Latest news women in combat roles

Discussion in 'Academy/Military News' started by goaliedad, Jun 17, 2013.

  1. goaliedad

    goaliedad Parent

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    35
  2. jct95

    jct95 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2012
    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    0
    Complete and utter joke, for them to even believe that such a plan to be considered wise is nothing short of delusional. There's simply no way a Woman would be able to survive the training (whether is be RIP/RASP, SFAS, or BUD/s), the standards will be lowered, and the unit integrity and operational capability of our SOF units will decrease dramatically and operators will die.

    I'm disgusted.
     
  3. Christcorp

    Christcorp Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    872
    I have nothing against women in combat. (If done correctly). But I can honestly say that I couldn't finish reading the article, because there were way to many STUPID comments in it. Shows that the writer is biased and many of those making comments in the article are idiot.

    The first paragraph says: "that have prevented women from holding thousands of combat and special operations jobs near the front lines." I didn't know we had THOUSANDS of jobs in the military; let alone combat related. Little bit of exageration; ya think.

    Then, supposedly, military leaders ADMIT that there's no way that women as a whole can do these jobs with the existing standards. "The military services have mapped out a schedule that also will include reviewing and possibly changing the physical and mental standards that men and women will have to meet in order to quality for certain infantry, armor, commando and other front-line positions across the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. " So instead of saying that the current standards may be unneccessarily high and developed for ego purposes, they admit that they'll possibly have to lower the standards. Maybe the standards are unneccessarily high. Maybe they aren't. Either way, they've made it clear that women for the most part can't pass the training with the current standards.

    Then, "Earlier this year, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said the sexual assaults might be linked to the longstanding ban on women serving in combat because the disparity between the roles of men and women creates separate classes of personnel — male "warriors" versus the rest of the force." No comment:

    And the most stupid of all comments; because this is where I stopped reading because I could actually feal my IQ going down; "Military leaders have suggested bringing senior women from the officer and enlisted ranks into special forces units first to ensure that younger, lower-ranking women have a support system to help them get through the transition." What a bunch of geniuses. Take a job, where 22-25 year old men have a difficult time passing training, where the majority of the men who put in for these jobs phase out and DOR; and bring in a bunch of 30-35 year old women who may have had a child or two; and have her pass the training. Talk about lowering the standards. Older/senior men couldn't pass special forces training; many of the younger men can't pass the training; but that 30-35 year old woman is not going to have any problem.

    Sorry; but that's where I stopped reading. Too many PC-Idiots. Again; I have no problem with women in combat. There is a way to open it up to the women who truly want it and can pass the required training to do the job. But it's obvious that the military leaders speaking in this article doesn't care about the mission. They care about the politics of women in combat roles.
     
  4. Pima

    Pima Parent

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    12,809
    Likes Received:
    956
    :shake: Possibly should have been substituted with WILL BE.

    Nobody flame me, I am a woman, and I do believe there are a very select few women that can meet the requirements without lowering the standards, but as Mike has stated this is more about the PC world and not the mission, thus they are already putting it out there that the standards are going to change.

    I look it at the word possibly as a way to ease the decision that has already been made. They just don't want the blowback right now, they want to do it piece meal, and hope that people will forget about it later on when it is implemented. Afterall, it is just a maybe, right?

    Again, if was a woman that wanted this lifestyle, I would hope they don't change the standards at all. If that means no women, than so be it, but to be the only woman in the elite teams, where my peers think I got a pass because of genetics and lower standards is not the life I would want.
     
  5. Hurricane12

    Hurricane12 USNA 2012

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Messages:
    742
    Likes Received:
    121
    Huh. Aren't you in high school?
     
  6. Jcleppe

    Jcleppe Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,541
    Likes Received:
    842
    A very disgusted high school student apparently.
     
  7. LineInTheSand

    LineInTheSand USCGA 2006

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    1,004
    Oh, I had two females classmates that I think could have been SEALs. Absolute beasts (and I mean that in a good way). The one has done very well in the Hawaii Ironman (whatever it's called). She blew apart the O-Course record when we were swabs. And she's tough. I think she could do it without a change in any standards and I don't think she would be any less prepared than my classmate who did become a SEAL.

    Keep the standards the same, let everyone meet the same standards and I don't really see a problem. It's not my life at stake, I understand that, but I've worked with (and went to school with) females that I would have trusted my life with. My life was safer in their hands their their lives were safe in my hands. :wink:
     
  8. Luigi59

    Luigi59 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    5
    The Marine Corps may beg to differ.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-fail-all-male-infantry-course/#ixzz2WaP3Xbrt

     
  9. LineInTheSand

    LineInTheSand USCGA 2006

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    1,004
  10. pathnottaken

    pathnottaken Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2013
    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    0
    My views are these: (most stated piece meal by other posters above):

    Everyone should have the opportunity to try for any position in the military.

    If I am willing to let my son die for his country than I need to be willing to let my daughter die for her country.

    The criteria neded to serve various missions needs to be constantly evaluated. Are the requirements correct for the desired mission outcome. If not change them - making somethings harder and somethings easier but get the right people for the job. (only bias is to the mission not to gender). This re-evaluation is the most difficult. Why was a mission successful/ why did a mission fail are hard things to not let our own bias creep in and have us believe they were the important elements.



    PS (a little statistical analysis)
    Luigi59 article above stating the two women who tried and failed compared to the 108 men who tried and 12 failed has no statistical difference ie there is no difference statistically between 2/2 and 12/108. The sample size is too small to make any conclusions.
     
  11. Hurricane12

    Hurricane12 USNA 2012

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Messages:
    742
    Likes Received:
    121
    The 2ndLt underground (always reliable :wink:) has it that the female Lt would made it through the CET was a complete beast and probably would have made it through the course had she not been injured. She supposedly also won the competitive air contract from her TBS class, which usually goes away well within the top 10 graduates, and was perceived as pretty legit by her peers.

    The "0 for 4" statistic is slightly deceiving. The current requirement for volunteering for IOC as of when I was at TBS as a female is a pulse and saying "I want to go to IOC." Without getting into details, some eyebrows were raised at some who did so. Several females I know from USNA and TBS who are extremely fit and competent chose not to go simply because they didn't want to. What I'm getting at is that not necessarily the best candidates are showing up to tryouts, and there's no big rush to go.

    I hope to god they don't lower the requirements for females to attend IOC, BUD/S, or any other elite school. Personally, that stuff's not for me, but if someone can hack it...sure, let them try out. If they make it great, if they don't then they don't.

    ...Which, without making this too crazy-long of a post, at what point does it logistically not make sense to allow women in all male units? I think most of us can agree we're not ready for Starship Troopers coed showering on a large scale, so at what point do the inefficiencies of separate facilities outweigh what we can bring to the table?
     
  12. LineInTheSand

    LineInTheSand USCGA 2006

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    1,004
    Let the cadets DREAM!!!
     
  13. Jcleppe

    Jcleppe Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,541
    Likes Received:
    842
    Rico's Roughnecks Woo Hoo!
     
  14. Strength and Honor

    Strength and Honor Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Messages:
    614
    Likes Received:
    28
    The entire Women in Combat debate is too much politics. It all sounds great to the politician preaching equality for all in D.C, but I'm sure many in Combat Arms would disagree. And not because they're "sexist".
     
  15. AF6872

    AF6872 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,868
    Likes Received:
    237
    "Starship Troopers" the Book was a lot better than the movie. TBS is tough enough I can't imagine Coranado for women unless they are sitting on the deck of the Del Coronado and watching the sunset. Shower scenes were good though:biggrin:
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2013
  16. LineInTheSand

    LineInTheSand USCGA 2006

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    1,004
    Only if it's a picture book.
     
  17. AF6872

    AF6872 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,868
    Likes Received:
    237
    No. The Book was actually good.
     
  18. JMS

    JMS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    11
    If it is all about the mission, then why has sex based selection ever existed? Judging from the threads on rape and sexual assault, (as well as the experiences of those serving in combat zones),one may assume that there are plenty of women with combat experience now.
     
  19. AF6872

    AF6872 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,868
    Likes Received:
    237
    Heinlein. Graduate USNA 1929
     
  20. nick4060

    nick4060 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    422
    Likes Received:
    15
    I don't think anyone's arguing that there are women with combat experience now. I know plenty of women in my career field (non-combat) who found themselves in combat situations while downrange. That alone doesn't make those individuals qualified to serve out a career as a Navy SEAL or an Army infantryman (woman?).

    It seems like every article I read on this subject fails to make the distinction between "women in combat", and "women in the infantry/SOF/etc".
     

Share This Page