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

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by long island leprechaun

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.

238? Really?
Infantry, armor and artillery. There are sub designations within each. Rifleman, mortarman, machine gunner etc.
If you are in an infantry company- you are able to perform ALL the tasks in that unit except perhaps lead it.
Artillery is the same. A gunner starts as an ammo handler and moves up.
Every person in a unit (including officers) are expected to be able to handle ammo as necessary.

Now there are jobs in Signal and Enginneers. MP, Transportation, supply, intelligence, Air defense, finance etc etc
A woman can be a pilot - including a gunship pilot. But that is actually not considered a combat arm - strange.

[parafly]

It's hilarious reading comments from some of the usual suspects concerning what's best for all women.

With the repeal of DADT and now the eligibility of women in combat roles, it's good to see the military progressing into a more modern era. It is very difficult to move up the military ranks without combat experience. Women will finally have an equal opportunity to determine their own military career path.

[PatriotReign]

Originally Posted by Warfish

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.

I understand your point but there won't be a pee distance requirement it will be something far more subtle that will be deemed as sexist. Not exactly the same but the police entry level PT test was changed in my state because females were flunking it in droves because they could not climb over a 5' wall. There was talk that it was sexist in that its a known fact that females don't have the same upper body strength as their male counterparts.

The powers that be subsequently affixed a board at the midway point of wall for females to step on for leverage as they climbed over the wall. On one hand you could argue that's dumb as cops may have to climb walls to pursue fleeing suspects OTOH you could argue that wall climbing isn't an essential function of being a cop. My point is it's a slippery slope sometimes as to what is deemed appropriate training toward a given assignment/unit.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by PatriotReign

I understand your point but there won't be a pee distance requirement it will be something far more subtle that will be deemed as sexist. Not exactly the same but the police entry level PT test was changed in my state because females were flunking it in droves because they could not climb over a 5' wall. There was talk that it was sexist in that its a known fact that females don't have the same upper body strength as their male counterparts.

The powers that be subsequently affixed a board at the midway point of wall for females to step on for leverage as they climbed over the wall. On one hand you could argue that's dumb as cops may have to climb walls to pursue fleeing suspects OTOH you could argue that wall climbing isn't an essential function of being a cop. My point is it's a slippery slope sometimes as to what is deemed appropriate training toward a given assignment/unit.

TLDR: In the real world, the next step will be lawsuits by women claiming the requirements for entry are too strict. They'll win, and the requirements will be lowered. Simple as that.

The details are irrelavnt, this is the future. Like amnesty for the 20 odd million illegals and 20 odd million more coming soon, we all may as well get used to it. Liberalism/Collectivism/Progressivism won. War's over, the right simply just doesn't know it yet.

[PatriotReign]

Originally Posted by Warfish

TLDR:

My post was too long to read? Geez fish...

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by PatriotReign

My post was too long to read? Geez fish...

No, not really, but it allowed me to sumarize (quickly) where I think it'll go asap now, without doing my usual long-winded reply-to-every-point-via-quote thing. Sorry.

[24]

Originally Posted by Warfish

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

For serious.

Just saying, Liberals are the ones who love to jump on the race card or bigot card on just about everything. It's their favorite tactic.

[24]

Originally Posted by Warfish

TLDR: In the real world, the next step will be lawsuits by women claiming the requirements for entry are too strict. They'll win, and the requirements will be lowered. Simple as that.

The details are irrelavnt, this is the future. Like amnesty for the 20 odd million illegals and 20 odd million more coming soon, we all may as well get used to it. Liberalism/Collectivism/Progressivism won. War's over, the right simply just doesn't know it yet.

They didn't win. They cheated. The fooled the population by offering them bread and circus. Trust me, this isn't over.

[Winstonbiggs]

Push botton warefare, robotics, unwomaned drones. Don't see the issue with Hal or Hale going to war.

[JetPotato]

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.

By "our", I assume he meant "America's"

Much in the same way you'd say "our soldiers" or "our citizens".

[PatriotReign]

[detjetsfan]

Originally Posted by parafly

It's hilarious reading comments from some of the usual suspects concerning what's best for all women.

With the repeal of DADT and now the eligibility of women in combat roles, it's good to see the military progressing into a more modern era. It is very difficult to move up the military ranks without combat experience. Women will finally have an equal opportunity to determine their own military career path.

The Army already has many General Officers who are women and tens of thousands of female officers. Almost all females in the Army and Marines have had the opportunity to get "combat experience" being deployed into Iraq and Afghanistan - as long as they didn't dodge the rotations like alot of servicemembers do.

The issue here that most Americans on both sides don't understand is that there really are jobs left in the Ground Forces that cannot be done by females. I voted twice for Obama and consider myself a social liberal and yet I will always recognize that fact because I know it's true.

[detjetsfan]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

238? Really?
Infantry, armor and artillery. There are sub designations within each. Rifleman, mortarman, machine gunner etc.
If you are in an infantry company- you are able to perform ALL the tasks in that unit except perhaps lead it.
Artillery is the same. A gunner starts as an ammo handler and moves up.
Every person in a unit (including officers) are expected to be able to handle ammo as necessary.

Now there are jobs in Signal and Enginneers. MP, Transportation, supply, intelligence, Air defense, finance etc etc
A woman can be a pilot - including a gunship pilot. But that is actually not considered a combat arm - strange.

Aviation and Air Defense are considered Combat Arms branches that have been open to women for the past few decades. MP is unofficially combat arms and in Iraq and Afghan transportation became semi-combat arms. I cringe at the thought of women riding bs profiles interrupting training or missions for a rifle company.