Women May Now Serve in Combat (U.S. Millitary)

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by Warfish

I tend to think it's fine. Being combat millitary is far more than Grunts with a 90 pound pack and an M-16 these days. As time goes on, it will be less and less about that, despite the doubters.

I agree that standards should not be eliminated or lowered, but I'd also say that the standards many are bandying about at not "average grunt", but "elite special forces ultrakiller" standards. The fact is, women are already in combat today, already meet the grunt standards, and already die in that service to our Country. This simply formalizes it, and opens access to those who qualify to the Special Forces Schools.

Take a look at history. When the USSR was on hte brink against the Nazi, plenty of women fought, and plenty of women killed Nazi's. I think the old "oh, women are fragile and must be protected by men, and they can never live up to what men can do" ideal is very, very outdated.

As long as standards are maintained, and maintained at appropriate levels for the jobs at hand, I don't care if it's man or women doing it. Equallity is a core belief, and this helps bring that to this area.

And if we ever face a draft, i.e. the oh ****, we're under attack moment, now we have twice the potential defenders than we had two days ago. As it should be, equallity isn't just about the good things, it's also the responsabillities too. No reason a woman cannot be handed a rifle and told she has to defend her country too today.

I am afraid the Army and Marines have not learned lessons from the Vietnam War. From a couple returnees I have spoken to and from observation of things seen on TV, the men are more overloaded than every with equipment. It IS more of a grunt effort. Without a widescale conflict, the use of artillery and tanks is more limited than ever and air is also less than in the IRaq and previous wars. It IS boots on the ground - grunts in the mud. If "Super Sally" can perform - fine.
I served some with Rangers in combat. I doubt there is one woman who could perform as a Ranger, let alone Special Forces, Delta or Seal.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

From a couple returnees I have spoken to and from observation of things seen on TV, the men are more overloaded than every with equipment.

Infantry.

There are many, many more "Combat" positions than Infantry today, many of whom do not bear that burden.

Again tho, I should stress, I do not support standards being reduced. I support women who can meet those standards have equal opportunity to bleed and die for our Country as a man does.

Without a widescale conflict, the use of artillery and tanks is more limited than ever and air is also less than in the Iraq and previous wars. It IS boots on the ground - grunts in the mud. If "Super Sally" can perform - fine.

What we're doing, in the majority, is effectively a Police Action. Women can be members of the police force, including SWAT, right now, with all the various gear they carry. I have no doubt in our Nation of 330 million, we have many women who can not only meet, but exceed, our standards requirements.

I doubt there is one woman who could perform as a Ranger, let alone Special Forces, Delta or Seal.

Agree to disagree. It is my opinion that this is an outdated viewpoint reflective of past ways of thinking about gender. The same general line of exclusion that once said minorities were too "dumb" to serve in our Millitary.

If the standards are maintained, I cannot see an objection that is not based on sexism tbqh.

[FF2®]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

I doubt there is one woman who could perform as a Ranger, let alone Special Forces, Delta or Seal.

You really have to get out more.

[SafetyBlitz]

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Infantry.

There are many, many more "Combat" positions than Infantry today, many of whom do not bear that burden.

Again tho, I should stress, I do not support standards being reduced. I support women who can meet those standards have equal opportunity to bleed and die for our Country as a man does.



What we're doing, in the majority, is effectively a Police Action. Women can be members of the police force, including SWAT, right now, with all the various gear they carry. I have no doubt in our Nation of 330 million, we have many women who can not only meet, but exceed, our standards requirements.



Agree to disagree. It is my opinion that this is an outdated viewpoint reflective of past ways of thinking about gender. The same general line of exclusion that once said minorities were too "dumb" to serve in our Millitary.

If the standards are maintained, I cannot see an objection that is not based on sexism tbqh.

There are actually ONLY three branches of the Army considered combat arms - infantry, armor and artillery. Period. These are the areas which had barred women. Of the other (many) branches, women have been eligible for a long time.
Obviously anybody at any time can come under fire. Nurses, doctors and lawyers (yes they are everywhere).
Helicopter pilots can be women.
Truck drivers can be women. Yes they can draw fire. BUT, their primary duty is not that. Everybody is not roaring around the countryside looking for a fiirefight. Less than 25% of a large force is designated to actually fight.
Fighting still requires stamina, mobility and strength. If a women meets the necessary standard - fine. But, I am a "show me" person.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by FF2®

You really have to get out more.

Really? And you know exactly what about women and their physical abilities? Or about Army Rangers? Have you EVER been to a women's sporting event at any level?
You KNOW what a Ranger's training and regimen is?
You can BS a lot of areas but this isn't one of them.

I do attend college sporting events on a regular basis. Since I have a D1 coach I get freebies - mens and womens.

From a women's perspective, soccer players are good all around athletes - but even the best are hardly big enough to endure the rigors. Women basketball players are just a step below.
I am all for equality for women. In school, in business and the job market and in pay. I am not for getting them killed because they are a step below. Or getting their fellow soldiers killed. Common sense. Not PC.

[detjetsfan]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

I am afraid the Army and Marines have not learned lessons from the Vietnam War. From a couple returnees I have spoken to and from observation of things seen on TV, the men are more overloaded than every with equipment. It IS more of a grunt effort. Without a widescale conflict, the use of artillery and tanks is more limited than ever and air is also less than in the IRaq and previous wars. It IS boots on the ground - grunts in the mud. If "Super Sally" can perform - fine.
I served some with Rangers in combat. I doubt there is one woman who could perform as a Ranger, let alone Special Forces, Delta or Seal.

I agree. People who have no idea how a light infantry unit functions love this move because they have no idea. We're going to ask a 150lb female to carry more than her weight in equipment plus IOTV plus weapons? Ok.

And how about training? Combat Arms units are in the field 5 months out of the year. Women have hygiene issues that prevent them from being in the field for an extended amount of times plus Commanders and 1st Sergeants are going to have sexual harrasment and soldier misconduct through the roof. Women can have certain jobs in combat arms units like driving vehicles I suppose but to be regular combat soldier? And the next thing is they're going to want Ranger and SF training. Oh boy.

[detjetsfan]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

Really? And you know exactly what about women and their physical abilities? Or about Army Rangers? Have you EVER been to a women's sporting event at any level?
You KNOW what a Ranger's training and regimen is?
You can BS a lot of areas but this isn't one of them.

I do attend college sporting events on a regular basis. Since I have a D1 coach I get freebies - mens and womens.

From a women's perspective, soccer players are good all around athletes - but even the best are hardly big enough to endure the rigors. Women basketball players are just a step below.
I am all for equality for women. In school, in business and the job market and in pay. I am not for getting them killed because they are a step below. Or getting their fellow soldiers killed. Common sense. Not PC.

I'm all for women's equality too and I even supported eliminating DADT but this is just not the right move and I wouldn't be surprised if the restriction was put back up in a few years. Women were able to function in combat in Iraq and Afghan b/c they weren't real in the field most of the time they on the FOB eating KBR ice cream like most troops and whenever they did go out it was in up-armored vehicles.

But if there is ever another war fought primarily by light infantry in an austere this idea is going to go out the window. I guarantee it.

[PatriotReign]

Women should be given the same opportunity to apply to the specialized units (SEAL, Rangers, etc) as long as they adhere to the exact same training and acceptance requirements as males. I doubt many if any would make it simply because there are much stronger men in tri athlete shape who routinely wash out. I'm not sure of the exact stat but IIRC its a single digit percentage of male applicants who are accepted to the SEALS, et al.

If any female files a lawsuit claiming the entrance requirements are sexist or unfair they lose all credibility relative to being accepted as true equal within that unit.

[PatriotReign]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Women can be members of the police force, including SWAT, right now, with all the various gear they carry. I have no doubt in our Nation of 330 million, we have many women who can not only meet, but exceed, our standards requirements.

32g want to tackle this chestnut?


...nah, me niether.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by PatriotReign

......as long as they adhere to the exact same training and acceptance requirements as males.

Agreed.

With the caveat that the training and acceptance requirements are appropriate for the work to be done.

I.e. Pissing on something three feet away is not appropriate to the work, but would be a great way to eliminate 100% of women applicants.

Same goes for any position, in any field IMO. I do not support (for example) affirmative action that unequals any given playing field, regardless of the high intentions behind it.

[FF2®]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

Really? And you know exactly what about women and their physical abilities? Or about Army Rangers? Have you EVER been to a women's sporting event at any level?
You KNOW what a Ranger's training and regimen is?
You can BS a lot of areas but this isn't one of them.

I do attend college sporting events on a regular basis. Since I have a D1 coach I get freebies - mens and womens.

From a women's perspective, soccer players are good all around athletes - but even the best are hardly big enough to endure the rigors. Women basketball players are just a step below.
I am all for equality for women. In school, in business and the job market and in pay. I am not for getting them killed because they are a step below. Or getting their fellow soldiers killed. Common sense. Not PC.

Have I ever been to a woman's sporting ever at any level?

You ask funny questions.

You stated that there was not a single woman capable of being a Seal or Ranger. Thats just silly. and has nothing to do with watching a soccer game.

But congrats on your free tickets.

[long island leprechaun]

Originally Posted by detjetsfan

I agree. People who have no idea how a light infantry unit functions love this move because they have no idea. We're going to ask a 150lb female to carry more than her weight in equipment plus IOTV plus weapons? Ok.

And how about training? Combat Arms units are in the field 5 months out of the year. Women have hygiene issues that prevent them from being in the field for an extended amount of times plus Commanders and 1st Sergeants are going to have sexual harrasment and soldier misconduct through the roof. Women can have certain jobs in combat arms units like driving vehicles I suppose but to be regular combat soldier? And the next thing is they're going to want Ranger and SF training. Oh boy.

I think your points are fair, but extremely narrowly focused. The real question is, what is defined by the military as a "combat" position. And what impact does it have on women in their ability to advance in the military if they are excluded across the board from such positions? From SWAN interview:

The ban has excluded women from about 238,000 positions.
Those positions are too many to name, of course, but include things that go beyond ground combat, like serving as para-rescue jumpers or combat air controllers in the Air Force, for example. Many of the till-now off-limits jobs prepare service members for more advanced assignments later in their careers, and that's created a talent drain. Kind of like a "brass ceiling," noted Anne M. Coughlin, while speaking to Melissa Block on NPR. Coughlin, a professor at the University of Virginia Law School whose research inspired a lawsuit brought by two women in the Army Reserve, said, "80 percent of the leadership positions in the military are drawn from the combat arms specialties. And women just can't have those specialties. And so that means that they just can't advance through the ranks and up the hierarchy in the same way that their male counterparts can."

Are you really arguing that women cannot fill ANY of the above positions? Obviously not. Whether a few women can be Rangers or SEALs is constructing the issue in an artificial way. But there are real questions about serving in ground level infantry positions and what will happen re hygiene, fraternization, pregnancy, etc.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by FF2®

Have I ever been to a woman's sporting ever at any level?

You ask funny questions.

You stated that there was not a single woman capable of being a Seal or Ranger. Thats just silly. and has nothing to do with watching a soccer game.

But congrats on your free tickets.

Surprised you didn't add an anti Catholic comment.
Look at performance data for athletes. A decent HS male athlete performs at a better level than the best women athletes in the world - in any track event, in swimming, in weight lifting. In any objective measured event.
Start thinking instead of getting fatter.
Women can do some things very well. Being a combat soldier is not one of them. They would be a liability to their unit.

[Buster]

One of the reasons to do this is to increase the pool of folks who can make the cut.



http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/0...-chow-092710w/

...
The changes inherent to Soldier Athlete are increasingly necessary as the Army is faced with an increasingly obese and unhealthy recruiting pool, Hertling said.

“We are only able to recruit about 25 percent of the population pool because the other 75 percent are too obese, have mental issues or a criminal past,” he said. “So the ones we’re really looking at are not in as good of shape as they were in the past.”

The obesity rate among 17- to 24-year-olds has increased from 14 percent to 23 percent in the past 10 years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. From 1998 to 2008, the number of states in which 40 percent or more of young adults are overweight or obese grew from one to 39. The fact is not lost on Hertling, who described the negative trends he has seen in the ability of new soldiers to pass the entry-level fitness test that includes one minute of sit-ups, one minute of push-ups and a one-mile run.
...

[Warfish]

What this gives me hope for is that we'll soon move beyond th segregationist, sexist, seperate-but-not-equal of High School and College Sports, to a system of "One Team, One Sport, Equal Access" sporting in our education system.

Have a Basketball Team? Great, men and women are equal, and can equally try out for the one school team. No more "Men's This" or "Women's That", thats pure text book sexism and sex descrimination. Want a Field Hockey team? Great, man and women can try out, best players make the team. It's about the abillity and character of the athlete, not their sexual reproductive organs, isn't it?

We'd finally have some equallity in our school sports, would no longer have the segreationist/sexist Title 9 issue lingering on, and sports would truly be the ebst of the ebst in every field, not a limited team based purely on whats between the players legs.

Equallity is long overdue in this sphere as well, and I think this (women in the Millitary) is a good step towards that equallity and end to segregation based on sexism.

[isired]

I think we'd still have trouble with the East German women.

[Jasper17]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

Look at performance data for athletes. A decent HS male athlete performs at a better level than the best women athletes in the world - in any track event, in swimming, in weight lifting. In any objective measured event.

By this logic, any "decent" male HS track-runner out sprints Gold-Medal winning Allison Felix.

Yea, I suppose that's believable.

Except that the 2012 Westchester County 200m Boys' Champ ran 22.08 and Felix ran 21.88 in London.

The "best" 200m sprinter in Westchester County (no track slouches mind you) would not have beat one of the "best women athletes in the world." Therefore, I suggest it would not be nearly as simple as you suppose that a "decent" male would beat her.

Ultimately, women (by-and-large) are not going to be able to sustain the testing/selection/training processes of these SOFs so the whole debate about women "not being able to handle it" is moot.

However, if they CAN prove they can meet/exceed the standards of their male counterparts, and can sustain the training regimen, why not? Best of the best yes? If they are better or as good as males who pass selection and can endure operational pace, why not?

Again, I'll reiterate, I don't believe many if any women will be able to qualify even to test for these groups, but just because you don't want to share your toys because girls have cooties is foolish.

[detjetsfan]

Originally Posted by long island leprechaun

I think your points are fair, but extremely narrowly focused. The real question is, what is defined by the military as a "combat" position. And what impact does it have on women in their ability to advance in the military if they are excluded across the board from such positions? From SWAN interview:

The ban has excluded women from about 238,000 positions.
Those positions are too many to name, of course, but include things that go beyond ground combat, like serving as para-rescue jumpers or combat air controllers in the Air Force, for example. Many of the till-now off-limits jobs prepare service members for more advanced assignments later in their careers, and that's created a talent drain. Kind of like a "brass ceiling," noted Anne M. Coughlin, while speaking to Melissa Block on NPR. Coughlin, a professor at the University of Virginia Law School whose research inspired a lawsuit brought by two women in the Army Reserve, said, "80 percent of the leadership positions in the military are drawn from the combat arms specialties. And women just can't have those specialties. And so that means that they just can't advance through the ranks and up the hierarchy in the same way that their male counterparts can."

Are you really arguing that women cannot fill ANY of the above positions? Obviously not. Whether a few women can be Rangers or SEALs is constructing the issue in an artificial way. But there are real questions about serving in ground level infantry positions and what will happen re hygiene, fraternization, pregnancy, etc.

You need a further analysis of the stat "238,000 positions".

Subdivide it among the combat arms MOS's in the Army and Marine Corps. You'll find that in both of those services women can serve in about 80-90% of MOS's. Female Officers can be in about 60-70% of branch specilties. The "positions" are slots in combat arms units that range from PVT all the way up to 4-Star general. So really the "238,000" stat is misleading and makes it sound like women can't do anything in the military except run a daycare center back in the rear when in fact they are already allowed to do almost everything.

Do I think there are no women who can do an infantry MOS? No there are some but it is very few and far between. The women who have engaged in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan have had the benefit of a mature theater where they did not have to live weeks even months in an austere environment like soldiers in Vietnam, Korea and both World Wars.

[FF2®]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

Women can do some things very well. Being a combat soldier is not one of them.

Until they have the opportunity, you really cant make that assessment.

Despite your deep knowledge on women's soccer.