BREAKING: Panetta removes military ban on women in combat, opening thousands of front line positions

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by 200Plus
I support this decision 100%. Equality for everyone.

That means females will have to be able to do a minimum of 42 pushup-ups in two minutes like the guys instead of 19 for females, right?

It means females will have 15:56 to run two miles now like the guys and not 21:20 for females, right?

Yea, equality for everyone.

I know im going to get flamed by alot of woman but its facts, Men are stronger then woman. Now you put a woman on the frontlines and in situations where they can engage enemies in hand to hand combat. Whos going to win that fight? The 130lbs 5’6” woman or the 5’11” 185lbs man?

Well let's see, with combat boots on and a swift kick to the groin whose going down faster? The Male or the female? There you have it, the way a woman that is 110 lbs can take down a 200 + lbs male.

reply to post by InTheLight


It's said that 50% of rapes committed against women are not reported. I would freely hazard a guess that 99% of rapes committed against men are not reported. Rape is a horrid thing and I will never make light of it. But, please do not imply that all women in the military service are in fear of being raped by their comrades.

So women deserve to be treated as equals AND have lower standards because they are physically different? Do you not see how this weakens the capabilities of an army, or are you being obtuse?

If it's not to personal, please let us know what you do for a living so I can tell you ways to improve it out of a sense of equality. I understand if you do not want to give out sensitive information. But you have to realize that you are arguing ways to improve something you have never been involved with.

reply to post by 200Plus


The Canadian existing standards for men are for men, the existing standards for women are for women. You'll have to argue that with the millitary personnel that have devoted much research into this science. I am saying that existing differing standards for the military men and women of Canada are not posing any problems on the frontlines, unless you can find proof otherwise...can you?

reply to post by InTheLight


Absence of proof, is not proof of absence.

Allowing females to pass when they have the same competency as a male that failed is ludicrous.

We will never know if women are EQUAL to men until they are treated EQUAL to men.

reply to post by 200Plus


More proof for ya:

And most experts say the integration of women into such roles elsewhere has gone smoothly, despite concerns as to whether they would be up to the physical demands and about the question of fraternization between male and female troops

www.npr.org...

reply to post by InTheLight


You are right. The US military should do away with all physical fitness requirements. Do you have any proof that weak men are not fully capable of serving in combat?

Do you have ANY links that do not quote women's organizations?

reply to post by 200Plus


I'm sure the standards, whether gender specific, or gender neutral will be reserached and studied in length from this point forward. It should prove interesting.

reply to post by InTheLight


Here's a good read.

www.ncdsv.org...

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by 200Plus

 

The Canadian existing standards for men are for men, the existing standards for women are for women. You'll have to argue that with the millitary personnel that have devoted much research into this science. I am saying that existing differing standards for the military men and women of Canada are not posing any problems on the frontlines, unless you can find proof otherwise...can you?

Um, maybe you should try talking to Canadian soldiers first?

I will give you the cole's notes.

-Women aren't the problem, reduced standards are. Canada's standards are reduced for the fairer sex.
-Integration showed that the government was more interested in photo ops than a fully functioning military.
-Lack of true government interest in military performance has led to recruitment and retention issues.
-Lack of recruitment led to lower standards across the board...and we swirl down the drain.

If we are going to discuss female integration to combat roles, I, as a Canadian, have very strong reservations about using the Canadian Forces. The Canadian Forces tried to do the right thing, and the Canadian government fraked it up for political brownie points...expect the same in the US.

reply to post by peck420


I'm going by what the experts, and history tells me. Thanks anyway.

Originally posted by Mijamija
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Very few women could qualify for these mos's at there current standards and I do not think the standards should be lowered for females, in peacetime or wartime, the standards are there for very good reasons.

You raise a good point here and it's certainly worth another note on this. I'd say IF females meet 100% and I mean without ANY allowances, exceptions, 'gender norming' or other accomodation, EVERY PT requirement of the men? Then that works. If their fitness reviews are 100% equal in areas of merit and outside subjective judgement that could be biased against them by pig headed Officers? Then this works. Like you, I don't believe many of the women who would stand today and say they want this WOULD pass 100% of the whole program into combat infantry. If they do though....then it truly DOES come down to nothing more than the sexual organs and chromosome structure which is silly to discriminate on.

My fear is what I've seen right here in my own city Police Department. There is one female cop here in town I've seen a few times and the first time, I thought someone stole a police car. No kidding. I honestly did until I looked real close and saw the top edge of the shoulder patch on the uniform to confirm she WAS wearing a police uniform. She looks all of maybe 15 and can barely sit tall enough in the car's seat to see clearly over the steering wheel. I hate to sound over dramatic, but this is literally the state of the situation in her case.

Now this is Missouri and we have honest to goodness working farm boys and 'cowboys' so to speak. They are BIG boys too and I've known more than one who freely say they enjoy going out, getting drunk and getting into bar fights. It's their idea of fun. What chance short of deadly force does that small waif of a girl stand against a 6'5 farm boy, topped off on booze and looking to pick his teeth with a badge for amusement?

^^^ If THAT isn't how they eventually come to evolve into making sure there is a "fair representation", as they call it, for females in position? Then I'm fine. I just don't believe in the modern times, it'll be 100% held to for standards.

(Although I imagine the Marine Corps will fight the hardest and longest for 'accommodation' to allow for requirements)

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by InTheLight

 

Here's a good read.

www.ncdsv.org...

It was a good read, thanks for posting it.

It seems to me that this will simply allow women to be assigned to brigade/battalion level spots in combat units. That means that the men that are assigned to supply, S-shops, NBC rooms, and other roles will now be free to actually be assigned to combat roles.

I am curious how this change will not have an effect of registration for selective service (as noted in your post).

reply to post by 200Plus


This is not an updated change...that is yet to come.

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by peck420

 

I'm going by what the experts, and history tells me. Thanks anyway.

There in lies the problem.

Who are the experts? The government funded reports that tell the story the government wants told.

As for history, there is no reliable data sets for women in modern front line combat. Why? There has been no long term deployment or usage of female soldiers on the front lines in modern combat. Pretty simple really.

If I learned anything in Afghanistan, as a private sub, it is this...always trust the boots on the ground. They know what is up and up.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Oh rly?

reply to post by peck420


There's plenty of recent history from Canada, Germany and Israel.

Originally posted by Krazysh0t
This actually isn't new. The military has been circumventing this by letting women be MPs then deploying them to Iraq and making them run security for transport convoys. While I was deployed (doing exactly what I just said despite not being an MP, but I was a combat MOS) I saw many females doing this. The females would do anything from drive the vehicle, to "man" the turret, and to being in command of the vehicle. While not kicking down doors, convoys regularly engaged enemy combatants.

A while back my old Platoon Sergeant told me that they were talking about letting females into my MOS. My MOS was 13M or MLRS Crewmember in other words field artillery. Field artillery isn't known for even being on the front lines, yet we were putting women into humvees equipped with .50 cal machine guns and having them defend convoys.

Interesting.

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by peck420

 

There's plenty of recent history from Canada, Germany and Israel.

Please refresh my memory as to what major campaigns Canada has had since integration (1989)?

The closest would be Afghanistan, to which Canada has deployed around 60 women to combat roles...hardly a good sample size.

reply to post by peck420


Why not do the research yourself? Don't forget to research Israel too.

reply to post by InTheLight


I have done the research, which is what you are missing.

And the research is pretty conclusive.

Women in the military are no problem as long as standards are maintained. No country that currently allows women in combat has maintained those standards.

So the problem becomes pretty obvious, political experiments in the military are bad for the military...not exactly rocket science here.