Panetta to Lift Ban on Women in Combat

[17D_guy]

This has been said during every single sociological change ever implemented by the military and I'd argue exactly the opposite.

In the military you have people who work closely together to achieve common goals under harsh and stressful situations. That's a pretty good place for people to see past their inherent biases and realize we're all underpinned by something shared and decent and good as human beings. That doesn't preclude problems, but I think it makes it easier to integrate "X" population in the military than it does in just a random group of Americans in some other average profession.

You put in the comment card with the Joint Chiefs to let the tranny's in yet?

[nsplayr]

You put in the comment card with the Joint Chiefs to let the tranny's in yet?

I mean, I sorta understand the intellectual argument that for some people, gender identity and your god-given physical sex are not aligned but it's still weird, even for me as a liberal and big supporter of gay rights.

Probably will take a lot more time for people to accept it but I have no doubt some day it will be...progress marches on even though I'm sure someday I'll be one of the old cranky white guys shaking my fist at all the weird sh*t kids are into "these days."

Edited January 25, 2013 by nsplayr

[Sim]

If women are allowed to serve in combat, then women can be drafted.

I want all of you progressives to think about that whenever you have daughters, sisters and granddaughters.

[Vno]

This is stupid.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Vno

[nsplayr]

If women are allowed to serve in combat, then women can be drafted.

I want all of you progressives to think about that whenever you have daughters, sisters and granddaughters.

I have a daughter who's my precious little girl; thought about it and sold.

Gotta practice what you preach and if she wants to volunteer when she's all grown up, good on her.

And if we were having a draft again at this point in history we've got bigger problems to worry about than women serving in ground combat units...

Edited January 25, 2013 by nsplayr

[pcola]

5 bucks in the mail to the first board member that can teach me how to block all of nsplayer's posts from my computer screen. Jeesus H. Christ...

[Vno]

I have a daughter who's my precious little girl; thought about it and sold.

Gotta practice what you preach and if she wants to volunteer when she's all grown up, good on her.

And if we were having a draft again at this point in history we've got bigger problems to worry about than women serving in ground combat units...

Are you fucking serious?

Please tell me you're trolling us right now.

[nsplayr]

Are you fucking serious?

Please tell me you're trolling us right now.

I think I've been over this before, I am serious in the opinions I hold.

Are you guys telling me no one one here has daughters in the military? No one in here has sisters who are helo pilots? No one in here has female cousins who pulled convoy duty in Iraq/Afghanistan? No one has female relatives or friends serving on carriers, at FOBs, etc. etc.??

You never want your loved ones to be in danger, obviously, but if that's the career she wants then she'll be a great American for choosing to serve her country. Daddy will perhaps offer up the advantages to being an AF officer flying airplanes vs, say, an enlisted infantryman kicking down doors, but if she really can hack that she's tougher than me.

[HU&W]

I have a daughter who's my precious little girl; thought about it and sold.

Gotta practice what you preach and if she wants to volunteer when she's all grown up, good on her.

And if we were having a draft again at this point in history we've got bigger problems to worry about than women serving in ground combat units...

Draft ≠ Volunteering

[Prosuper]

Lets just get to the point of this whole argument, some female officers were suing the DOD because of the combat restrictions and glass ceiling they encounter when it comes to a combat command slot and promotions. Yes there are women who can qualify and get through the training but would they destroy their body and forced out on a medical discharge before their 30th birthday. Fiscally it does not make sense due to the medical costs incurred by this. I seen women work in supply and acft mx and their bodies were a mess due to wear and tear before they were 30. Since we are in these fiscally short era it would make sense to make the fitness standards the same across the board regardless of gender. I am a 50 year old male who can score in the 90's with the current USAF standards for a my age group. I looked at a under 30 group of female standards and the run was identical to mine where a 30 and under year old male gets slammed hard if runs over a 9:12. If we equalize the standards with pass or out the door just think of the money we save in long term personnel costs.

[TreeA10]

I'm all for it because women are absolutely no different than men and can meet any physical challenge except those officially designated as different such as sit ups, running 1.5 miles, and push ups. Oh, and golf. As long as they don't have to compete against the enemy in sit ups, running 1.5 miles, push ups, or golf, I am all for women in combat and see no problem with this idea.

[Butters]

Lets not forget how much gear soldiers carry. It is heavy and a chicks gear will be heavier because they have to carry bras, shoes, tampons, pepper spray and a rape whistle.

[Vno]

Don't forget their makeup bag, iPod, and high heels.

[Fuzz]

I think I've been over this before, I am serious in the opinions I hold.

Are you guys telling me no one one here has daughters in the military? No one in here has sisters who are helo pilots? No one in here has female cousins who pulled convoy duty in Iraq/Afghanistan? No one has female relatives or friends serving on carriers, at FOBs, etc. etc.??

You never want your loved ones to be in danger, obviously, but if that's the career she wants then she'll be a great American for choosing to serve her country. Daddy will perhaps offer up the advantages to being an AF officer flying watching pilots fly airplanes vs, say, an enlisted infantryman kicking down doors, but if she really can hack that she's tougher than me.

FIFY

In all honesty, just like you I wish someday if I have a daughter for her to have all the opportunities she can achieve, I think any parent wants that. However, we have to get over the bullshit fairness idea and come back down to reality, I want to play linebacker in the NFL, well with my physical stature that ain't happening, and if it does it will be to the detriment of the team. Same goes for combat if my daughter can't hump the distance with the packs, pull her fellow soldiers to safety when they go down, nevermind pick him up and carry him to an EVAC site, than I will look at my daughter and say sorry not going to happen because what you want puts lives in danger.

And that's just one of the many aspects, in my mind no case can be made that women will not decrease the effectiveness of those combat squads, and any decrease is unacceptable because it is absolutely unnecessary.

[Guest]

For clarity, the AFSC's currently restricted or closed to women IAW SECDEF Memo, 13 Jan 94, are:

Enlisted

1C2X1 - Combat Control

1C4X1 - Tactical Air Control Party (TACP)

1T2X1 - Pararescue

1W0X2 - Special Operations Weather

Officer

13CX - Special Tactics

13DX - Combat Rescue

15WX - Weather

~4,000 total Air Force authorized slots for all ranks in all AFSC's

(not going to post exact numbers for any AFSC's or the exact total)

[nsplayr]

In all honesty, just like you I wish someday if I have a daughter for her to have all the opportunities she can achieve, I think any parent wants that. However, we have to get over the bullshit fairness idea and come back down to reality, I want to play linebacker in the NFL, well with my physical stature that ain't happening, and if it does it will be to the detriment of the team. Same goes for combat if my daughter can't hump the distance with the packs, pull her fellow soldiers to safety when they go down, nevermind pick him up and carry him to an EVAC site, than I will look at my daughter and say sorry not going to happen because what you want puts lives in danger.

Here's the thing I think might not be clear, I 100% agree. I don't want women in positions where they can't hack it, just like I don't want men in positions who can't hack it. Honest self assessment, I could not hack it as a SEAL or PJ or whatever. Based on the average athletic ability of my wife and myself, I'm about 90% sure there's no way my daughter could make it either. BUT, if for some reason she's an athletic freak and really is hard-up to kick some ass and take some names, I don't see any reason why she should be barred from giving it a shot. I'm not in favor of lowering standards of allowing women just to feel good, but I am in favor of everyone having a fair shot at qualifying if that's what they want to do.

So the policy is right in my opinion, the execution is TBD obviously because it hasn't started, but the couple of examples of this being tried so far (Female Marine officers trying out for infantry and getting cut) seem to be working out just fine WRT upholding the standards.

The other thing I like in these stories is that mil leaders are talking about how physical requirements should be based on job performance and not some arbitrary measure of pushups/pullups/situps/running. If the result of this is that all services move to a functional fitness test rather than seeing who's fast at running 1.5 miles, that's a win for everyone.

Edited January 26, 2013 by nsplayr

[ThreeHoler]

Because standards in some career fields were never lowered to include women...I guess that Navy chick that ate the back end of a carrier was up to standards until that point, right?

I know many badass chicks who can hack it but we all know the standards will be lowered to get women in the door. Which is sad because it takes away from those who deserve to be there.

[Vertigo]

One thing everyone is overlooking...

How many women do you think really want these roles? I sincerely doubt there will now be a plethora of women throwing up their hands to volunteer. You'll get a few dozen, maybe a hundred... and 95% of them will quit before finishing training.

[Wolf424]

I feel like I'm reading the baseops version of GI Jane.

[busdriver]

This is not about women being in the SEALs or SF, this is about female officers checking an infantry box and making rank.

[PapaJu]

This is not about women being in the SEALs or SF, this is about female officers checking an infantry box and making rank.

Funny thing is that the Army (until this change) is the only service where a woman theoretically couldn't be CoS. Even the USMC has an aviator as their Commandant right now, which isn't a position closed to women. Kind of thought the rank argument was a bit weak given you can generally obtain a high rank in non-combat positions (albeit there will probably be less opportunities than if you did come from a combat arms background).

Edited January 26, 2013 by PapaJu

[nsplayr]

Funny thing is that the Army (until this change) is the only service where a woman theoretically couldn't be CoS. Even the USMC has an aviator as their Commandant right now, which isn't a position closed to women. Kind of thought the rank argument was a bit weak given you can generally obtain a high rank in non-combat positions (albeit there will probably be less opportunities than if you did come from a combat arms background).

I mean, a woman could be Army COS, it's just unlikely without a combat arms background. There's nothing prohibiting them from being appointed to that position.

Just like there shouldn't be a rule saying women can't, by rule, serve in X position (some extreme exceptions are probably reasonable). If they can't make it, then fine, they can't make it. If you don't grind enough pepper in D.C., you're not gonna make COS anyways even if you're a man and the best GD infantryman the Army has ever seen, that's also a pretty solid requirement for that particular job.

But banning one gender, or one race, or one whatever just by rule rather than by reason of they can't hack mission requirements I think is the wrong set of values to express.

Edited January 26, 2013 by nsplayr

[17D_guy]

Just like there shouldn't be a rule saying women can't, by rule, serve in X position (some extreme exceptions are probably reasonable)....

But banning one gender, or one race, or one whatever just by rule rather than by reason of they can't hack mission requirements I think is the wrong set of values to express.

1. Pick a party line and stick to it

2. You can't have it both ways

[HercDude]

One thing everyone is overlooking...

How many women do you think really want these roles? I sincerely doubt there will now be a plethora of women throwing up their hands to volunteer. You'll get a few dozen, maybe a hundred... and 95% of them will quit before finishing training.

But how many of those are going to then lawyer up and say they were dropped from training because it's just a good ol' boys network, women are still treated as second-class, etc.? How much money if the DoD going to be forced to spend fighting that? How many special episodes is Oprah going to have interviewing all these poor women who were mistreated by the big, bad Amry men who hate women?

How many Kelly Flinn's are waiting in the wings right now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Flinn_incident

[disgruntledemployee]

Here's the thing I think might not be clear, I 100% agree. I don't want women in positions where they can't hack it,...

You don't get to choose.

So the policy is right in my opinion...

Since you don't get to choose, and there are politics in play, someone is going to get hurt. Hence the policy is not right. Extra resources, extra efforts by people, and extra dollar$ will put put towards trying to make this happen.

Why? Do we really need our women on the front lines?

Out