So as you may heard the Honorable Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense, announced today a change in policy which will allow women to serve in combat.


Having seen combat myself I can say that it is not something I wish for anybody, male or female, to experience, yet this an important milestone in the  path to achieving equal treatment and rights for all in the USA

BZ Mr. Paneta

Here is what the Secretary of Navy, the Honorable Ray Mabus, had to say about Mr. Panetta's announcement

Quote"Women continue to serve bravely and honorably at sea and ashore. Drawing from their talent in additional assignments increases our ability to maintain readiness.

"We will meet the goals and timeline laid out by Secretary Panetta and we will continue to deploy the finest naval force in the world."

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=71610

so yeah, this is big news...now all ladies under 26YO will have to register with the selective service...Oh, my!

It's about time they make it official. The women in my unit were in just as much combat as the rest of us. It did not matter what the Pentagon said.

I mean I think it's fair that both men and women can serve in combat, we want equal rights, not preferential treatment, at least that's my take on it.

Quote from: peky on January 24, 2013, 02:15:48 PM
so yeah, this is big news...now all ladies under 26YO will have to register with the selective service...Oh, my!

Assuming that comes up.  I'm having trouble finding any article saying when that will be implemented.

Anyway, I'm perfectly fine with the ban being lifted.  If a woman is capable of serving in combat and wants to serve in combat then she should be able to.

As someone who served in the US Infantry, I disagree with the use of females as combat ground troops. It's not a job that can be done without Testosterone and it's hard enough on any male. The first time you are carrying a 100lb ruck sack plus your other gear and weapon and THEN you get stuck with extra gear because she couldn't carry her own, you may feel different. I never had to carry a guys gear unless he was injured.

Quote from: JessicaH on January 25, 2013, 01:44:41 AM
As someone who served in the US Infantry, I disagree with the use of females as combat ground troops. It's not a job that can be done without Testosterone and it's hard enough on any male. The first time you are carrying a 100lb ruck sack plus your other gear and weapon and THEN you get stuck with extra gear because she couldn't carry her own, you may feel different. I never had to carry a guys gear unless he was injured.

And, the women I served with would have carried your gear when you got tired. I personally don't think it has anything to do with the hormones you have in your body. I served with some incredible women who not only met the same expectations as the men, but also exceeded them.

Women have been in "combat" for some time now. In the current two wars women pilots have flown actual combat missions and women in various support roles have been exposed to the equivalent of "fist line" combat situations. We just don't hear about it very often. Back in Korea, Vietnam, & Desert Shield/Storm, women for the most part, were not exposed to actual fire fights because they generally were far enough back to prevent that. Nowadays, women serve in support roles that involve them in frequent attacks by insurgents. It can be support convoys, public affairs missions(Attached to line units dealing with locals), and medical units closer than ever before. From what I've heard through the "grapevine", is that for the most part, their male counterparts have nothing but respect for their performance! They deal with all the challenges and are especially hated by many of the enemy/locals. And even with the "handicap" of being female in that region, they roll with the punches so to speak!

Also, consider that women excel in some combat roles. Examples include pilots & snipers, where finesse is a greater asset than brute strength! Ask a WWII German Soldier about the 1000's of Soviet women snipers! The IDF, one of the most highly trained armies in the world use women for many roles, even roles that put them in harms way.

I guess my point is that the media( And politicians) due a disservice to female members of our armed forces by not acknowledging that they have been in harms way for some time! Ask some of the female soldiers who have lost limbs if they think women haven't ween in combat yet!

I probably have a flawed idea of the definition of combat troops. Being ex infantry, I think of "combat troops" as someone that their main job is killing enemies and destroying assets. If someone can meet the standard fine, but the standard shouldn't be lowered because of sex/gender.  Combat isn't a game and people die if you can't do you job.

Quote from: JessicaH on January 25, 2013, 12:11:08 PM
I probably have a flawed idea of the definition of combat troops. Being ex infantry, I think of "combat troops" as someone that their main job is killing enemies and destroying assets. If someone can meet the standard fine, but the standard shouldn't be lowered because of sex/gender.  Combat isn't a game and people die if you can't do you job.

I agree with this 100%!!!!

Eh, I find it a bit disturbing tbh. But I also hate to see women cops out there (no offense Annah  ). Maybe I am a bit sexist. 

Quote from: Fat Admin on January 25, 2013, 12:48:49 PM
Eh, I find it a bit disturbing tbh. But I also hate to see women cops out there (no offense Annah  ). Maybe I am a bit sexist. 

It's not sexist to admit very obvious differences.  Standards should not be lower for men or women no matter the job. If a firefighter needs to have the strength to carry 300 lbs of gear, that's what the standard should be even if the standard rules out every woman that isn't mainlining testosterone. BTW, you are a lot more likely to get tazed or shot by a female cop...

Quote from: JessicaH on January 25, 2013, 01:49:18 PM
It's not sexist to admit very obvious differences.  Standards should not be lower for men or women no matter the job. If a firefighter needs to have the strength to carry 300 lbs of gear, that's what the standard should be even if the standard rules out every woman that isn't mainlining testosterone.

While I agree with your premise, I must clarify to all those reading this that firefighter gear weighs at most 75 pounds. 

Quote from: JessicaH on January 25, 2013, 01:49:18 PM
It's not sexist to admit very obvious differences.  Standards should not be lower for men or women no matter the job. If a firefighter needs to have the strength to carry 300 lbs of gear, that's what the standard should be even if the standard rules out every woman that isn't mainlining testosterone. BTW, you are a lot more likely to get tazed or shot by a female cop...

perhaps a different way of viewing male and females in combat is perhaps to exploit their specific strenght to the benefit of each unit..rather than imposes the same standard to everybody...

To further talk about this idea we need to isolate the essence of being in combat..now that is a tall order as like with any essence it cannot be learn but experience..well, at least we can distill some of it characteristics: surprise, time dilation, fear, ...

So how as males or females do we react to those feelings? How did the training help us deal with it? What the seasoned warrior has? I do not think I have all the answer..but I would say that one has to quickly envision the next move..as if in a movie..detach yourself..this is what we use to call.."stay frosty"... then use the fear to set yourself in action to complete your mission or get out of danger...piece of cake, right? So within this imperfect framework how does the male or female mind would differentially express? if at all?

Quote from: DianaP on January 25, 2013, 02:11:24 PM
While I agree with your premise, I must clarify to all those reading this that firefighter gear weighs at most 75 pounds. 

And on top of THAT gear, add the weight of someone you may have to carry out of a burning building?  So is it fair to "cherry pick" the jobs to make opportunities or burden someone else to help you do your job? If you are a MK-19 gunner, you should be able to pick your weapon up from the armory and mount/dismount it yourself.  Also, wars are about perceptions at home as well. Our society has a lot less stomach for females getting killed or captured. Remember Jessica Lynch? I bet you wouldn't if she had been a guy...

Quote from: JessicaH on January 25, 2013, 03:12:31 PM
And on top of THAT gear, add the weight of someone you may have to carry out of a burning building? 

Yeah, I was just clarifying since you wrote, "If a firefighter needs to have the strength to carry 300 lbs of gear." People aren't gear. 

Anyway, as for the whole "society can't stand women getting killed" thing, all I can say is that it's a silly thing to only care about lost lives when a woman dies. Men are people too. Grow a pair, society. 

No people are not gear but I see the point at least, it's not fair to give someone an "equal opportunity job" based on them being a female if they cannot do the job correctly. Of course if a female can do the job effectively then I have no problem with a female firefighter, but I know I couldn't do it, I'm extremely weak 

They are already serving/have served in combat. The positions women have taken may have different names (which may not pay as well) like combat support. However when it comes to getting equal pay and benefits, awards and commendations, or leadership positions not having the name of combat means that they don't qualify for these things at the rate they should. This is really about getting compensated equally for the work they are already doing. Also some people think that the rate of sexual assault will go down when women are serving equally. A sad fact is that some women are more at risk for sexual assault than being injured by enemy fire. Women serve in combat in many other countries, such as Israel.

I think women have been on police and fire depts for years, serving well and honorably.

I don't know about selective service as we don't have a draft, and aren't likely to get one as it is very politically unpopular. So whether women have to register is kind of moot at this point.

I don't think anybody is arguing that woman should not have to do the same type of work requirements. There are some women who are stronger than the average man. I know one personally. At first I thought she was ftm or genderqueer. She is not, though perhaps under the umbrella in some way. She does construction as a second job and easily carries stuff.

I'd say if it made society double think about going to war somewhere it would be a rather good thing.



--Jay

I'm all for it! I say since women in the Marine Corps now are going to have to do pull ups, they have the same pt test, which seems to be the media's big hissy fit problem. We can meet and sometimes exceed men and the standard so why NOT let us serve?
I'm sure that given time in the service, if I had a brother in arms laying almost dead in a street, with adrenaline pumping through my veins, I'd be perfectly able to carry him out, regardless.

Quote from: Connor Stanford on January 27, 2013, 11:31:40 AM
I'm all for it! I say since women in the Marine Corps now are going to have to do pull ups, they have the same pt test, which seems to be the media's big hissy fit problem.

It's not a hissy fit so much as a legitimate argument. I doubt that some enemy infantryman is going to see a woman and think, "Oh, I'd better go easy on her." They'll most likely actually think instead to kill her or capture her to be used as a sex toy. Lowering the standards in training won't work since no one will go easy on you in actual combat.