity of the ROTC cadets and reports...
...the aerobic capacity achieved by women regardless of their body composition is less than the capacity of men. ...there are a few, exceptional women who best the bottom 16% of men, but these rare women are four standard deviations above the female mean, fewer than 1 in a 1000. In this exceptionally fit ROTC Cadet population, considering 74,838 records, not one women achieved the male mean.
According to NPR, qualifying for combat positions will be based on gender-neutral criteria:
Will the standards be different for men and women? (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/01/24/170161752/women-in-combat-five-key-questions)
At a briefing Thursday morning, Pentagon officials repeatedly stressed that there will be "gender-neutral standards" for combat positions. This could make it difficult for women to qualify in roles that specifically require upper-body strength.
For example, to work in a tank, women will have to demonstrate the ability to repeatedly load 55-pound tank shells, just as men are required to do.
Infantry troops routinely carry backpacks with 60 or 70 pounds of gear, or even more. The most common injury in Afghanistan is caused by roadside bombs. This raises the question of whether a female combat soldier would be able to carry a 200-pound male colleague who has been wounded.
NPR Pentagon correspondent Tom Bowman recently reported on the first two women allowed into the Marines' grueling 12-week Infantry Officer Course in Quantico, Va. Both women were in outstanding physical condition, yet both dropped out early in the training.
If both male and female soldiers are expected to meet the same criteria, then this change will be good for our military. In any case, it's high time that the Pentagon become more transparent with its training data.
69harley
01-25-2013, 07:13
Because it isn't rank normed.
A 45 y/o Bn CO or CSM isn't going to be doing the same job as a 25 y/o team guy.
Didn't stop the Ranger Reg from self imposing the 17 y/o standard on everyone regardless of age or position. I think we had the most in shape pac clerks and cooks in the Army. Admittedly, the 75th is not typical.
Is going to be exciting to watch how this shakes out. All the chest pounding, sabre rattling, political jockeying, some senior leaders are going to fall on their sword, etc.
Anyone remember the shooting at Louiges restaurant in the mid 90s? The shooter claimed it was over Clinton's new don't ask don't tell policy
I feel bad for the current crop of 11B skill level ones. The guys from this group that reenlist are going to be the team and squad leaders when all this happens.
Streck-Fu
01-25-2013, 07:15
We had a discussion in my office regarding issues outside of maintaining the standards. What about the administrative and command requirements that are currently regarded as necessary?
When women when first assigned to Navy combat ships, the first assigned were officers then senior enlisted before the junior enlisted. With the Marine Infantry Officer School they tried to send female officers first and they failed.
What will happen if or when an enlisted female qualifies. Will they insist on assigning unqualified females as part of the command structure or will be able to scrap the requirement to have women represented in the command structure?
IMO, the correct answer would have to be that if they are to be completely equal, they take the command as it exists. But will the administrators and generals actually let this fly? Will they be allowed to be truly equal?
Here's a good article that seems to put some rational thought into the discussion of should women be allowed in combat roles, and if so, what are the broad implications. Gen. Boykin explains why this was done for the wrong reasons at the wrong time.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/01/24/women-in-combat-jerry-boykin/1863049/
bailaviborita
01-27-2013, 13:37
...We the first assigned were officers then senior enlisted before the junior enlisted. Both with the Ranger school and Marine Infantry Officer Schools they tried to send female officers first and they failed.
Have females gone to Ranger School and failed?
5-Year Army Pilot Alice On Women In Combat (http://www.khow.com/pages/michaelbrown.html?article=10727017)
5-Year Army Vet and Blackhawk Pilot Alice called in today to weigh in on the Pentagon announcing women can now serve in combat roles. She is against it and laid out this argument:
7 min. audio interview/opinion.
joesnuffy
01-31-2013, 17:47
Written from a woman's POV on women in combat roles.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/the-problems-of-women-in-combat-from-a-female-combat-vet/
The Reaper
01-31-2013, 21:03
Written from a woman's POV on women in combat roles.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/the-problems-of-women-in-combat-from-a-female-combat-vet/
Excellent article!
TR
Good article, but I have one issue with it; when she talks about moms deploying. I didn't deploy for career advancement, I deployed because it was my J-O-B. When my husband and I were both deployed at the same time and had to leave our daughter with my parents. It wasn't for career advancement, it was because it was our J-O-B. We had a plan in place should something happen to both of us while we were gone. That is part of being a responsible parent in the military.
I get sick and tired of people saying how awful it is if a mom dies while deployed, leaving behind her child. I am sorry, but if my kids lost their father instead of me, they have still lost a parent, and regardless of which one, it would be a huge loss in their life.
joesnuffy
02-01-2013, 07:44
Good article, but I have one issue with it; when she talks about moms deploying. I didn't deploy for career advancement, I deployed because it was my J-O-B. When my husband and I were both deployed at the same time and had to leave our daughter with my parents. It wasn't for career advancement, it was because it was our J-O-B. We had a plan in place should something happen to both of us while we were gone. That is part of being a responsible parent in the military.
I get sick and tired of people saying how awful it is if a mom dies while deployed, leaving behind her child. I am sorry, but if my kids lost their father instead of me, they have still lost a parent, and regardless of which one, it would be a huge loss in their life.
I agree completely with you on this. It's the one part of the article I felt didn't make a valid argument.
According to NPR, qualifying for combat positions will be based on gender-neutral criteria:
It wasn't "according to NPR" - it was according to "Pentagon officials."
At a briefing Thursday morning, Pentagon officials repeatedly stressed that there will be "gender-neutral standards" for combat positions.
Richard :munchin
Streck-Fu
02-01-2013, 07:51
Have females gone to Ranger School and failed?
I thought they had but seem to be incorrect. I will retract. Though they did quit marine Infantry Officer school....I will remove the Ranger school reference unless I find any account of a woman attending.
Thanks for point that out.
Army Leadership's Statement.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Chairborne64
02-01-2013, 16:17
Here is a copy of a letter to the editor that I sent the New York Times. I doubt they will publish it but I had to get my say in.
"Dear New York Times,
I read with some interest your article “For 3 Women Combat Option Came a Bit Late” published on January 26th. As a graduate of the Army’s Infantry Officer Basic and Advanced Course, Ranger School, the Special Forces Qualification Course and veteran of over 20 years in the U.S. Army Special Forces (The Green Berets) part of which time I was involved in training, assessing and selecting future Green Berets I know something about this matter. Your article makes it sound like these women would all have succeeded in the combat arms branch of their choice if the ban was absent. In reality all that it would have done, and all the current removal of the ban has done, is given women the right to try out. This is much like Title IX gave women the right to try out for their high school football team. Try out yes, make it, not necessarily. After 40 years of title IX seeing a girl on a High School football team is still a novelty.
One only has to look north to Canada to see how this will probably play out. The Canadian’s, who possess a very modern and capable military, removed all gender barriers in the 1989. In their Army, after 20 plus years of integration, the percentage of women in the combat arms is only 1.6%. In the infantry, the most physically demanding branch, it is less than .5%.
The same statistics have played out here in the U.S. The United States Marine Corps had hoped to get 90 women officers to volunteer to attend the Infantry Officer’s Course. To date they have managed to attract 4. Two of these attended late last year and washed out early in the course. The other two will attend in March. Remember, this is the entry level course for Marine Officers. The standards and physical prowess demanded for the Marine Special Operations Command or the Force Recon units are significantly greater.
This plays to the greater theme that if the standards are maintained and not “gender normed” or reduced for females there will be a disappointingly low success rate. Additionally, the number of women who truly want to do this is also very small.
Women have now been given the right to try out for these combat rolls. The 3 women identified in your article all stated that they had wished to try. However, the odds of them making it would have been remote."
Nice letter Mike, it's good because it contains alot of facts....can't refute those. Ignore...maybe...refute...no...:lifter
Chairborne64
02-01-2013, 17:51
Thanks! There were a lot of other things I wanted to say but couldn't because of brevity. I also figured if I stated that in my opinion the standards will be dropped because of the demand from up high to make this work that it would not get published.:D
The Reaper
02-01-2013, 18:29
Good article, but I have one issue with it; when she talks about moms deploying. I didn't deploy for career advancement, I deployed because it was my J-O-B. When my husband and I were both deployed at the same time and had to leave our daughter with my parents. It wasn't for career advancement, it was because it was our J-O-B. We had a plan in place should something happen to both of us while we were gone. That is part of being a responsible parent in the military.
I get sick and tired of people saying how awful it is if a mom dies while deployed, leaving behind her child. I am sorry, but if my kids lost their father instead of me, they have still lost a parent, and regardless of which one, it would be a huge loss in their life.
Shucks, I never knew unit deployments were optional, either.
TR