http://grognews.blogspot.com/2013/01/news-panetta-opens-combat-positions-to_1024.html
Interesting.
"The U.S. military is ending its policy of excluding women from combat and will open combat jobs and direct combat units to female troops, CNN has learned. Multiple officials confirm to CNN that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will make the announcement tomorrow and notify Congress of the planned change in policy."
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/23/military-to-open-combat-jobs-to-women/ (http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/23/military-to-open-combat-jobs-to-women/)
Next step: Congress amends Selective Service law to require women to register?
just more pictures!!!
I have strong personal feelings on the issue that I won't air here but it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Thanks for the heads up Brant.
Now how are the boys going to take it?
Just saw this over at MSN. My very first thought was, how long will it be before someone proves this is a bad idea? Let me make clear that I have not ever served in the armed forces, so I have exactly zero idea or experience in what could possibly happen with men and women serving side by each in harms way. Having said that, and maybe this is just my innate maleness, but, how can you concentrate with a woman next to you?
Sure, you could forget for a time that she is a woman, but, at some point, the fact will come home to you that there is a woman in a firefight right next to you. Or in a foxhole. Or a confined space. And at some point, the things that mark the male/female dynamic will be explored. What if she gets hurt? Will that trigger your macho protection response? Or what if you get hurt? Will she be able to carry me out? Or you've been in the field, away from your wife for months and Cpl. Jones has been hinting around that a hookup isn't out of the question? Am I missing something here?
For those who have served, I thank you for your service and forgive me if I am being obtuse or disrespectful. I just don't get where this is a good idea.
I'm wondering what the Vegas odds are on some of this being rolled back.
So what do we call this new program?
Infantry with benefits?
We've now got three threads on this. I'm going to splice them into a single one.
so we'll have subs full of women seamen.
paging Bob... Bob to the thread please.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on January 23, 2013, 08:50:48 PM
so we'll have subs full of women seamen.
I'm not bob, but I'll give it a shot
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on January 23, 2013, 08:50:48 PM
so we'll have subs full of women seamen.
That'd be a sticky situation, wouldn't it?
depends on how much down bubble you get.
I can see this thread is going to be milked for all it's worth.
take your best shots!
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on January 23, 2013, 08:50:48 PM
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?
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! ::)
Quote from: MetalDog on January 23, 2013, 07:59:36 PM
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.
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"
^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.
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.
Quote from: Longdan on January 24, 2013, 07:42:09 PM
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.
Quote from: LongBlade on January 24, 2013, 07:59:10 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: Longdan on January 24, 2013, 07:42:09 PM
Where is Airborne Rifles?
Afghanistan
and no, I'm not kidding.
I know he is there but he pops in now and then.
Quote from: donkey_roxor on January 24, 2013, 09:57:25 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on January 24, 2013, 07:59:10 PM
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.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on January 23, 2013, 08:50:48 PM
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?
"There was a girl from Azores......"
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.
Quote from: Airborne Rifles on January 26, 2013, 04:20:25 AMInstead 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.
That's a very interesting perspective. Not a bad way to pose the question.
One argument you're bound to run into is that the NFL and NBA are not government entities (though you'd think so given how much money governments pay for their stadiums) and that the government has a higher burden of including the citizenry than the NFL/NBA.
On a side note, the military integrated races far, far quicker than any of the professional sports leagues.
Food for thought: the current Joint Chiefs of Staff that has endorsed this does not contain a single infantryman. Even the Commandant of the Marine Corps is an aviator.
Dempsey was a tanker, so that's a non-co-ed combat arm.
Odierno is an artilleryman (and an NC State grad - for his Master's) but for most of his career, the artillery was not co-ed.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on January 26, 2013, 07:32:01 AM
One argument you're bound to run into is that the NFL and NBA are not government entities (though you'd think so given how much money governments pay for their stadiums) and that the government has a higher burden of including the citizenry than the NFL/NBA.
True, but the military has a responsibility to maintain good order and discipline in its ranks which allows it to restrict many of the constitutional rights of its members. I don't see this case as different.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on January 26, 2013, 07:52:31 AM
Dempsey was a tanker, so that's a non-co-ed combat arm.
Odierno is an artilleryman (and an NC State grad - for his Master's) but for most of his career, the artillery was not co-ed.
Appologies, no disrespect intended to those branches. I'm just coming at the issue narrowly from my own area of expertise, which is light infantry, and which I believe has a unique set of physical challenges.
agreed that it has it's own physical challenges, but would you rate mech infantry closer to light infantry or armor?
I honestly would rate them closer to light infantry given the likely missions today. Mech infantry is deploying to Afghanistan and operating as light infantry.
You do not have to kill or injure soldiers to ruin an army.
There are a lot of useless armies floating around out there and vanished in history.
Mostly because they lost their purpose and became something other than the Armed Force
of their nation. My question posed at the beginning is will it make the Army better?
If it will not make it better and more effective it is a doubtful and potentially idiotic move.
Quote from: Airborne Rifles on January 26, 2013, 04:20:25 AM
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.
Wouldn't pistol/rifle sports be a more relevant analogy? Does modern combat involve much of the melee-range, personal, one-on-one interactions prevalent in sports like the NBA, NFL, and NHL? Of course, I don't think pistol/rifle sports are integrated - do men intrinsically shoot better than women?
Yes, Biathlon would be a better match.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biathlon
The bigger concern is troops that should be on guard in a war zone deciding they get more from having sex. In a vehicle, under a tree, wherever.
Do young people still do that? I know I did when I was soldier age. Doesn't mean kids these days will.
The older, more mature officers will just tell them not to. Nothing to see here. Keep moving.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ash3%2F521662_536983499668139_1021008596_n.png&hash=8a2efabf4e4876bad977520b0782a4297a26f94e)
Quote from: Longdan on January 23, 2013, 06:20:35 PM
Now how are the boys going to take it?
The same way that ours did. Initial push-back, then grudging acceptance. The final stage is general acceptance, because in 20 years, it will be the way that it always was.
Quote from: Airborne Rifles on January 26, 2013, 07:47:26 AM
Food for thought: the current Joint Chiefs of Staff that has endorsed this does not contain a single infantryman. Even the Commandant of the Marine Corps is an aviator.
:o
Maybe I should clarify my position on all this. I have no issue with women in the military. My wife served for five years, a fact of which I am extremely proud. While she was in she was certainly a better officer than I can hope to be. My objections do not stem from any desire to "protect" women from the ravages of combat or the difficult living conditions that go along with it. They are soldiers and whether they knew it or not, that is what they signed up for. All the issues that people have brought up, of sanitation, sexual assault, POWs, etc., can and will be dealt with by discipline, training, and education.
The problem is that operations with combat arms in general and infantry in particular pushes people to the edge of their physical and emotional abilities. While I don't think that women's emotional abilities are any less than men's, I think it's pretty clear that your average male physically is going to be bigger, faster, and stronger than your average female. Keep in mind that this is a team sport. If you have one soldier slowing you down on a march you can't just leave him or her behind. If a soldier cannot carry their weight then that weight has to be redistributed among their squadmates.
If someone could assure me that in lifting the ban on women in combat arms we would also maintain high and equal standards of physical ability as a condition of joining and staying then my objections would go away. Unfortunately, that is not going to happen. I'm pretty sure we will either lower standards generally, or maintain our already seperate standards for males and females. Centurion40, how did the Canadian military do it? Do you have seperate standards for men and women up there or are they assessed differently?
The reason I used NFL/NBA as an example is because those are two events in which woman have a distinct disadvantage in income. The sport itself doesn't really matter. Biathalon is still a segregated event in the Olympics, why? Because if it weren't the winnings would be dominated by men, not because they are better shots but because they are stronger and faster. Understand I am talking in averages because that is what we have to deal with in the army.
I don't usually engage in any sort of political dialogue because I think it's unhealthy for a member of the military, but I'm passionate about this subject. I feel it is being pushed I a bunch of people who want it done so they can feel better about how fair things are, but will never suffer the consequences on the battlefield. In the end it will be me and my fellow soldiers who will implement these new policies and make them work, and they will work. However, they won't work as well and at the back end we will have less capable formations which will make it harder for us to accomplish our mission and in the end we will be sending more of these soldiers, male and female, home in body bags.
Quote from: Centurion40 on February 01, 2013, 01:55:10 PM
Quote from: Airborne Rifles on January 26, 2013, 07:47:26 AM
Food for thought: the current Joint Chiefs of Staff that has endorsed this does not contain a single infantryman. Even the Commandant of the Marine Corps is an aviator.
:o
I should clarify that my look of shock comes from the thought that the top soldier is not a grunt! I just assumed that the top soldier would always be a grunt. Same with the Corps.
Yeah, we have different physical standards for women. That said, Infantry School is still Infantry School (AFAIK); one either makes the cut or one does not.
Quote from: Airborne Rifles on February 02, 2013, 07:54:22 AMThe reason I used NFL/NBA as an example is because those are two events in which woman have a distinct disadvantage in income. The sport itself doesn't really matter. Biathalon is still a segregated event in the Olympics, why? Because if it weren't the winnings would be dominated by men, not because they are better shots but because they are stronger and faster. Understand I am talking in averages because that is what we have to deal with in the army.
I'm curious why no one has made a counterargument for the non-physical-related sports, then - why isn't Archery co-ed?
Interestingly, in a sport where pure physical ability is
not at a premium (NASCAR/IndyCar) the performers are co-ed (Danica Patrick, among others)
Quote
Yeah, we have different physical standards for women. That said, Infantry School is still Infantry School (AFAIK); one either makes the cut or one does not.
But the women make a different cut, I believe is what you are saying.
Quote from: Airborne Rifles on February 03, 2013, 07:49:16 AM
Yeah, we have different physical standards for women. That said, Infantry School is still Infantry School (AFAIK); one either makes the cut or one does not.
But the women make a different cut, I believe is what you are saying.
Correct, their physical standards to enter the Canadian Forces, along with annual testing are "lighter" than those same standards for me. That being said, in Infantry School, they (AFAIK, I left the Infantry in 1981, they didn't let women into the Combat Arms when I went through Infantry School) carry same pack and weapons, they march the same routes, do the same PT, dig the same trenches, etc. as the men. Also, AFAIK, few women are attracted to the infantry and even fewer graduate from Infantry School. Honestly, I don't know how it works for them in a regiment today. I've been out since 2006. My last stint 1998-2006 was as a Cadet Intructor Cadre Officer, basically a glorified scout leader. I was the CO of an Air Cadet Squadron on an Air Force Base in a navy town. My only contact with the army was 100% POG, either other CIC officers, meatheads, supply, admin or comms.
FYI, we opened our Combat Arms (except submarines) to women in 1986, but it wasn't until 1989 that a woman made the grade and was assigned to a regular infantry regiment, as an infantryman.
http://www.forces.ca/en/page/women-92#milestones-2
I was very young and quite fit when I went in in 1973 and I found the physical training regimen to be
very taxing. You had to be in good shape to get in and several guys from my intake found it too hard.
I remember it being really quite miserable with constant physical work, hunger, thirst and lack of sleep.
Our NCO's repeatedly told us it was their job to send us home to our mommies. Those who wanted to
quit got no second chance, no sympathetic interview... just escorted with their effects to the bus to
Halifax. (We were at Cornwallis). Things got more PC afterwards into the late 70's and 80's.
QuoteWASHINGTON, DC – In a surprise move sure to cause controversy in the military community, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has signed a memorandum authorizing men to join the United States Army's Adjutant General's Corps.
During a press conference regarding the latest change in policies dealing with gender equality in the armed forces, Panetta explained his decision.
"During this time of coming fiscal austerity, it is important that we are able to select the best personnel for the job, regardless of sex. I assure you, the standards we enforce for AG soldiers will not be relaxed in any way; our AG soldiers – whether male or female – will still need to be able to lift accordion folders above their heads, type at high speed, and deploy to the field at least once per enlistment period or every three years, whichever occurs first."
While most active duty service members greeted the announcement with little fanfare, 92% of AG soldiers polled expressed vehement disapproval of the decision. Captain Susan Brooks, the S1 of a logistics battalion in Korea, said, "This is utter bullshit. They say that they aren't going to be relaxing the standards, but can you seriously tell me that a male will be able to go line-by-line down a unit manning roster and ensure that all of the required information is correctly entered and in the proper format? They'll be running to the gym or Ruby Tuesday's after the first two hours."
Master Sergeant Emily Robinson, a G1 Non-commissioned Officer in Charge based in Texas, agreed. "Some of these male NCOs have good troop leadership skills, but are you honestly telling me you can trust those Neanderthals to set up a division-level awards ceremony, prepare a script, and properly line up the personnel and awards so that the event goes flawlessly? Maybe if there were grenades involved."
But males who aspire to join the AG Corps believe that they have what it takes to succeed in the formerly female-dominated branch. SGT Michael Westerly, a 13B artilleryman, has already put in paperwork to change his military occupational specialty to 42A (human resources specialist).
When asked about the backlash he may receive from his future co-workers, Westerly said, "I know a lot of females think that males can't handle the type of work we're required to do in an office environment, but I'm up to the task. Before I joined the Army, I temped as a secretary at an insurance agency for several months. I can type a good thirty or forty words a minute and I have a good basic knowledge of [Microsoft] Excel and Word. While I might not be as good at that stuff as the females, I will work longer and harder to make up for any shortfall in my production."
This change in policy is only the latest that has fundamentally changed gender roles in the military. Earlier this year, Secretary Panetta decided to allow women into formerly male-only combat assignments and in 2010 he allowed men to serve in the Nurse Corps and Military Intelligence Corps.
hahahahaha
http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/02/panetta-signs-memo-authorizing-men-to-join-adjutant-general-corps/
Nice.
As soon as I read that first sentence, I knew it had to be the Duffel Blog. :)
Duffel Blog is real in our hearts. :'(
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-prn1%2F537933_558402597512305_992593174_n.jpg&hash=02ec012b011a268f0d31171f5181a1b0b44e6c23)