Panetta to Lift Ban on Women in Combat

[Guest one]

Hey one, can you read this a few times? Has it started to sink in, yet? We're concerned about soldier's lives while you envision some spank-fest amazon movie and liberal utopia?

I like how I make a joke about Kill Bill and now my reality is based on movies. I completely understand women will very likely not succeed. I could careless about a tiny fraction of women trying to get into a career field that will probably limit them more than any other non-combat related job. It is something that means so little in the grand scheme of things. People will say it costs so much money and they will bring up a whole gambit of other issues. Most of the issues they bring up will be deemed sexist and only encourage more feminist military members (one of the worst types of female military members, right behind the women who lie about being sexually harassed) trying to take on jobs just to prove a woman could do it instead of choosing a role where they would have the biggest impact.

I hope it doesn't come down to passing a woman for the sake of doing it. If that happens, it is not the policy that is broken, but the leadership and it is definitely not what I support. Personally, I accept the policy much more than I support it. There was a much better time to do something like this. The military should have been better prepared. When homosexuals were allowed to serve there was years worth of studies done. This was done with almost no notice. With major policy changes the military will do exactly what it has always done, adapt. The best thing to do is take a deep breath and realize that this issue is an interesting story to put on TV but it is not even close to being in the top ten things on the DoDs real agenda. If anything, this was the best distraction the Obama team could have done to distract people from all the issues the military is going to face in the next year or two.

Edited January 31, 2013 by one

[nsplayr]

There was a much better time to do something like this. The military should have been better prepared. When homosexuals were allowed to serve there was years worth of studies done. This was done with almost no notice. With major policy changes the military will do exactly what it has always done, adapt.

Here's where I disagree with you. Ask yourself this: what did all those "years of study and preparation" achieve before allowing openly gay people to serve? The word went out that, "we're studying this, BPT change the policy," a bunch of hangs were rung, some CBTs were clicked through, and the policy was changed just like everyone thought it would be eventually.

Why not just save people the heartache and just make the change and be done with it? The great thing about this policy is that it's done, no real need to debate the merits one way or the other. No time like the present to end policies that are no longer working and move on with life.

[Guest one]

I think it is easier to get support from the far right if you brace them for it and explain it. You take away their opportunity to make false arguments against the policy. Even if you look at this forum for example, people on the far right do not see a single positive thing about this policy. Not one. I am a Republican but on this forum I might as well be Al Gore's personal assistant. I am admittedly moderate but far from a liberal.

We are close to being out of Afghanistan for the most part. I think waiting a few years would have allowed the top military leadership to create strategies that would have worked for their service.

The one good thing about doing this during a conflict is that the general public and politicians will be more likely to support keeping the standards the same for men and women because the need for the standards are much more apparent when you count on those standards to keep men and women safe in a deployed environment.

ETA: When we did those CBTs and and survey's we new change was coming.

Edited January 31, 2013 by one

[Fuzz]

I completely understand women will very likely not succeed. I could careless about a tiny fraction of women trying to get into a career field that will probably limit them more than any other non-combat related job. It is something that means so little in the grand scheme of things.

It could mean a whole lot to that soldier whose closest squadmate is a female and can't drag him to cover...

Edited January 31, 2013 by Scaredfuzz21

[Jughead]

dude at the schoolhouse get his leg crushed in a motorcycle accident ... So he got kicked out right, now that he's "disabled." Nope, got a prosthetic, demonstrated he could handle the aircraft controls with it vice a real leg, and he's GTG and mission qual'd.

Not the question everyone here is asking you. That's a guy who was already qual'd. If you want an example that's on point, you should look to how many guys with prosthetic legs go to pilot training (or are accepted for initial entry to military service). What's that, we don't do that...? That's unfair! I'm calling my Congressman!!

[nsplayr]

Not the question everyone here is asking you. That's a guy who was already qual'd. If you want an example that's on point, you should look to how many guys with prosthetic legs go to pilot training (or are accepted for initial entry to military service). What's that, we don't do that...? That's unfair! I'm calling my Congressman!!

You're right, it was a slightly different example due to already being in service. The point was that this person developed a condition that would limit his job performance, got it corrected to the standards, and was allowed to give it a shot again.

Although this is way down the wrong rabbit hole...at what point are you calling something a "disability" that's disqualifying versus something that can be corrected to meet standards? Uncorrected poor eyesight is a disqualifier for flying, unless you get LASIK/PRK to meet standards. Being too fat is a disqualifier, unless you un-fat yourself. I'm not a f*cking doctor here but obviously there are things that can be brought up to acceptable standards and things that can't...not even sure why we're at this point in the debate.

Here's my rule and I've said it before: if you can meet the min ascessions standards you're welcome to try out. If you then continue to meet the standards of whatever unit/community/MOS/AFSC you're trying to join, continue and GL to you. If not then thanks for playing, there are plenty of other fish in the sea.

It's a pretty simple principle, judging people based on their proven ability rather than some arbitrary measure, taken ahead of time and across the board, that has nothing to do with actual no-shit job performance.

Edited January 31, 2013 by nsplayr

[spaceman]

Everyone seems to be using 'combat' as a blanket term. There's really a big difference between Spc. Joe Schmuck support person who gets in a firefight, and Spc. Tommy Toughnuts infantryman who walks around all day looking for a fight.

I have a female friend from the Army who had been attacked on convoys in Iraq and had people shooting at her, and she shot back. That's combat, no doubt.

I also have friends who were infantry, and a couple who were Rangers. One of them spent 18 months straight in Afghanistan dragging a sniper rifle up and down mountains, setting up ambushes and attacking Taliban. One of my Ranger buddies was in Iraq breaking into buildings and chasing down people in the streets and arresting them.

All these people 'served in combat', but it's a big frickin difference. My female buddy was totally competent in her MOS, passed her PT tests no problem, and was generally one of the more squared away people in our unit. I was glad she was in my squad (we were marksmanship instructors in this unit mind you, not infantry). BUT I can tell you there's no way in hell she could have physically done what my infantry friends did day in and day out.

That's just one example I guess, but something to think about.

edit: spellinz

Edited January 31, 2013 by spaceman

[Lord Ratner]

I don't post much, but there is a lot of talk about fairness going on, and I've never been a huge fan of fairness (joking).

The military is not about fairness. Pick your flashy motivational phrase (hot iron on target, kill people and break their things, peace through superior firepower), but the military has always been the exception. Socialized medicine, pay structures, limits on freedom of speech, the draft, so on and so forth. It's not about fairness, it's about keeping America safe (regardless of how you think our current conflicts tie in to that).

That doesn't mean avoid change, but unlike the real world, where you can make a change based on a principal and see how it plays out, I think it needs to be proven first, then implemented. Because after you wade through all the political BS and passion for "fairness," there are a bunch of kids out there getting paid a hell of a lot less than most of us that worry every bridge they cross or dead animal they drive past is a bomb. Their lives aren't acceptable collateral damage in this war for gender neutrality.

To all the men on this board (everyone?), do you guys even remember what it was like to be 18 or 19 (or even a bit older)? Was there anything in the world more confusing/frustrating/amazing/baffling/infuriating than women? Maybe everyone here was Arthur Fonzarelli, but I doubt it. Does anyone think fairness (taught through CBT no less) is going to quell the horomones a 19 year old who will fall in love with the local barista because she writes a heart on his (and everybody else's) receipt?

Put them through the training. Seperately. Then, if they can hack the pure physical nature of it, integrate the training in a few classes, and watch to see (if) the dynamic shifts. If it doesn't, find the platoon with the highest average age, and integrate them at home, keeping them away from the action until they can run through every training exercise (our flag equivalents?) and experience ZERO loss in effectiveness.

Show me that, and I'll be the first in line to congratulate women and welcome them in.

And in case this pops up, the DADT repeal is different. At least with the people I know, it wasn't much of a secret that there were gay/lesbian members serving. The "trial phase" happened when the leadership stopped actively investigating all but the most blatant cases of DADT violations. Not the most tactful way to go about it, but the results were about the same.

[nsplayr]

Perhaps that will happen...all the "trial" integrations you speak of above were banned under the former policy in terms of women actually being assigned to ground combat units, going through the ascessions process, etc. Now that the policy is changed, the services can proceed with doing exactly this if that's what they determine is best and everyone signs off on it.

I'm also betting leadership would argue some of the "trial" steps have been accomplished via women being attached to infantry units rather than assigned, i.e. they've already been there on engagement teams, as medica, etc. but not as official members of the infantry unit they're deployed with.

Edited January 31, 2013 by nsplayr

[Rifleman96]

To all the men on this board (everyone?), do you guys even remember what it was like to be 18 or 19 (or even a bit older)? Was there anything in the world more confusing/frustrating/amazing/baffling/infuriating than women?

So you figured them out. I'm 30+ and I'm still right there w/ the 18/19 yr olds.

[Boxhead]

So you figured them out. I'm 30+ and I'm still right there w/ the 18/19 yr olds.

Bitches be crazy. I don't want to understand them. They understand each other, and hate each other.

[Rifleman96]

Bitches be crazy. I don't want to understand them. They understand each other, and hate each other.

That gets an "amen" from the wife.

[Lord Ratner]

So you figured them out. I'm 30+ and I'm still right there w/ the 18/19 yr olds.

Stopped trying. Huge difference.

[KState_Poke22]

It's about way more than just "meeting the standards,". Here's another well written article by a female Marine. I'd like to see your response to this.

Some advice on women in combat from a female veteran

POSTED AT 5:01 PM ON JANUARY 27, 2013 BY JAZZ SHAW

Yesterday’s column on women in combat elicited a number of passionate responses from both sides. Some of them came from proponents of the move, frequently citing alternate motives on my part. These ranged from “trying to keep women pregnant in the kitchen” and “Republicans want to lock women in the 1950s” to whichever variant of the GOP’s “war on women” you’d care to name. Many others lent a more sympathetic ear. One in particular, though, caught my attention. It was from one of America’s female veterans who served in Iraq, delivered with a first hand, been there, done that background. The Marine in question – who for purposes of publication will go by the pseudonym of “Sentry” – had previously submitted this history and opinion as a comment at National Review, but her story was compelling enough that I checked into her background, contacted her and decided to republish it here in its entirety. I offer the following as a third party testimony to stand your scrutiny on its own merits.

I’m a female veteran. I deployed to Anbar Province, Iraq. When I was active duty, I was 5’6, 130 pounds, and scored nearly perfect on my PFTs. I naturally have a lot more upper body strength than the average woman: not only can I do pull-ups, I can meet the male standard. I would love to have been in the infantry. And I still think it will be an unmitigated disaster to incorporate women into combat roles. I am not interested in risking men’s lives so I can live my selfish dream.

We’re not just talking about watering down the standards to include the politically correct number of women into the unit. This isn’t an issue of “if a woman can meet the male standard, she should be able to go into combat.” The number of women that can meet the male standard will be miniscule–I’d have a decent shot according to my PFTs, but dragging a 190-pound man in full gear for 100 yards would DESTROY me–and that miniscule number that can physically make the grade AND has the desire to go into combat will be facing an impossible situation that will ruin the combat effectiveness of the unit. First, the close quarters of combat units make for a complete lack of privacy and EVERYTHING is exposed, to include intimate details of bodily functions. Second, until we succeed in completely reprogramming every man in the military to treat women just like men, those men are going to protect a woman at the expense of the mission. Third, women have physical limitations that no amount of training or conditioning can overcome. Fourth, until the media in this country is ready to treat a captured/raped/tortured/mutilated female soldier just like a man, women will be targeted by the enemy without fail and without mercy.

I saw the male combat units when I was in Iraq. They go outside the wire for days at a time. They eat, sleep, urinate and defecate in front of each other and often while on the move. There’s no potty break on the side of the road outside the wire. They urinate into bottles and defecate into MRE bags. I would like to hear a suggestion as to how a woman is going to urinate successfully into a bottle while cramped into a humvee wearing full body armor. And she gets to accomplish this feat with the male members of her combat unit twenty inches away. Volunteers to do that job? Do the men really want to see it? Should they be forced to?

Everyone wants to point to the IDF as a model for gender integration in the military. No, the IDF does not put women on the front lines. They ran into the same wall the US is about to smack into: very few women can meet the standards required to serve there. The few integrated units in the IDF suffered three times the casualties of the all-male units because the Israeli men, just like almost every other group of men on the planet, try to protect the women even at the expense of the mission. Political correctness doesn’t trump thousands of years of evolution and societal norms. Do we really WANT to deprogram that instinct from men?

Regarding physical limitations, not only will a tiny fraction of women be able to meet the male standard, the simple fact is that women tend to be shorter than men. I ran into situations when I was deployed where I simply could not reach something. I wasn’t tall enough. I had to ask a man to get it for me. I can’t train myself to be taller. Yes, there are small men…but not so nearly so many as small women. More, a military PFT doesn’t measure the ability to jump. Men, with more muscular legs and bones that carry more muscle mass than any woman can condition herself to carry, can jump higher and farther than women. That’s why we have a men’s standing jump and long jump event in the Olympics separate from women. When you’re going over a wall in Baghdad that’s ten feet high, you have to be able to be able to reach the top of it in full gear and haul yourself over. That’s not strength per se, that’s just height and the muscular explosive power to jump and reach the top. Having to get a boost from one of the men so you can get up and over could get that man killed.

Without pharmaceutical help, women just do not carry the muscle mass men do. That muscle mass is also a shock absorber. Whether it’s the concussion of a grenade going off, an IED, or just a punch in the face, a woman is more likely to go down because she can’t absorb the concussion as well as a man can. And I don’t care how the PC forces try to slice it, in hand-to-hand combat the average man is going to destroy the average woman because the average woman is smaller, period. Muscle equals force in any kind of strike you care to perform. That’s why we don’t let female boxers face male boxers.

Lastly, this country and our military are NOT prepared to see what the enemy will do to female POWs. The Taliban, AQ, insurgents, jihadis, whatever you want to call them, they don’t abide by the Geneva Conventions and treat women worse than livestock. Google Thomas Tucker and Kristian Menchaca if you want to see what they do to our men (and don’t google it unless you have a strong stomach) and then imagine a woman in their hands. How is our 24/7 news cycle going to cover a captured, raped, mutilated woman? After the first one, how are the men in the military going to treat their female comrades? ONE Thomasina Tucker is going to mean the men in the military will move heaven and earth to protect women, never mind what it does to the mission. I present you with Exhibit A: Jessica Lynch. Male lives will be lost trying to protect their female comrades. And the people of the US are NOT, based on the Jessica Lynch episode, prepared to treat a female POW the same way they do a man.

I say again, I would have loved to be in the infantry. I think I could have done it physically, I could’ve met almost all the male standards (jumping aside), and I think I’m mentally tough enough to handle whatever came. But I would never do that to the men. I would never sacrifice the mission for my own desires. And I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if someone died because of me.

- Sentry

[pcola]

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

THANK YOU! Worked like a charm and I can finally enjoy the forum again. PM me your address and I'll drop that crisp $5 in the mail! BTW, I was able to make it through all the remaining 9 pages of this thread in no time after cutting out pages of liberal drivel.

[pcola]

Anybody here gone through Ranger School? It's not just about meeting the standards. Most are washed out in the first week because they don't have the mental fortitude to gut through it. Yes the official answer with the fitness test is so many push ups/situps/pull ups; but it is also a test of the mind. Guys are typically knocking out 90+ push ups in that event because the grader will mess w/ them and not count push ups. A candidate will continue to knock them out until they have achieved the minimum number. The grader will mark down the 65 push ups required but as I said before they more than likely knocked out 90+. The same goes for the rest of the test with the exception of the 5 mile run in 40 min's. Ranger school is all about a gut check. A lot of guys who make it past the first week, who are at the top of their game physically, will not make it due to some form of leg/knee injury from all the rucking that they do. Then there is also peer evaluations. So how do you think a woman will make it through the peer evals (that will be out the door). Anybody ever watch any of the documentaries on Ranger School. To quote my wife, "women are already loopy from the start." Men are working on almost pure instinct by the point that it gets to where guys start hallucinating. I don't see a woman even making it through Infantry Training which I have been through. If we are looking at full equality. Then I would suggest that there is just one PT standard which males currently do, true equality since there is no real difference between a man and a woman. As a father of a daughter, I am completely against it especially since this will create a possibility that she has no choice but to enter military service. I do not believe in equality. Some are made stronger, faster and smarter and good on them. In the realm of ground battle, men have the obvious advantages that are necessary for winning battles as quickly and efficiently as possible. I can remember my Parachute Infantry Regiment Company Commander almost disowning me because I had purchased GI Jane. I thought it was a half entertaining movie. But I knew it was fiction and could never happen. I know it won't happen until they lower the standards for the sake of equality and giving in to the whining women that want leadership positions just for the sake of the title. It will be harder to operate and win quickly and efficiently w/ women in the combat units.

Agree with your post. I think the problem most of us have with this policy is the inevitable problems that will arise upon injecting jaded females into these types of environments. What happens when a female gets half of her pushups or sit-ups counted? Yep, she was treated unfairly because she's a female and gets a pass. What happens when she fails because her peer evals suck? Yep, she was discriminated against by the majority for being a female trying to break into a male dominate career and gets a pass.

We agree, it is extremely unlikely that women will pass these tests in significant enough numbers to make a difference either way -- so why introduce the problems? Why, yet again, do we have to bend the masses to pander to the extreme few? Why invite all of the problems that history tells us are certain to arise?

I'm not opposed to progress, but I'm also a fan of the liberal application of common sense.

[Waco]

Words

Do you talk this much in real life?

[338skybolt]

I'm also a fan of the liberal application of common sense.

No such thing. Unless you meant large qty. vs. hippie idiot.

[pcola]

No such thing. Unless you meant large qty. vs. hippie idiot.

Haha, I guess the use of the word "liberal" was a subconscious injection. My intended context was that of quantity, not to imply that "liberals" are capable of applying common sense.

[FallingOsh]

"Some, however, said the survey shows the need for sensitivity training and guidance from leadership so the change goes smoothly,"

Sensitivity training for our Marines. Just fucking awesome.

"About 17 percent of male Marine respondents and 4 percent of female respondents who planned to stay in the service or were undecided said they would likely leave if women move into combat positions. That number jumped to 22 percent for male Marines and 17 percent for female Marines if women are assigned involuntarily to those jobs, according to the survey."

They are probably just talking, but I think it's interesting how many females said they would leave.

"The questionnaire also relied on the "mistaken belief" that training standards will remain the same, which Donnelly said is not realistic given the differing physical abilities between the genders. She said the Pentagon is bent on imposing gender-based quotas that will drive down standards. Defense leaders say standards will not be lowered."

https://news.yahoo.co...-002047180.html

Edited February 2, 2013 by FallingOsh

[FL001]

https://abcnews.go.co...31#.Ua2WCpx1D40

https://www.amazon.co...k/dp/B00D5CXCLY

A former member of the elite U.S. Navy SEALs has come out to say she's now a woman.

Edited June 4, 2013 by FL001

[Champ Kind]

https://abcnews.go.co...31#.Ua2WCpx1D40 https://www.amazon.co...k/dp/B00D5CXCLY A former member of the elite U.S. Navy SEALs has come out to say she's now a woman.

Recommend re-post in "WTF" thread.

[brewskis]

A former member of the elite U.S. Navy SEALs has come out to say she's now a woman.

[Steve Holt!]

That woman's beard puts me to shame

[Toro]

SOCOM: "Uhh...not so fast."

Blog from a fighter guy on the subject:

Want to read a fantastic double-entendre? "The order Panetta and Dempsey signed prohibits physical standards from being lowered simply to allow women to qualify for jobs closer to the battlefront. But the services are methodically reviewing and revising the standards for many jobs, including strength and stamina, in order to set minimum requirements for troops to meet regardless of their sex."