Panetta to Lift Ban on Women in Combat

[Masshole]

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?

Hacking the requirements is just the beginning. Yes, there are women (a relatively small amount) that could satisfy the training requirements. What happens next? How do you integrate such a small number of women into units comprised of all men? What does that do to the unit's morale? How can the women be included in the unit cohesion that makes it successful? Hygiene? There are many more factors that separate men and women than physical abilities.

[TreeA10]

Saw it a few times myself. The washout process is complicated enough as it is. Faced with the potential fallout of mere suggestions of unequal treatment, discrimination, or worse yet, harassment, no one wanted to go anywhere near it.

"Let their unit sort em out."

So you are saying training standards aren't to be enforced in training due to the myriad of accusations that may befall the instructors? And somehow avoiding this by sending a non-performing individual on to the gaining unit and let THEM deal with the problem is a better idea because certainly the failing student will somehow be easier to remove because all the various excuses and accusations will not be used?

This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've read on this forum.

[nsplayr]

Hacking the requirements is just the beginning. Yes, there are women (a relatively small amount) that could satisfy the training requirements. What happens next? How do you integrate such a small number of women into units comprised of all men? What does that do to the unit's morale? How can the women be included in the unit cohesion that makes it successful? Hygiene? There are many more factors that separate men and women than physical abilities.

How have we already overcome these problems in units where women previously didn't serve? How did other militaries solve these problems with they fully integrated women? We don't need to reinvent the wheel here.

[FallingOsh]

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. people will whine, bitch, and/or sue until standards are changed or women are passed for the sake of passing.

[Grabby]

nsplayr,

You keep using the same irrelevant arguments. Women employed in military jobs that don't require high physical strength (yet they still necessitate lower standards) does not equate to women equaling men on any realm of physical scale. And siting the Canadian military as a benchmark? Stop trying to be so "progressive" and realize what you're saying: i.e. that the greatest military the world has ever seen should take clues from a lesser military in the name of a liberal-leaning, social equality agenda that has nothing to do with mission effectiveness.

You know damn well that the standards will be adjusted for woman. You keep arguing that this is a good idea, as long as the pre-reqs don't change, yet there is no way women will make it through an elite ground forces most basic course unless they are graded on a different scale. If you don't realize this then you are a moron.

You've argued that women can be CEO's, pilots, submariners, etc. We get it, they are amazing. Yay for girls. But every post you make readily ignores the physical strain that this new liberal endeavor requires. I realize you care more about feelings than military efficiency, and I've come to understand that ultimately you're a very different man than most on this site. The vast majority of guys here want to talk about fighting, fvcking, and beer. You seem to want the focus of a forum designed for pilots/type A personalities to center on how unfair it would be that your young daughter may not be able to do everything a man can. And you referred to yourself as her "Daddy". I guess it's not fair to expect you to understand what being militant entails.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Grabby

[nsplayr]

And siting the Canadian military as a benchmark? Stop trying to be so "progressive" and realize what you're saying: i.e. that the greatest military the world has ever seen should take clues from a lesser military in the name of a liberal-leaning, social equality agenda that has nothing to do with mission effectiveness.

Copy, don't absorb lessons learned, not even from past endeavors by your own military. Proceed with reinventing the wheel. It's taking American exceptionalism WAAAY too far when you can't even learn from the successes and mistakes of others who undertook very similar actions.

You know damn well that the standards will be adjusted for woman. You keep arguing that this is a good idea, as long as the pre-reqs don't change, yet there is no way women will make it through an elite ground forces most basic course unless they are graded on a different scale. If you don't realize this then you are a moron.

Like I said before, I frankly do not care if a single woman is able to pass Ranger school, the SF assessions course, BUD/S, etc. I don't. What I do care about is that they have a fair shot to try is they think they can hack it and that if in fact some crazy-tough female could pass, that she would be allowed to serve right alongside others who had made it through the tests same as her. Equality of opportunity.

That fact that some people here can't even fathom that any woman could ever, not in a million years, possibly pass these tests is amusing and I think very shortsighted and pessimistic.

...and I've come to understand that ultimately you're a very different man than most on this site.

Quoted for truth. I absolutely, 100% recognize that the opinion I'm offering here on most political issues is not what is the norm in the BO.net or military aviation community. I have no problem with this. If you're more comfortable in an ideological bubble then by all means follow M2's advice and block my posts and anyone else who disagrees with you.

And you referred to yourself as her "Daddy".

You have your young daughters call you something different? I don't even get what this was supposed to mean...

I guess it's not fair to expect you to understand what being militant entails.

There's no way a person with my type of views could have any knowledge of what goes on in the military or on the battlefield, right? I'm obviously not a ground pounder (and I'm betting neither are you), but I'm not exactly a hippy liberal smoking pot and protesting nuclear war our at Beale either...

What exactly is your critique here? What are your creds again that make you such an expert on "what being militant entails?" I mean, we might have a genuine badass running around here that I just wasn't aware of.

Edited January 30, 2013 by nsplayr

[Grabby]

That's the issue. You are not, and never have been, on the ground. Every article posted so far that opposes this move, which has been authored by someone who is/was a ground pounder, has been readily ignored by you. It all comes down to you espousing endlessly about "fairness", and myself and almost everyone else on this board would argue that the frontline of a battlefield is one place that fairness matters absolutely none.

As far as what my son called me when he was younger, it was "Daddy". My point is that you refer to yourself that way in a post that will only be read by a bunch of extremely competitive, "my dick is bigger than yours" dudes who want to kill the enemy with impunity. I believe that is a psychological indicator of you being more emotionally sensative than most military members who have been in combat. Guess not.

And my credentials are the same as many on this forum. Prior, commissioned, pilot, retired. No "genuine badass" by any stretch, just disenchanted with the way the military is heading, and hoping you (being well-read and also concerned with our nations well being) will understand the fundamental differences between what the military actually needs vs. what certain politically-motivated engines want.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Grabby

[nsplayr]

That's the issue. You are not, and never have been, on the ground. Every article posted so far that opposes this move, which has been authored by someone who is/was a ground pounder, has been readily ignored by you. It all comes down to you espousing endlessly about "fairness", and myself and almost everyone else on this board would argue that the frontline of a battlefield is one place that fairness matters absolutely none.

If there is a forced integration of unqualified women into ground combat units, then the concerns by some military or former military folks who are opposed to this would be well-founded. That's not what the new policy entails and in almost every post I've written on this issue, I've encouraged absolutely no one to lower their standards or give a person of any gender a pass; quite the opposite.

As far as what my son called me when he was younger, it was "Daddy". My point is that you refer to yourself that way in a post that will only be read by a bunch of extremely competitive, "my dick is bigger than yours" dudes who want to kill the enemy with impunity. I believe that is a psychological indicator of you being more emotionally sensative than most military members who have been in combat. Guess not.

Ok, I'll skip on the free therapy session if you don't mind. I'm definitely not an extremely competitive, "my dick is bigger than yours" kind of dude...can't say that's a very flattering way to characterize yourself or most mil aviators anyways. I do enjoy supporting the killing of the enemy with impunity though, not sure that requires the attitude I think you're falsely painting the entire military with.

And my credentials are the same as many on this forum. Prior, commissioned, pilot, retired. No "genuine badass" by any stretch, just disenchanted with the way the military is heading, and hoping you (being well-read and also concerned with our nations well being) will understand the fundamental differences between what the military actually needs vs. what certain politically-motivated engines want.

Great, so we're on the same page. I am concerned with our nations well being and although people have philosophical political and policy differences, I honestly don't think almost anyone is truly acting out of bad faith. Including the Joint Chiefs and SECDEF that put this policy change into effect or (most) of the military people who are writing pieces outlining their opposition.

That fact that my views are different than yours does not make either of us "right" or "wrong," it's just a different point of view and since the policy I support is the one being implemented we'll let history judge whether that was a good idea or not in the long run.

Edited January 30, 2013 by nsplayr

[HeloDude]

So if a woman ever has to miss a day or two of training because of bad menstrual cramps or whatever, that's ok? A guy will never have to miss training for menatrual cramps. And before you say something like "Well, a guy could sprain his ankle and miss 2 days of training/have to be pulled out of the field"...anybody in they outfit could sprain an ankle, but guys will never miss training due a monthly period. Hell, we should let guys with full blown diabetes be in the infantry...and if they have to get pulled put of the field for their condition, oh well...being 'fair' is now above mission effectiveness. Give me a break.

[nsplayr]

Not sure if serious...

I can't think of even one serious medical problem a man could have that a woman would be immune to. /sarcasm.

Are you actually making "the period argument?" I'm not even sure this requires a further response if that's the case.

[HeloDude]

You're comparing prostate cancer with menstruating? Are you fisting me? The vast majority of women menstruate, it's a common occurrence that sometimes causes women discomfort/unable to perform tasks. What percentage of men in their 20's get prostate cancer? Resubmit and try again man. Again, if we have no problems with things that can potentially come up in the field, then we should have no problems letting people with diabetes do the job.

[pirate]

Not sure if serious...

I can't think of even one serious medical problem a man could have that a woman would be immune to. /sarcasm.

Are you actually making "the period argument?" I'm not even sure this requires a further response if that's the case.

If you ever have to bail out in shark infested water you'll care if you're with a female on the rag......and they also attract bears

[Stank]

Hey all, long time lurker, thought I’d join up for this thread.

A few questions for NSplayr:

You say that “I value equality of opportunity and don't support limitations based on gender or sexual orientation or race or whatever. That's the root of it and why I think it's the right thing to do.”

OK fine. Then why not disabled people? We don’t even let them apply to the military. Are they not as patriotic as other Americans who can serve? Can you provide me a rational explanation, based on your logic of allowing women to serve in infantry units, why handicapped people cannot? As long as a handicapped individual, whatever ailment they have, can meet some minimum physical standard they should be allowed in, right? Why should they be excluded from the top tiers of military leadership because of some condition that is not their fault? And we should ignore whatever cost is involved with accommodating them because we don’t want to infringe on ‘equality of opportunity’.

What about old people? I’m sure there are many patriotic 60 year old men who could probably pass the MINIMUM standards for infantry service. Shouldn’t we allow them the equality of opportunity as well? Is it their fault they’re old? Why should we discriminate against them? Many European countries have lots of older people in their militaries, shouldn’t we follow their lead? I’m pretty sure the average 60 year old man is tougher and stronger than the average 20 year old woman, why not give them a shot?

These questions are not reductions to the absurd. I think allowing women, elderly, and disabled people into the infantry is entirely consistent with all of your arguments above. Remember, according to you, we have to at least give them the opportunity. How is not having “a penis between your legs” (your dim idea, not mine) any different than having gray hair or too many skin wrinkles?

Does a liberal’s desire to have an effective national defense ever exceed their desire for equality?

You also believe that because a politician has stated that “standards will not be lowered” therefore this will be true and standards will never be lowered. Where have you been living? In your time observing politics you haven’t developed any cynicism? No amount of pork-barrel spending, illegal immigration for votes, gerrymandering, farm bills, spending cuts that are actually increases and temporary taxes that become permanent have led you to realize that our politicians are not honest and do not have a selfless desire for our nation to succeed and prosper?

Standards will be lowered, politicians will push Generals for results, it will cost more, our infantry will be weaker. The first female infantry soldier will appear on Oprah and President Obama will shake her hand in the oval office along with a bunch of other liberals and the media will gush about how tough she looks and how she could probably beat up Matt Lauer. It will be a proud moment for liberal america.

[Rusty Pipes]

True, it would take an uncommon level of stupidity to attribute any of the above to my thoughts on how training standards should be enforced based on a factual statement how I saw them enforced. If you're going to ask what I'm saying, perhaps you shouldn't go ahead and latch on to the first dumbass assumption that dimly flickers in your cranium. Merely a suggestion.

Here's the short/generic version. Chick says IP was checking her out during GTs/ pre/debriefing. That was the reason she was sucking. She was uncomfortable. The worse she does, the more loudly she complains. Flt/CC tells one of my check pilots, "Don't hook her, she's trouble." I tell my check pilot "You better ######ing hook her if she sucks". It goes to an 89 ride, more accusations/bullshit starts to come out and it starts to get nasty, Suddenly, the word from higher up "She did fine, send her on." For a while, the unwritten rules were never brief with a female behind closed doors, don't go off-station alone. Some IPs would simply opt out everytime they were scheduled to fly with a female, because "Who needs that kinda trouble?"

I'm totally cool with you getting all indignant about training standards not being enforced because IPs would rather not risk the trouble enforcing them.

Hmmmm... let’s see if this type scenario sounds familiar to anyone.

A female is at a certain college where a PT test is required in order to stay there, but she can't seem to pass. She takes it over and over again with no success. It finally comes to the point where she is told if she can't pass she will have to leave the "program". She once again fails and they begin the process of removal, but wait... suddenly it is brought to light that she was sexually harrassed. Another test is given by "supervisors" and amazingly, the test that she couldn't come even close to passing before she suddenly passes. Weird.

She then moves on to pilot training after graduation and one thing is pretty clear from day one... she isn't a very good pilot. Fails two flights, passes a flight... fails two flights, passes a flight. She can't quite seem to get past the checkrides though. Checkride (fail), 88 ride (fail)... 89 ride... suddenly she gets it. She finally fails too many checkrides and even her 89 ride they start the process for removal from the program. Wow, amazingly they find out the reason she was failing all of these rides was because she was being sexually harassed... AGAIN!!! This proves the theory that not only hot women are sexually harassed!

Her wings are nice and polished... she can't seem to fly very well though and isn't getting any better. They only let her fly with IPs and she is getting plenty of hours, but all of her peers are getting upgraded to Aircraft Commander and she isn't... obviously because she is being sexually harassed AGAIN!!!!!!!!!! She "somehow" passes an AC checkride. There is a board at the Squadron deciding who is going to Instructor Pilot school and every IP/EP in the room literally laughs when the Sq CC brings her name up as a candidate... even her boyfriend who is a Sq EP says she has no business being an Aircraft Commander let alone an IP. But she has a PRF coming up and needs to be an IP... so off to school she goes. Checkride 1... fail. I'm guessing she was pretty shocked when she walked in to brief the re-check... and saw a female EP sitting on the other side of the table. FAIL, FAIL, FAIL... worst checkride score sheet I have ever seen in the airframe. In the decision making process as to FEB or not it goes up to a 1 Star... who demands to know how "we" got her into this situation in the first place?!?!?

Yeah, stuff like this never happens, right???

[Guest one]

What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying females shouldn't be in the military at all because of the possibility of phony sexual harassment claims? Your story could be true in any career field, military or civilian. Females like that can be a real bitch but if leadership doesn't have the balls to challenge her phony accusations then what do you expect?

If anything, an argument like this validates the need for more woman in certain career fields. Women have a harder time crying sexual harassment when other females in leadership positions are around keeping them in check.

Edited January 30, 2013 by one

[Rusty Pipes]

What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying females shouldn't be in the military at all because of the possibility of phony sexual harassment claims? Your story could be true in any career field, military or civilian. Females like that can be a real bitch but if leadership doesn't have the balls to challenge her phony accusations then what do you expect?

If anything, an argument like this validates the need for more woman in certain career fields. Women have a harder time crying sexual harassment when other females in leadership positions are around keeping them in check.

If "leadership" is so incredibly quick to lower standards for a female in a career field where they have already been proving they can perform exceptionally well just because someone cries wolf when they try to remove them from the program... what do you think will happen when there is massive political pressure and a giant spotlight on a concept that essentially can't fail as far as the top political dogs are concerned?

Tell me this... how long do you think it will take for us to hear the Pentagon spokesman quietly announce the "retirement" of the Commandant of the Marine Corps after his comments to USA Today about how some jobs in the Corps just can't be held by women?

BTW... "leadership" not having the balls to challenge her phony accusations was at 3 different Bases and 1 "College" before a 4th base/Squadron finally figured out how to eliminate her excuse with a female EP. If you follow the story it goes from college to UPT to needing to be an IP for a PRF... this wasn't something that happened in a month or two span. And this wasn't when you needed a PRF for O-3 either...

Edited January 30, 2013 by Rusty Pipes

[Fuzz]

Hmmmm... let’s see if this type scenario sounds familiar to anyone.

Its a shame and embarrassment, especially since I know some damn good female pilots (and non-rated officers) that worked hard and earned everything they got.

[Azimuth]

Hmmmm... let’s see if this type scenario sounds familiar to anyone.

A female is at a certain college where a PT test is required in order to stay there, but she can't seem to pass. She takes it over and over again with no success. It finally comes to the point where she is told if she can't pass she will have to leave the "program". She once again fails and they begin the process of removal, but wait... suddenly it is brought to light that she was sexually harrassed. Another test is given by "supervisors" and amazingly, the test that she couldn't come even close to passing before she suddenly passes. Weird.

She then moves on to pilot training after graduation and one thing is pretty clear from day one... she isn't a very good pilot. Fails two flights, passes a flight... fails two flights, passes a flight. She can't quite seem to get past the checkrides though. Checkride (fail), 88 ride (fail)... 89 ride... suddenly she gets it. She finally fails too many checkrides and even her 89 ride they start the process for removal from the program. Wow, amazingly they find out the reason she was failing all of these rides was because she was being sexually harassed... AGAIN!!! This proves the theory that not only hot women are sexually harassed!

Her wings are nice and polished... she can't seem to fly very well though and isn't getting any better. They only let her fly with IPs and she is getting plenty of hours, but all of her peers are getting upgraded to Aircraft Commander and she isn't... obviously because she is being sexually harassed AGAIN!!!!!!!!!! She "somehow" passes an AC checkride. There is a board at the Squadron deciding who is going to Instructor Pilot school and every IP/EP in the room literally laughs when the Sq CC brings her name up as a candidate... even her boyfriend who is a Sq EP says she has no business being an Aircraft Commander let alone an IP. But she has a PRF coming up and needs to be an IP... so off to school she goes. Checkride 1... fail. I'm guessing she was pretty shocked when she walked in to brief the re-check... and saw a female EP sitting on the other side of the table. FAIL, FAIL, FAIL... worst checkride score sheet I have ever seen in the airframe. In the decision making process as to FEB or not it goes up to a 1 Star... who demands to know how "we" got her into this situation in the first place?!?!?

Yeah, stuff like this never happens, right???

You left out the not wanting to be a pilot anymore, three years into her UPT commitment, so she gets pregnant, goes unqualified due to the pregnancy, gets qualified again, maybe upgrades to AC/IP, gets pregnant again, goes unqualified, gets qualified again, gets pregnant again, the applies for VSP/PALACE CHASE...

Its a shame and embarrassment, especially since I know some damn good female pilots (and non-rated officers) that worked hard and earned everything they got.

2

Edited January 30, 2013 by Azimuth

[Guest one]

I don't think one shitty female should be the way you look at developing policy. There are likely many females that have pulled this same stunt. They do this because of one simple fact...They can get away with it without much risk. Good leadership could have avoided this situation because good leadership requires holding people accountable for their actions.

I am not for lowering standards. I am for letting females try to meet the demanding standards required to become a Ranger, SEAL, or whatever. I agree with this policy even if it means watching 99% of women fail. People will say that this is a waste of money but I do not think it will be much of a challenge to manage the cost. Screen all applicants more thoroughly before sending them to training. A PT test doesn't cost very much.

Everything that you have said about this shitty female pilot could be true for many male pilots if they thought it would be possible to get away with it. Do you think women are inherently more like to deceive someone if it benefits them? I do not think this is correct. Your story doesn't suggest any reason why women should not have an expanded roll in the military besides of the fact that male leadership will treat them special. The answer is simple...Stop treating them special.

[Fuzz]

I don't think one shitty female should be the way you look at developing policy. There are likely many females that have pulled this same stunt. They do this because of one simple fact...They can get away with it without much risk. Good leadership could have avoided this situation because good leadership requires holding people accountable for their actions.

Where have you been? Yes good leadership could have, but the fact is leadership isn't and will not all of the sudden now either.

Everything that you have said about this shitty female pilot could be true for many male pilots if they thought it would be possible to get away with it. Do you think women are inherently more like to deceive someone if it benefits them? I do not think this is correct. Your story doesn't suggest any reason why women should not have an expanded roll in the military besides of the fact that male leadership will treat them special. The answer is simple...Stop treating them special.

Last time I checked I haven't seen any male officers claiming sexual harassment when they get passed over for upgrade or promotion.

[old crow]

...follow M2's advice and block my posts and anyone else who disagrees with you.

How do you do this....seriously?

[Grabby]

Do you think women are inherently more like to deceive someone if it benefits them?

I don't think this directly pertains to the discussion this thread is geared towards, but I'll bite.

As far as making completely false allegations entailing wide-ranging repercussions for many people who have done nothing wrong, all for the sake of minimizing their own shortcomings?

ABSOLUTELY.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Grabby

[Guest one]

Where have you been? Yes good leadership could have, but the fact is leadership isn't and will not all of the sudden now either.

So we should let leadership keep handling the same situations incorrectly? Don't you think it would be in the best interest of the military to correct our leaders so they lead better?

Last time I checked I haven't seen any male officers claiming sexual harassment when they get passed over for upgrade or promotion.

My point exactly. Some men would if they could get away with it. Air Force leadership will not let a male get away with bullshit like that. Some people will always try to find shortcuts even if it requires them to outright lie.

Edited January 30, 2013 by one

[Guest one]

Just to add...

What is the point of the military trying to fight a policy like this? What is to gain? Either way the military has to progress as the country does. This exact same discussion happened when women became eligible to be fighter pilots. On a different note, the same types of arguments were made when gay people were allowed to serve in the military. Once again, a different note, the same resistance was met when the Truman completely integrated African Americans into the military. What did the people resisting these progressive changes ever gain. Nothing.

Do I think that women are going to make our combat units stronger? No. Do I think that it is going to make our combat units weaker? Only if we spend more energy resisting policy than innovating.

The military always has to catch up to society. No one expects the military to be the starting point for things like this. Despite what some people feel, this is not the military breaking new ground in order to promote some crazy social experiment. This was bound to happen.

[Fuzz]

So we should let leadership keep handling the same situations incorrectly? Don't you think it would be in the best interest of the military to correct our leaders so they lead better?

My point exactly. Some men would if they could get away with it. Air Force leadership will not let a male get away with bullshit like that. Some people will always try to find shortcuts even if it requires them to outright lie.

Did I miss the announcement of your promotion to CoS or your announcement for running for Congress or POTUS? Otherwise how exactly do you suggest we stop "letting" leadership get away with this?

Just to add...

What is the point of the military trying to fight a policy like this? What is to gain? Either way the military has to progress as the country does. This exact same discussion happened when women became eligible to be fighter pilots. On a different note, the same types of arguments were made when gay people were allowed to serve in the military. Once again, a different note, the same resistance was met when the Truman completely integrated African Americans into the military. What did the people resisting these progressive changes ever gain. Nothing.

Do I think that women are going to make our combat units stronger? No. Do I think that it is going to make our combat units weaker? Only if we spend more energy resisting policy than innovating.

The military always has to catch up to society. No one expects the military to be the starting point for things like this. Despite what some people feel, this is not the military breaking new ground in order to promote some crazy social experiment. This was bound to happen.

Neither of those suggestions ever had to do with physical ability (well blacks might have but that was easily disproven) and homosexuals had to do more with morale and unit cohesion. Actually both had long proven themselves in combat as actual frontline forces not augmentees or "right time wrong place" No the military doesn't need to catch up with society if it will make it weaker.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Scaredfuzz21