Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
'Valor knows no gender': Pentagon lifts ban on women in combat
Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:04 PM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote:Declaring that it would strengthen both the military and the country, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Thursday lifted a ban on women in combat and said that it was “the responsibility of every citizen to protect the nation.” “If they can meet the qualifications for the job,” he said, “then they should have the right to serve.” Lots more at http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/24/16681072-valor-knows-no-gender-pentagon-lifts-ban-on-women-in-combat?lite] Well hot damn and huzzah! It's about fucking time; if Israeli women can do it, why can't we?? Hell, some of us already HAVE been, without the recognition:Quote:I just completed my first deployment to Afghanistan this past year. I worked as the Public Affairs non-commissioned officer in charge for an infantry brigade combat team as well as an ad hoc advisor for a security force assistance team that worked with the Afghan Border Police. I completed over 70 missions in 6 months and, on a few of those missions, I was the only female. Technically, I had a supportive combat role and the infantryman walking next to me had a combat role but I don't think the enemy would really know the difference if he decided to shoot. I think there will be a small group of military females who will look at Mr. Panetta's decision as an opportunity to prove themselves in some feminist-based retort to the past 19 years of being told to stay out of combat roles. I have worked with some female service members that do possess the mental attitude and the physical strength and endurance to do exactly what their male counterparts are capable of and I believe these women will thrive in the newly-opened combat roles. http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-914863?hpt=hp_bn1 There's more there, and she's honest about Quote:Most of us are not phyically built to carry heavy weapons. Where men lack in abdominal muscles, women lack in upper body strength. This is reflected in our physical fitness test requirements. For example, men are required to do more push-ups and women are expected do more sit-ups. Very few women I know can do pull-ups. We just aren't built for it. That doesn't mean that every woman can't do them... just the odds are against us. I think there are MYRIAD combat roles where women would be fine--maybe not all of them requiring equivalent physical strength, but at least being recognized as "combat", since they're already out there dying. Than you, Mr. Panetta.
Quote:I just completed my first deployment to Afghanistan this past year. I worked as the Public Affairs non-commissioned officer in charge for an infantry brigade combat team as well as an ad hoc advisor for a security force assistance team that worked with the Afghan Border Police. I completed over 70 missions in 6 months and, on a few of those missions, I was the only female. Technically, I had a supportive combat role and the infantryman walking next to me had a combat role but I don't think the enemy would really know the difference if he decided to shoot. I think there will be a small group of military females who will look at Mr. Panetta's decision as an opportunity to prove themselves in some feminist-based retort to the past 19 years of being told to stay out of combat roles. I have worked with some female service members that do possess the mental attitude and the physical strength and endurance to do exactly what their male counterparts are capable of and I believe these women will thrive in the newly-opened combat roles. http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-914863?hpt=hp_bn1
Quote:Most of us are not phyically built to carry heavy weapons. Where men lack in abdominal muscles, women lack in upper body strength. This is reflected in our physical fitness test requirements. For example, men are required to do more push-ups and women are expected do more sit-ups. Very few women I know can do pull-ups. We just aren't built for it. That doesn't mean that every woman can't do them... just the odds are against us.
Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:12 PM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Thursday, January 24, 2013 2:22 PM
BYTEMITE
Thursday, January 24, 2013 2:25 PM
ARLO
-.-. ..- -- / -.-. .- - .- .--. ..- .-.. - .- . / .--. .-. --- ... -.-. .-. .. .--. - .- . / . .-. .- - --..-- / - ..- -- / ... --- .-.. .. / .--. .-. --- ... -.-. .-. .. .--. - / -.-. .- - .- .--. ..- .-.. - .- ... / .... .- -... . ..- -. -
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Bad idea.
Thursday, January 24, 2013 2:31 PM
Quote:Originally posted by ARLO: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Bad idea. Well that proves it! Well, maybe not it .... but something. =0) sincerely, 1933
Thursday, January 24, 2013 2:59 PM
CHRISISALL
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Keep standards the same for men and women, I say hell yeah, do it.
Thursday, January 24, 2013 3:01 PM
M52NICKERSON
DALEK!
Thursday, January 24, 2013 3:19 PM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Keep standards the same for men and women, I say hell yeah, do it. Good thing they are not changing the standards for combat units.
Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:12 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: That's not the way I hear it told. When it comes to wall climbing and doing pull ups, women are scored differently than men. If that's not the case, then fine.
Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:20 PM
JONGSSTRAW
Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:43 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote:Originally posted by ARLO: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Bad idea. Well that proves it! Well, maybe not it .... but something. =0) sincerely, 1933 Keep standards the same for men and women, I say hell yeah, do it. Lower standards to let some politically expedient types make it in... bad idea. "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." - Socrates " I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:46 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Jongsstraw: Straights, gays, and women all together in the foxhole. Hey, it worked for the Rooskies when they pushed back and defeated the Nazis.
Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:52 PM
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: They aren't. Just saw a news report on women already trickling into the special ops and officer corps boot camps, they're keeping up with the men out of sheer determination. But then I've always believed both genders have equal capacity for muscle strength.
Thursday, January 24, 2013 5:07 PM
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: Quote:Originally posted by Jongsstraw: Straights, gays, and women all together in the foxhole. Hey, it worked for the Rooskies when they pushed back and defeated the Nazis. Not sure if that's a jab against the incredible loses the Russians had... But some of the Russians best fighters and snipers were women. It's SAD how much their country has backslid on gender issues. I had to educate a Russian girl about her proud warrior woman history recently, she just thought the women stayed home, cooked, and cared for the kids in WW2 - they were in factories and on the front lines like the men were. And the women tolerate sexual harrassment, favours trading, and exploitation in the workplace.
Thursday, January 24, 2013 6:21 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: They aren't. Just saw a news report on women already trickling into the special ops and officer corps boot camps, they're keeping up with the men out of sheer determination. But then I've always believed both genders have equal capacity for muscle strength.
Thursday, January 24, 2013 6:23 PM
Quote: Bottom line....be careful what you wish for. War is hell, but it can be a special hell for women.
Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:11 PM
FREMDFIRMA
Friday, January 25, 2013 2:55 AM
Friday, January 25, 2013 4:41 AM
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: The women who make it through that gauntlet will be unquestionable badasses of the first order.
Friday, January 25, 2013 5:36 AM
AGENTROUKA
Friday, January 25, 2013 5:52 AM
Quote: Sexual assault occurs at appaling rate says US Air Force chief A US Air Force general has referred to sexual misconduct within the service as a “cancer”, shedding new light on the extent of the problem in wake of a sex scandal that occurred at the Air Force training headquarters.Gen. Mark Welsh, chief of staff of the US Air Force, disclosed disturbing sexual assault statistics at a congressional hearing on Wednesday. Sexual assault ranging from inappropriate touches to rape has been on the rise, with 2012 seeing 796 reported cases. Last year’s figures show a 30 percent increase from 2011, during which 614 cases of sexual assault were reported, according to AP.
Friday, January 25, 2013 6:19 AM
Quote: I gotta agree that I think there is a trend of physiological differences between men and women and general and that on average, men are capable of achieving more muscle mass and upper body strength, as well as size.
Friday, January 25, 2013 6:29 AM
STORYMARK
Friday, January 25, 2013 6:34 AM
Friday, January 25, 2013 6:37 AM
Friday, January 25, 2013 6:41 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: I missed the part where all females are required to sign up for selective service, at age 18, as all males are. Until that happens, they're not equal. Just sayin'. "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." - Socrates " I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
Friday, January 25, 2013 9:41 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Maybe, at first. And if that's truly the case, then fine. But I suspect, after seeing how our govt works, and the social engineering gurus that run it, over time, the push to allow more and more women in will be greater and greater. Opportunity is being denied them, merely because they can't make the cut... a disproportion number of women have been accepted, w/ regards to the population, will be touted, down the line, and the slide to mediocrity will commence.
Friday, January 25, 2013 9:55 AM
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: Did you play sports as a kid? Most girls don't.
Quote:There are societal influences that prompt men to gain muscle that are subtle, men might not even be aware of it. But just that little difference is I think everything.
Friday, January 25, 2013 10:09 AM
Quote:For Gen. Martin Dempsey, Thursday's move to open combat units in the U.S. military to women had its roots nearly a decade ago, on the streets of Baghdad. Dempsey took command of the Army's 1st Armored Division in June 2003, when Iraqi insurgents were starting to target American troops with sniper fire, grenades and roadside bombs. As he prepared for a trip outside his headquarters, he took a moment to introduce himself to the crew of his Humvee. "I slapped the turret gunner on the leg and I said, 'Who are you?' And she leaned down and said, I'm Amanda.' And I said, 'Ah, OK,' " Dempsey told reporters at the Pentagon. "So, female turret-gunner protecting division commander. It's from that point on that I realized something had changed, and it was time to do something about it." Thursday, Dempsey -- now chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff -- sat alongside Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as both men signed a directive that will open front-line posts to the roughly 200,000 women now serving in the active-duty military. Panetta said the move is a bow to reality on the battlefield, where women in what are technically non-combat units already find themselves fighting alongside their male comrades. Women made up 67 of the nearly 3,500 Americans lost in hostile fire in Iraq and 33 of the 1,700-plus killed in combat in Afghanistan; more than 600 in Iraq and 300 in Afghanistan were wounded. The ban on women in specialties such as armor, artillery and infantry dates back to 1994. The Pentagon loosened some of those restrictions in 2012, and Panetta said the result "has been very positive." "If members of our military can meet the qualifications for a job -- and let me be clear, I'm not talking about reducing the qualifications for the job -- if they can meet the qualifications for the job, then they should have the right to serve, regardless of creed or color or gender or sexual orientation," he said. Several U.S. allies, including NATO members France, Canada and Germany, allow women to serve in combat posts. Earlier this month, the U.S. Army opened the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment to women, and it has begun recruiting female pilots and crew chiefs. The Navy put its first female officers on submarines in the past year, and certain female ground troops have been attached to combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Pentagon must notify Congress of each job or unit as it is sent up to the secretary to be opened to women. Then the Defense Department must wait 30 days while Congress is in session before implementing the change. It is a marked difference from the way the military ended the exclusion of gays serving openly, or the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. In that case, there were no stipulations attached to openly gay service members. There was no staggered approach that integrated openly gay troops into units. It was instead done all at once, across the board. Much more at http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/us/military-women/index.html?hpt=hp_t4] Note above underlined, which should put that to rest. All the "exclusion" has done is place women at a disadvantage for promotion, period. For more:Quote:Former troops say time has come for women in combat units "The first death I experienced was a woman, within the first few weeks I was in Iraq," she said. It was June 25, 2007, and her outpost in Nasir Lafitah came under mortar fire. In the attack, Army Staff Sgt. Trista Moretti of South Plainfield, New Jersey, was killed. Moretti, 27, was assigned to a support battalion. Days later, Weckerlein came under mortar fire again. This time, her comrade -- a cameraman -- was injured. Even though her deployment orders said Qatar, she spent weeks in the summer of 2007 shuttling between bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like many women in the military, Weckerlein didn't get the additional combat training because she was in what was considered a support role. Much more at http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/23/us/women-combat-troop-reaction/index.html mom fought alongside combat troops in Afghanistan Kimberly Bratic hauled her gear up Afghan mountains. She went into areas where Taliban lived. She grieved when fellow soldiers were blown up by a suicide bomber. She missed her family for a year, and heard the worry in her sons' voices when she got the rare chance to call home. She lay awake, thinking, "What if I don't make it home?" The only difference between the 39-year-old single mom and the men she went on 70 missions with was their job titles. The guys were combat infantry. She was a public affairs specialist, the person who documented their experience training Afghan military and police. "I don't think the enemy would really know the difference if he decided to shoot," she wrote in a CNN iReport. "Mr. Panetta's decision is just unchecking a box," Bratic told CNN. "Because we're already out there and just as likely to get shot up." She understands that men and women have different strengths and many women won't be able to endure the physical demands of training for combat positions. But she's worked with several women, including female Afghan soldiers, who definitely could. "They want it? Give them the chance to go for it," she said. That is all the sergeant wanted when she enlisted two and a half years ago. More at http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/us/woman-combat-afghanistan-profile/index.html There are, of course, always neanderthals like Rap who imagine things which have not happened and won't happen:Quote:Jonn Lilyea, one of the founders of the military blog "This Ain't Hell," wrote that he thinks it was an "ill-considered decision." Lilyea, a former sergeant who fought in Desert Storm, wrote that he is opposed to women in combat units, not because women are a distraction but because he thinks the Army and other services will be required to accept more women than are qualified or can be trained. "If we're doing this to make the military better, fine, but if we're doing it just to beat our collective chest and show how just we are, then that's how a lot of body bags are going to get filled," he wrote. But there always will be. The fact that women are already serving and dying, but only "officially" non-combatants, says it all. Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.
Quote:Former troops say time has come for women in combat units "The first death I experienced was a woman, within the first few weeks I was in Iraq," she said. It was June 25, 2007, and her outpost in Nasir Lafitah came under mortar fire. In the attack, Army Staff Sgt. Trista Moretti of South Plainfield, New Jersey, was killed. Moretti, 27, was assigned to a support battalion. Days later, Weckerlein came under mortar fire again. This time, her comrade -- a cameraman -- was injured. Even though her deployment orders said Qatar, she spent weeks in the summer of 2007 shuttling between bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like many women in the military, Weckerlein didn't get the additional combat training because she was in what was considered a support role. Much more at http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/23/us/women-combat-troop-reaction/index.html mom fought alongside combat troops in Afghanistan Kimberly Bratic hauled her gear up Afghan mountains. She went into areas where Taliban lived. She grieved when fellow soldiers were blown up by a suicide bomber. She missed her family for a year, and heard the worry in her sons' voices when she got the rare chance to call home. She lay awake, thinking, "What if I don't make it home?" The only difference between the 39-year-old single mom and the men she went on 70 missions with was their job titles. The guys were combat infantry. She was a public affairs specialist, the person who documented their experience training Afghan military and police. "I don't think the enemy would really know the difference if he decided to shoot," she wrote in a CNN iReport. "Mr. Panetta's decision is just unchecking a box," Bratic told CNN. "Because we're already out there and just as likely to get shot up." She understands that men and women have different strengths and many women won't be able to endure the physical demands of training for combat positions. But she's worked with several women, including female Afghan soldiers, who definitely could. "They want it? Give them the chance to go for it," she said. That is all the sergeant wanted when she enlisted two and a half years ago. More at http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/us/woman-combat-afghanistan-profile/index.html
Quote:Jonn Lilyea, one of the founders of the military blog "This Ain't Hell," wrote that he thinks it was an "ill-considered decision." Lilyea, a former sergeant who fought in Desert Storm, wrote that he is opposed to women in combat units, not because women are a distraction but because he thinks the Army and other services will be required to accept more women than are qualified or can be trained. "If we're doing this to make the military better, fine, but if we're doing it just to beat our collective chest and show how just we are, then that's how a lot of body bags are going to get filled," he wrote.
Friday, January 25, 2013 11:13 AM
Quote: There are biological reasons, too.
Friday, January 25, 2013 12:03 PM
CATPIRATE
Friday, January 25, 2013 12:16 PM
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: I was unaware the draft still exists.
Quote: I agree that discrimination against women should be done away with and women should do everything men have to do - but moreso I think a draft simply shouldn't exist. You want to talk about deadweight, look at the firing percentage of the average man drafted to go into combat in WW2 - 2/3rds of our soldiers in WW2 never fired a shot.
Friday, January 25, 2013 12:17 PM
Friday, January 25, 2013 12:20 PM
Quote:Yeh their equal all right. All I see in the military is free loading women and minorities on a socialist paycheck.
Friday, January 25, 2013 12:30 PM
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: Also, there's indications that testosterone and growth hormone aren't actually the muscle adder that people think they are. They really only have an effect at unnatural levels obtained in doping. At normal hormone levels, exercise is what ultimately increases muscle-mass, and studies found that levels of testosterone and growth hormone do not change after rigorous exercise. What does change, surprisingly enough, is cortisol - which appears to have a role in muscle building, contrary to earlier consensus that cortisol breaks down muscle.
Friday, January 25, 2013 12:56 PM
Sunday, January 27, 2013 7:23 PM
RIONAEIRE
Beir bua agus beannacht
Monday, January 28, 2013 3:58 AM
Quote:Originally posted by RionaEire: I think anyone who is capable, can behave themselves well enough, wants to fight and meets the requirements/standards for abilities should be allowed. I don't see why not. "A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
Monday, January 28, 2013 4:40 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote:Originally posted by RionaEire: I think anyone who is capable, can behave themselves well enough, wants to fight and meets the requirements/standards for abilities should be allowed. I don't see why not. "A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya Not to take away from your point, but there ARE some very real world issues to take into consideration. The military isn't just another 9-5 job, or your standard career path.
Monday, January 28, 2013 5:18 AM
Monday, January 28, 2013 5:29 AM
Monday, January 28, 2013 7:07 AM
Monday, January 28, 2013 8:02 AM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Monday, January 28, 2013 11:09 AM
Quote:If rape is the issue, then the real problem is, indeed, not whether or not women are allowed to serve in combat positions (I mean, it would really make no difference at this point since women in the military are already being assaulted) but rather what the hell kind of culture within the military is the cause of that.
Quote:Think about this for a moment. Suppose that your boss at the lab or law firm or newsroom demanded that, when he entered the room, you leapt spasmodically to your feet, stood rigidly erect with your feet at a forty-five degree angle like a congenitally deformed duck, and stared straight ahead until he gave you permission to relax. You would think, correctly, that he was crazy as a bedbug. If he then required reporters to stand in a square so he could inspect their belt buckles, you would either figure he was a gay blade or call for a struggle buggy and some big orderlies. This weird posturing is not normal, nor are those it appeals to. Suppose you showed up for freshman orientation at Princeton and your professors bellowed at the tops of their voices, three inches from your face, “Your shoes ain’t shined good, puke. Get down and give me fifty.” (Pushups, that is, which in the military doesn’t mean the better sort of bra.) You would decide that the loon had lost whatever mind he had ever had, and call Domino’s for a cheese pizza, double Haldol. Should you be so unwary as to suggest the foregoing in print, the response will usually be that militaries need discipline. True, and so do newspapers. However, there is a distinction between discipline and ritualized lunacy. At every publication for which I have worked, the editor was clearly and absolutely in charge. Yet I, seldom senior, could say, “Yeah, Wes, but if we do that, won’t thus-and-so bad thing happen?” His decision was law, but he was happy to hear from subordinates, who might know something he didn’t. Editors do not require vaguely sadomasochistic submissiveness. This hoopla is not of use in combat. The Taliban seem to be doing rather well. Do you suppose their commanders check their beds to be sure that a quarter will bounce from their blankets?
Quote:Do they attract an unreasonably large percentage of criminally inclined people and not screen that?
Quote:Do they encourage a culture of sexual objectification, bullying and male privilege?
Quote:Do they not have proper channels for reporting assaults and apply swift and severe consequences?
Quote:If any of this is true, then you've got to agree that sexual assault of female soldiers is merely a symptom of a much larger and more dangerous issue. The argument can't be "Girls, don't join the army because your fellow soldiers will rape you" without taking a horrified look at what the hell is wrong with those fellow soldiers and addressing THAT.
Quote:I recently read the wikipedia article about the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal and this Charles Graner dude who had a large part in it had this sincerely troubling history being accused of prisoner abuse before and assaulting his ex-wife. WHY was he ever allowed to guard prisoners to begin with?
Monday, January 28, 2013 11:28 AM
Monday, January 28, 2013 11:31 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: According to the NRA, a gun makes a 90-pound woman the equal of a 240-pound man. So they're all the same in combat, right?
Monday, January 28, 2013 11:48 AM
Monday, January 28, 2013 12:08 PM
MAGONSDAUGHTER
Quote:Originally posted by AgentRouka: As for rape during war time... ugh. Considering the case of Berlin, it hardly matters whether women are civilians or in combat roles. (Or, say, prepubescent children.) The Russian soldiers were nearly encouraged to take their wrath out on the civilian population wherever they advanced into Germany. Alcohol flowed freely in Berlin, which some say contributed to the problem to an extend. If assault is condoned (as historically the tradition, yay) or not met with severe consequences then it is likely to happen, and not just to the enemy since female soldiers appear to be preyed on by their own comrades, as well. Which is just despicable on a special level. The problem is misogyny and dehumanization of the enemy. (Though Nazi Germany did a pretty spectacular job of dehumanizing itself to the Russians.)
Monday, January 28, 2013 2:39 PM
Quote:Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA: - fighting in an urban environ with 110lbs of extra gear (in the desert sun, no less) and a goddamn battlerifle is suicide. From a tactical perspective light class II armor and a submachinegun or shotgun would do a whole hell of a lot better job, but it conflicts with their rigid inflexible mindset, they're like morons who use a screwdriver as a hammer.
Monday, January 28, 2013 5:02 PM
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL