http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/23/military-to-open-combat-jobs-to-women/?hpt=hp_c1

Quote :

"BREAKING NEWS: Military to open combat jobs to women By Chris Lawrence, with reporting from Barbara Starr 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. “We will eliminate the policy of ‘no women in units that are tasked with direct combat,’” a senior defense official says. But the officials caution that “not every position will open all at once on Thursday.” Once the policy is changed, the Department of Defense will enter what is being called an “assessment phase,” in which each branch of service will examine all of its jobs and units not currently integrated and then produce a timetable in which it can integrate them."

1/23/2013 5:05:55 PM

Fine, but hold them to the EXACT same requirements as a man, and make women start registering for selective service. If they want equality, give it to them, no excuses.

1/23/2013 5:39:27 PM

Now women can gun down innocents (erm, "defend the homeland") too! This is a great day for progress.

1/23/2013 7:38:07 PM

^^ I predict that the odds of that are zero.

1/23/2013 7:45:48 PM

Quote :

"Fine, but hold them to the EXACT same requirements as a man"

Sounds like someone wants gun control for women!

^Are the physical standards uniformly less for women than men? Given the strong patriarchal history ingrained in the military, are the physical standards totally designed around male physiology or is it more objective about than all that in measuring skills that are useful to combat (strength, agility, flexibility, endurance, stealth, or whatever)?

I'm putting all the serious parts of this post in question form because I'm coming from a place of ignorance, so my hope is any responses folks have will be informative. I've got to imagine that for military recruitment, the more integration and the more options for use of their existing personnel assets, that this move will be a good move in the long term.

I know there were certainly some tdubbers against the idea of women on subs in years past, so I'm interested to see if that attitude stands up to this integration too.
message_topic.aspx?topic=616038
message_topic.aspx?topic=593818

Nerdchick:

Quote :

"When the Navy changes something, whether it's uniforms or promotions or whatever, people get riled up and the Navy Times gets 5,000 angry letters and everyone acts like it's the end of the world. But eventually things die down and now nobody cares that you can't wear Dungarees anymore. I work with several submariners and this has been a hot topic lately, but the reactions I've heard have been much more subdued. Only one guy was against it because of pregnancy. (small crews mean losing a body makes it hard on everyone) But a guy from the surface fleet responded that pregnancy doesn't happen any more often than all the other random mishaps that send people home. Most people don't know this, but some women have served on subs here in America. They were engineers who went on short deployments to earn a special type of qualification. Sure it's not the real thing but it at least shows that integration is possible. http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/usw_summer_09/q&a.html And Duke, posting the story about Graff is just tacky. The CO of my base just got relieved of command for picking up a prostitute. Maybe we should stop promoting men because they're more likely to screw up and solicit a hooker. "

At the very least, the longer life spans of women in the US has to help with institutional memory!

1/23/2013 8:29:22 PM

there are a ton of positions in the military that are perfectly suited for women. communications, clerical, food prep, engineering, mechanics, logisitics, etc, etc. there is no reason to exclude women that wish to enlist.

when are we going to stop doing dumb shit in the name of "equality?" women are not as well-suited for combat as men. they lack the natural strength, stamina, and overall fortitude that men have. this isn't to be debated. it's a fact.

1/23/2013 8:51:54 PM

Quote :

"there are a ton of positions in the military that are perfectly suited for women. communications, clerical, food prep,"

You're doing it wrong. You're supposed to leave the troll for the end of your post.

1/23/2013 9:07:27 PM

i wasn't trolling.

god forbid making mention of women cooking.

1/23/2013 9:09:16 PM

who gives a fuck?

1/23/2013 9:24:40 PM

^CNN, NBC, and Fox all made it their front page stories, so I'm guessing they think a lot of people do.

1/23/2013 9:41:09 PM

The reality of this move is a lot less earth-shattering than the simple headline sounds at face value.

They may not necessarily open all jobs to women, but there will be no blanket prohibition of it in certain communities. My limited understanding of the new policy so far is that communities will be able to make the case that it is overly impractical/detrimental to include women and be granted an exception, but it will now be just that--barring by exception after a case is made rather than across the board for anything deemed "combat arms".

1/23/2013 9:50:42 PM

women should be held to the same standard

i compete against women, they can do what men do

the women that are willing to come out and enlist, i promise you can do what men can do.

[Edited on January 23, 2013 at 11:14 PM. Reason : e]

1/23/2013 11:13:15 PM

In addition to having a 30% chance of being raped, they now have a higher chance of being killed? Why do chicks even want to be in the military?

1/23/2013 11:19:05 PM

i mean some women want to serve

1/23/2013 11:20:41 PM

Maybe now they'll be required to shave their heads and actually meet our height/weight standards. Then we can talk about the rest.

1/24/2013 12:46:22 AM

Warning: chauvinist (or, more positively phrased....truthful) rant coming:

First, y'all should read this: http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

I am 5'10 and 215lbs. I'm carrying probably 10 more pounds of muscle and 40 more pounds of fat than I did when I stepped onto Parris Island many moons ago. I am reasonably strong, but not a physical specimen by any stretch of the imagination.

Yet, I am probably more prepared for a combat unit right now than the most elite female 'Marines.' I can do 5 real pull-ups, which puts me near the top of female 'Marines.' And I'm doing it while lifting 75-100 more pounds over the bar each time than they do.

When such a woman puts on a full combat load, her body is being introduced to the weight I've carried every day for a decade. My bones are the bones of a man, which means those women have many, many times the risk of a stress fracture under heavy load than I do. My overall risk of stress injury is a fraction of theirs because my muscles, ligaments, joints, and tendons have been doing what she is doing as part of everyday living. My hands, back, neck, knees, hips, and ankles are stronger both by nature, and by work over time.

I am not exceptional, and could probably barely pass the Marine PFT right now. But I could drag or carry a 200lb wounded man. Some women could probably haul the same heavy load I could for miles, but the difference is that I'll be able to do it the next day, and the next, and the next....

Combat units are groups of pack mules that occasionally take a break to fight. Women are not built to be pack mules. The simple use of your eyes will prove this sufficiently. They are structurally incapable of meeting those demands over the course of years.

Moving away from physical fitness aspects....

I love the picture in the first post. Everything I'm saying is perfectly evident in that farcical lineup of Soldiers-in-Name-Only. I mean, seriously, just look at them.

Is there anyone who would actually lament that they can't go back and share this wonderful secret with Ike....."hey, you know what you could really use on D-Day? Women." Maybe the Band of Brothers would have Saved Private Ryan sooner if they had let their sisters into the band.

The military hasn't been about fielding the most effective fighting force in a very long time. And I'm completely with Duke, by the way, on how this move in particular isn't going to be that big in and of itself. However, it's icing on the cake. And I'm sure they will find a way to put some extra ribbons and assorted bits of flair on top of this in the future.

Simply put, a woman in battle dress strikes me the same as a man in a skirt. Both should be laughed at, pitied, or scorned. Unfortunately, we now take them both seriously.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zq3IVb4BIYE - Dwight nails it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4Oq_hBAuiY - these women are now Marine officers. I don't think I need to comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkYdt-7MOUs - the men in the background are Marines. The teary-eyed quitter whose punches and kicks make the men laugh....isn't. And yes, I know she had just been sprayed.

On the last video, note how the fact that she is a woman changes the men. If a man acts like that, you get in his face and punch him or challenge him until he shapes up. If he doesn't, you don't feel sorry for him.

A woman gets "you motivate me!" and kid-gloves. The culture of the whole group (men included) is softened, weakened, and made less militaristic by her mere presence.

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 6:13 AM. Reason : a]

1/24/2013 5:47:14 AM

You're fat, haha

1/24/2013 6:47:44 AM

Quote :

"the women that are willing to come out and enlist, i promise you can do what men can do."

Based off what I've seen in my 16 years in the military, I could not disagree with you more.

1/24/2013 7:25:06 AM

These military people would erode their credibly much more slowly if they didn't magically become an evolutionary biologist whenever the topic came up.

1/24/2013 8:06:56 AM

A)Are we still fighting wars with swords and axes? At what point does technology make this "women and men are different" moot?

B)Has the IDF just been a resounding failure or what?

1/24/2013 9:10:52 AM

^^^^^ wow, "pickup" is a lot less berserk than when I was there.

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 9:14 AM. Reason : Not taking sides, but the tech doesn't change what an infantry unit is or does]

1/24/2013 9:13:13 AM

There are two responses to this news, "Good for them!" or some variation of "Uppity women need to keep away from men's work". Go through the thread yourself and see what the ratio is.

1/24/2013 9:55:19 AM

Also I'd like to remind everyone that women are, on average, more accurate marksmen. Maybe this is why Lyudmila Pavlichenko usually appears mid-way through every Top 10 Snipers in History list ever published. Maybe we should start holding men to their marksmanship standard?

Of course, if your definition of a top military specimen is a beast of burden who can lug the heaviest things long distances, may I suggest that the women ride atop the men like donkeys and use their guns so as to increase ammunition efficiency.

Incidentally, their lower center of mass helps women take higher G forces and so make very good fighter pilots. They're also naturally more talented at multi-tasking, allegedly, which is good for dogfights (and leadership). Finally, the AGSM maneuver which pilots use to keep blood from draining out of their head is basically identical to birthing but hey evolution means men are good at swinging jawbones therefore better soldiers.

Quote :

"A)Are we still fighting wars with swords and axes? At what point does technology make this "women and men are different" moot?"

The funny part is you can go over to the Gun Control thread and just might see one of the same folks arguing that the best part about guns is they equalize men and women.

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 10:13 AM. Reason : .]

1/24/2013 10:00:12 AM

Meet the same physical standards as men and you're welcome with open arms. The problem is that the military loves to have gender based standards, which is lame. If you want to serve beside a 200lb infantryman wearing 100lbs of shit, you'd better be able to carry/drag his ass of out of the line of fire if needed.

War isn't less demanding or deadly just because you have a vag.


Oh, and I love how Panetta did this in his final few days as SecDef. That way he doesn't have to put up with any consequences. Politicians.

1/24/2013 10:47:11 AM

Why do men get to set the standards? Why do men not have to meet female standards for marksmanship and G-force resistance?

1/24/2013 11:04:27 AM

the standards are set by the job requirements, not the skill level of the individual. pretty straightforward.

1/24/2013 11:15:56 AM

Great job, you replaced the word "standard" with "requirement." Now how do you set those requirements?

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 11:18 AM. Reason : .]

1/24/2013 11:17:01 AM

i'm sure str8foolish loves the thought of one of our women being taken POW in the middle east or africa.

i promise you, the POW experience would not be created equal, either.

1/24/2013 11:23:49 AM

^ and the woman that signs up for the marines with the possibility of being sent to some shit hole doesn't know that? And you are their protector?

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 11:27 AM. Reason : .]

1/24/2013 11:26:04 AM

I guess you don't understand what the words mean?

The requirement is what the actual job requires them to do. Like carrying a 70 pound rucksack, ammo, and weapon on foot over long distances, time. That would be a thing that actually happens during battle.

Then they create training standards from those observed real world requirements. This might be that the solder is carries that gear for longer periods of time than would normally occur in the real world so that they are prepared for anything.

This standard is based on what they will do in the field, not on what they are personally capable of.

In other jobs where there probably isn't the same training the requirements and standards are the same thing. But really a better example might be UPS. If they require their warehouse workers to be able to lift 50 lbs on a regular basis, its because that's what they're actually doing in the warehouse. if they cant lift that 50 lbs they cant do the job and they shouldn't be hired.

If a woman cant haul the same gear as a man over the same distances for the same periods of time then they cannot do the job.

If you want to put them into a different job with lower standards that's fine, but saying that its the males that dictate the standard is wrong. its the work that dictates the standards.

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 11:30 AM. Reason : a]

1/24/2013 11:29:49 AM

also I think you are probably overestimating some of the physical requirements and underestimating the capabilities of the women that would apply for these positions.

1/24/2013 11:32:40 AM

How do you decide that the bar is 70 lbs? Why not 65 lbs or 80 lbs? What is considered a long distance? What is considered a long time.

(is Str8Foolish's point, your justification is based on circular logic. someone has to define and support the requirements)

1/24/2013 11:33:47 AM

Quote :

"Then they create training standards from those observed real world requirements. This might be that the solder is carries that gear for longer periods of time than would normally occur in the real world so that they are prepared for anything. This standard is based on what they will do in the field, not on what they are personally capable of."

And here's what I was talking about. The standards/requirements are set based on the observing performance in a majority- and historically-male military. Someone has to draw the line and say "Not good enough." so how do they set it?

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 11:43 AM. Reason : .]

1/24/2013 11:38:46 AM

its not a circular argument.

The mission requirements dictate the gear that they absolutely must have to complete the mission. It also dictates where, how far, and for how long that should carry that gear. Physics dictates that the gear has weight.

Thus it is the mission requirements that determine the weight of the required gear. If a soldier cannot carry that gear, they cannot complete the mission.

Quote :

" so how do they set it? "

Its based on either the average or maybe the most extreme mission requirements plus overhead to make sure that soldiers are trained to handle the unexpected.

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 11:44 AM. Reason : .]

1/24/2013 11:42:16 AM

I'm pretty sure one requirement in the field is that you shoot accurately and move with agility when necessary. So why do women who outperform men in shooting or agility get penalized because they can't do as many pushups? That sounds like an incredibly hamfisted and short-sighted way of organizing your military.

Has it occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, and this might be shocking...women are better at some things than men and maybe the military should adapt itself to make the best use of those capabilities rather than just try to exclude them? Maybe do things like spend more money on R&D for robotic transport, so that soldiers don't HAVE to carry 70-lb rucksacks over long distances. That way a woman who's an exceptionally good marksman doesn't have to stay in the barracks because she topped out at 69lbs, while her male counterparts are dragging eachother out of combat because they couldn't shoot the enemy?


[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 11:46 AM. Reason : .]

1/24/2013 11:43:44 AM

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure one requirement in the field is that you shoot accurately and move with agility when necessary."

that's one requirement, not all the requirements. idk why you don't understand this.

if you want to create a separate role in the military where only shooting is a requirement then ok, but that's not what we're talking about.

1/24/2013 11:45:17 AM

Has it also occurred to you that the very requirements themselves reflect the fact that the military is itself adapted for men? When, for hundreds of years, you have strictly men to work with, you design your missions, tactics, and standards around their capabilities and strengths. It's an engineering problem with constraints, and unless you believe that women are inferior in all respects, the proper response to introducing them is to re-engineer the military to make better use of them, not waste their talents in shooting because they can't lift as much heavy stuff.

I don't know why you have such a hard time understanding that these mission requirements don't float in some abstract space as Platonic ideals. They're devised by people who design the missions, and they design the missions based on the tools they have to work with. When new tools are introduced, you don't throw them out because they don't fit the old design, you redesign with the intent of creating a more effective overall system that uses all the tools to their utmost effectiveness.



[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 11:49 AM. Reason : .]

1/24/2013 11:46:06 AM

I haven't said anything about women being inferior, that's entirely you.

If we're talking about women doing the current same missions as men, they absolutely must meet the mission requirements. theres no argument there.

1/24/2013 11:50:30 AM

how do you determine those requirements?

1/24/2013 11:54:07 AM

You're still not getting it. Missions are devised using the tools (people) they have available. The requirements are then determined from the mission. If you devise a mission assuming all your tools are men, then the requirements will obviously be androcentric. If all you're saying is "They should not be put into missions that they physically cannot accomplish" then congratulations on stating the most obvious thing possible, which also applies to men of various shapes and size as well.

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 11:56 AM. Reason : .]

1/24/2013 11:54:13 AM

If all you have is hammers, every problem is a nail

...?

1/24/2013 11:56:30 AM

It's like you have this image in your head of a woman rushing into her commander's office, burning bra held high above her unshaved armpits, demanding that she be included in a mission that includes pissing upwards while standing upright.


[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 12:02 PM. Reason : .]

1/24/2013 11:57:51 AM

i just think women deserve the chance to serve

i believe 90% of women are not capable, but this shouldnt be legislation on a certain ratio of women to men

the women that would like to serve their country in that capacity should be allowed to prove themselves by doing the exact same physical training men do. Personally i believe certain women would be able to do it. Even if it is 2 or 3 per 5000 thats OK.

aint gotta bend over backwards to let all women on the team. Some dont have the physical capability and even less have that alpha/competitive/mental resolve to get through it, but those that do are really freakin impressive with extended month to month training and discipline

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 12:07 PM. Reason : e]

1/24/2013 12:05:41 PM

BigHitSunday, what you're missing is that the requirements themselves were developed based on missions that were developed based on an all-male military.

Think of it this way...you've been golfing for 10 years, but all you've ever had is a driver. So, when you approach a hole, your first thought is how to reach it while avoiding all the sandtraps, high grass, and land it as close to the hole as possible to avoid long putts. Now, if I hand you a 9-iron and a putter, what do you do? Do you throw them out because your "requirement" for a club is that it launch the ball 250 meters? No, you start to plan your approach differently, maybe taking shortcuts now that you know you can more easily get through high grass or sandtraps; and you might be more open to landing on the green early since you're much better equipped to putt now.

Simply trying to cram the square peg in the round hole, so to speak, demonstrates ignorance of how that hole got to be round in the first place. Square holes work too sometimes, but there was never a point in cutting them when all the pegs were round. But hell how could you cut them anyway, you tossed out your saw back when you discovered it sucked at driving nails.

The Soviet Union recognized this in WWII, and as a result commissioned over 3000 female snipers, without whom we'd all be speaking German today. They didn't just toss those women into the same old combat with sniper rifles, they devised missions to utilize their strengths, and devised broader strategies that utilized these missions, rather than give them the boot because they didn't meet the general requirements of a Red Army infantryman.

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 12:23 PM. Reason : .]

1/24/2013 12:16:51 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/23/us/women-combat-troop-reaction/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


"From left, Marines Sgt. Sheena Adams and Lance Cpl. Kristi Baker and Navy Hospital Corpsman Shannon Crowley work with a Female Engagement Team in Afghanistan in November 2010."

Quote :

"Former troops say time has come for women in combat units (CNN) -- For women who have already seen combat, it is a decision that is well overdue. But for the skeptics, it is a setback that will damage the military. The Pentagon's reported decision to lift the ban on women in combat units will take time to put into effect, but many former service members are lauding reports that the Defense Department will make the change soon. "We have an all-volunteer force, and I think that this opens up a pool of folks who could serve in these positions," said Rep. Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq War veteran who lost both legs and the use of one arm when her helicopter crew was shot down in 2004. "

http://todaynews.today.com/_news/2013/01/24/16677059-army-colonel-allowing-women-in-combat-a-watershed-moment?lite

Quote :

"Army colonel: Allowing women in combat a 'watershed moment' For the past 10 years, women in the U.S. military have served at the frontlines in Iraq and Afghanistan but never as ground combat troops. That will soon change as a ban against women in combat is lifted. NBC's Jim Miklaszewski reports and retired Col. Jack Jacobs gives his take. Allowing women to serve in combat roles shouldn’t compromise the “band of brothers” loyalty that unites servicemen in the field, a retired Army colonel and Medal of Honor recipient said Thursday. “When people are trying ardently to kill you, it really doesn’t matter to you who is on to the left and on your right as long as they’re doing their job,” retired Col. Jack Jacobs, a military analyst for NBC News, told TODAY's Matt Lauer. “We fight to accomplish the mission. We fight for the country, but most of all, we fight for each other.”"

Despite all the news coverage, I think the official announcement that this is happening doesn't happen until later today.

http://www.wral.com/military-has-to-decide-which-combat-jobs-for-women/12018414/

Someone want to dive into that and see what insights GOLO can come up with?

1/24/2013 12:58:02 PM

this politics in its purest form.

Haven't read shit about all women having to register for selective service (all males over 18 have to).

Standards come from the job requirements. Requirements are driven based upon the tasks that must be performed by that job.

1/24/2013 1:13:24 PM

The Israelis have figured out how to effectively utilize women in combat roles. So I dispute those who say that it can't be done.

Quote :

"You're still not getting it. Missions are devised using the tools (people) they have available. The requirements are then determined from the mission. If you devise a mission assuming all your tools are men, then the requirements will obviously be androcentric."

You make a valid point, but I would note that this is not something that could be quickly done. You have to adapt not just tactics, but work out to the operational and potentially even strategic level, adjusting doctrine, training, equipment, etc. over a long period of time. We have made some progress in that regards because of women in non-combat roles, but it's not going to be something that happens quickly. You can't simply replace an entire artillery system overnight because a woman may or may not be able to lift and move an artillery shell and carry it x meters based upon their current physical requirements. Adjustments will be made, but it's going to take a while.

1/24/2013 1:34:15 PM

Quote :

"its not a circular argument. The mission requirements dictate the gear that they absolutely must have to complete the mission. It also dictates where, how far, and for how long that should carry that gear. Physics dictates that the gear has weight. Thus it is the mission requirements that determine the weight of the required gear. If a soldier cannot carry that gear, they cannot complete the mission. "

no, its circular. how do you translate mission requirements to hard, set-in-stone fitness requirements? how do you decide that someone needs to carry 70 lbs and not 67lbs or 82lbs?

(in another way to explain it: how do you determine the mission requirements?)

[Edited on January 24, 2013 at 1:51 PM. Reason : .]

1/24/2013 1:50:26 PM

By the time women gain the privilege to risk their life on the front lines in the exact same way as men we'll have an all-robot combat force.

1/24/2013 1:50:54 PM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323539804578260132111473150.html

1/24/2013 1:51:58 PM