#1 Posted by Songi (55 posts) - - Show Bio

Any thoughts on this? Good or bad move?

"WASHINGTON (AP) — 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 prohibiting 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.

A senior military official says the services will develop plans for allowing women to seek the combat positions. Some jobs may open as soon as this year. Assessments for others, such as special operations forces, including Navy SEALS and the Army's Delta Force, may take longer.

The official said the military chiefs must report back to Panetta with their initial implementation plans by May 15. The announcement on Panetta's decision is not expected until Thursday, so the official spoke on condition of anonymity.

Panetta's move expands the Pentagon's action nearly a year ago to open about 14,500 combat positions to women, nearly all of them in the Army. This decision could open more than 230,000 jobs, many in Army and Marine infantry units, to women.

In recent years the necessities of war propelled women into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers that were sometimes attached — but not formally assigned — to units on the front lines.

Women comprise 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel."

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-sources-panetta-opens-combat-roles-women-203034238--politics.html

#2 Posted by _Zombie_ (10312 posts) - - Show Bio

I'd say it's about goddamn time.

#3 Posted by Living_Monstrosity (428 posts) - - Show Bio

So is the military going to lower its standards for the women who want to enter combat with the men? I'm all for women joining if they can pass the exact same tests and not some watered-down version that accounts for physiological differences. If they want to join combat with the men they should be held to the exact same standard, otherwise this just hurts our military.

#4 Posted by Pyrogram (34998 posts) - - Show Bio

@Living_Monstrosity said:

So is the military going to lower its standards for the women who want to enter combat with the men? I'm all for women joining if they can pass the exact same tests and not some watered-down version that accounts for physiological differences. If they want to join combat with the men they should be held to the exact same standard, otherwise this just hurts our military.

THIS, this has affected the police in the UK and standards have gone down, I am talking from experience not armchair critic.

Online
#5 Posted by Nova`Prime` (4157 posts) - - Show Bio

The title of this thread is misleading. Women have been in combat for the last decade, but they were not in combat roles, which this opens up and for the worse if I might add. Women have lower standards then the men, but have an easier time making rank. So this is just going to foster animosity between squadmates, and not to mention the fact that women make up such a small portion of the armed forces and just about every role they have occupied has brought the readiness of those commands down. Hell every air craft carrier that goes to sea doesn't have its complete crew compliment because a number of women are being left behind due to being pregnant and many more are air lifted off because they got pregnant.

#6 Posted by Goldenboy_Prime (172 posts) - - Show Bio

So are they going to abolish selective services or are women going to be incorporated? I mean, we are doing this for equality right? Nothing says equal like the potential to be drafted... or not drafted.

#7 Posted by Blood1991 (8098 posts) - - Show Bio

@_Zombie_ said:

I'd say it's about goddamn time.

#8 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (17560 posts) - - Show Bio

Cool.

So does this also mean the whole you cant hit a women argument because they are a women stop now?

I do wish the UK would follow suit,as long as it is kept equal and both men and women are exposed to equally intense training.

#9 Posted by Necrotic_Lycanthrope (2388 posts) - - Show Bio

So women have never been allowed in the armed forces before?

Give me a break.

#10 Posted by VercingetorixTheGreat (2823 posts) - - Show Bio

@Living_Monstrosity said:

So is the military going to lower its standards for the women who want to enter combat with the men? I'm all for women joining if they can pass the exact same tests and not some watered-down version that accounts for physiological differences. If they want to join combat with the men they should be held to the exact same standard, otherwise this just hurts our military.

#11 Posted by ImmortalT1000 (3170 posts) - - Show Bio

@Blood1991 said:

@_Zombie_ said:

I'd say it's about goddamn time.

#12 Posted by Pyrogram (34998 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Cool.

So does this also mean the whole you cant hit a women argument because they are a women stop now?

I do wish the UK would follow suit,as long as it is kept equal and both men and women are exposed to equally intense training.

Women are allowed front line in the UK?

Online
#13 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (32631 posts) - - Show Bio

@Pyrogram said:

@Living_Monstrosity said:

So is the military going to lower its standards for the women who want to enter combat with the men? I'm all for women joining if they can pass the exact same tests and not some watered-down version that accounts for physiological differences. If they want to join combat with the men they should be held to the exact same standard, otherwise this just hurts our military.

THIS, this has affected the police in the UK and standards have gone down, I am talking from experience not armchair critic.

That's something that actually pissed me off about the (British) Army, the fitness tests for females are less than the ones for males.

Online
#14 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (32631 posts) - - Show Bio

@Pyrogram said:

@mrdecepticonleader said:

Cool.

So does this also mean the whole you cant hit a women argument because they are a women stop now?

I do wish the UK would follow suit,as long as it is kept equal and both men and women are exposed to equally intense training.

Women are allowed front line in the UK?

That's misleading, females are aloud on the front line but they are not aloud in the infantry

Online
#15 Posted by Pyrogram (34998 posts) - - Show Bio

@Jonny_Anonymous: Whats the difference, they are allowed on tour with the infantry and face the same challenges so meh.

Online
#16 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (32631 posts) - - Show Bio

@Pyrogram said:

@Jonny_Anonymous: Whats the difference, they are allowed on tour with the infantry and face the same challenges so meh.

that is true.

Online
#17 Posted by Rogan2112 (600 posts) - - Show Bio

@Living_Monstrosity said:

So is the military going to lower its standards for the women who want to enter combat with the men? I'm all for women joining if they can pass the exact same tests and not some watered-down version that accounts for physiological differences. If they want to join combat with the men they should be held to the exact same standard, otherwise this just hurts our military.

What Living said. I will give an example of women "working with the infantry though". My best friend was on patrol and a "field qualified" female interpreter was attached to them. A dog ran up to them and the intepreter started screaming, so my friend shot the dog. She got mad and outraged that he did this...He..needless to say was incredulous and mad (I should mention he's not the most polite guy in the world) And pointedly told her that not only had she given away their position by screaming, but he probably woudn't have had to shoot the dog if she HADN'T been screaming, because more than likely they'd have just ignored it or shooed it away unless it actuall tried to attack one of them. I could go on for quite awhile about why I think this is in general, not that great an idea. I could probably deal with it however, if the female standards were brought up, and some kind of FAIR penalty (don't ask me what, it's above my pay grade) for the massive number of females who suddenly get pregnant juuuuuuussst before a deployment happens, As usual, just my two cents.

Pax

#18 Posted by V_Scarlotte_Rose (6088 posts) - - Show Bio

@Rogan2112: What's being a woman got to do with being frightened of a dog?

Getting pregnant seems like a bit of an extreme way to be excuse from fighting, and probably tricky to plan.

#19 Posted by YourNeighborhoodComicGeek (19908 posts) - - Show Bio

@VercingetorixTheGreat said:

@Living_Monstrosity said:

So is the military going to lower its standards for the women who want to enter combat with the men? I'm all for women joining if they can pass the exact same tests and not some watered-down version that accounts for physiological differences. If they want to join combat with the men they should be held to the exact same standard, otherwise this just hurts our military.

I agree extremely.

And weren't woman already allowed to go into combat?

#20 Posted by Rogan2112 (600 posts) - - Show Bio

@V_Scarlotte_Rose: Fear of a dog is not a problem per se, the sort of reaction to a person's fear of a dog could get your fellow soldier's killed, quite dead. Yes, male soldiers have also reacted inappropriately in the field, but MY experiences have shown them to either be from bad instincts (say, sticking your head above a broken wall to see what's on the next street), to general freaking out during combat (which can happen to ANYone...I don't care what any RAMBO wannabe tells you). Point is (and yes of course it's bound to have happened at SOME point in time), but I've never ever heard of a male service member freaking out (to the point of placing their fellow troops in harms way), and THEN getting pissed at the person who neutralized the problem that the service member started. I've met some ABSOLUTELY astounding female soldiers, but I'm sorry (and of course this is simply ONE person's opinion) very VERY few I'd feel comfortable going into combat with.

As for the pregnancy thing...very simple...ask ANY Soldier, Marine, Sailor, or Airmen you know or can find to ask (even a female) and ask if the "pregnancy event" prior to deployment isn't a very common occurance.

At any rate, the word has come down and it's going to happen anyway, the best we can hope for is that they at LEAST raise the training and physical fitness standards to that of the males they will be working with, supporting, and who's lives they will be partially responsible for.

If there's ever any justice in the world...Pax

#21 Posted by turoksonofstone (13199 posts) - - Show Bio

@_Zombie_ said:

I'd say it's about goddamn time.

lol russian women were in combat as early as WWII

#22 Posted by Rogan2112 (600 posts) - - Show Bio

@turoksonofstone: Very true. Anyone who could shoot and be stuffed in a uniform saw service (often frontline service) in WW2, pretty much out of desperation. A. They no longer have women in their combat arms units. B. In WW2 the Russians also marched their own soldiers across mine fields in order to "clear" the mine fields. I (and the U.S. military typically don't follow former Soviet military doctrine too closely...well...other than how to defeat it)

#23 Posted by V_Scarlotte_Rose (6088 posts) - - Show Bio

@Rogan2112:I don't feel that this interpreters reaction can be attributed to being a woman, some people just freak out at dogs. But if they're absolutely astounding, why would you feel uncomfortable going into combat with them? Surely absolutely astounding soldiers are the best kind?

I suppose it's like the female equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot or leg to get out of it.

It does make sense to have the same basic standards for male and female soldiers, but if there's a good reason for either to be treated slightly differently, that's probably O.K.(I don't know what a good reason would be though, I don't know much about this sort of thing.)

#24 Posted by minigunman123 (3116 posts) - - Show Bio

@turoksonofstone said:

@_Zombie_ said:

I'd say it's about goddamn time.

lol russian women were in combat as early as WWII

And there army sucks ass, their usual tactic is just to throw more soon-to-be-dead bodies at a war to win.

Women are always given more leniency in physical training in these things, they are given similar but not equal training, for example, in the marines, women do bent elbow bar hangs in initial training, which are essentially hanging from a chinup/pullup bar with your elbows bent. It is challenging, but the men are doing the much more gruelling pullups and chinups instead. That's just one example of how women are held to a lower standard in our military.

And, simply biologically speaking, men are usually the more physically powerful/strong/tough gender, and have more potential than the women to become tougher harder better faster stronger (say that three times fast). Case in point, look at a female body builder. Then look at Kai Greene.

The post on page 1 about the woman screaming at seeing a dog is really appalling though... Did she not have the willpower to stifle her scream or something? Jesus. It's like she didn't care about her team at all, if that's the way it happened.

#25 Posted by Xanni15 (6758 posts) - - Show Bio

Out of the kitchen and onto the front-lines, huh?

#26 Posted by Nova`Prime` (4157 posts) - - Show Bio

@Xanni15 said:

Out of the kitchen and onto the front-lines, huh?

Even combat troops needs sammichs made.

#27 Posted by Rogan2112 (600 posts) - - Show Bio

@V_Scarlotte_Rose said:

@Rogan2112:I don't feel that this interpreters reaction can be attributed to being a woman, some people just freak out at dogs. But if they're absolutely astounding, why would you feel uncomfortable going into combat with them? Surely absolutely astounding soldiers are the best kind?

I suppose it's like the female equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot or leg to get out of it.

It does make sense to have the same basic standards for male and female soldiers, but if there's a good reason for either to be treated slightly differently, that's probably O.K.(I don't know what a good reason would be though, I don't know much about this sort of thing.)

I obviously can not say with any real certainty that the interpreter's gender accounted for her screaming, I CAN say I never encountered or heard of a male doing anything similar. Freezing up, or reacting incorectly to a threat...yes. Doing something that foolish, no. Though, you can be sure either gender will get pissy with someone else for doing something (like shooting a dog) that offends their sensiblities...but in THAT situation I'm SORT of willing to forgive her because she was still sort of freaked out.

As for the absolutely astounding female soldiers I knew...out of the score or more I encountered or had to work with, I met maybe FIVE that I would be willing to call "soldiers", as opposed to females in uniform. I'm sorry, I'm a HUGE believer in equal rights for all, and any person regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, creed, etc, being allowed to do anything they are able, or qualified for. However, if they are going to allow women into combat arms military occupation specialties (MOS), such as infantry, armor(tanks), artillery, intelligence, special forces and the like...they must, MUST be held to the same physical standards as their male counter parts, and be held accountable for using uniquely female issues to avoid "unpleasant" duties. Or else people WILL die uncessarily. That's honestly what it ammounts to.