Women in Combat?

[longrange1947]

And Warrior Princess has what to do with women on combat? He was a male with testosterone and muscles. Women lack that and "she" does now as well. I doubt seriously, that after a year or two on estrogen and missing the testosterone if "she" can perform to standard anymore.

[koz]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

I read the book the day it came out, and found it to be very interesting, pretty powerful, and overall a good read. Histeam time is but a portion of the book, as it covers His childhood, through His profession and failed marriages, into His post-team time career and he finally accepting her identity as that of a woman and changing her life because of it.

For what it's worth, in the book she refers to herself as "him" before she fully came out, and since then she is she.

He was a him on a team (even according to it). Let's keep it that way.


But since POS Dempsey is planning on lowering the standards and allow GI Jane by 2015, The princess can go back to a team

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Right, that's what I said haha. It's difficult to stay with the right pronoun.

Also, for whoever did it, why was my post deleted?

Special Forces Questions

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a forum where civilians can "ask" the Special Forces soldiers past and present "Special Forces" related questions.

Those questions are then answered by Special Forces soldiers, period.

Questions asked by the general public should NOT be answered by the "general" public.

If you do not have the title of "Quiet Professional" you may ask a question, but leave the "answers" to the QP's.

[Richard]

Ye Olde Commander's Adage - "Every plan is perfect...until you cross the LD and begin executing it."

Some have worked better than others - we'll see how this one goes as well.

Note: The briefing only talks about planning for initial accession branches currently closed to women.

Richard

Army Describes Plans For Integrating Women Into Combat
ArmyNews, 18 Jun 2013

No later than Jan. 1, 2016, women will be able to apply to all military occupational specialties, and to all Army units, across the total force.

"The Army is very excited about the approval of our implementation plan to move forward," said Maj. Gen. Howard Bromberg, Army G-1, during a June 18 multi-service briefing in the Pentagon.

Bromberg and representatives from the Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force and Special Operations Command explained how they would implement their specific plans to integrate women into all areas of military service.

The Army's plan, like the plans from other services, include first opening closed units to women, and then opening all closed military occupational specialties, or MOSs, to women.

CLOSED UNITS

Today in the Army, some combat units at battalion level and below are still closed to women. One of the first steps the Army will take is to open those closed units. This step will not involve opening closed MOSs to women, but rather, opening closed units to allow women to serve there in MOSs that are already open to both genders.

Already, the Army has made headway in this area, Bromberg said.

In 2012, the Army opened 14,000 positions in closed units to female Soldiers with the elimination of the "co-location restriction" through its "Exception to Policy" program. Women were assigned to maneuver battalion headquarters in nine brigade combat teams, known as BCTs, as an exception to the Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule.

This year, the Army has already signaled its intent to open an additional 6,000 positions within closed units. The Army will accomplish that by opening up an additional eight active-duty BCTs to women -- for a total of 17; nine Army National Guard BCTs; and also positions within special operations aviation.

In a plan submitted to the secretary of defense in April, Secretary of the Army John M. McHugh spelled out the details of the Army's way ahead to integrate women into closed units.

The Army will continue to open positions in closed units, initially within the headquarters of combat arms units such as infantry, armor and field artillery. The Army will also open headquarters positions to women in reconnaissance, surveillance, targeting and acquisition maneuver battalions.

For enlisted Soldiers, about 76 military occupational specialties that are open to both male and female Soldiers are represented within closed units. For officers, there are about 35 officer areas of concentration represented within closed units. And for warrant officers, there are 19 warrant officer military occupational specialties represented in closed units.

The Army will begin allowing women to move into positions within previously-closed units in early 2014, first with officers and non-commissioned officers, and then with junior Soldiers.

"The further assignment of women to companies and batteries below the level of headquarters will be based on assessments, deployment cycles and specific guidance," reads the implementation plan the Army sent forward to the secretary of defense. "This process will be completed at the end of calendar year 2014 and will provide the framework for opening positions that are currently closed to women."

OPENING NEW JOBS TO WOMEN

For occupations currently closed to women, the Army is planning on developing gender-neutral standards to ensure all Soldiers have fair access to jobs.

However, Bromberg said that it is important for the Army to ensure that the standards meet job requirements.

"Whatever that job or that occupational specialty, we have to make sure we have the requirements of that task established -- regardless of male or female," Bromberg said. "The worst thing we could do is change that standard for that position. We have to be absolutely certain that performance can be understood and applied in combat situations. This isn't to set anybody up for failure. This is all about success. We're calling it Soldier of 2020 -- it's not male Soldier or female Soldier."

Beginning in July 2014, the Army will first open military occupational specialties within the Army Engineer Branch. New opportunities for women there include combat engineer and combat engineer senior sergeant. Once those occupations open, the Army will assign female engineer officers and any reclassified NCOs to combat engineer companies. This will open up approximately 10,281 positions to women.

Beginning in the second quarter of fiscal year 2015, the Army will open previously-closed positions within the Field Artillery Branch. After that, opportunities for women will expand to include cannon crewmembers, field artillery automated tactical data systems, fire support specialists and field artillery senior sergeants. Within the Field Artillery Branch, the change will ultimately open about 15,941 jobs to women.

Additionally, the Army will open positions to women with the Armor Branch and the Infantry Branch. Positions there are numerous. Enlisted women will for the first time have the opportunity to serve as cavalry scouts, armor crewmen, infantrymen, and indirect-fire artillery. As a result of this change, about 90,640 positions will open for women in the Army.

Within the Armor Branch and the Infantry Branch, the Army will also offer junior officers and junior NCOs the opportunity to transfer branches or reclassify into these occupations as a way to build a cadre of experienced female Soldiers prior to the arrival of Soldiers who are new to the Army.

http://www.army.mil/article/105814

[sinjefe]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Yes, I have read that. I was discussing the book, not attempting to answer a specifically SF related question. As it stands, the entire topic of "Women in Combat" is not a SF-related topic itself, although SF, as well as other special operations units, has a distinctly difficult scenario.

To answer your post directly, I do not see why I should not comment on a book I have read, on a topic that directly affects me, and which is also not a uniquely SF-based question, or topic, or scenario, or what have you. It is discrete from the rules you have reference of this subforum.

A bit on the uppitty side especially considering you are talking to the owner of this site.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Yes, I have read that. I was discussing the book, not attempting to answer a specifically SF related question. As it stands, the entire topic of "Women in Combat" is not an SF-specific topic itself, although SF, as well as other special operations units, has a distinctly difficult scenario.

To answer your post directly, I do not see why I should not comment on a book I have read, on a topic that directly affects me, and which is also not a uniquely SF-based question, or topic, or scenario, or what have you. It is discrete from the rules you have reference of this subforum. If the rules really mean that you cannot partake in discussion without being part of the SF community then I apologize for not understanding that; however, if that's the case, then it is not stated in that manner whatsoever in those rules.

In case you're still unfamiliar with the site after being a member for two years, perhaps you should take a look around and note that there is a sub-forum specifically dedicated to discussing books, movies, television and other entertainment media. Surely during your service you've seen or experienced that popping off on a subject in the wrong place or at the wrong time may not be appropriate.

Just so you're aware, you can now either stop making excuses and move out smartly with an internal vow to figure out how things work here, or you can continue whining about how you don't think you're in the wrong, albeit somewhere other than here--your choice.

[Razor]

So, applying the same logic, how soon do you think it'll be before the service academies are required to eliminate separate men's and women's sports teams and only field gender-integrated teams, to include the intercollegiate football teams? Surely, if women can compete on equal footing with men on the battlefield, the sports field would follow suit, eliminating the need for expensive, duplicate teams in these days of fiscal constraint.

Sorry, I have to go...my hypocrisy alarm is shaking the whole house.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Yes, I have read that. I was discussing the book, not attempting to answer a specifically SF related question. As it stands, the entire topic of "Women in Combat" is not an SF-specific topic itself, although SF, as well as other special operations units, has a distinctly difficult scenario.

To answer your post directly, I do not see why I should not comment on a book I have read, on a topic that directly affects me, and which is also not a uniquely SF-based question, or topic, or scenario, or what have you. It is discrete from the rules you have reference of this subforum. If the rules really mean that you cannot partake in discussion without being part of the SF community then I apologize for not understanding that; however, if that's the case, then it is not stated in that manner whatsoever in those rules.

Of all the forums on here this is the only one that asks our (Special Forces) specific opinion. And if the question is worthy we answer. You are not the first to inadvertently answer on this forum and be warned afterward, nor I'm sure you will not be the last.

If you feel you the need to answer, then answer outside of this forum, a message or another thread, even an email would work. If you do not wish to follow our rules you are free to go somewhere else and be heard. We will not explain the rules again.

[SF_BHT]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

I am not uppity at all. I just do not think that I have in any way violated the rules as presented. My contention isn't personal and no disrespect is intended.

From what I understand, my commenting on the book is fine since I am not attempting to answer, for example, the original question of the thread which is an SF/SFAS specific question and which I obviously do not have the knowledge or experience to answer.

EDIT: To clarify things and to not sound like a douche, I made that post because I thought I was allowed to and because it was on a book, and a topic, that is really interesting to me. As a part of the USASOC/SOCOM/etc community, I feel pretty strongly about the topic and I like to encourage discussion about it with others in the same community. If I have misread or misunderstood the rules, then that is of course my fault. I'm not looking to make a stand here against a bunch of guys who call this their home when I do not. Just wanted, and thought I was able, to post the way I did on the topic that I did.

You know I want to say something but I hear a Helo coming up the valley. Wonder if is my exfil Helo or yours. We will see......

PS: Do not respond to me. hint Hint Hint...

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Razor

So, applying the same logic, how soon do you think it'll be before the service academies are required to eliminate separate men's and women's sports teams and only field gender-integrated teams, to include the intercollegiate football teams? .................

They'll never do that - they play football to win.

[MR2]

Originally Posted by Pete

They'll never do that - they play football to win.

And we fight wars to... Oh nevermind.

[SF_BHT]

Originally Posted by Dive08

You'd never know it, looking at em @_@

Are you going to go down the road of Dreadnought?

People pose a question for QP's and QP's answer here in this section.....

Do not hear the Helo yet....

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Pete

They'll never do that - they play football to win.

Would you mind letting Army know that's the objective?

[Chairborne64]

Well it seems that of the 5 female Marines that were going to try the Infantry Officer Course this time around only 2 reported in. These two also failed on the first event. That makes a 100% failure rate.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-infantry-cou/

[Mills]

Originally Posted by Chairborne64

Well it seems that of the 5 female Marines that were going to try the Infantry Officer Course this time around only 2 reported in. These two also failed on the first event. That makes a 100% failure rate.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-infantry-cou/

Is that prior to the new Gender Neutral standard?



They keep trying to sell this as a "good" thing. I am yet to speak with ANYONE in the regiment that supports women in SF. Everyone seems to be on the same page that "Gender neutral standards equal lower standards".