Pentagon Allows Women To Serve In Combat Roles

[klunderbunker]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...-panetta-to-clear-women-for-combat-roles?lite

In short, women will now be allowed to officially be in combat for the first time in US history. There was no law changed but rather a change in Defense Department policy. This is a big change in the way things work in the military and there will of course be a transitional period.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you see any major issues with it? Do you think it's a bad idea for some reason?

 

[Remix]

If they're physically capable of doing the job, let them do it. If there are women in the armed services who can shoot a gun well enough to fight on the front lines, are fit enough to meet the standard for fighting on the front lines and want to be on the front lines there's no reason why they souldn't be allowed to. Not to mention that some already do the job by being attached to an infantry unit through a loophole.

 

[AndThat'sTheBottomLine]

I'm kinda on the fence. On one hand it definitely levels the playing field but on the other hand, can they handle the pressure? I've met plenty of infantrymen in my life and their sense of humor isn't exactly normal. They can be rude and downright brutal at times. Most women I know of in the military are still very feminine. They'll have to go in and immediately prove themselves as one of the boys and earn their respect. Show them that women are just as capable as men in combat. If they can do that, then they'll be fine. But if they can't, those guys will just tear them a part. (Not literally of course)

 

[GI Cake]

Hey do I really have say against the matter on if Women should be allowed to serve in combat roles in the armed forces? From all accounts, I heard women go through the same training men do, and if I had to be a part of a combat team I would take with me the people who have the best shot, gender should not be an issue in anyway.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Women are allowed to be police officers, fire fighters, pilots, construction workers, corporate executives, doctors, etc. If they're capable of doing the job in combat roles in the military, then I say, what's the problem?

I'm sure more than a few old school, right wing military men will have issues with this as many are still operating under the belief and thought process of women simply not being able to handle combat situations. Women in the military have to go through the same training as the men. They have to endure the same physical hardships, the same weapons & hand to hand training, the same training on the function of their weapons, etc. If it's long been accepted that women can do this, then I can think of no logical reason to keep them out of combat.

In my eyes, it's just another step forward towards true equality for everybody. We're not there yet, still a long way to go, but it's a slow process and at least it's going in the right direction.

 

[Beastmode 24]

As someone that is currently serving in the Military, I personally don't have anything against women wanting to serve in combat, but I do forsee a LOT of problems on the sexual harrasment/sexual assault front.

I'm going to be completely honest here;

Infantrymen are some of the horniest motherfuckers on the planet. Plain and simple. If it's warm, they'll take it.

But, other than that, it's just going to be like the DADT repeal: people are going to bitch, it's going to happen anyway, and everything will be ok.

And, just as in that case:

If they can take a dick, they can take a bullet, so I welcome females into our Combat Arms ranks.

 

[Fire Marshall Bill]

I'm going to be completely honest here;

Infantrymen are some of the horniest motherfuckers on the planet. Plain and simple. If it's warm, they'll take it.

2-10-2 rule

I served for 6 years and I saw some female service members that most men would be scared of. I have no problem with it. As long as they had my back, I'd have theirs.

Some adjustments might need to be made out in the field, but otherwise, what's the big deal?

 

[Mustang Sally]

If they're physically capable of doing the job, let them do it.

Well, let me ask a question. Are there things that must be done on the front lines that require physical strength? For men in combat, are there factors in which stronger guys are better suited than weaker guys? Because if there are, I wonder how a woman would keep up.

"Physically capable" implies two things I can think of; one of which I have and one I don't. Aerobically, I can run a long way and keep up with most guys. Strength-wise, I'm such a weakling I would sure hate if the survival of a buddy in the foxhole depended on my physical ability to carry him out of there.

Degrees of ability differ from person to person, but men generally have much more upper body strength than women. That's a physiological fact, not a slap in the face to women.

So, I'm posing it as a question, especially to guys who have served in the military. All I know is what I've seen in war movies.....in real life, how much raw strength is needed to adequately serve on the front lines?

 

[GI Cake]

So, I'm posing it as a question, especially to guys who have served in the military. All I know is what I've seen in war movies.....in real life, how much raw strength is needed to adequately serve on the front lines?

I can only speak as someone who's perspective is from the outside looking in, but raw strength can play a huge role in modern combat, and a lot of it is physical endurance, not just running but running with the amount of equipment every combat solider carries to the front lines, that includes the assault rifle or any other heavy weapon like rockets or Light Machine Guns. Not to mention the circumstances that may be needed for strength, like dragging a wounded solider or a civilian out of the crossfire to safety.

Like I said, this is the perspective of someone who only knows about war from secondhand sources from family/close friends. So take it with a grain of salt. : )

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Serve? You mean like waitresses right?

I honestly wasn't even aware they couldn't until last night. I thought the 'their periods will make it easier to find us' and 'everyone is going to have sex in the foxhole' attitudes were ended during the Clinton Era. Oh well, at least we got there.

This should be the right decision. Gender doesn't seem like a good reason to discriminate on this. My only concern is if this becomes an affirmative action scenario. But that doesn't sound like part of the plan.

Thanks to ALL that serve and thanks to the US government for giving me an opportunity to make a few timely sexist jokes.

 

[AhSpicyDrop]

Allow me to introduce a little bit of Bill Hicks into this conversation, as it really does express how I feel about women being able to serve in combat roles.

Anyone - DUMB ENOUGH - to want to be in the military should be allowed in. End of fuckin' story. That should be the only requirement. I don't care how many push-ups you can do, put on a helmet, go wait in that fox-hole, we'll tell you when we need you to kill somebody. Y'know what I mean?

I'm all for anybody that wants to serve their country in a role like that. Because I sure as hell don't want to do it. I respect anybody that's willing to put their life on hold for the sake of making a payday and fighting for "what's right". But I don't want to do it.

If a woman wants to stop making $2 tips in the diner and wants to pick up a machine gun and mow down some terrorists then I gladly step aside and encourage her to do it. More power to her. As someone above said they're allowed to be police officers and firemen, so why not?

 

[Richard Blonoff]

The only real legitimate argument I ever heard for why women shouldn't serve on the front lines came from my 11th grade AP Biology teacher. She said women shouldn't serve on front lines because all of their menstrual cycles would eventually line up, and that could cause problems.

I can see why that would be an issue, but if that is the only reason then I see no problem with them serving.

 

[Beastmode 24]

The only issue that I have with this has been the talk of lowering the standards for women so they can meet said standards to join the Combat Arms ranks. There's already different standards for women than men, and they want to change them more? Fuck that shit.

 

[CM Punk is a Jew]

I have a measured, elaborate counter to all of the unanimous quips here in favor of this branded egalitarianism. If anyone would like to read an ideological opponent's thought process (or perhaps "debate" me), I would be happy to take this to the Bar Room sub forum.

I'm "new" here but I'd rather be banned for an actual rules violation rather than just pissing off one of the resident nerd crew. PM me if you want validation for my individual (internet anon) identity, or re-start this topic in the "non-spam" forum where I can respond without worrying that my effortful reply will not be deleted within the day. i'm not too concerned - i was shocked to find this sub-forum of GroupThink this community.

 

[Rayne]

I have a measured, elaborate counter to all of the unanimous quips here in favor of this branded egalitarianism. If anyone would like to read an ideological opponent's thought process (or perhaps "debate" me), I would be happy to take this to the Bar Room sub forum.

I'm "new" here but I'd rather be banned for an actual rules violation rather than just pissing off one of the resident nerd crew. PM me if you want validation for my individual (internet anon) identity, or re-start this topic in the "non-spam" forum where I can respond without worrying that my effortful reply will not be deleted within the day. i'm not too concerned - i was shocked to find this sub-forum of GroupThink this community.

Sounds to me more like you can't conduct a "debate" without personally attacking the other party, and are looking for people to open doors for you so that you can do that. Before you've even opened discussion with anyone, you have written everyone off as 'groupthinkers' being held in sway by moderators who will delete your thread not because you didn't even attempt to discuss the topic therein (an actual rules violation in the non-spam forums), but because they must hold an opinion that's different than yours and must be seeking to use their authority to hold you down.

Shit, it's Todd all over again, except this one knows a couple of $2 words and passes that off for intelligence.

As far as women in the military? I have yet to hear a single good reason why a woman who is qualified for a position, and who wants the position, should not be allowed to hold it. The best thing I've heard is low, disaffected mumbling about 'periods', and a few people who have gotten the definitions of chivalry and chauvinism backwards.

 

[Sinister Shadows]

So will they also have to sign up for selective service now? I personally don't see any reason they can't serve as long as they pass the requirements.

 

[Fire Marshall Bill]

As far as women in the military? I have yet to hear a single good reason why a woman who is qualified for a position, and who wants the position, should not be allowed to hold it. The best thing I've heard is low, disaffected mumbling about 'periods', and a few people who have gotten the definitions of chivalry and chauvinism backwards.

I think the thought process not only had to do with chivalry, at least at the onset of the rule, but also developed into the idea of an added, unnecessary, possible additional stress factor in an already stressed environment. Plus the possible distraction that can come with it. I know you're not naive enough to think that there's no way adding a female presence to any situation dominated by males can't add those things. It's human nature.

The same thought process can be used with gays in the military. Except in that case it's a different kind of stress.