PDA

View Full Version : G.I. Jane .......Coming Soon


Pony Boy
01-24-2013, 11:26 AM
Pentagon announces decision to lift ban on women in combat roles

<SCRIPT type=text/javascript src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=2114849103001&w=466&h=263"></SCRIPT><NOSCRIPT></NOSCRIPT>

The Pentagon formally announced Thursday that it would lift the ban on women serving in combat positions, in one of Leon Panetta's last acts as President Obama's Defense secretary.

The change would open hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war.

The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule banning women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta's decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/23/panetta-opens-combat-roles-to-women/

nyuk nyuk
01-24-2013, 11:29 AM
Hello, I'm here to go to the front lines and menstruate everywhere. If you resist me you're a bigot sexist. If I get kidnapped by Abdul and raped 100 times, it's your fault for your lack of chivalry in protecting me. I also expect breaks in the fighting to change my pad and feminine wash.

http://i49.tinypic.com/2ntg3yv.png

nyuk nyuk
01-24-2013, 11:42 AM
I FOR ONE WILL NOT BE SATISFIED UNTIL THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION COMBATS AGEISM AND BRINGS 60 YEAR OLDS AND 10 YEAR OLDS TO THE FRONT LINES.

Who is with me!!!!

Pony Boy
01-24-2013, 11:46 AM
I think a strong comparison would be the NFL (not for ladies). There will never be a woman make the active roster of any NFL team with the exception of a kicker or punter. There is not a woman on earth that I would trust to protect Manning’s blind side.

Certainly there are rolls for women in battle but never in elite forces such as the Navy Seals or the Army's Delta Force.

Pony Boy
01-24-2013, 11:49 AM
Well, there is one exception ......... Demi could kick some serious ass.

nyuk nyuk
01-24-2013, 11:51 AM
I think a strong comparison would be the NFL (not for ladies). There will never be a woman make the active roster of any NFL team with the exception of a kicker or punter. There is not a woman on earth that I would trust to protect Manning’s blind side.

Certainly there are rolls for women in battle but never in elite forces such as the Navy Seals or the Army's Delta Force.

There are not roles for women in battle, period. Ever. Women are not as strong as men regardless of how many reruns of GI Jane or Wonder Woman they've been watching. This is all radical feminism shoving its radical agenda down everyone's throats and if you resist you're branded either a sexist pig or a self-hating female. They're kicking down doors because the doors are simply THERE, not because they should be kicked down.

Since the Democratic Party has lost it's old white blue collar base, they're about pandering to left-wing social revolutionaries and minority voting blocs and little else. This is part of the process of pandering to left-wing social revolutionaries.

nyuk nyuk
01-24-2013, 11:52 AM
Well, there is one exception ......... Demi could kick some serious ass.

Hollywood is known for promoting pet PC agendas by showing them as totally unrealistic. I never saw that movie, it was too retarded to even consider.

W*GS
01-24-2013, 11:52 AM
I daresay the women who want to be in combat would kick Pony Boy's and nyuk nyuk's ass at the same time, blindfolded and with both arms tied behind their backs.

nyuk nyuk
01-24-2013, 11:53 AM
I daresay the women who want to be in combat would kick Pony Boy's and nyuk nyuk's ass at the same time, blindfolded and with both arms tied behind their backs.

An example of how liberals tend to jettison any semblance of realistic thinking and replace it with the mythological and fantastic.

These lefty male clowns with their penises sucked into their pelvic cavities are so blinded by their own egalitarian garbage that they can't even accept the basic fact that women are not as strong as men and never will be.

W*GS
01-24-2013, 11:54 AM
Women are not as strong as men regardless of how many reruns of GI Jane or Wonder Woman they've been watching.

How much of combat comes down to pure brute strength?

W*GS
01-24-2013, 11:55 AM
An example of how liberals tend to jettison any semblance of realistic thinking and replace it with the mythological and fantastic.

So, you're strong enough and man enough to kick any woman's ass?

These lefty male clowns with their penises sucked into their pelvic cavities are so blinded by their own egalitarian garbage that they can't even accept the basic fact that women are not as strong as men and never will be.

I doubt any women are as stupid as you are.

BroncoInferno
01-24-2013, 11:57 AM
Hey, Pony Boy and nyuk nyuk: you two do realize that the days of hand-to-hand combat in battle are basically over, right? We aren't charging the enemy with bayonets anymore. It doesn't require brute strength for an individual to be effective in modern warfare. I guess now you'll tell us that women are technologically inferior to men as well?

BroncoInferno
01-24-2013, 12:00 PM
So, you're strong enough and man enough to kick any woman's ass?

nyuk nyuk claims to be a woman, though many have expressed the opinion that it's just the drama llama in drag. I haven't been sold on the opinion until reading post # 6. No woman wrote that ignorant, sexist garbage.

Pony Boy
01-24-2013, 12:05 PM
Hey, nyuk nyuk: you do realize that the days of hand-to-hand combat in battle are basically over, right? It doesn't require brute strength for an individual to be effective in modern warfare. I guess now you'll tell us that women are technologically inferior to men as well?

32042

nyuk nyuk
01-24-2013, 12:09 PM
How much of combat comes down to pure brute strength?

It shouldn't take a genius to figure out that one thing soldiers learn is hand to hand combat for if and when they find themselves isolated among the enemy. If you don't women there will be subject to being totally dominated and likely dismembered after being repeatedly sexually savaged, you need to lay off the crack pebbles. This lack of physical strength on the part of women also endangers men near them. Women cannot physically fend off attackers on a battlefield, and in such scenarios you can most likely expect multiple attackers. You're going to get everyone killed.

I go to gym regularly and I have a weight program, and in spite of that I am still not as strong as a male coworker of mine who is a couch potato. The sooner liberals face reality, the better. Egalitarian narratives are not realistic and never have been.

Radical feminists never have and do not speak for all women. If they really believed that women have a right to choose, then we'd also have a right to choose whether or not these radicals have the right to push their agenda in OUR name, rather than attacking us as "self-haters" for not towing their line.

At least you admit that women are lacking, that's progress. Yes, "kicking ass" as you fantasized does indeed involve brute strength. Perhaps next you'll confront your obvious bloodthirst in seeing people you disagree with physically assaulted. I won't bet on it, though. Liberals are too convinced of their own pacifistic righteousness even while they call for those they don't like to be executed and knifed to death. They also tend to enjoy spending their free time on Twitter talking about how "the NRA should be shot."

BroncoInferno
01-24-2013, 12:12 PM
32042

Are you serious? Hand-to-hand combat is atypical in current conflicts. That's simply a fact.

Pick Six
01-24-2013, 12:13 PM
It takes "brute strength" to carry all the equipment they have to carry. It takes "brute strength" to lift a wounded soldier out of harm's way...

nyuk nyuk
01-24-2013, 12:15 PM
nyuk nyuk claims to be a woman, though many have expressed the opinion that it's just the drama llama in drag. I haven't been sold on the opinion until reading post # 6. No woman wrote that ignorant, sexist garbage.

And this is the kind of left-wing garbage I've spoken of on this thread and elsewhere. The left have established ideological litmus tests to be considered "authentically female," and one of those is being a radical feminist. I am not, thus I am either secretly a male, or I am a "self-hating woman."

The left, of course, do the same with blacks. Alan Keyes is a conservative, therefore he is not "authentically black." To be considered "authentically black," one must be left-wing in political outlook and be a member of the Democratic Party or another politically party to the left of the Democrats.

This from a bunch of people who claim they don't like being labeled and defined by others and want people to have the freedom to define themselves.

Pass the d'oh.

Know what's even funnier? These emasculated self-loathing pseduo-men are on a football forum, rooting for a team on a league neither of which (rightly) allows female players. Even funnier than that is that the team they love, the mighty DENVER BRONCOS, is owned and operated by Republicans, including our splendid HOF starting quarterback. Ain't that a bitch?!

Of course I know to not bother expecting ideological or moral consistency from the left. That is, after all, one reason I quit being left-wing.

BroncoInferno
01-24-2013, 12:16 PM
It takes "brute strength" to carry all the equipment they have to carry. It takes "brute strength" to lift a wounded soldier out of harm's way...

The army has conditioning tests and training to determine the fitness of an individual to do these things, male or otherwise. If a woman can pass these tests, why shouldn't she be permited to serve in combat? I don't think anyone is suggesting we send someone with the physique of Kate Moss into battle.

nyuk nyuk
01-24-2013, 12:17 PM
It takes "brute strength" to carry all the equipment they have to carry. It takes "brute strength" to lift a wounded soldier out of harm's way...

Logical thinking has no place in the agenda of the radical left. Keep repeating the platitudes, keep slapping equals signs on everything, and if need be, lower those standards! That IS the next stop, I assure you.

BroncoInferno
01-24-2013, 12:19 PM
And this is the kind of left-wing garbage I've spoken of on this thread and elsewhere. The left have established ideological litmus tests to be considered "authentically female," and one of those is being a radical feminist. I am not, thus I am either secretly a male, or I am a "self-hating woman."

The left, of course, do the same with blacks. Alan Keyes is a conservative, therefore he is not "authentically black." To be considered "authentically black," one must be left-wing in political outlook and be a member of the Democratic Party or another politically party to the left of the Democrats.

This from a bunch of people who claim they don't like being labeled and defined by others and want people to have the freedom to define themselves.

Pass the d'oh.

Know what's even funnier? These emasculated self-loathing pseduo-men are on a football forum, rooting for a team on a league neither of which (rightly) allows female players. Even funnier than that is that the team they love, the mighty DENVER BRONCOS, is owned and operated by Republicans, including our splendid HOF starting quarterback. Ain't that a b****?!

Of course I know to not bother expecting ideological or moral consistency from the left. That is, after all, one reason I quit being left-wing.

Goddamn, you are truly bat-**** crazy. You ARE the drama llama Hilarious!

Dukes
01-24-2013, 12:19 PM
If a woman proves herself through the exact same training men receive (not boot camp) whether it be Ranger school, Scout Sniper school, Recon etc then I have no reason to object. Now, I wasn't a grunt in the Marines, but I knew some women who I would rather go outside the wire with then men I served with. Not many, but a few.

One thing I haven't heard is are women now going to be required to register with the selective service. Anyone else know?

Pony Boy
01-24-2013, 12:20 PM
Hey, Pony Boy and nyuk nyuk: you two do realize that the days of hand-to-hand combat in battle are basically over, right? We aren't charging the enemy with bayonets anymore. It doesn't require brute strength for an individual to be effective in modern warfare. I guess now you'll tell us that women are technologically inferior to men as well?

See how you just make stuff, no one has mentioned in this thread that women are "technologically inferior".

I'm saying a woman could not pass the physical requirements to become a Navy Seal or menber of the Delta Force but I'm sure pressure will be applied to make women members of these units.

Pony Boy
01-24-2013, 12:24 PM
If a woman proves herself through the exact same training men receive (not boot camp) whether it be Ranger school, Scout Sniper school, Recon etc then I have no reason to object. Now, I wasn't a grunt in the Marines, but I knew some women who I would rather go outside the wire with then men I served with. Not many, but a few.

One thing I haven't heard is are women now going to be required to register with the selective service. Anyone else know?

Do you think a woman could make the active roster of any NFL team other than being a kicker?

BroncoInferno
01-24-2013, 12:25 PM
See how you just make stuff, no one has mentioned in this thread that women are "technologically inferior".

I didn't make stuff up, I'm pointing out that modern warfare is primarily waged technologically, and so there is little basis for keeping women out of combat unless you think they are inferior to men in that capacity. Context.

I'm saying a woman could not pass the physical requirements to become a Navy Seal or menber of the Delta Force but I'm sure pressure will be applied to make women members of these units.

Like Dukes said, if a woman can go through the same training as a man, she should be allowed to serve. I don't buy your premise that there is no woman on the face of the Earth who could pass those requirements. They'd be rare, admittedly, but they should have the right to serve in that capacity if they have the desire and ability.

nyuk nyuk
01-24-2013, 12:27 PM
The army has conditioning tests to determine the fitness of an individual to do these things, male or otherwise. If a woman can pass these tests, why shouldn't she be permited to serve in combat? I don't think anyone is suggesting we send someone with the physique of Kate Moss into battle.

Actually they are. You really think that these people are going to be satisfied with unequal numbers of men and women on the front lines? Plenty of fire departments have already been through this. This crap is always done piecemal: Step 1) Demand they let women in but leave physical standards as they are. Step 2) Criticize physical standards as too high if not an X percentage of women are represented according to as they should by the beliefs of left-wing gender bean counters. Step 3) Lower physical standards to let more women in. It's already happening.

Btw, you aren't considering the implications of a mixed-gender front line in terms of sexual tension and the likelihood of having preggos waddling around.

nyuk nyuk
01-24-2013, 12:29 PM
Do you think a woman could make the active roster of any NFL team other than being a kicker?

One full-steam hit by Von Miller and I'd be down for hours and would probably be hurting for weeks.

These people are in denial.

BroncoInferno
01-24-2013, 12:31 PM
^ Yep, that's the drama llama alright Ha!

Dukes
01-24-2013, 12:37 PM
Do you think a woman could make the active roster of any NFL team other than being a kicker?

If they can pass the required training without getting special treatment then I would have no problem serving along side them in a combat zone. I don't agree with the premise of this question to begin with. I doubt many combat soldiers and Marines could hang in the NFL. In all my time in the Marines I can think of one big enough to handle himself on the gridiron.

nyuk nyuk
01-24-2013, 12:38 PM
Goddamn, you are truly bat-**** crazy. You ARE the drama llama Hilarious!

Ad hominem invective and labeling. The very argument I've been saying since day one the left use, because they have nothing else. Thus, yet again, this forum's lib contingent prove my point.

Indeed, this kind of behavior has been the favored tactic of the radical left for decades. Don't discourse, don't explain. Avoid debate and instead call names and shout down.

As predictable as a watch.

nyuk nyuk
01-24-2013, 12:40 PM
If they can pass the required training without getting special treatment then I would have no problem serving along side them in a combat zone. I don't agree with the premise of this question to begin with. I doubt many combat soldiers and Marines could hang in the NFL. In all my time in the Marines I can think of one big enough to handle himself on the gridiron.

There are much deeper implications than merely the physical testing. The fact that the advocates of putting women on the front lines don't discuss these issues means they either aren't aware of it because they're so shallow-minded they haven't considered them, or that they're such pushy ideologues they simply don't give a crap.

peacepipe
01-24-2013, 12:40 PM
Anyway,panetta came out today and stated that test/physical requirements for men to qualify will be applied to women. They are not going to lower the bar for women to qualify.

nyuk nyuk
01-24-2013, 12:44 PM
Anyway,panetta came out today and stated that test/physical requirements for men to qualify will be applied to women. They are not going to lower the bar for women to qualify.

As I said already, that's what you think. Fire departments started out with what the military is pushing now. These people pushing this are not going to be satisfied with OK these women can't pass standards. No, they'll do what they've been doing with fire departments internationally and demand standards be lowered once it's shown that very few women can pass current standards. These people don't take no for an answer, and they will forcibly "equalize" everything even if it means harassing people into capitulating with lower standards. This is only step 1.

nyuk nyuk
01-24-2013, 12:46 PM
The politics of lower standards strikes again, folks. The only doors this crowd want existing are those which they erect. Any other door will be kicked down even if it jeopardizes physical safety.

W*GS
01-24-2013, 12:47 PM
'nyuk nyuk' is just projecting his own shortcomings as a man...

He's not strong, so no woman can be strong.

He cannot control his sexual urges, so all women are vulnerable to predatory men.

He feels so protective of women (being the weaker sex) that all men must feel as protective as he does.

The usual logical fallacy **** we expect from him.

Fedaykin
01-24-2013, 12:48 PM
As always, reality has a liberal bias and evidence trumps ideology.

Israel has had mixed gender combat force for a long time and is one of the most effective armies in the world.

Rohirrim
01-24-2013, 12:56 PM
I have to say I'm completely opposed to this idea, on just about every level I can think of.

Pony Boy
01-24-2013, 12:56 PM
Anyway,panetta came out today and stated that test/physical requirements for men to qualify will be applied to women. They are not going to lower the bar for women to qualify.

Too late ....... they have already lowered the bar

nyuk nyuk
01-24-2013, 01:00 PM
'nyuk nyuk' is just projecting his own shortcomings as a man...

He's not strong, so no woman can be strong.

He cannot control his sexual urges, so all women are vulnerable to predatory men.

He feels so protective of women (being the weaker sex) that all men must feel as protective as he does.

The usual logical fallacy **** we expect from him.

Off-topic personal insinuations have always been a favored tactic by the left specifically in lacking basic intellectual weaponry to formulate a coherent response. Unsurprising.

As you were, lib.

nyuk nyuk
01-24-2013, 01:00 PM
I have to say I'm completely opposed to this idea, on just about every level I can think of.

Well you're just a weakling sexist. Ask Wog.

W*GS
01-24-2013, 01:03 PM
I have to say I'm completely opposed to this idea, on just about every level I can think of.

Just out of curiosity - why?

nyuk nyuk
01-24-2013, 01:04 PM
As always, reality has a liberal bias and evidence trumps ideology.

Israel has had mixed gender combat force for a long time and is one of the most effective armies in the world.

What's your source behind this, sir?

nyuk nyuk
01-24-2013, 01:04 PM
Just out of curiosity - why?

Because he's a racistsexistlyingegotisticalbigot. What else?

Requiem
01-24-2013, 01:08 PM
Actually they are. You really think that these people are going to be satisfied with unequal numbers of men and women on the front lines? Plenty of fire departments have already been through this. This crap is always done piecemal: Step 1) Demand they let women in but leave physical standards as they are. Step 2) Criticize physical standards as too high if not an X percentage of women are represented according to as they should by the beliefs of left-wing gender bean counters. Step 3) Lower physical standards to let more women in. It's already happening.

Btw, you aren't considering the implications of a mixed-gender front line in terms of sexual tension and the likelihood of having preggos waddling around.

The military's top official seems to think that the combat ban of women in the military is a primary driving force in the tension you described.

And where is the evidence that lowering of physical standards to let more women into the military is already happening?

I've had this discussion with a lot of ex-military friends, who either went on to elite special forces or are currently still serving who think this is a bad idea. I've also had my friends who are recruiters tell me that standards have never been higher than they have now, and they turn away a lot more people than they ever get into the service.

nyuk nyuk
01-24-2013, 01:16 PM
The military's top official seems to think that the combat ban of women in the military is a primary driving force in the tension you described.

And where is the evidence that lowering of physical standards to let more women into the military is already happening?

I've had this discussion with a lot of ex-military friends, who either went on to elite special forces or are currently still serving who think this is a bad idea. I've also had my friends who are recruiters tell me that standards have never been higher than they have now, and they turn away a lot more people than they ever get into the service.

I have already explained on this thread the SOP regarding the people who are pushing for such things. It's already happened in numerous fire departments. This is an approach that's been used before and will be again. It will not stop here, it never has.

Let's see how many preggos they allow waddling about on the front lines. This will be entertaining.

Requiem
01-24-2013, 01:19 PM
I have already explained on this thread the SOP regarding the people who are pushing for such things.

It's already happened in numerous fire departments. This is an approach that's been used before and will be again. It will not stop here, it never has.

So currently, it isn't happening in the military. Thanks for clarifying.

Let's see how many preggos they allow waddling about on the front lines. This will be entertaining.

Probably zero.

That One Guy
01-24-2013, 01:29 PM
I've always been opposed to the idea but, secretly, this is a day I've been waiting for for a LONG time.

Let's progress through this logically:

All MOSs in the military do the same PT standard. Males have their standards defined by age then females have their standard defined by age. There is no MOS special PT tests in the military. Now, you get promotion preference by doing better than your peers on your PT test. Before, a woman could do, say, 35 pushups but get more promotion points than a guy that did the same job but did 50 pushups. If men and women are going to be held to a single standard, how can you defend giving women preferential treatment for promotion? This will actually widen the gaps because probably 75% (an estimate) of women probably cannot meet the male standard for the PT test. Sure, GI Jane exists, but what about GI Secretary?

Beyond the fact that I think a few women just F'd over their sex as a whole, I fear for the ramifications. In my job, it was fairly simple to replace someone. That was convenient because out of 6 females we had, a single one made it to our deployment without getting pregnant. Every unit goes through this. Women love to be soldiers during peacetime then mothers during wartime. Again, some don't but MANY do get pregnant to avoid deployments. Plugging a soldier behind a computer is one thing but what about when this starts devastating fire teams that rely on each other to stay safe?

And as for those saying strength should be disregarded because we're tech based now, I can build a computer from spare parts and do some low level programming. Does that mean I qualify for SF or Navy Seals? I see the number of women that even GET to advanced training being tiny (the number that pass microscopic) but those are women that can probably take care of themselves. The ones that just got F'd hard are the average women.

They're either equal or they're not. You can't have two ranks of women - the butch and the beautiful..

That One Guy
01-24-2013, 01:33 PM
Oh, and while it probably won't be used anytime soon, the symbolism of making the women sign up for selective service will make everyone stop and think, I believe. Law people are already claiming almost unanimously that women will now be forced to sign up. They were only exempted before because the Supreme Court ruled that the draft was for "combat forces" and women didn't fit that role because of the exclusion. That doesn't apply anymore so a quick, logical inference should be simple for the Supreme Court to make.

That One Guy
01-24-2013, 02:06 PM
Know what's even funnier? These emasculated self-loathing pseduo-men are on a football forum, rooting for a team on a league neither of which (rightly) allows female players. Even funnier than that is that the team they love, the mighty DENVER BRONCOS, is owned and operated by Republicans, including our splendid HOF starting quarterback. Ain't that a b****?!

Of course I know to not bother expecting ideological or moral consistency from the left. That is, after all, one reason I quit being left-wing.

Actually, W*GS is pretty vocal in his hatred for all things Broncos and possibly football as a whole, I can't remember. The logic of why he's here is the mystery there.

Rohirrim
01-24-2013, 02:27 PM
Just out of curiosity - why?

Sexual dimorphism, for one thing. For another, there is a lot of hard-wiring in our behavior as a species that is gender based and tied to mating. You inject an entire new level of complication into the combat theater by having women fighting beside men. What if hand to hand combat occurs? What happens to female soldiers who are captured? What is the reaction of male soldiers to female soldiers in a combat situation? Already, the incidence of sexual assault in Iraq and Afghanistan has been labeled an "epidemic." Bad idea all the way around.

DenverBrit
01-24-2013, 03:09 PM
Too late ....... they have already lowered the bar

Looks like someone is happy to see you, Pony. :P

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=32043&stc=1&d=1359057369

W*GS
01-24-2013, 03:14 PM
I've not served in the military so I may be full of ****.

Sexual dimorphism, for one thing.

The number of women with suitable ability for combat may be quite small, but it's not zero.

For another, there is a lot of hard-wiring in our behavior as a species that is gender based and tied to mating. You inject an entire new level of complication into the combat theater by having women fighting beside men.

Isn't that precisely the martial love that's supposed to be instilled by training? What's the difference between

"I'll risk my life to save my fellow soldier because she's a woman."
and
"I'll risk my life to save my fellow soldier because he's my buddy."

What if hand to hand combat occurs?

Given the requirement to meet all the physical requirements, not an issue.

I've done martial arts sparring against women, and trust me, they can hit and kick damned hard.

What happens to female soldiers who are captured?

They may get raped in addition to tortured/assaulted. Then again, look what happened to some of the guys we had in Abu Ghraib. Is vaginal rape with a penis that much more horrific than anal rape with a broom handle?

What is the reaction of male soldiers to female soldiers in a combat situation?

I should think appropriate training should take care of that. What was the reaction of bigoted white soldiers when faced with black soldiers?

Already, the incidence of sexual assault in Iraq and Afghanistan has been labeled an "epidemic." Bad idea all the way around.

Again, better training to address that issue.

As long as combat training and/or experience is a key means by which one advances in the military, women shouldn't be held back because they're not allowed to do those things.

Either we allow women into combat, or we make it so they can advance without it.

Besides, we've already lost 150 women in Afghanistan and Iraq, with another 800 wounded. It's not like we quit either war because some woman soldier came back in a casket.

elsid13
01-24-2013, 03:20 PM
Bottom line, they will be survivors or they will be dead. There will be no in between.

Folks should stop throwing this going to hurt the SOP community, those guys aren't lowering the bar for someone to become a snake eater. Right now there are certain combat arms (like the command of destroy or Sub) which physical strength doesn't matter, there are other were physical strength and ability handle yourself in close combat do matter and you will see a lot of women dropping out of those MOS as we move forward.

elsid13
01-24-2013, 03:26 PM
Sexual dimorphism, for one thing. For another, there is a lot of hard-wiring in our behavior as a species that is gender based and tied to mating. You inject an entire new level of complication into the combat theater by having women fighting beside men. What if hand to hand combat occurs? What happens to female soldiers who are captured? What is the reaction of male soldiers to female soldiers in a combat situation? Already, the incidence of sexual assault in Iraq and Afghanistan has been labeled an "epidemic." Bad idea all the way around.

The problem that the sexual assault is not just happening in active combat theaters, it is happen all over the place and in far more frequency with troop that are not involved in combat operations. The AF training case is freaking disaster at that involved trainees and drill instructors in Texas.

BroncoBeavis
01-24-2013, 03:27 PM
How much of combat comes down to pure brute strength?

If the answer is more than .001%, then it's something the military needs to be very careful with.

Not saying it's a bad idea, but there'd better be more deliberation put into it than a DOD political appointee press stunt designed to rally the base.

That One Guy
01-24-2013, 04:34 PM
The problem that the sexual assault is not just happening in active combat theaters, it is happen all over the place and in far more frequency with troop that are not involved in combat operations. The AF training case is freaking disaster at that involved trainees and drill instructors in Texas.

Women are a terrible distraction in combat as is. It's not anything unique that they'll face as other units are facing them every day but anyone that suggests women aren't a distraction is silly. "Combat pretty" is a real thing and the fact that people can't even get through things like training without trying to F anything that walks should not be used as a defense. The military has proven itself amazingly incompetent at fending off negative incidents and opening up more positions where isolation will occur will absolutely cause the numbers to go up.

That One Guy
01-24-2013, 04:38 PM
I've not served in the military so I may be full of ****.



The number of women with suitable ability for combat may be quite small, but it's not zero.



Isn't that precisely the martial love that's supposed to be instilled by training? What's the difference between

"I'll risk my life to save my fellow soldier because she's a woman."
and
"I'll risk my life to save my fellow soldier because he's my buddy."



Given the requirement to meet all the physical requirements, not an issue.

I've done martial arts sparring against women, and trust me, they can hit and kick damned hard.



They may get raped in addition to tortured/assaulted. Then again, look what happened to some of the guys we had in Abu Ghraib. Is vaginal rape with a penis that much more horrific than anal rape with a broom handle?



I should think appropriate training should take care of that. What was the reaction of bigoted white soldiers when faced with black soldiers?



Again, better training to address that issue.

As long as combat training and/or experience is a key means by which one advances in the military, women shouldn't be held back because they're not allowed to do those things.

Either we allow women into combat, or we make it so they can advance without it.

Besides, we've already lost 150 women in Afghanistan and Iraq, with another 800 wounded. It's not like we quit either war because some woman soldier came back in a casket.

Just curious, are you a proponent of true equal standards? Or are you just wanting the women to be able to pretend to be males in some circumstances? Should every woman become subject to male standards or just the standouts?

Pony Boy
01-24-2013, 04:48 PM
Women are a terrible distraction in combat as is. It's not anything unique that they'll face as other units are facing them every day but anyone that suggests women aren't a distraction is silly. "Combat pretty" is a real thing and the fact that people can't even get through things like training without trying to F anything that walks should not be used as a defense. The military has proven itself amazingly incompetent at fending off negative incidents and opening up more positions where isolation will occur will absolutely cause the numbers to go up.

Yes, can't argue that ...........

Rohirrim
01-24-2013, 04:48 PM
Well, since the overwhelming majority of "wars" the U.S. has been involved in over the last sixty years have been total bull**** and completely unnecessary, I think we should spend a little more energy telling the dumb ****s in Washington and their corporate bosses in the military/industrial complex, that we're sick of their ****ing stupid wars, and not only will our women not go die for their corporate interests, our men won't either. I look forward to seeing the first woman in combat from the economic top ten percent. Fat ****ing chance of that happening.

That One Guy
01-24-2013, 04:58 PM
Well, since the overwhelming majority of "wars" the U.S. has been involved in over the last sixty years have been total bull**** and completely unnecessary, I think we should spend a little more energy telling the dumb ****s in Washington and their corporate bosses in the military/industrial complex, that we're sick of their ****ing stupid wars, and not only will our women not go die for their corporate interests, our men won't either. I look forward to seeing the first woman in combat from the economic top ten percent. Fat ****ing chance of that happening.

A different topic. Legit, but different.

elsid13
01-24-2013, 05:56 PM
Women are a terrible distraction in combat as is. It's not anything unique that they'll face as other units are facing them every day but anyone that suggests women aren't a distraction is silly. "Combat pretty" is a real thing and the fact that people can't even get through things like training without trying to F anything that walks should not be used as a defense. The military has proven itself amazingly incompetent at fending off negative incidents and opening up more positions where isolation will occur will absolutely cause the numbers to go up.

I am not disagreeing with that. What I was attempting to point out was that unbelievable number of sexually assaults is not just tied to combat zones. There are two stories everyone in military leadership doesn't want the public to know - the number of suicides and number of sexually assaults.

BroncsRule
01-24-2013, 05:57 PM
I daresay the women who want to be in combat would kick Pony Boy's and nyuk nyuk's ass at the same time, blindfolded and with both arms tied behind their backs.

..and they would still be woefully underqualified.

BroncsRule
01-24-2013, 06:05 PM
If a woman proves herself through the exact same training men receive (not boot camp) whether it be Ranger school, Scout Sniper school, Recon etc then I have no reason to object. Now, I wasn't a grunt in the Marines, but I knew some women who I would rather go outside the wire with then men I served with. Not many, but a few.

One thing I haven't heard is are women now going to be required to register with the selective service. Anyone else know?

This.

and no, I haven't heard a peep on female SS registration.

BroncsRule
01-24-2013, 06:21 PM
I've always been opposed to the idea but, secretly, this is a day I've been waiting for for a LONG time.

Let's progress through this logically:

All MOSs in the military do the same PT standard. Males have their standards defined by age then females have their standard defined by age. There is no MOS special PT tests in the military. Now, you get promotion preference by doing better than your peers on your PT test. Before, a woman could do, say, 35 pushups but get more promotion points than a guy that did the same job but did 50 pushups. If men and women are going to be held to a single standard, how can you defend giving women preferential treatment for promotion? This will actually widen the gaps because probably 75% (an estimate) of women probably cannot meet the male standard for the PT test. Sure, GI Jane exists, but what about GI Secretary?

Beyond the fact that I think a few women just F'd over their sex as a whole, I fear for the ramifications. In my job, it was fairly simple to replace someone. That was convenient because out of 6 females we had, a single one made it to our deployment without getting pregnant. Every unit goes through this. Women love to be soldiers during peacetime then mothers during wartime. Again, some don't but MANY do get pregnant to avoid deployments. Plugging a soldier behind a computer is one thing but what about when this starts devastating fire teams that rely on each other to stay safe?

And as for those saying strength should be disregarded because we're tech based now, I can build a computer from spare parts and do some low level programming. Does that mean I qualify for SF or Navy Seals? I see the number of women that even GET to advanced training being tiny (the number that pass microscopic) but those are women that can probably take care of themselves. The ones that just got F'd hard are the average women.

They're either equal or they're not. You can't have two ranks of women - the butch and the beautiful..


It's hard to argue with the assertion that female carreerists have been at a considerable disadvantage because they are denied access to the roles and responsibilities that are traditionally required to advance beyond 0-5. Female carreerists will benefit.

Females in the lower enlisted ranks trying to qualify for E-5 will be screwed, if your assertion is correct that they will now have to level the playing field re: promotion points for PT tests.

That One Guy
01-24-2013, 07:24 PM
This.

and no, I haven't heard a peep on female SS registration.

http://news.yahoo.com/women-combat-register-draft-225900518.html

This is the article I saw on it. The people they talked to seemed like it was a clear and absolute yes for SS registration.

That One Guy
01-24-2013, 07:33 PM
It's hard to argue with the assertion that female carreerists have been at a considerable disadvantage because they are denied access to the roles and responsibilities that are traditionally required to advance beyond 0-5. Female carreerists will benefit.

Females in the lower enlisted ranks trying to qualify for E-5 will be screwed, if your assertion is correct that they will now have to level the playing field re: promotion points for PT tests.

I see the point about women being held back but, again, it's SUCH a small minority that are actually being impacted. Look at the tabs on the shoulders of senior leadership. Those tabs are huge and I don't know many that could manage it. There might be a few but so many women are going to be held to this increased standard so a few can try to prove themselves if we throw out bias as a whole.

My worst march was 11 miles with 107 lbs in my ruck. I was intelligence. How many women are really going to benefit relative to those that would suffer? Will the military be better off or is it just going to be to cater to those crying foul?

And as for a similar PT standard, I haven't seen anything even breaching the topic but I'd love to hear an opinion. It seems logical that they have to make one standard, right?

spdirty
01-24-2013, 09:17 PM
Huh. I thought they already were. When we did exercises in Korea they always put me with a woman in a DFP. Which, its not like going on patrol in the middle of a war or anything but if the north comes down and invades they are on the front lines.

Anyway, I don't think it's a big deal. So long as they can perform as well as men when they enter a man's world, more power to them.

spdirty
01-24-2013, 09:22 PM
And as for a similar PT standard, I haven't seen anything even breaching the topic but I'd love to hear an opinion. It seems logical that they have to make one standard, right?

Yes. If they want to enter a man's world, that's fine, but they damn well better be able to perform as well as men.

BroncsRule
01-25-2013, 06:32 AM
I see the point about women being held back but, again, it's SUCH a small minority that are actually being impacted. Look at the tabs on the shoulders of senior leadership. Those tabs are huge and I don't know many that could manage it. There might be a few but so many women are going to be held to this increased standard so a few can try to prove themselves if we throw out bias as a whole.

My worst march was 11 miles with 107 lbs in my ruck. I was intelligence. How many women are really going to benefit relative to those that would suffer? Will the military be better off or is it just going to be to cater to those crying foul?

And as for a similar PT standard, I haven't seen anything even breaching the topic but I'd love to hear an opinion. It seems logical that they have to make one standard, right?

Cool - I also was MI. And you have me by 15 lbs., although we covered just over 20 clicks in less than 3 hours that day. I can't imagine too many women being able to hang on that march.

and re: logical - you're kidding, right? Hilarious!

BroncsRule
01-25-2013, 06:46 AM
I see the point about women being held back but, again, it's SUCH a small minority that are actually being impacted. Look at the tabs on the shoulders of senior leadership. Those tabs are huge and I don't know many that could manage it. There might be a few but so many women are going to be held to this increased standard so a few can try to prove themselves if we throw out bias as a whole.

My worst march was 11 miles with 107 lbs in my ruck. I was intelligence. How many women are really going to benefit relative to those that would suffer? Will the military be better off or is it just going to be to cater to those crying foul?

And as for a similar PT standard, I haven't seen anything even breaching the topic but I'd love to hear an opinion. It seems logical that they have to make one standard, right?

Cool - I also was MI. And you have me by 15 lbs., although we covered just over 20 clicks in less than 3 hours that day. I can't imagine too many women being able to hang on that march.

and re: logical - you're kidding, right? Hilarious!

That One Guy
01-25-2013, 09:54 AM
Cool - I also was MI. And you have me by 15 lbs., although we covered just over 20 clicks in less than 3 hours that day. I can't imagine too many women being able to hang on that march.

and re: logical - you're kidding, right? Hilarious!

LOL

I can't imagine actually having to move with that load on. We mosey'd around doing training stations so the 11 miles was over the course of about 18 hours or so. It wasn't bad but it still wouldn't be feasible for the average woman. I specifically requested a unit whose motto was "death before dismount" (Armored Cavalry) so I can only imagine what things would be like if you were rocking in the 18th airborne corps or something where they really want you to be a hardass.

I just really think 80-90% of females, maybe higher, will regret the day this ever came to pass. It's something I've wanted for a long time, though, and I think society is ready to at least be faced with the question as double standards are popping up in so many parts of our lives.

That One Guy
01-25-2013, 10:14 AM
I just came across this article. Over 10% (and DOUBLE the national average) of women in the military had an unplanned pregnancy over a year's span. That doesn't even include those that had a planned pregnancy. Then they said the numbers were the same for both stateside and deployed (where sexual contact is punishable). A pregnancy for a woman takes her out of commission for the entire year as they can't be around fumes, do anything strenuous, and even, at some points, can't work more than like 4 hours a day. It's basically a year of relaxing duty. My wife knew a woman who in her 16 years, had had 9 kids. That meant every other year, she was paid for pretty much nothing. Also, they let you come back from a pregnancy fairly slowly and the person has to work back into the regimen so a pregnancy shuts a soldier down, in reference to deployable, for a solid year and a half+.

Women in the military have access to some of the nation's best health care, which includes free birth control. But a new study shows that many women are not using it and the rate of unintended pregnancy is double that of the general population.
And today, with the Department of Defense having just ended its longtime ban on women serving in combat roles, an unplanned pregnancy could have wider ramifications not only for a woman's health, but for her opportunities for advancement.
An estimated 10.5 percent of active duty women, ages 18 to 44, reported an unplanned pregnancy in the prior 12 months in 2008, the last year for which there are statistics, according to researchers at a nonprofit organization that supports women's sexual and reproductive rights.
That number was higher than in 2005, when the rate was 9.7 percent.
In the non-military population, about 5.2 percent of women of reproductive age report an unintended pregnancy each year, according to the study, published this week in the February issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
The Ibis study was based on surveys of more than 7,000 active-duty women; the statistics were obtained from the Department of Defense under the Freedom of Information Act. Rates were equal among those women who were deployed and those serving stateside.
Women make up 202,400 of the U.S. military's 1.4 million active duty personnel; more than 280,000 women have deployed over the last decade to Iraq and Afghanistan. "It's terrific that women are getting recognition for their role in combat missions and are being considered for all types of promotions in the armed services," said lead author Kate Grindlay, senior project manager at Ibis. "But for women to reach their potential, they must be able to access birth control for their personal health and well-being."
About 900 women had been unable to deploy in the past year due to a pregnancy, either planned or unplanned, according to the study. The highest rates were among younger women with less education who were either married or cohabitating, researchers said.
The authors of the study say that an unwanted pregnancy not only disrupts a woman's military career, but takes a toll on military readiness because pregnant women cannot be deployed or must be evacuated from war zones. They say the military needs to take a more "comprehensive approach" to address the problem.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/unintended-pregnancies-military-double-generation-population-study/story?id=18307178

Rohirrim
01-25-2013, 10:31 AM
I was in the infantry. We marched 25 miles in full gear. I carried the M60. I'd like to see the woman who could pull that off.


Wait a minute...


No I wouldn't. ;D

nyuk nyuk
01-26-2013, 08:00 AM
I was in the infantry. We marched 25 miles in full gear. I carried the M60. I'd like to see the woman who could pull that off.


Wait a minute...


No I wouldn't. ;D

General Dempsey already answered this for us,

“Importantly, though, if we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn't make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high? With the direct combat exclusion provision in place, we never had to have that conversation.”

Right on cue.

nyuk nyuk
01-26-2013, 08:01 AM
Yes. If they want to enter a man's world, that's fine, but they damn well better be able to perform as well as men.

No they want to enter every mens' area but be treated like dainty females due all chivalry. Don't you get it yet?

nyuk nyuk
01-26-2013, 08:03 AM
If the answer is more than .001%, then it's something the military needs to be very careful with.

Not saying it's a bad idea, but there'd better be more deliberation put into it than a DOD political appointee press stunt designed to rally the base.

That's what the rational say. Those with a social agenda don't care if the figure is 0.001% or 100%. They what what they want regardless, and if standards can't be met, standards themselves will be attacked until they're lowered.

elsid13
01-26-2013, 08:11 AM
The female Army colonel the Pentagon put forward for CBS interview had very interesting response to the question "How many women do you think with actually apply for Combat Line position?" and her response was:

Stark also said she had no doubt about women being able to succeed in combat arms, although she doesn't expect them to be lining up. "I think there will be some that want that opportunity, and many that don't. There's many males that don't sign up for combat arms."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57565970/female-veteran-lauds-new-policy-on-women-in-combat/

That One Guy
01-26-2013, 08:20 AM
General Dempsey already answered this for us,

“Importantly, though, if we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn't make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high? With the direct combat exclusion provision in place, we never had to have that conversation.”

Right on cue.

Is there a link for this? I hadn't read this.

That One Guy
01-26-2013, 08:24 AM
The female Army colonel the Pentagon put forward for CBS interview had very interesting response to the question "How many women do you think with actually apply for Combat Line position?" and her response was:

Stark also said she had no doubt about women being able to succeed in combat arms, although she doesn't expect them to be lining up. "I think there will be some that want that opportunity, and many that don't. There's many males that don't sign up for combat arms."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57565970/female-veteran-lauds-new-policy-on-women-in-combat/

Absolutely. The issue now, though, becomes if they're CAPABLE of doing what men are, why aren't they held to a similar standard. If they can't be held to a similar standard, then they need to MOS respective standards (which is actually what I've been a proponent of for a looooong time) instead of army-wide standards.

elsid13
01-26-2013, 08:33 AM
Absolutely. The issue now, though, becomes if they're CAPABLE of doing what men are, why aren't they held to a similar standard. If they can't be held to a similar standard, then they need to MOS respective standards (which is actually what I've been a proponent of for a looooong time) instead of army-wide standards.

I agree completely. The good news is the secondary schools - like Ranger School, Army Combat Swimmer, BUD/s, SF Quals School - will weed out the weak and not effect us.

nyuk nyuk
01-26-2013, 09:31 AM
The female Army colonel the Pentagon put forward for CBS interview had very interesting response to the question "How many women do you think with actually apply for Combat Line position?" and her response was:

Stark also said she had no doubt about women being able to succeed in combat arms, although she doesn't expect them to be lining up. "I think there will be some that want that opportunity, and many that don't. There's many males that don't sign up for combat arms."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57565970/female-veteran-lauds-new-policy-on-women-in-combat/

The gender bean counters will see this as a reason to bang against the doors and demand standards be lowered and women wooed and accommodated at every turn.

nyuk nyuk
01-26-2013, 09:38 AM
Is there a link for this? I hadn't read this.

It was the press conference he gave with Panetta when they announced this whole thing. They admitted it then and there. For some odd reason the media left that part out of the nightly news.

U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
News Transcript (http://www.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=5183)

These situations are ALWAYS about racial and gender bean counting. There is a percentage that is demanded and standards will be expected to be lowered to accomplish this. Dempsey admits this indirectly:

We'll also integrate women in a way that enhances opportunity for everyone. This means setting clear standards of performance for all occupations based on what it actually takes to do the job. It also means ensuring that these standards are general [gender] neutral in occupations that will open to women.

As we introduce to women to previously closed occupations, we must make sure that there are a sufficient number of females entering the career field and already assigned to the related commands and leadership positions in order to sustain success over time.

The services and Special Operations Command will begin expanding the number of units and the number of women assigned to those units this year. They will continue to assess, develop and validate gender neutral standards so that we can start assigning personnel to previously closed occupations. And they will take the time needed to do the work without compromising the principles I just mentioned.

-----------------------------------------

Dempsey is being a bit Orwellian. You can't have standards and then have X percentage of women involved. You simply can't. He's admitting between the lines that he understands that that's the case. This is another case of pandering and fencepost riding. "Gender neutral" is the big hint here.

That One Guy
01-26-2013, 11:23 AM
It was the press conference he gave with Panetta when they announced this whole thing. They admitted it then and there. For some odd reason the media left that part out of the nightly news.

U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
News Transcript (http://www.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=5183)

These situations are ALWAYS about racial and gender bean counting. There is a percentage that is demanded and standards will be expected to be lowered to accomplish this. Dempsey admits this indirectly:

We'll also integrate women in a way that enhances opportunity for everyone. This means setting clear standards of performance for all occupations based on what it actually takes to do the job. It also means ensuring that these standards are general [gender] neutral in occupations that will open to women.

As we introduce to women to previously closed occupations, we must make sure that there are a sufficient number of females entering the career field and already assigned to the related commands and leadership positions in order to sustain success over time.

The services and Special Operations Command will begin expanding the number of units and the number of women assigned to those units this year. They will continue to assess, develop and validate gender neutral standards so that we can start assigning personnel to previously closed occupations. And they will take the time needed to do the work without compromising the principles I just mentioned.

-----------------------------------------

Dempsey is being a bit Orwellian. You can't have standards and then have X percentage of women involved. You simply can't. He's admitting between the lines that he understands that that's the case. This is another case of pandering and fencepost riding. "Gender neutral" is the big hint here.

That definitely sounds like they're going to MOS based but gender neutral standards. I absolutely love that. We'll see how they do it but I think it can be done. More women will always want to be secretaries than Special Forces.

BroncsRule
01-26-2013, 11:36 AM
Absolutely. The issue now, though, becomes if they're CAPABLE of doing what men are, why aren't they held to a similar standard. If they can't be held to a similar standard, then they need to MOS respective standards (which is actually what I've been a proponent of for a looooong time) instead of army-wide standards.

That's a really good idea.

Fedaykin
01-26-2013, 11:46 AM
Uh-oh, we're already seeing huge repercussions form this:

Male soldiers starting to grow breasts!

http://news.discovery.com/human/health/male-soldiers-growing-breasts-130126.htm#mkcpgn=rssnws1

BroncsRule
01-26-2013, 11:51 AM
That definitely sounds like they're going to MOS based but gender neutral standards. I absolutely love that. We'll see how they do it but I think it can be done. More women will always want to be secretaries than Special Forces.

..and we'll always need more secretaries than Special Forces.

That One Guy
01-26-2013, 12:23 PM
..and we'll always need more secretaries than Special Forces.

Sure.

I was just saying they won't issue an order of "every MOS need X% women".

nyuk nyuk
01-26-2013, 03:00 PM
That definitely sounds like they're going to MOS based but gender neutral standards. I absolutely love that. We'll see how they do it but I think it can be done. More women will always want to be secretaries than Special Forces.

Gender neutral = lower standards. Don't be conned by this. Women cannot keep up with current standards.

nyuk nyuk
01-26-2013, 03:01 PM
I was just saying they won't issue an order of "every MOS need X% women".

Why not? They're already pushing this stuff with fire and police departments. If X percentage isn't reached, then guess what they start pushing for?

chadta
01-26-2013, 03:20 PM
Why not? They're already pushing this stuff with fire and police departments. If X percentage isn't reached, then guess what they start pushing for?

Its affirmative action all over again.

I don't care if you are male, female, black, white, straight or gay, it makes no difference, get the best person for the job.

Ban all job interviews, do everything over msn or some other means where you cant identify who or what the applicant is.

If I'm going in for heart surgery, I want the best person doing it, and if that is the gay black woman then so be it, but if its a straight white male, don't give me second rate service.