Panetta opens combat roles to women

[dinggus]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Just like there was a reason gays weren't allowed to serve in the military?

What reason would that be? And surely you realize that there are other countries where women do serve in combat?

Gays were always allowed to serve, just not be open about it.

Show me a female in the military that can carry a basic load of 240 rounds, IOTV, and her 240, then go ruck 12miles on the mountains of Afghanistan.

The females in my company did nothing but complain until they got what they wanted and of course the standards are different for them.

[skottichan]

We're finally catching up with; Israel, Australia, New Zealand, and Sri Lanka.

And I love how people seem to think women unable to meet training regs, where women's 100% is well inside the mens' Pass-Fail range. As a 36 year old woman with ballet, equestrian and fencing training, I can pass the male Army, Navy and Air Force PT's, Marines I'd have to do prep training.

Also, remember when letting "the Gays" in was going to destroy the morale of the US military?

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by dinggus

Gays were always allowed to serve, just not be open about it.

No harm, no foul - right?

Show me a female in the military that can carry a basic load of 240 rounds, IOTV, and her 240, then go ruck 12miles on the mountains of Afghanistan.

The females in my company did nothing but complain until they got what they wanted and of course the standards are different for them.

In my opinion, if you treat them different they'll act different.

I also know plenty of men who wouldn't be able to do what you mentioned. But how will you know who can if those who want the chance don't get it? The cream will rise to the top.

And as I said, there are other countries where women are in combat roles.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by dinggus

Gays were always allowed to serve, just not be open about it.

Show me a female in the military that can carry a basic load of 240 rounds, IOTV, and her 240, then go ruck 12miles on the mountains of Afghanistan.

The females in my company did nothing but complain until they got what they wanted and of course the standards are different for them.

I was with Canadian Infantry-women in the Shah-i-Kot Valley during Anaconda in 2002.. they had no issue pulling/carrying their weight..

[skunk]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

I was with Canadian Infantry-women in the Shah-i-Kot Valley during Anaconda in 2002.. they had no issue pulling/carrying their weight..

Are you saying Canadian women are stronger than American women?

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by skunk

Are you saying Canadian women are stronger than American women?

Did you read the post I quoted?

[skunk]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

Did you read the post I quoted?

You obviously missed the invisible smiley face...

[63dot]

Listening to an ABC radio news piece break this was interesting, but reiterated that the lack of a front line in Iraq and Afghanistan and having women be in the line of fire much more in those wars forced this action. It's not as if the decision was made in a bubble.

If a woman is going to be shot at, and this has happened in a no front line type of war as 21st century conflict has evolved into, definitely let them have the full training awarded the men for a chance of survivability. With so many non front line soldiers killed, what then defines what a combat role is?

Anyway, it's about time.

----------

Originally Posted by dinggus

Gays were always allowed to serve, just not be open about it.

Show me a female in the military that can carry a basic load of 240 rounds, IOTV, and her 240, then go ruck 12miles on the mountains of Afghanistan.

The females in my company did nothing but complain until they got what they wanted and of course the standards are different for them.

Wow!

Maybe that's your experience. Tell that to women in special forces.

Not every person in combat is required to carry a heavy load even though there are tasks and duties that require it, sure. But there's a fundamental difference in what an infantry person, Ranger, Delta, or SAS has to do.

Common sense should rule the day.

BTW - those muscle bound guys who could carry the heavy weights almost always wash out of Seal Team 6 and Delta which basically has men who average 5'9" (Inside Delta Force).

Oh, and about gays. My boss was within that black element and he was no sissy and whatever the hell he wanted to call himself, nobody had any objection. At the end of the day, it's what the person can do and nobody questions one of maybe 150 shooters in the world who does this type of work. CAGs don't get questioned about their sexuality.

I congratulate outgoing DoD chief Panetta who also mentioned sexual orientation as well as sex when saying the jobs were open to everybody. We are potentially talking about 200,000 jobs which can now be officially open to women.

If a straight person has objections to gays and anybody has objections to women in combat, then they can always leave the military.

[Aspasia]

Originally Posted by mobilehaathi

And what does that have to do with women in combat?

It's a worthwhile perspective from someone who has actually been in combat.

I've no objection to women having the opportunity to be commandos or serving on the front lines so long as they meet the same physical and mental requirements as their male counterparts.

[mobilehaathi]

Originally Posted by Aspasia

It's a worthwhile perspective from someone who has actually been in combat.

I've no objection to women having the opportunity to be commandos or serving on the front lines so long as they meet the same physical and mental requirements as their male counterparts.

The inherent assumption that women can't is, frankly, rediculous. There are plenty of men who have no business in those situations.

[dinggus]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

I was with Canadian Infantry-women in the Shah-i-Kot Valley during Anaconda in 2002.. they had no issue pulling/carrying their weight..

I'm just saying from my experience so far in the military.

I'm all for opening the doors to females, I just have yet met a female that can do what a male can do equally physically (not including APFT).

When I'm on the battlefield I'm there to protect my battle buddy no matter what their race/sexual preference/gender.

[63dot]

Originally Posted by dinggus

I'm just saying from my experience so far in the military.

Not all combat requires what you did. There are those who fly, or are in tanks, or who mostly gather intel like many in SF. Yes, there are those who carry the heavy stuff like you and I tend to agree there may not be as many women in that unit.

[spork183]

Anyone who can pass the requirements should have a shot. Don't change the standards, but also don't purposefully try to wash candidates out. There will be roles where more women are capable of meeting requirements, and roles where fewer can meet requirements. There should be no blanket policy that you can't do something because you are a woman. Not every man can do every job, but they all have the right to try.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by spork183

Anyone who can pass the requirements should have a shot. Don't change the standards, but also don't purposefully try to wash candidates out. There will be roles where more women are capable of meeting requirements, and roles where fewer can meet requirements. There should be no blanket policy that you can't do something because you are a woman. Not every man can do every job, but they all have the right to try.

Problem is from the start though, the standards are different. Look at the physical fitness test.

[dinggus]

Originally Posted by 63dot

Not all combat requires what you did. There are those who fly, or are in tanks, or who mostly gather intel like many in SF. Yes, there are those who carry the heavy stuff like you and I tend to agree there may not be as many women in that unit.

I don't know of any female in SF. If there is, they are only assigned to them such as like signal. But they don't do what SF does. We had SF teams request support from our females and they were only there to search Iraqi females.

As for females in tanks, I'm going I guess they wont be the one loading it. Plus majority of Army tanks have gone away.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by dinggus

I don't know of any female in SF. If there is, they are only assigned to them such as like signal. But they don't do what SF does. We had SF teams request support from our females and they were only there to search Iraqi females.

As for females in tanks, I'm going I guess they wont be the one loading it. Plus majority of Army tanks have gone away.

Women already fly too

[LIVEFRMNYC]

I'm a 10 year vet. 2 yrs Army as a 12 bravo/combat engineer. 8 yrs in the Navy with 2 years as a DK/payroll clerk and 6 years as an EOD rescue swimmer.

I'm 50/50 on this. Not because of any biased toward women, but more because I've seen too many non capable women slip through the cracks, and many times with the help and encouragement from instructors. I've been through both Army & Navy bootcamps and countless of advance and specific training. 9 times out of 10, something a women can't do would easily be overlooked and/or made easier. I seriously feel many women shouldn't have even advanced past bootcamp. I will admit some women were more the capable to advance.

Sometimes this happens to men too, but usually a male is given discretion depending on how determined he shows and how well he is liked. And this discretion is basically to give more chances to get things right. Now with females, some of them never get it right and still slip through. It's almost like the military is afraid to enforce women to some of the same physical standards.

I been out of the military a little over 5 years now, so I can't speak for any changes. Just stating my 2 cents from my perspective.

[63dot]

Originally Posted by dinggus

I don't know of any female in SF. If there is, they are only assigned to them such as like signal. But they don't do what SF does. We had SF teams request support from our females and they were only there to search Iraqi females.

As for females in tanks, I'm going I guess they wont be the one loading it. Plus majority of Army tanks have gone away.

Yes support roles but SF nonetheless much like the soldiers who get them there via helicopter all the way or Swik in navy (special operations). I can see women in harm's way in roles of intel with SF. Any male team of operators going in may not be able to effectively gather intel from the female population there. I don't think this latest move is going to make all the men get kicked out the the Rangers or anything.

[eric/]

Just want to point out real quick, if you haven't gone to selection and q course you aren't SF

[dinggus]

Originally Posted by eric/

Just want to point out real quick, if you haven't gone to selection and q course you aren't SF

Thank you.

Only thing I need to bring up about is how long can they go without a shower? Plus what about their monthly cycles?

I work with a female and she said there's no way a female can be in a combat MOS due to that reason.

[63dot]

Originally Posted by dinggus

Thank you.

Only thing I need to bring up about is how long can they go without a shower? Plus what about their monthly cycles?

I work with a female and she said there's no way a female can be in a combat MOS due to that reason.

We can argue all day how far a woman can go, whether women have already been in combat or if they were even in harm's way, but from now on a new chapter will be written.

At the very least they should be given a chance.

[Aspasia]

Originally Posted by mobilehaathi

The inherent assumption that women can't is, frankly, rediculous. There are plenty of men who have no business in those situations.

Yup. And the guys (and gals) who flunk the test don't get the gig.

[mobilehaathi]

Let me help you out with that.

Originally Posted by dinggus

I work with a female and she said there's no way she, personally, could be in a combat MOS due to that reason.

Let's not make inferences on a single data point.

[Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by Aspasia

Combat's not pretty

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Neither is pregnancy.

You couldn't be more wrong. Pregnancy is beautiful.


On topic, however - and you can call my opinion sexist, or chauvanistic, or regressive, or whatever - I think this is a bad idea. I don't like the idea of sending women onto the front lines.

It has nothing to do with whether they "can" do it - I have no doubt many of them are capable, both physically and emotionally.

For me, it has everything to do with whether we "should" do it.

I watched the beach scene in Saving Private Ryan. My niece is turning 18 this week. I would never dream of her, or other women her age, being knee-deep in that somewhere.

I see this in much the same way as getting into a fist fight with a woman - as a guy, you just don't do it. Yes, I'm sure there are some women who could genuinely kick my ass in a fight - but I would never step into the ring with any of them. It just doesn't sit well with me.

Flame away, if you must.

[mrkramer]

Originally Posted by Tomorrow

I watched the beach scene in Saving Private Ryan. My niece is turning 18 this week. I would never dream of her, or other women her age, being knee-deep in that somewhere.

It would be nice if no one had to be in that kind of situation, but as long as we keep having wars if a woman wants to volunteer and is physically capable of doing it, there is no problem with it.