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

[24]

I don't know how some even make this an "equal rights" issue. We should not be putting our women in situations like this.

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by 24

I don't know how some even make this an "equal rights" issue. We should not be putting our women in situations like this.

Some of them want to do it...

[long island leprechaun]

Originally Posted by 24

I don't know how some even make this an "equal rights" issue. We should not be putting our women in situations like this.

As I said earlier, there are 238 different positions that are considered "combat," not just grunt infantry. So when you say "situations like this," I don't think you're considering the whole range of possibilities.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by 24

I don't know how some even make this an "equal rights" issue. We should not be putting our women in situations like this.

Equality means equal access to opportunity under the Law (for those who wish to seek it) AND equal responsabillity TO the State under the Law.

[long island leprechaun]

Some news clippings to clarify the issues... also indication of how difficult it will be for women to meet requirements for some units...

Pentagon policy restricting women from serving in combat on the ground was modified in 1994, according to the Congressional Research Service. Women cannot be assigned below the brigade level — a unit of about 3,500 troops — to fight on the ground. Effectively, that has barred women from infantry, artillery, armor, combat engineers and special operations units of battalion size — about 700 troops — or lower.
Positions now closed to women in the Air Force are combat control; combat rescue and special tactics; and special operations weather officer positions for commissioned officers, and the combat control, tactical air command and control, pararescue and special operations weather specialties for enlisted airmen. These career fields represent about 3,235 positions, officials said.
Rescinding the direct ground-combat exclusion allows the Navy to expand opportunities for women in its riverine forces and in billets that directly support Marine infantry operations, such as hospital corpsmen and chaplains, Mabus noted. He also pointed out that the Marine Corps -- which is part of the Navy Department -- already has opened officer and staff noncommissioned officer billets in unrestricted mission occupational specialties in ground combat units that were previously closed to women, such as artillery, armor, low-altitude air defense and combat engineer battalions.

The necessities of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, propelled women into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers that were sometimes attached — but not formally assigned — to battalions. So while a woman couldn't be assigned as an infantryman in a battalion going out on patrol, she could fly the helicopter supporting the unit, or move in to provide medical aid if troops were injured.
And these conflicts, where battlefield lines are blurred and insurgents can lurk around every corner, have made it almost impossible to keep women clear of combat.
Still, as recent surveys and experiences have shown, it will not be an easy transition. When the Marine Corps sought women to go through its tough infantry course last year, two volunteered and both failed to complete the course. And there may not be a wide clamoring from women for the more intense, dangerous and difficult jobs, including some infantry and commando positions.

[FF2®]

Originally Posted by 24

I don't know how some even make this an "equal rights" issue. We should not be putting our women in situations like this.

They are not "our women".

[24]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Equality means equal access to opportunity under the Law (for those who wish to seek it) AND equal responsabillity TO the State under the Law.

Fine. If you want to put women in combat go ahead. But that means they need to begin holding women to the same guidelines as men in physical training tests etc. Because right now, they don't.

[24]

Originally Posted by FF2®

They are not "our women".

Whatever that means..

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by 24

Whatever that means..

He's taking a common phrase that you used that means one thing, and making it seem like you meant it in a totally sexist and demeaning way. That's what they do.

[long island leprechaun]

Originally Posted by 24

Fine. If you want to put women in combat go ahead. But that means they need to begin holding women to the same guidelines as men in physical training tests etc. Because right now, they don't.

Do you have any evidence that this is true? I posted above the following:

Still, as recent surveys and experiences have shown, it will not be an easy transition. When the Marine Corps sought women to go through its tough infantry course last year, two volunteered and both failed to complete the course. And there may not be a wide clamoring from women for the more intense, dangerous and difficult jobs, including some infantry and commando positions.

Doesn't look like women are being given a free pass...

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by JetPotato

He's taking a common phrase that you used that means one thing, and making it seem like you meant it in a totally sexist and demeaning way. That's what they do.

Hate to break with tradition Tater, but I'm going to agree with FF on this one.

I think his use of "our women" in this context was absolutely sexism/chauvinism in action.

[24]

Originally Posted by JetPotato

He's taking a common phrase that you used that means one thing, and making it seem like you meant it in a totally sexist and demeaning way. That's what they do.

I meant it in the way I mean that I don't think "OUR SONS" should be sent to fight illegal wars.

[24]

Originally Posted by long island leprechaun

Do you have any evidence that this is true? I posted above the following:

Still, as recent surveys and experiences have shown, it will not be an easy transition. When the Marine Corps sought women to go through its tough infantry course last year, two volunteered and both failed to complete the course. And there may not be a wide clamoring from women for the more intense, dangerous and difficult jobs, including some infantry and commando positions.

Doesn't look like women are being given a free pass...

The Marines may be different. What I do know is that not only women, but also older men are not held to the same standards as younger men as well.

[24]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Hate to break with tradition Tater, but I'm going to agree with FF on this one.

I think his use of "our women" in this context was absolutely sexism/chauvinism in action.

You are insane. Guess it comes with the territory on internet messageboards. Making outrageous assumptions. I meant our fellow citizens, our mothers, daughters, and sisters.. Gosh, you guys are too much.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by 24

You are insane. Guess it comes with the territory on internet messageboards. Making outrageous assumptions. I meant our fellow citizens, our mothers, daughters, and sisters.. Gosh, you guys are too much.

Sure you did Archie Bunker.

[24]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Sure you did Archie Bunker.

Typical Liberal!

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by 24

Typical Liberal!

Absolutely, ask anyone here, I am like, totally a typical liberal.

For serious.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by Jasper17

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.

Sorry to break the news to you but Westchester is not a mecca for any sport.
I said DECENT track or swimming athlete.
Look at the numbers from FL, TX, CA, SC, NJ - almost anywhere.
As far as women on the police force or SWAT teams- I don't think standards should be watered down. And in all deference to 32green, while a police officer's job is no picnic, it pales in comparison to a combat infantry assignment but in terms of length of activity and physical demand. Still, I feel for LE officers who go into action with anyone not FULLY up to what may be needed.
When lives are on the line, we must be ABSOLUTELY SELECTIVE. If someone feels put out - tough.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by 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.

Here is where I must disagree. If it was one sport, everyone tries out, there would be no women in sports and no women's sport at all at any level.
Title 9 sometimes gets carried too far, but it inssures women have someplace to compete. That's good. Gives them a chance to excel and demonstrate leadership and other skills. Long term that's good for them in whatever career.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by FF2®

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

Despite your deep knowledge on women's soccer.

I know more about" objectively graded" sports like track and field and swimming.
Women are not at the same level physically. FACT. Indispuatable.
Strength, endurance and speed are the cornerstone of a good COMBAT soldier.
There are still plenty of jobs in the military for the less fit.