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

Thats fine. Here's some requirements from the unit i was in.

95+ pushups in 2 min
95+ situps in 2 min
2 mile run in 12:30 or less
10 FULL no swing pullups
20+ dips.
Squat test: talk 135lbs, squat 25 times, with a squat counter on, then complete 10 squats after that.

Complete 8 mile ruck with 80 lb. Ruck, plus full kit=another 30-40 lbs.
Complete 20 mile ruck with 45lbs.
Once a year, 50mile ruck, with 30 lbs, plus full kit, in one night.

Also, buddy carry my 200lb. Butt, with 30lb. Kit half a mile.

Do this, and you meet the PHYSICAL requirements. That's the easy part.

Now, for the mental and psychological requirements??!!!

What scares me, is that in the 80s, they wanted more women in law enforcement for many of
The same whiny reasons. Not that women weren't allowed to be cops, it's just that they couldn't
Finish the course.

So, what did they do???

Yep, lowered the bar for all cops. Now, every fat ass wanna be though guy, that can speed walk
A mile, and pull himself up of the couch can be a cop.

That's equal rights for ya.

Well, if a woman does meet all the requirements, and she makes it into some of these units. Then
She has to get a hysterectomy ans testosterone injections, so it can maintain muscle mass
During long deployments in the field, plus no more periods. If THAT isn't handled properly
In the field, it week be smelled from a mile away.

Originally posted by inivux
Link to the tweet would help.

EDIT: You did. Thanks.

Now, this is some pretty big news, if true. I'm sure women will be overjoyed at no longer being "second rate" soldiers.

Reminds me of the scene and universe of Starship Troopers.

edit on 23-1-2013 by inivux because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-1-2013 by inivux because: (no reason given)

You must mean the one were they were taking showers together.

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

That means females will have 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.

edit on 23-1-2013 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)

Shhezz....while the guys are on a long march in full gear the chicks will be riding by in trucks. I will put money on it.

Lets all be honest. When women are allowed into combat arms jobs they will be in the orderly room, the supply room, and in the PLL room of the motorpool.

reply to post by JerkyBeer


Most the female soldiers I know opted to stop their periods with BC while deployed. They did not need to get hysterectomies to do that!

As far as keeping up muscle mass, they would work out just the same as their male counterparts work out to keep up muscle mass, I'd imagine.

Yes, it would take a very physically fit female to do this sort of work, and I agree fully, any female that could pass the male PT test and the other psych evals should be able to serve. But IMO ONLY if she was as fit as her male counterparts, sex doesn't matter it's the standards that matter.

So when a guy gets hit, will a female be able to carry him, let alone all the gear she already has to carry? I am not sexist but the simple fact is they are not strong enough. Logic people not emotion. Look at all the female cop shootout videos.. One cop gets shot in the face and runs AWAY crying, one female cop did a little dance firing randomly at her moving car. Or the female cop who almost shot the guy in the head while he was on the ground.


Gs

Servicewomen are finally getting the fair deal they deserve; now with the ribbons too.

“There are many incredibly talented, gifted, enthusiastic, hard-charging Marines that I knew who left the Marine Corps because of combat exclusion policy,” said Bhagwati, who lives in New York City.

She said that under Panetta, the military had made great progress in fighting discrimination and harassment of women. She called the move “a historic moment” that she hadn't expected to come so soon

www.iol.co.za...

Originally posted by InTheLight
Servicewomen are finally getting the fair deal they deserve; now with the ribbons too.

“There are many incredibly talented, gifted, enthusiastic, hard-charging Marines that I knew who left the Marine Corps because of combat exclusion policy,” said Bhagwati, who lives in New York City.

This is a load of pure bullcrap. And yea I was there.

Originally posted by Mijamija
reply to post by JerkyBeer

 

Yes, it would take a very physically fit female to do this sort of work, and I agree fully, any female that could pass the male PT test and the other psych evals should be able to serve. But IMO ONLY if she was as fit as her male counterparts, sex doesn't matter it's the standards that matter.

The sort of men that are in rifle to shoulder units are not normal men to begin with. Its not just about being physically fit by a long shot.

Most of the push for women in rifle units are coming from the extream wing of the feminist movement.....and they have zero idea of what they are talking about.

I think the sentiment expressed in a line from the movie GI Jane says a lot, something about men seeing women blown open in combat, etc...And I think there is some truth in that. It will affect the male soldiers psychologically, but whether or not for the better I do not know. Maybe it will make the guys be a little cleaner and neater, but in combat, what will happen?

Killing isn't natural. It's trained.

There's a controversial book on it called On Killing where it's claimed before a certain point in history, people simply didn't shoot at each other. Then the theory of Killology came abount and people were trained to shot at person shaped targets.

Point am making is, we now have an entire generation of men brought up on movies, games, videos and all the rest to believe that men are born killers. They're not, they're human beings and human beings don't naturally like to kill each other (generally speaking, and no am not arguing that men aren't more aggressive ...).

It's all just training. Yes, because of the differences between men and women I would expect there to be more competent men in fighting units, but I don't understand why the men responding in this thread are pointing that out like it means anything. Nor do I understand this gloating about training requirements.

I don't know what it's like in America, maybe Americans are weird. Sorry I'm going to use police as an example because it's what I know about, but I find this American talk strange. Where I am police baseline training for women as an example is lowered for women because they need women in the police force. Until men can walk into women's toilets and body search a woman without problems ... I suppose that's how it is.

To make something clear though ... every single baseline for every single special response unit is the same between genders. It's a clear message, if you want to be in a combat situation you have to be trained in it. Yet I still hear men complaining about it as if every woman beat copper is having to protect a man's vulernable back from being perforated every single morning.

No offense to anyone, but sometimes it's tiresome listening to it.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
1. Men react differently to the sounds of females or children screaming for help, often doing things outside their training that would compromise their squad.

Any human would react to the screams of a child. If you can be trained to kill, you can be trained to treat your fellow squaddie as just another squaddie. Any highly trained person should know that the best thing they can do for their comrade is to follow their training.

2, Women react differently to the sounds of children screaming ignoring their training and compromising their squad!

If you're honestly telling me that if I had a child here right now, and I was about to shoot that poor child in the head ... that you wouldn't struggle with that ... then you're telling me men aren't human. I struggle to write about it.

Again, training.

3. Rape is a very powerful weapon of war, as is the pregnancy afterwards.

It's horrible, yes. It's also pretty horrible if I made you think about your pants area being fed to a blender. Just saying.

4. You need to be subconciously able to crawl in some tight places, sometimes in very tall grass with very dangerous insects and so forth. You cant shreik when a large spider walks over your face.

ahahahaha

5. You need to be able to lift enough to keep going for long periods of time. Its a genetic/phsyical aspect that women are not as strong as men.

I just be frank about this one ...

I'm not any type of special person, but I have massive keep fit phases. I train with both genders a lot. Yes, men are generally fitter ... but army men aren't exactly Mister T. In fact, the more shaped like a bag of rocks the person is, the more likely they are to be trailing up the rear behind even the allegedly slow women. Army and police people aren't even that strong half the time. They have better cardio than brute strength.

As for pain and acting awkward and all the rest ... I've seen big scary looking men taking breaks and having tears run down their face getting back tattoos. It happens.

So to say that women can't meet the training requirements ... they can, they have, and they do. If you're making an arguement from sexuality ... you might have a point. Sexual abuse in the army or police is never a ncie thing to hear about ...

Physically though ... the top woman MMA fighter or tactical response operative will beat down your average man. It's just a fact. True, said MMA fighter might not be the best ever when men are brought into the equation, but if the person can do the job ... then there is no argument.

I actually think the saddest thing about this is that men are now convinced they're all natural killing machines. Naturally angry a bit maybe, but men were never meant to kill hundreds of people. It's very sad.

reply to post by InTheLight


Made great strides to end discrimination.........

Females that have a lower standard can achieve more than their male counterparts.

Making things easier to allow success doesn't help anyone.

You want ribbons and medals? You can have mine, I have oodles and gobs of them (makes putting together the uniform a pain). Not one of my ribbons or medals carried my weight, not one of them allowed me to work outside the wire for 10-34 hours at a time for 15 months straight (287 days was the longest I went without a mission break).

Make ALL things equal and women that can qualify will and those that can't qualify won't. Same thing for the men. Dozens of men "wash out" (ELS or recycle) every time a new batch of a few hundred men enter combat arms training.

The issue most people have (that have actually served), is that women have lower standards but want the same jobs.

reply to post by JiggyPotamus


What I want to know is if my rifle jams and there are several guys charging my position to finish me, can GI Jane fire them up even if there are several children in the way?


By the way, Panetta never humped with combat gear much if at all and certainly not ever on a regular basis. He had never spent long periods of time in adverse weather conditions ect. Nor have 99.99% of the people pushing for this.

reply to post by camaro68ss


Typical male obsessed with size.

I have seen tiny female officers take down motorcyle gang members.

reply to post by Pinke


Killing has happened since the dawn of time.
Killing, happens at the most basic leveled organism, to animals to humans.
The idea that it is not natural, has been due to society, not human instinct.

As for rape??
Rape happens to both men and women, especially in the ME and coming soon African Theaters of war.



And as for the physical ability of women to do the job?
I guess we shall see.
But, history, past and recent within the Military and LE has shown that for the most part, most women are not capable to do what the male counterpart can.


We shall see though.

Double post.

Originally posted by DOLCOTT
reply to post by Maxatoria

 

As a vet who has seen combat, there are many issues related to having women on the front line that have nothing to do with their performance. I have trained some pretty serious Israeli' women however. It is great win in theory however it will be a distraction on many levels.

Sexual
Drama of the love triangles
Heroism, males will tend to let chivalry overwhelm their combat sense
The aspect of capture and rape

I am all for equality for women, however is this what women truly want?

So in the middle of combat, soldiers can't control their sexual urges? Or avoid chivalry? If they are such slaves to their instincts, then maybe they shouldn't be fighting with men or women.
And men can get raped too.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by camaro68ss

 

Typical male obsessed with size.

I have seen tiny female officers take down motorcyle gang members.

And I have seen HA coward when confronted and they don't have a weapon to turn to.

What is the woman's capability to carry the same amount of weight that the male can.
It can happen, but what is the percentage.

reply to post by Logarock


At the same time, I had a soldier that was a male. Everytime the shooting started I knew right where he would be. INSIDE a truck "on the radio". I couldn't fire him because he liked to play "one card monty", so I was stuck with him.

Standing shoulder to shoulder is a matter of training and discipline, regardless of situation or gender. But, until females can maintain the same levels as males they should never have the chance to be shoulder to shoulder in the first place.