Women to now be allowed in combat roles

Billy the Great Khan

Billy the Great Khan

Uwaa OmO
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/01/23/170093351/panetta-lifts-ban-on-women-in-combat-roles

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has lifted a ban that prohibited women from serving in combat, a congressional source tells NPR's Tom Bowman. The move opens up thousands of front-line positions.
Panetta is expected to announce the decision along with the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff tomorrow.
Citing "senior defense officials," the AP adds:
"The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule banning women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta's decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women."

​
Back in November, four servicewomen along with the American Civil Liberties Union sued the Pentagon and Panetta over the combat exclusion policy.
Click to expand...

Surprised that none of our ladies are the first to point this out, though I suppose this is fairly recent. Anyways, this is sure to make things interesting in infantry battalions.
 
did you serve in combat? if so, what is your opinion of this? i see now problem with it, however, i've never served so my opinion would not hold as much weight as those who have served in combat, imo.
 
Sativa said:
did you serve in combat? if so, what is your opinion of this? i see now problem with it, however, i've never served so my opinion would not hold as much weight as those who have served in combat, imo.
Click to expand...

Well, to be technical, no I wasn't in a combat arms unit. Those are infantry, tanks, and artillery only. Was I in combat though? Yeah, I was a machine gunner for convoys during the Surge.

Personally I think it's a bad idea so long as you have different standards from women and men (specifically, lower standards for women). I know both from history and personal experience that there are some women who are capable of doing the job just as fine as any man who has walked the Earth, but they're the exception, not the rule (in my experience). Additionally, you have a bunch of potential problems adding them to the mix. For example, my squad was the only one without a woman in it when I deployed and my squad was also the only one that never had someone down each month due to menstrual cycles.

It's going to be very challenging for combat roles to integrate women. Not that it cannot, or should not, be done, but it will be difficult in the extreme.
 
Sinn Fein said:
Well, to be technical, no I wasn't in a combat arms unit. Those are infantry, tanks, and artillery only. Was I in combat though? Yeah, I was a machine gunner for convoys during the Surge.

Personally I think it's a bad idea so long as you have different standards from women and men (specifically, lower standards for women). I know both from history and personal experience that there are some women who are capable of doing the job just as fine as any man who has walked the Earth, but they're the exception, not the rule (in my experience). Additionally, you have a bunch of potential problems adding them to the mix. For example, my squad was the only one without a woman in it when I deployed and my squad was also the only one that never had someone down each month due to menstrual cycles.

It's going to be very challenging for combat roles to integrate women. Not that it cannot, or should not, be done, but it will be difficult in the extreme.
Click to expand...

They should bring in conscription for butch east coast fembots.
 
Sinn Fein said:
Well, to be technical, no I wasn't in a combat arms unit. Those are infantry, tanks, and artillery only. Was I in combat though? Yeah, I was a machine gunner for convoys during the Surge.

Personally I think it's a bad idea so long as you have different standards from women and men (specifically, lower standards for women). I know both from history and personal experience that there are some women who are capable of doing the job just as fine as any man who has walked the Earth, but they're the exception, not the rule (in my experience). Additionally, you have a bunch of potential problems adding them to the mix. For example, my squad was the only one without a woman in it when I deployed and my squad was also the only one that never had someone down each month due to menstrual cycles.

It's going to be very challenging for combat roles to integrate women. Not that it cannot, or should not, be done, but it will be difficult in the extreme.
Click to expand...

that is an interesting point about menstrual cycles. i would think though, that it is something than can be dealt with without having the female soldier down. throughout history women have been in combat. certain societies, however, frowned upon it.

thank you for your opinion. do you know what the generals think about it? or is this more of a PC thing? i remember watching GI Jane, and while that is probably mostly hollywood, i thought the movie portrayed the difficulty women would have in such combat roles well and demi was awesome.
 
Sativa said:
that is an interesting point about menstrual cycles. i would think though, that it is something than can be dealt with without having the female soldier down. throughout history women have been in combat. certain societies, however, frowned upon it.

thank you for your opinion. do you know what the generals think about it? or is this more of a PC thing? i remember watching GI Jane, and while that is probably mostly hollywood, i thought the movie portrayed the difficulty women would have in such combat roles well and demi was awesome.
Click to expand...

No, I have no idea what generals actually think. Being a general is highly political position in this day and age, and anything I would know from their level would be highly sensitized for public consumption; I.E. whatever they think people want to hear. As far as periods go, I don't know. I know that every month they all didn't go on missions or working parties. It might have been a scam, it might have been legit. All I know is it took them out of the mission cycle, which meant that my squad had to run more missions.
 
Sinn Fein said:
No, I have no idea what generals actually think. Being a general is highly political position in this day and age, and anything I would know from their level would be highly sensitized for public consumption; I.E. whatever they think people want to hear. As far as periods go, I don't know. I know that every month they all didn't go on missions or working parties. It might have been a scam, it might have been legit. All I know is it took them out of the mission cycle, which meant that my squad had to run more missions.
Click to expand...

then that is a serious concern. you're right about generals, it has become pretty much political, which is not what our founders wanted.
 
well....

I have mixed feelings

I think there should be the same standard of fitness for both parties. That just seems to make innate sense to me. We are talking about life and death here, and if you can't carry certain weight or run a certain speed or whatever, you become a liability.

On the other hand, if men have to die then women should get their brains blown out sometimes too. It's only fair.

So I remain rather neutral on this.
 
They should have the same standard of fitness. Women should have the same oppertunities.
 
Jarod said:
They should have the same standard of fitness. Women should have the same oppertunities.
Click to expand...

the thing is, the reason there isn't the same standard of fitness is because very few women would then get the same opportunity.
 
The Kicker of Elves said:
well....

I have mixed feelings

I think there should be the same standard of fitness for both parties. That just seems to make innate sense to me. We are talking about life and death here, and if you can't carry certain weight or run a certain speed or whatever, you become a liability.

On the other hand, if men have to die then women should get their brains blown out sometimes too. It's only fair.

So I remain rather neutral on this.
Click to expand...

fire fighters have the same standards and it seems to be working. in fact one lady sued over the standards and lost. the court ruled against her because the state has a compelling interest in setting a standard, such as you must be able to carry X pounds and be X height, and the standard applied to all.
 
Sativa said:
fire fighters have the same standards and it seems to be working. in fact one lady sued over the standards and lost. the court ruled against her because the state has a compelling interest in setting a standard, such as you must be able to carry X pounds and be X height, and the standard applied to all.
Click to expand...

hmm cool beans.
 
Sativa said:
fire fighters have the same standards and it seems to be working. in fact one lady sued over the standards and lost. the court ruled against her because the state has a compelling interest in setting a standard, such as you must be able to carry X pounds and be X height, and the standard applied to all.
Click to expand...

They have lowered the standards, at least in the UK, it used to be that you needed to be able to carry a 12-stone man for 100 yards in less than a minute but that has been scrapped along with the height limit of 5" 6'.
 
Sinn Fein said:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/01/23/170093351/panetta-lifts-ban-on-women-in-combat-roles



Surprised that none of our ladies are the first to point this out, though I suppose this is fairly recent. Anyways, this is sure to make things interesting in infantry battalions.
Click to expand...

I DO NOT agree with this decision.

This isn't the movies where women beat up men and do the Rambo.

This is the real world where when they get captured, they get raped .. at the very least.
 
blackascoal said:
I DO NOT agree with this decision.

This isn't the movies where women beat up men and do the Rambo.

This is the real world where when they get captured, they get raped .. at the very least.
Click to expand...

bac, I believe your daughter serves (or served). Has she ever expressed any desire to be on the front lines?
 
cawacko said:
bac, I believe your daughter serves (or served). Has she ever expressed any desire to be on the front lines?
Click to expand...

My daughter is two weeks from being shipped out to Afghanistan good brother. It will be her 4th deployment .. now as a senior Noncom.

At her request, I cannot talk about her position on this issue or any issues because she fears her father is monitored and could negatively affect her career.

We never talk about politics although we know what is in each others head.

I have however, spoken to several female soldiers about the issue and the consensus is both ways. Some feel as if combat duty is the only way to advancement .. others speak of their fears.

As a father who often has nightmares when my daughter is in combat zones, I'm not looking forward to the implementation of this decision.
 
blackascoal said:
My daughter is two weeks from being shipped out to Afghanistan good brother. It will be her 4th deployment .. now as a senior Noncom.

At her request, I cannot talk about her position on this issue or any issues because she fears her father is monitored and could negatively affect her career.

We never talk about politics although we know what is in each others head.

I have however, spoken to several female soldiers about the issue and the consensus is both ways. Some feel as if combat duty is the only way to advancement .. others speak of their fears.

As a father who often has nightmares when my daughter is in combat zones, I'm not looking forward to the implementation of this decision.
Click to expand...

The Taliban wouold just love to capture some women soldiers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top