Panetta Opens Thousands of Combat Positions to Women

[donkey_roxor]

so we'll have subs full of women seamen.

In all seriousness though, aren't women officers already serving on subs? Started last year I think?

[GDS_Starfury]

yup  there was even an idea of manning a sub with all women.
because a sub full of women on their periods at the same time while armed with nuclear weapons is such a great idea!  ::)

[Martok]

Or what if you get hurt?  Will she be able to carry me out? 

This gets at my single biggest concern: physical requirements. 


Will the DOD lower the standards so that women can serve in front-line combat?  If so, then this is a very, very bad idea. 

If not, however -- if they require women to meet the same physical standards as men -- then I'm less worried. 


I'm still not enthusiastic about the idea.  However, if the female soldiers (those that serve in combat) are held to the same physical standards as the guys, I think I can tolerate it. 

[bboyer66]

 Let me ramble a bit here.
Terrible idea.
There is a big difference between being an Infantryman/Tanker/Cav-Scout and serving on a Submarine/Carrier/Helicopter/ etc.
The physical demands are more then any woman I know could take. Carrying 100 pound packs in the mountains. Loading 80 pound 120mm into the gun tube at a high rate of speed. Running with an 85 pound M2 .50 cal on your shoulder during an alert. Pulling a 190 pound wounded soldier from a burning vehicle. Could go on all day.
Then we have the whole Female/Male 18-29 year old sexual thing going on. Out in the field there are no separate bathrooms and bedrooms.
Also you have this whole warrior spirit thing that will be diminished by throwing Females into the mix. Some of my fondest memories are platoon vs platoon battleroyals, where anything goes as long as you didnt kill someone.

When I was in the Army the PT tests for Women were a joke. They had to do 13 pushups minimum, while a male had to do 42. Almost the same ratio for sit-ups and 2 mile run. Also the maximum bodyfat for an 18 year old male was 20%, for a female it was 30 frackin % . 

  For those that have not served I highly recommend watching the movie Restrepo to see the everyday physical hardships our troops go through.

Now I am sure there are a few Females that could handle this. But the Military is not be about fairness. It is about defending our country efficiently and effectively. If someone can show me how Woman would increase combat efficiency. Then maybe I would consider it.

This a snippet from a conversation I had with one of my old Army buddies who is still in the active Army as a cav-scout.
" In my opinion, women should not be in the army at all. They create an unnecessary dynamic that is just not worth it. I don't even want to get started with the double standard that is already in place"

[MetalDog]

^Thanks for putting that out there.  It's the opinion I thought I might get when the topic was broached.  And honestly, do any of your mothers/sisters/girlfriends/wives strike you as the kind of person that can put up with the physical hardships associated with military life? Or, would you want them sharing close quarters with the kind of degenerates you know 18 to 29 year old menn to be (as you have been one yourself, I am sure you can picture what might happen)?  And how long before the first sexual harrassment/molestation/rape allegation?  Do I want that to happen?  No.  But you know damn good and well it's only a matter of time.  And then it will be too late.

[Longdan]

Where is Airborne Rifles?  He made some comments before about his own spouse as a member of the
Armed Forces.  I agree it is not about fair, physical standards must be met or they are a joke.
My concern has always been about what it does to the males who will always be the majority.
Can young men deal with having women around their dick-swinging environment?  Would you like to
support the injection of another factor of uncertainty into what can be seen as an armed gang of boys?
Will it ultimately make the Armed Forces stronger?  That last is the important one.
I do not think I have an answer but I surely do have some doubts.  This may be seen as one of the
last refuges of dinosaurs and maybe that is as it should be.  Innovation and trend setting are not
the hallmarks of the Armed Forces as I see them.  They talk about it but don't ever seem to practice it.
Forcing it upon them unwillingly cannot possibly bring about any good.  You can destroy and Army without
killing or disabling any soldiers.  Send them on nonstop peacekeeping missions for a couple of generations.

[LongBlade]

Will it ultimately make the Armed Forces stronger?  That last is the important one.
I do not think I have an answer but I surely do have some doubts. 

There are answers out there. This thing is being driven by political considerations, not smart doctrine.

If you'd watched Fox last night you would have seen the interview with Marine Captain who had been one of the two women accepted into the officer infantry training school last year.

It crushed her, and she had the integrity to say so on camera.

There probably are some women capable of keeping up, but there aren't many and standards shouldn't be reduced to accommodate a political wish list.

[donkey_roxor]

There probably are some women capable of keeping up, but there aren't many and standards shouldn't be reduced to accommodate a political wish list.

I'm not sure opening up combat positions to women necessarily means lowering standards. Why not let them take the same courses/tests? If they succeed, good. If they fail, so what? At least let them try. Plus, it's not like all men would pass either, and we obviously don't have a problem letting men try.

As for whether men and women could coexist in a combat environment, who knows? It's interesting to think about whether a male soldier would abandon the mission in favor of helping an injured woman soldier. Would it be different if the injured soldier was one of the male soldier's best (male) friends in the unit?

[LongBlade]

I haven't seen the details of the proposal (and might not understand them if I did), but the scuttlebutt I've seen indicated that lowered standards are in the works.

I hope not. We'll see.

[bayonetbrant]

Where is Airborne Rifles?

Afghanistan
and no, I'm not kidding.

[Longdan]

I know he is there but he pops in now and then.

[Martok]

There probably are some women capable of keeping up, but there aren't many and standards shouldn't be reduced to accommodate a political wish list.

I'm not sure opening up combat positions to women necessarily means lowering standards. Why not let them take the same courses/tests? If they succeed, good. If they fail, so what? At least let them try. Plus, it's not like all men would pass either, and we obviously don't have a problem letting men try.

I agree. 

The problem, however (as LongBlade pointed out), is that it sounds like standards might, in fact, be lowered to accommodate women.  If so, that's bad juju. 

[bob48]

so we'll have subs full of women seamen.

paging Bob... Bob to the thread please.

Oh, all right then. I was trying to stay outta this one, but....

'She was only an admirals daughter, but her naval base was full of discharged seamen' (change spelling to suit)

OK?

[Longdan]

"There was a girl from Azores......"

[Airborne Rifles]

Hey all, I've already said my piece in previous threads about this, but let me pose this question:

Instead of integrating the armed forces why don't we start with integrating the NBA and WNBA?  Allowing women in the NFL?

The consequences for failure are far less permanent and the opportunity for wealth and fame in men's professional sports are far greater than women's.  When you answer the question of why this is impossible then you will have answered why this is a bad idea.