Panetta to Lift Ban on Women in Combat

[Fuzz]

Hey I have an idea, pick a different job! You want to be a 4 star general? well join the AF, Navy or Coast Guard, women aren't hindered in promotion in the military as a whole, just the Army and Marines, there are plenty areas for them to promote through the ranks and get combat time in other branches. FFS we just promoted the first female 4 star, our first female fighter Wing King, so I'm still calling BS in this "glass ceiling".

[nsplayr]

Not sure if you have read Bleeding Talent yet, but he addresses the common notion that military recruits are uneducated bottom 15 percenters, and categorically disproves it. And, while walking around an Army base will certainly make you second guess it, I think you have to compare that to walking around some of our nations finest educational institutions.

Haven't read it yet but it's on my list, liked his articles. Yea, 100% agree, have seen some dumb people in the military but it usually pales in comparison to what you see in the general public or the civilian workplace.

Hey I have an idea, pick a different job! You want to be a 4 star general? well join the AF, Navy or Coast Guard, women aren't hindered in promotion in the military as a whole, just the Army and Marines, there are plenty areas for them to promote through the ranks and get combat time in other branches.

"The problem is that lots of people clearly don't want liberty for all. They want liberty for themselves and conformity for others." HOSS, as quoted in Vertigo's sig line.

Not that I'm a libertarian, but really man, "Why don't they just join a different service?" Real generous of you to offer a separate but equal military branch they can join while you're free to pursue whatever career you think you can qualify for!

FFS we just promoted the first female 4 star, our first female fighter Wing King Queen, so I'm still calling BS in this "glass ceiling".

FIFY

[HeloDude]

Nsplayr, you mention values and liberties only when it suits your political desires.

[nsplayr]

Nsplayr, you mention values and liberties only when it suits your political desires.

I said I wasn't a libertarian, seems like it's an appealing philosophy around here though so FWIW scaredfuzz's sentiments weren't really in keeping with a liberty-first point of view.

And all my political views are driven by my values, just like everyone else.

[busdriver]

not out there doing what really brings about promotions and leadership positions and really what matters in the military the most

Once again this is about officers and being the chief of staff. The simple fact is the Army is commanded by Infantry, women by and large are not suited to be infantry soldiers. It's simply a too grueling life style for the female body to endure over a career, either you make concessions or the women fail, either way you have "leaders" with no credibility.

[HeloDude]

I think that's only half true for you...the other half is that your values are driven by your political views--ie you have more loyalty to a political party/philosophy than what you truly value.

[nsplayr]

It's cyclical. Values drive political philosophy which in turn encourages you to examine issues and return to and reevaluate or reconfirm your values. New or strengthened values drive a renewed political philosophy, ad infinitum.

The fact that my values align well with one political party over the others is not a sign that they do not exist independent of the party. I was raised by my parents with a particular set of values from birth, I only started paying attention to politics in high school, by which time those values were, for the most part, firmly established.

I'd say most informed people are well served with the two major parties when it comes to reflecting their values despite your claims of blind party loyalty. If that wasn't true there would be a bigger push for more competitive parties and the big two wouldn't have such a strangle-hold on elected office. I personally would welcome more political parties so every thoughtful voter could cast his ballot with real intellectual honesty.

For the most part I'm well served by the values of the Democratic Party; maybe our political system isn't serving your values as well? If in the future the values of that party change and become not so well-aligned with my own, I would have no problem voting for other parties or candidates. The Dem party has never done a damn thing for me other than represent my beliefs, so the day that stops I will stop supporting them.

Edited January 29, 2013 by nsplayr

[Buddy Spike]

Haven't read it yet but it's on my list, liked his articles. Yea, 100% agree, have seen some dumb people in the military but it usually pales in comparison to what you see in the general public or the civilian workplace.

"The problem is that lots of people clearly don't want liberty for all. They want liberty for themselves and conformity for others." HOSS, as quoted in Vertigo's sig line.

Not that I'm a libertarian, but really man, "Why don't they just join a different service?" Real generous of you to offer a separate but equal military branch they can join while you're free to pursue whatever career you think you can qualify for!

FIFY

Goddammit. It's not about a fucking career, dipshit. It's about serving your country the most effective way possible.

What is in the best interest of our country? Having snake eaters that kill people and break their shit, or lowering the standards so that people can "pursue the career of their dreams."?

This would be all well and good if we had equal standards across the board, but we don't. Last I checked, a woman could run the 1.5 two minutes slower than me and get a better score. Fine, let her work in finance where no one gives a fuck, but the dudes kicking in doors don't have that luxury. Not being able to carry your weight (or the weight of a fallen comrade) is a liability. Have you seen some of the shit those dudes did in the mountains of Afghanistan? It really makes NFL/NHL players look like pussies. Being able to hack it is the difference between life and death, not just mission success or failure.

On a different note, men and women are different. That's not bad, or good. That's just a fact of life. Men are built to fight, hunt, and kill. Women are not. Men don't worry about "mensies" at certain times of the month. And most importantly - the enemy is ruthless. They won't treat men and women the same in POW situations. Yeah, maybe guys can get raped in the Hanoi hilton, but they sure as shit can't get pregnant from it.

It's one thing to see one of your bros go through that. But the men fight so the women don't have to. It's a natural survival instinct. Propagation of the species and all that crap. I cringe at the idea of what the Taliban or Al Qaeda or the North Koreans would do to women captives. It's just not right.

[HeloDude]

Nsplayr...you support a President and a party that refuses to enforce immigration laws (just one example), yet you speak of values--do you value not enforcing laws? What other laws are not worth enforcing? I think your values are all over the place and sometimes even contradict with one another. I just saw how you wrote a few days ago in another post that youn said the #1 important aspect about the military is the mission/combat effectiveness, yet you point out that allowing women to serve in direct/offensive combat roles is not needed to make the forces stronger, but is the right thing to do because of 'values'.

So which is it?

...and to answer your question about the 2 major politcal parties: I think one is pretty bad and the other is horrible. They both suck when it comes to supporting and protecting The Constitution. There's a reason things are so fvcked up right now and why for the last 6+ years the majority of the country says it is on the 'wrong path'. Here's a hint to those people...it's been on a destructive path for a very long time now.

[M2]

That's exactly what the new DOD rules will be, limits based on performance, not on arbitrary policy.

Like it is now?

That's the problem with the liberal agenda, it's all about lowering the standard. It's happening not only in the military, but also immigration. We have too many illegals coming into the country, so the solution is to lower the requirements so they can be here legally.

And I love how supportive nsplayr is of "official policy" as long as he agrees with it! I guess it's OK to enforce someone else's opinion on others, but never the other way around!

Panetta's been a lackluster SecDef, and now he's trying to end his tenure with a bang (STS). I am reminded of a departing COCOM deputy commander whose going away speech was littered with all the things needing to be fixed in the command. Thanks, asshole, why didn't you address these problems when you'd still be around to deal with the consequences of your decisions?

Chickenshit politics, clearly enough.

And nsplayr, you can talk a good game; but deep down you are full of shit like every other liberal around.

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...

Go to your account settings, and there is an 'Ignore' Preferences setting. Type in 'nsplayr' in the 'Add a new user to your list,' check the appropriate containers (Ignore: [ ] Posts [ ] Signature [ ]Messages [ ] Chats) and select 'Save Changes.'

If I get five bucks from everyone that does this to ignore nsplayr's posts, I'm taking the wife on a cruise!

Cheers! M2

[338skybolt]

We have too many illegals coming into the country, so the solution is to lower the requirements so they can be here legally.

So they can all be voters for the Democratic party.

[Guest one]

Don't worry. We will just redraw the congressional district lines to make sure their votes don't count.

[Fuzz]

Don't worry. We will just redraw the congressional district lines to make sure their whatever party is in the minority's votes don't count.

FIFY politics of both sides at its finest

[busdriver]

Capt Petronio's article is what I was thinking about when I mentioned the long term problems with women in the infantry. I just don't think they'd be around long enough to get promoted into the positions that this change is meant to drive towards.

I don't have an ideological problem with women in front line combat, if you want to stand up and fight good on you. But I do have a problem with implementing policy that will end up costing the tax payer more money in the long run (medical bills) and result in no real net gain, once again in the long run.

Clearly if we open up 50% of the population to access to these career fields, we could conceivably get access to more top tier leaders, but if they can't make it to the higher ranks due to longevity issues, it's mox-nix.

[HuggyU2]

I'm sure nsplayr will impeach her article, based on the fact she is a women and therefore her argument is irrational.

[nsplayr]

Goddammit. It's not about a fucking career, dipshit. It's about serving your country the most effective way possible.

It's about equality of opportunity. If women can make the standards why would you not want them? That's the part I don't get. I get the argument that the standards shouldn't be lowered to let women in and I agree, where we apparently disagree is that if a woman can meet the standards (as unlikely as that may be for some elite units), why exclude them by policy when they can hack the entry requirements?

Have you seen some of the shit those dudes did in the mountains of Afghanistan?

WRT to the standards, see above. If you're in a position to influence ground combat assessions, don't lower the standards, period. That's getting the execution right.

And yes, I may or may not have seen "some of the shit those dudes did in the mountains of Afghanistan" once or twice, my hat's off to anyone who can do that because I certainly couldn't.

On a different note, men and women are different. That's not bad, or good. That's just a fact of life. Men are built to fight, hunt, and kill. Women are not. Men don't worry about "mensies" at certain times of the month.

Differences exist (obviously), but the rest of this is your opinion and BS stereotypes and prejudices. It was once said there's no way women could handle the responsibilities of working outside the home, of doing high-powered job X, of serving in Congress, etc. etc. but guess what? Those opinions were OBE as some top-notch women excelled at all of the above. If this attitude is the root of your opposition then the only thing that will (maybe) convince you to change your mind is to see someone you know and respect succeed at something you think they can't possibly do with your own two eyes.

Nsplayr...you support a President and a party that refuses to enforce immigration laws (just one example), yet you speak of values--do you value not enforcing laws?

I do and that's a tough one, no doubt. It's a fine line between not supporting things you don't believe in and not doing your job. I can see more easily saying you won't defend something in court (DOMA) more than not enforcing the law as it's written, whether via signing statements, EOs, etc. But this President and almost every other who has occupied that office have taken such measures because they believed them necessary to do what was right for the country. Haven't sat in that seat, where there are unlimited expectations and limited power, so it's hard to judge too harshly.

And I know you don't believe this Administration or the Dem party has the monopoly in skirting the law in some cases or selectively enforcing things they don't agree with...

I just saw how you wrote a few days ago in another post that youn said the #1 important aspect about the military is the mission/combat effectiveness, yet you point out that allowing women to serve in direct/offensive combat roles is not needed to make the forces stronger, but is the right thing to do because of 'values'.

I said it's not needed to make the force stronger, and that's not the primary reason it's being done. Do I personally believe in the long run it will make the force stronger? Yes, I actually do, once the initial problems are worked around. But it about having a policy that reflects what I think are the right values.

There's a reason things are so fvcked up right now and why for the last 6+ years the majority of the country says it is on the 'wrong path'. Here's a hint to those people...it's been on a destructive path for a very long time now.

I find those polls to be full of sh*t specifically because of what you said. If the country is so "on the wrong track" then why do people continue reelecting incumbents? And this is for both parties...Bush's right/wrong track numbers were underwater in 2004, Obama's have been for his whole Presidency basically, yet both reelected. I just don't think people are translating those feelings of "wrong track" into actually doing something different which makes me question if that pessimistic view is actually real or not.

Like it is now?

One of the pre-reqs for ground combat is/was having a penis, that's not performance-based IMHO.

And I love how supportive nsplayr is of "official policy" as long as he agrees with it! I guess it's OK to enforce someone else's opinion on others, but never the other way around!

So you don't cheer when your views become enshrined in law or other "official policy" and grumble when things go the other way? I think when your policy choices are implemented in law and official policy it means you're winning the debate, so I'm very pleased that many of the policies I support have been enacted recently, there's no reason I or anyone else should feel any different when what they believe in gets put into place.

It would be dumber to "toe the line" for something you don't believe in or somehow be disappointed when what you think is right gets enacted...that kind of behavior wouldn't make any sense to me.

Are you not happy to "force your opinion onto others" via policies you support being signed into law??

And nsplayr, you can talk a good game; but deep down you are full of shit like every other liberal around.

If the best defense for your views is that "well, the other side is 100% full of shit," spare me if I'm not convinced to see it your way...

Edited January 30, 2013 by nsplayr

[nsplayr]

Ignoring the emotional arguments above, what is your response to the Marine Captain's argument?

Well if you ignore what I'm saying why do you care?

To answer though, she's probably right, I don't know a lot of women with a hard-on to go be a grunt. I don't know a lot of dudes who want to do that either. HOWEVER, if someone of any gender wants to go be a door-kicker, a snake-eater, whatever and they can hack it, by all means I say let them do it.

Equality of opportunity. If not one woman successfully joined the infantry/SF/etc. due to the new policy change because they simply couldn't make it, it'd still be the right policy to have gotten rid of the gender ban.

Edited January 30, 2013 by nsplayr

[ThreeHoler]

It's about equality of opportunity. If women can make the standards why would you not want them? That's the part I don't get. I get the argument that the standards shouldn't be lowered to let women in and I agree, where we apparently disagree is that if a woman can meet the standards (as unlikely as that may be for some elite units), why exclude them by policy when they can hack the entry requirements?

Because we all know the standards [for women] will be lowered. It's happened before, it will happen again.

Equality of opportunity. If not one woman successfully joined the infantry/SF/etc. due to the new policy change because they simply couldn't make it, it'd still be the right policy to have gotten rid of the gender ban.

No, it wouldn't, because there would be training facilities for women that $$$ were spent on and no one is using them.

[nsplayr]

Because we all know the standards [for women] will be lowered. It's happened before, it will happen again.

Women weren't always allowed to be pilots, do you have lower standards for female pilots in your squadron? I don't change the standards I instruct to based on gender or anything else.

If you're an instructor in a ground combat assessions unit and you are lowering the standards to allow women to join you're causing the problem and have no one to blame but yourself.

I'm not totally naive though; this is obviously ignoring the ones and twos who get in via BS "guardian angels" with stars on their shoulders...I'm not sure you can ever get rid of shenanigans like that. I'm 100% against anyone getting a pass or an upgrade or a promotion when their performance doesn't warrant it.

If you know how to solve that problem, patronage and special "good ole boy"clubs and the promotion of expert pepper-grinders I'd love to hear it and I'm betting so would everyone else.

Edited January 30, 2013 by nsplayr

[nsplayr]

Because the time of the month, men are hunters women are home makers argument is absurd and emotional. It's not even worth defending. The comment wasn't directed at you. Don't be so sensitive.

Ah, got it.

Your arguments don't make sense. Everyone agrees in the basic tenants of democracy and the US Constitution, that all are created equal, etc. But the military discriminates legally based on capability for a reason.

Not everyone does, as evidenced by the debate on here. Note the emotional, stereotypical arguments you already pointed out.

What I'm arguing for is that anyone who can meet the established (rigorous) standards should be allowed to perform the job. That's it, no more, not less.

I honestly do not care if women are on the front lines or not, I want the best people available. If the SF or other elite door-kicking units remain all-male because no women could make the cut then NBD. I honestly do not know a single woman who could make the cut for some of those units; I also don't know very many men who could either.

What I don't think is right is when people are discriminated against by policy rather than, like you said, by capability. Equality of opportunity, period.

Edited January 30, 2013 by nsplayr

[Jughead]

do you have lower standards for female pilots in your squadron?

Absofuckinglutely. Without even getting into the various examples others have cited (and you've side-stepped) for stuff outside the cockpit (eg, PFT standards).

I'm a -135 guy. It's an original "fly-by-wire" airplane (you know, the wire goes from the yoke, through the sprocket, around the pulley and moves an actuator...). Sixty years on, I'd say the AF has gotten its money's worth out of the line. However, in the absence of the computer controlled, hyrdraulicly actuated flight controls that many of my counterparts enjoy, you've got to throw a little ass into making the old girl move. This is most obvious in receiver AR, where small but definite corrections are mandatory for the duration, and failure to apply the same is generally immediately self-critiquing.

Enter the skinny girl who weighs 90 pounds with rocks in her pocket, who simply has less "oomph" to put into it. I've known (and instructed) several of those with outstanding skills who can park the jet behind the tanker like it's painted on the windscreen, and who therefore spend less time & energy making those corrections. More typically, though (just like men), these women fall in the "more average" part of the curve and need to work at it--and find themselves unable to maintain a contact for the 20-ish minutes it takes to get a full onload with changing conditions of weight & CG. And that's in stable air & a smooth tanker; forget about more challenging conditions....

Can't do the job = Q-3 & send back to school, right? Not in my community--deploy with a seeing-eye IP to get more "seasoning" is the approved solution. Yep, deploy an extra pilot (on top of all the existing deployment bills) to babysit an AC who can't get the job done on her own.

This is an obvious, easy-to-point-to example. There are any number of more insidious examples of how women in the cockpit (in the squadron; in the AF; whatever) have lower standards. The people I see most pissed off about this are the competent women I work with, because they (quite rightly) worry that it calls into question their own qualifications when they see one of their sisters-in-arms who "gets by" by being female. I'm beginning to believe you really are blinded by ideology if you can honestly say you don't see this.... In your fantasy world, anyone (male or female) who can't meet a standard would be eliminated; those of us in the real world (who have been providing you multiple examples in this thread, btw) have witnessed the opposite.

I don't change the standards I instruct to based on gender or anything else.

Not the point. What standard you instruct to is irrelevant if the system is set up to guarantee non-failure of any particular "protected" group.

[nsplayr]

I'm cool with there being discriminators that relate to performance, I just don't think gender should be or needs to be one of them.

I'm a -135 guy....Can't do the job = Q-3 & send back to school, right? Not in my community--deploy with a seeing-eye IP to get more "seasoning" is the approved solution. Yep, deploy an extra pilot (on top of all the existing deployment bills) to babysit an AC who can't get the job done on her own.

Well that's stupid, sounds like it's something your community needs to work on. If they're not good enough don't pass them on their checkride and certainly don't upgrade them to AC. If they are, then continue.

I'm beginning to believe you really are blinded by ideology if you can honestly say you don't see this.... In your fantasy world, anyone (male or female) who can't meet a standard would be eliminated; those of us in the real world (who have been providing you multiple examples in this thread, btw) have witnessed the opposite.

I just have not seen this, honest to god. I can emphatically say I have noticed absolutely no special treatment for women, or minorities, or men, or anyone in my community. You're either at or above the standards or you aren't and 99% of the time progression in the platform follows as appropriate. And the 1% I've seen who got a couple of BS upgrades/promotions/good deals nor commensurate with their abilities were all men FWIW. Small sample size but that's where I'm coming from.

The solution is to uphold the standards, which I don't think is that freaking hard to do. People talk about having backbone and character and values, well if you see something going on like you described and you know it's not right do something about it and fix the problem where you live.

If you're that person's EP, give them the Q3 if they're really below standards. If you Commander overturns that for a BS "equality of outcome" reason then he's not worth the rank on his shoulders and when you or your peers rise to the level where you're commanding squadrons/groups/wings don't make the same mistakes.

Edited January 30, 2013 by nsplayr

[ThreeHoler]

Minor point: "Commensurate."

Carry on.

[TreeA10]

Saw a lot of "we didn't change the standards" for genetically different students in UPT. Nothing says quality like busting every checkride in UPT and completing the program with 15-20 extra sorties to meet the minimum training standards.

[papajuice77]

Saw a lot of "we didn't change the standards" for genetically different students in UPT. Nothing says quality like busting every checkride in UPT and completing the program with 15-20 extra sorties to meet the minimum training standards.

I don't know if it has changed recently (I'd guess not), but as of just 2 years ago, AETC regs required all female and minority CR (washout) packages to be reviewed at 19th AF level before a decision could be made on whether or not they would continue with UPT. Worse than just overlooking or fudging numbers/results, the double standard was actually codified in the system. Of course, it was all supposed to ensure that no one was being discriminated against. Right. Try explaining that to the run of the mill, dime-a-dozen Lt who watches all his dreams die with 3 busted rides in a row while the chick that sits next to him in morning brief never passes a checkride but continues to be reinstated. Call me cynical, but I see a very similar experience coming to a combat arms training program near you!