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

First the LDS church makes the mistake of recruiting more women to serve missions, now the US army is following suit?

From what I gather, in the Army most women can't keep up with most men, particularly when it comes to ruck marches, carrying or moving heavy equipment around etc. ... Heck, most women aren't issued SAW's or M-249's because they simply don't have the strength to carry them fully loaded. Now this being the case, why does it make sense to put women into combat roles when they are not physically equal to their male counterparts?

I'm sorry but the bottom line is men are built to be stronger and faster than women; that's a biological FACT, and not a gender biased idea. You put every man in that squad's life in danger by putting someone who is weaker in the group, because if you know anything about being in the military you should know that you're only as strong as your weakest link.

Female, male, black, white, gay, straight- if you're willing to take a bullet for my freedom, I only have one thing to say - THANK YOU!

+one billion.

Agreed. I could never do what they volunteer to do. I admire them all.

+one billion plus one

I agree 100% that those fighting for us shouldn't be taken for granted, but my point was that placing women, who usually are not as strong physically as men, might cause unnecessary harm to themselves and to others as well. Why take a "bullet for my freedom" when doing so isn't required?

Because some women, like some men, feel that military service is a calling for them. It's honestly what they WANT to do. Why should they be told they're not allowed only because they're women?

And the way the structure was set up, they were prevented from achieving the careers they wanted, purely based upon gender.

I agree with those who feel the minimum requirements for combat roles should be equal for men and women. Yes, it will be more difficult for women to achieve based on average physical build. But if a woman can achieve those minimum requirements, why should she be prevented from doing the job if she meets the requirements?

From my own personal experience while being in Iraq, I was part of a quick reactionary force that was called to assist a convoy from a signal company that had been attacked. When we got there we found 4 female soldiers huddled together crying. Some dude got hit in the leg. Now ask yourself this, is that the immediate proper response to an attack? To huddle around each other, combining all targets into one? To me that convinced me that I wouldn't want to serve on the "frontlines" with women (at least those 4 girls). You have to be able to keep your emotions in check while in combat. That being said, if they are going to allow women in combat specific jobs, they better start making them sign up for selective service. You can't have it both ways.

You wouldn't want to fight alongside women, but you do think they should sign up for Selective Service?

Most women can't handle combat. Most men can't, either. That's why voluntary service is so much more effective. Those who don't meet the standards should not be serving. You have anecdotal evidence about a few women in the military who couldn't handle it. I have anecdotal evidence about men in the military who couldn't handle it. The solution isn't to arbitrarily exclude people based on gender, or race, or anything else irrelevant. The solution is to make training as realistic as possible, and exclude those who can't make it through the training.

Some women can probably hack it, and those are likely the women that they are targeting.

In the same way, I know of a few outstanding female athletes who train with the men's squad. Most can't keep up, but some can.

Exactly. There are women who rival their average male counterparts in physical toughness, agility, and stamina. Those are the women who would do well. I don't believe the average woman would be able to hack it, nor would we want to, but the opportunity should be there if they want it. The military must keep the same rigid physical requirements for both though. My boy is in the USMC right now, just getting back from Afganistan. People don't realize just how heavy their gear is. He is in the infantry, and those guys walk for miles per day, day in and day out, sometimes in the field for weeks at a time. It's extremely demanding, both physically, emotionally, and mentally.

Please point out one of these women that rival their male counter parts. I never saw ONE while I was in the Marines that could have humped a combat load pack, their personal weapon, PLUS often part of a crew served weapon, for an 18 mile hump. Never saw one. I know a LOT of veterans too, none of them can do it either. If they exist their number is so small that it does not justify a shift in protocol that stands the chance of messing up a perfectly functioning organization the way it is.

I agree with the OP and I am NOT sorry. I Women do not belong there.

Yeah I personally don't know anyone like that, so I couldn't "point someone out." I speculate there is a female power lifting team somewhere in the US, wherein the top lifter probably could handle the rigors of Marine life. Hey, you would know. I will bow to your wisdom on this. What I'm saying is there is got to be a very very small handful of women in the US, where they wanted to do what our Marines do, they proly could handle it physically. The key is to keep the same rigid physical requirements.

I have a question for you though? Let's say you have a platoon of Marines that are required to stay in the armored vehicle for hours at a time, i.e. sleep, pee, eat, deffacate, etc in the APC. Because that's what is was like in Iraq. How would it be ot have a female present in those conditions? Overall wouldn't there be problems with guys being attracted to said female soldiers, and losing focus on the mission, enemy, etc? Would there be jealosy issues? What about military wives? How would they feel about they 23 year old husband, hiking around with athletic female?

I changed my mind on this matter. I don't think females should be in combat situations. Intially I thought we're talking about <.01%, but I think in the end, that lives will be lost.

How do you feel about this issue Bingo?

Sorry, but allowing highly trained professionals to do their job is more important than worrying about the potential jealousy of overly-sensitive spouses.

That's the wrong way to do it. They have different standards for women from the beginning and don't expect as much out of them.

Full combat load, weapon, plus crew-served for 18 miles? Easy, at least back when I was in training. It's a lot of weight, but ruck marching is easy if you have it strapped on right, and 18 miles really isn't very far. You forgot about the body armor, and hiking up mountains. Been there, done that. And the guys try harder to keep up when they see a female passing them. It's good motivation.

Yeah, I dont have a problem with it so long as the women have to meet the same standards of performance as the men to hold those jobs. the issue will be if they start to allow women to score lower on tests or what have you to get more of them into the roles for political purposes. That will cost lives. I also agree that its time for women to sign up for selective service and have to get a buzz cut upon entering the service just like the guys. Equal treatment means equal treatment across the board. Not selectively better treatment.

I disagree on women signing up for selective service for these reasons:

1. If women on the whole are not suited for combat, drafting women and then washing most of them out of training would be a huge waste or resources. One of the arguments against the draft now is that our current military is not designed to deal with draftees. Adding women to the draft would compound the problem.

2. Drafting women would add to the disruption of society already caused by (mostly) men going to war. Deployments are rough on families and contribute to a number of problems for families, active duty soldiers, and combat veterans.

3. Not an immediate concern, but on evolutionary grounds killing women kills future children. Society would not have replacements for those killed in battle. One estimate I have read is in the past 80% of women have produced but only 40% of men. Men, primarily, go to war because in evolutionary terms we are expendable and women are not.

My father was in the military, so this issue is close to home for me.

If women want to join combat, be a fire fighter, police officer, EMT, or whatever I expect them to meet the same minimum standards as the men. Otherwise they are not only putting themselves in danger, but also their comrades, and others who are depending on them to save lives.

The minimum was made for a reason. It shouldn't be lowered just for women. Either lower it for everybody or don't lower it at all.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what colour your skin is, wether you have a Y chromosone or not, or weteher you prefer boys or girls (or both!!). The only question to ask is can you do the job.

You shouldn't change the benchmark to be able to accomodate a particular group of people, so if chicks can fight just as good as the blokes, that's just fine. When I served in active combat zones, my primary concern about my squad was whether I could trust them and rely on them in a fire fight. Everything else is irrelevant. Combat is tough, harsh, bloody scary, vicious and brutal. Most blokes haven't got the aptitude and the reality is that very few chicks will be able to meet the demand. It's not a case of providing equal opportunities, it's a matter of surrvival. If you don't do it right, you die. Even if you do it right, you die.

I didn't follow the link, but has anyone said anything about changing the benchmark requirements for front-line combat positions? Because if you can make all the numbers in training, you can hack the job, right?

While I do not take offense at the OP's assertion that, in general, men are stronger and putting a weaker person on the line weakens the whole line (that's all true), we have to recognize a couple things:

1. Women who enlist in the military in the first place are probably a tad more fit and athletic than your average prom queen anyway, notwithstanding badass prom queens who join the Marines (I'm sure it's happened).
2. If a woman has the same training as the men and is held to the same standard and she can perform all the same functions of the job, then what is the issue?
3. I've heard the argument (based on a scene in "G.I. Jane," I suspect) that, "OMG, what will happen to our poor delicate girls on the front lines? The mens will RAPE them." Not if they're taught to fight and defend themselves properly, right? I've met a couple of women who were/are Marines. I'd hazard a guess they could rip the balls off any potential enemy rapist and cram them down his stupid throat.

We're talking about a very small minority of women who wish to enlist in the first place. Another small minority who want to be or find themselves on front lines. They KNOW what they are signing up for. I say, good for them. It's about damn time the women who have already found themselves in combat positions unofficially can now be recognized for their achievements in battle, can be promoted above the "chick ceiling" in the military, can earn medals and recognition -- and most of all, COMBAT PAY -- for their efforts. This was another example where some women were doing the same job as a man, but because of the "no women in combat policy," even if a woman found herself in a combat situation, only the guys would get combat pay. The playing field is level, as well it should have been all along.

I have no problem with this. And as stated the minimum standards should not be lowered. Most civilian men would have a hard time carrying a fully decked out 180lbs soldier for 100 yards. That's not counting armor and gear. If military women can do the same, more power to them!

Women have been unofficially in combat for years. Supply trucks, MP's, etc.

It has been my limited experience with female Navy sailors that they are motivated, able, and tough.

I would have no hesitation with women in my squad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leigh_Ann_Hester

If they want to kill, let them kill.

Wouldn't mind seeing some female marines poppin' the tops of some ol' pro-female circumcision dirtbags.

Seems like we should let the womenz have first dibs on Patriarchal Pricks throughout the world.


Per the OP, I'm not sure our military will let women that can't hack it into these positions. At least, I hope they won't. (Time will tell...)

It will probably still be rare to see women in a combat unit. The closest thing we have to compare it to is the police. Women can serve as police, but very few actually do. The ones that do, generally are self selecting for being the type that can handle it.

Not all women can carry a full combat load. Most men can't either, until they have been sent through training to harden them up. I understand even after training, there are a lot of women who still can't handle the weight of a rucksack, and be an effective fighter. So what, you don't put those women into the combat units.

The Russians have used women in combat units and found them especially effective in the roles of armored vehicle crew members, and as snipers. They actually found that female snipers, or at least Russian ones, had less problem pulling the trigger on a man they had watched through a scope for the past several hours, then men did.

My gut tells me that we will probably never see more then three or four women in a company of a hundred guys. However, if they can hack it, let them do it.

Also, while the idea of women dying in greater numbers in the war zone pains me, the idea of a dying Taliban monster, who has spent most of his war, torturing and killing young girls for getting an education instead of a marriage at age 13, looking up, and realizing with his last breath, that the American soldier standing over him, the one that just filled his belly full of lead, thus sending him to paradise, is a woman...well that thought just brings a tear to my eye.

x2.

http://mattstone.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341bffb053ef011570ad89db970b-450wi

I might also point out that the Israelis have been doing it since there was an Israel. They have a compulsory 2-year requirement. All men AND women of a certain age are required to serve two years in the Israeli military.

You don't see them crying about women in combat positions, do you?

Also: Thumbs up and ::Like:: to FCD's last post. Brings a tear to my eye as well.

Didn't anyone see GI Jane? "Suck MY dick..." Rawr, grrrrl power.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2013 01:23PM by dogzilla.

Career Army Officer with nearly 29 years commissioned service here. Personally, I don't have a problem with SecDef's decision regarding women filling "combat" positions. For the record, the decision doesn't affect only the Army--it will affect all the Services. Women have been in combat for some time now, anyway, and battlefields are no longer linear. In fact, it's been a long time since I've seen Air-Land Battle terms of art like Forward Line of Troops (FLOT), Foward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA), or even Deep, Close, and Rear. Today's battlespace is non-linear, fluid, and dynamic. Keeping women off the front lines is no longer a way to guarantee their safety and frankly, the females I've served with weren't interested in leveraging an advantage like that over their male counterparts.

Besides, it's unlikely that women will be offered all occupational specialties. I think 18 Series (Special Forces) will remain male-only. And by extension, Tier 1 will not open to women anytime soon. Regardless, women will still be required to maintain the same standards as their male counterparts.

"Regardless, women will still be required to maintain the same standards as their male counterparts."

That is already NOT true. Women already have relaxed physical fitness requirements. If they want to be a clerk or a mechanic those relaxed requirements do not bother me. HOWEVER if they couldn't fireman carry my 190lbs plus gear out of a bad situation, then they don't belong beside me in that bad situation.

This is ridiculous! There is no argument that women in combat are going to increase the effectiveness of our troops. This is being done for the welfare of the women who want to be in that roll. We have become so obsessed with giving everyone what they want that it is crazy. Damn we have become entitled!

Seriously? Women are "entitled" because we're finally allowed to compete with men?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2013 09:24AM by Naomi.

My understanding is women will have to meet minimum standards for their chosen combat role. It's worth pointing out that the Israeli Defense Force has had women in combat roles for sometime now.

I have to fight my traditional male instinct to keep women protected to see them in combat but they have the right to be. What I would oppose is women being drafted.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2013 12:38AM by robertb.

Yes and no. Israel does have women in combat roles, but they don't have them in every combat role. It gets really fuzzy though, because Israel doesn't use the same order of battle as we do. As a result they don't have women, in say, infantry battalions, but they do have them in what I think are called frontier battalions, which are basically a cross between mechanized infantry and border police, and whom in war time get used basically the same way.

I've been in combat. I was one of those women who could handle it. I went on foot patrols in the Hindu Kush with a Marine captain, and I kept up while his guys were falling out. Partly because I was used to hiking in the Utah mountains, partly from my military training where I constantly tried to outdo the men.

I wasn't allowed to be in the infantry due to the combat exclusion rule. But the rule only kept me out of that specialty, it didn't keep me out of combat. I was on a small outpost that was attacked regularly, about once a week, with small arms fire or mortars which was generally ineffective. When the new infantry replacements showed up, they were completely useless. (1st ID) One time the incoming rounds were a little closer than usual, and after it was over one of the infantry guys was in tears, crying to me about how the rounds landed right by his feet and that he had a family and wanted to go home. I just looked at him in shock - I had a daughter at home too, but I would never react that way. What kind of soldiers are we training nowadays? They expect war to be a video game.

I think we need women in the military, in combat roles. We need to raise the standards and let everyone compete. Maybe if these guys see that they're getting their asses kicked by a girl, they'll step up and act like men.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2013 09:26AM by Naomi.

Do you think the presence of women in combat roles will reduce the number of incidents in which innocent civilians are tortured/mutilated/killed by rogue soldiers?

No military experience here. But based on what I've witnessed firefighting with hotshot crews, they will do just fine.

Actually, I met my first female smoke jumper this past year. She could easily chew up and spit out most of the men I've ever met.