QuoteOutgoing Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has decided to allow women to serve in combat roles, a watershed policy shift that follows years of calls for a fully inclusive military.
Panetta and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, are expected to formally announce the change on Thursday, Pentagon officials said. The Army, Marines and other services will then develop plans to open jobs in ground combat units, such as the infantry, to women.
The decision comes after a decade during which women have been pushed closer to the front lines than ever before. Panetta, who is expected to step down in coming days, has long said the Pentagon is exploring ways to open more career opportunities for women.
Female veteran groups say that even though the number of women who would pursue combat jobs might be small, having the option is a long overdue step that would bring the United States in line with several of its allies.
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, issued a statement endorsing the move.
"I support it," Levin said. "It reflects the reality of 21st century military operations."
Just read that and got a sinking feeling about my opinion piece tomorrow :lol:
A company's sending me body armour to trial this week (we didn't tell them we don't do that) so I'll pose in it to illustrate the story. Or just pretend I'm a Colonial Marine out of Aliens.
Then either they have to have a higher physical standard for women in combat units or they have to drop the standard for men.
Brazen: I'll give you 25 fake quatloos if you pose in the armor + a red bandana tied around your head.
What kind of trial would you do with a body armor? Would you wear it and the editor just shoot at you for a bit?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2013, 04:13:49 PM
Brazen: I'll give you 25 fake quatloos if you pose in the armor + a red bandana tied around your head.
I so intend to :D
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2013, 04:14:50 PM
What kind of trial would you do with a body armor? Would you wear it and the editor just shoot at you for a bit?
I AM the editor, I get to shoot first.
I dunno, see if the colour goes with this season's accessories?
Quote from: Brazen on January 23, 2013, 04:17:21 PM
I dunno, see if the colour goes with this season's accessories?
Aren't those required via an 85-page document to be the same color down to the subatomic level anyway?
Great.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2013, 04:13:49 PM
Then either they have to have a higher physical standard for women in combat units or they have to drop the standard for men.
No, they'll just lessen the standards. Like they did for airborne school :rolleyes:
Women certainly do have a place in the Army: secretaries & nurses.
Silly move.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2013, 04:13:49 PM
Then either they have to have a higher physical standard for women in combat units or they have to drop the standard for men.
Brazen: I'll give you 25 fake quatloos if you pose in the armor + a red bandana tied around your head.
Why do they have to do either?
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2013, 04:23:27 PM
Great.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2013, 04:13:49 PM
Then either they have to have a higher physical standard for women in combat units or they have to drop the standard for men.
No, they'll just lessen the standards. rolleyes:
Yes. Ho-hum. More pregos too.
"Hey First sergeant they have another one knocked up in 2nd Platoon." :rolleyes:
a prego female infantry platoon sergeant or 1st sergeant. I shudder at the thought. Useless.
I see the troglodytes have already swarmed out of the woodwork.
Quote from: Barrister on January 23, 2013, 04:37:04 PM
Why do they have to do either?
Brazen has to wear the bandana because it looks really badass. ROCK AND ROLL! buddabuddabuddabudda :P
Either the physical requirements are necessary to perform the job or they're not. If they're not, there's no reason to make the men pass them.
It would be discriminatory. :nerd:
Quote from: 11B4V on January 23, 2013, 04:37:26 PM
Yes. Ho-hum. More pregos too.
"Hey First sergeant they have another one knocked up in 2nd Platoon." :rolleyes:
a prego female infantry platoon sergeant or 1st sergeant. I shudder at the thought. Useless.
I gotta say though I bet it's nice to have the option of getting knocked up to avoid deployment.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2013, 04:42:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 23, 2013, 04:37:04 PM
Why do they have to do either?
Brazen has to wear the bandana because it looks really badass. ROCK AND ROLL! buddabuddabuddabudda :P
Either the physical requirements are necessary to perform the job or they're not. If they're not, there's no reason to make the men pass them.
It would be discriminatory. :nerd:
Oh, I think I understand now. At present women have a lower physical fitness threshold than men do in the army?
For some reason I thought they already were.
Quote from: Barrister on January 23, 2013, 04:45:41 PM
Oh, I think I understand now. At present women have a lower physical fitness threshold than men do in the army?
Yup.
The US Army physical fitness test already has different requirements by age and gender. They trialled a new test in 2011 designed to better mimic the requirements of modern combat, but they decided it was no better an indicator of physical readiness and kept the old-style test.
http://www.army.mil/standto/archive/issue.php?issue=2012-09-18 (http://www.army.mil/standto/archive/issue.php?issue=2012-09-18)
Quote from: Josephus on January 23, 2013, 04:46:19 PM
For some reason I thought they already were.
Nope. But given the situation in places like Iraq, with no set "front line", women have frequently been in combat in the last decade.
Quote from: Barrister on January 23, 2013, 04:50:10 PM
Nope. But given the situation in places like Iraq, with no set "front line", women have frequently been in combat in the last decade.
I believe the riskiest job currently undertaken by women soldiers is logistics, or I seem to remember that's where most deaths have occurred. Driving lorries full of gear across IED-riddled enemy territory ain't safe.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2013, 04:13:49 PM
Then either they have to have a higher physical standard for women in combat units or they have to drop the standard for men.
I guess I just assumed they would raise the standards for women and create a uniform standard. They wouldn't be dumb enough to lower standards for everyone just to allow women in, would they?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-N7rNyDXJ8cM%2FTh2DtQCut7I%2FAAAAAAAADZc%2F_udBY4GWfcE%2Fs1600%2F12%2B-%2BBritish%2BPolice%2BWoman.jpg&hash=31829445bbcc2baefd3410c2f113be4f949ac79e)
Oh.
Thames Valley Police are hardly known for their combat roles. Except maybe pub kicking-out time in Maidenhead.
I'd hit it.
If women have already been in de facto combat for the past 10 years, why would there have to be any kind of change to the physical requirements?
Hasn't the government policy just finally caught up with the reality of the situation?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2013, 05:15:44 PM
I'd hit it.
You know, I looked for "police woman" in google, and most of the pictures were of cute British cops. Is this what happens when you ban guns?
Quote from: Kleves on January 23, 2013, 05:04:00 PM
Oh.
Kleeves, you know she's not what you think she is. :bowler:
Quote from: merithyn on January 23, 2013, 05:17:40 PM
If women have already been in de facto combat for the past 10 years, why would there have to be any kind of change to the physical requirements?
Hasn't the government policy just finally caught up with the reality of the situation?
To answer your and Josephus' question, my understanding is a while ago they first allowed women into certain jobs that exposed them to combat, like attack helicopter pilot. Now they're letting them (AFAICT) into rifle platoons. The folks who run around the battlefield in body armor and shoot at bad guys full time.
If my understanding is correct, then it very much raises the issue of physical standards.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2013, 05:26:12 PM
To answer your and Josephus' question, my understanding is a while ago they first allowed women into certain jobs that exposed them to combat, like attack helicopter pilot. Now they're letting them (AFAICT) into rifle platoons. The folks who run around the battlefield in body armor and shoot at bad guys full time.
If my understanding is correct, then it very much raises the issue of physical standards.
:yes: Direct combat units, or ground combat.
This article answers some of the queries
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/23/military-to-open-combat-jobs-to-women/?hpt=hp_c1 (http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/23/military-to-open-combat-jobs-to-women/?hpt=hp_c1)
QuoteBut the officials caution that "not every position will open all at once on Thursday." Once the policy is changed, the Department of Defense will enter what is being called an "assessment phase," in which each branch of service will examine all of its jobs and units not currently integrated and then produce a timetable in which it can integrate them.
QuoteThe Army and Marine Corps, especially, will be examining physical standards and gender-neutral accommodations within combat units. Every 90 days, the service chiefs will have to report back on their progress.
Quote"It will take awhile to work out the mechanics in some cases. We expect some jobs to open quickly, by the end of this year. Others, like Special Operations Forces and Infantry, may take longer," a senior defense official explains.
Combat sandwiches?!
Quote from: Kleves on January 23, 2013, 05:19:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2013, 05:15:44 PM
I'd hit it.
You know, I looked for "police woman" in google, and most of the pictures were of cute British cops. Is this what happens when you ban guns?
What were you trying to prove with this?
Quote from: mongers on January 23, 2013, 05:23:50 PM
Quote from: Kleves on January 23, 2013, 05:04:00 PM
Oh.
Kleeves, you know she's not what you think she is. :bowler:
If she's not a cop, what is she? A stripper?
Quote from: Brazen on January 23, 2013, 05:38:42 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2013, 05:26:12 PM
To answer your and Josephus' question, my understanding is a while ago they first allowed women into certain jobs that exposed them to combat, like attack helicopter pilot. Now they're letting them (AFAICT) into rifle platoons. The folks who run around the battlefield in body armor and shoot at bad guys full time.
If my understanding is correct, then it very much raises the issue of physical standards.
:yes: Direct combat units, or ground combat.
Keep shaking that head when your 15 miles into a 25 mile force march, toting a 240 and a rucksack. Darling.
I couldn't possibly do that. I guess we should keep males out of the army.
Quote from: garbon on January 23, 2013, 06:01:56 PM
I couldn't possibly do that. I guess we should keep males out of the army.
and gays, but dont worry about it Nancy.
Original. :huh:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 23, 2013, 05:59:33 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 23, 2013, 05:23:50 PM
Quote from: Kleves on January 23, 2013, 05:04:00 PM
Oh.
Kleeves, you know she's not what you think she is. :bowler:
If she's not a cop, what is she? A stripper?
She's a community support officer, hence the blue epeletts, they have very limited powers compare to a copper, indeed they're little more than a 'civilian' in uniform, in most instance I could make an arrest just as well as they could.
That's not to say they don't serve a useful purpose and the ones I've encountered have been fine.
Quote from: garbon on January 23, 2013, 06:01:56 PM
I couldn't possibly do that. I guess we should keep males out of the army.
I could have done all of that stuff in my youth, but I'd still have been as useless in the Army as you would have been with regards to your dislike of the physical exercise. :)
If a specific 'type' of women can perform physically or psychologically, then why not ?
Quote from: garbon on January 23, 2013, 06:01:56 PM
I couldn't possibly do that. I guess we should keep males out of the army.
Eh, you might be able to. A 240 is a gun not the weight. It's a big gun, but that's why you do that those hikes, so you get used to carrying that stuff.
As was mentioned, this isn't a very big change since they've already been in "combat" doing logistics and stuff. Wake me when women have to register for the draft.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 23, 2013, 06:30:50 PM
As was mentioned, this isn't a very big change since they've already been in "combat" doing logistics and stuff. Wake me when women have to register for the draft.
Rostker vs. Goldberg.
Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostker_v._Goldberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostker_v._Goldberg)
The majority opinion stated:
"[t]he existence of the combat restrictions clearly indicates the basis for Congress' decision to exempt women from registration. The purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops. Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them."
So, now that this is no longer the case, this will probably lead to another lawsuit against the draft.
Just saw on NBC that women will have to volunteer and physical standards won't change.
That's as planned now, who knows what will change over time.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 23, 2013, 06:38:35 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 23, 2013, 06:30:50 PM
As was mentioned, this isn't a very big change since they've already been in "combat" doing logistics and stuff. Wake me when women have to register for the draft.
Rostker vs. Goldberg.
Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostker_v._Goldberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostker_v._Goldberg)
The majority opinion stated:
"[t]he existence of the combat restrictions clearly indicates the basis for Congress' decision to exempt women from registration. The purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops. Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them."
So, now that this is no longer the case, this will probably lead to another lawsuit against the draft.
Which draft?
Modern selective service.
Quote from: sbr on January 23, 2013, 07:12:26 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 23, 2013, 06:38:35 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 23, 2013, 06:30:50 PM
As was mentioned, this isn't a very big change since they've already been in "combat" doing logistics and stuff. Wake me when women have to register for the draft.
Rostker vs. Goldberg.
Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostker_v._Goldberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostker_v._Goldberg)
The majority opinion stated:
"[t]he existence of the combat restrictions clearly indicates the basis for Congress' decision to exempt women from registration. The purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops. Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them."
So, now that this is no longer the case, this will probably lead to another lawsuit against the draft.
Which draft?
NFL.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2013, 07:38:10 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 23, 2013, 07:12:26 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 23, 2013, 06:38:35 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 23, 2013, 06:30:50 PM
As was mentioned, this isn't a very big change since they've already been in "combat" doing logistics and stuff. Wake me when women have to register for the draft.
Rostker vs. Goldberg.
Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostker_v._Goldberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostker_v._Goldberg)
The majority opinion stated:
"[t]he existence of the combat restrictions clearly indicates the basis for Congress' decision to exempt women from registration. The purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops. Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them."
So, now that this is no longer the case, this will probably lead to another lawsuit against the draft.
Which draft?
NFL.
Chicks can be drafted as long as they have been out of high school for 3 years.
That is just begging for the Gary Barnett quote about the girl kicker.
I wonder if those generals that got purged recently was a preparation for this.
BTW, good for women! They will bring needed communication and understanding skills to the armed forces, though they will suck at math.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 23, 2013, 09:43:17 PM
I wonder if those generals that got purged recently was a preparation for this.
The other one was exonerated yesterday, though still in the dog house with the wife no doubt.
Allen is getting the NATO command.
Quote from: PDH on January 23, 2013, 09:45:40 PM
BTW, good for women! They will bring needed communication and understanding skills to the armed forces, though they will suck at math.
Women don't really have very good communication skills.
Quote from: Neil on January 23, 2013, 11:02:56 PM
Quote from: PDH on January 23, 2013, 09:45:40 PM
BTW, good for women! They will bring needed communication and understanding skills to the armed forces, though they will suck at math.
Women don't really have very good communication skills.
So they're awful at everything? :(
garbon and Marti haven't found them good for anything. :yes:
Quote from: katmai on January 23, 2013, 11:31:21 PM
garbon and Marti haven't found them good for anything. :yes:
How does that follow?
They'll have to significantly water down the physical requirements. If they don't 99.9% of the women won't hack it.
The United States is preparing for war! :o
Quote from: garbon on January 24, 2013, 02:23:52 AM
Quote from: katmai on January 23, 2013, 11:31:21 PM
garbon and Marti haven't found them good for anything. :yes:
How does that follow?
I think Katmai's saying they're only good for one thing.
Quote from: Neil on January 23, 2013, 11:02:56 PM
Quote from: PDH on January 23, 2013, 09:45:40 PM
BTW, good for women! They will bring needed communication and understanding skills to the armed forces, though they will suck at math.
Women don't really have very good communication skills.
+1
Quote from: Phillip V on January 24, 2013, 05:45:55 AM
The United States is preparing for war! :o
Klendathu must be invaded.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 24, 2013, 05:45:55 AM
The United States is preparing for war! :o
The Witchking of Angmar is the target!
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 23, 2013, 06:40:53 PM
Just saw on NBC that women will have to volunteer and physical standards won't change.
That's as planned now, who knows what will change over time.
In regards to women in Infantry/Special Operations.
It may start out like that, but when they fail(women) (and they will) the standards will be lowered. That's if this idea doesnt get killed.
and if you think that just a PT test is all that's involved you're clueless.