Women in Combat Branches

Jcleppe said:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/23/panetta-women-combat-pentagon/1859221/

Looks like the official announcement will come Thursday.

This should make next years Branching very interesting.
Click to expand...

For some reason I don't see women jumping at the bit to get into Infantry/Armor or Ranger school for that matter. With that being said I am sure branching will be skewed a bit.

If this is the decision I am guessing Selective Service will be required for women as well? You know for equality's sake?
 
From what I read, it will be awhile before the "assessment" phase is completed. At that point, branch leaders can request that specific mos's and/or units (i.e. Infantry and SOF) remain "closed"
 
The official said the services will develop plans for allowing women to seek the combat positions. Some jobs may open as soon as this year. Assessments for others, such as special operations forces, including Navy SEALs and the Army's Delta Force, may take longer.
Click to expand...

The article does not say the assesment will involve Infantry.

It will be interesting to see which MOS's and what Branches become available as early as this year.
 
Diffferent article: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/23/military-to-open-combat-jobs-to-women/
“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. Panetta is setting the goal of January 2016 for all assessments to be complete and women integrated as much as possible.

The Pentagon has left itself some wiggle room, however, which may ultimately lead to some jobs being designated as “closed” to women. A senior Defense official says if, after the assessment, a branch finds that “a specific job or unit should not be open, they can go back to the secretary and ask for an exemption to the policy, to designate the job or unit as closed.”
 
Sorry for the double post, but does this mean we will be seing gender neutral PT tests? I would appreciate the boost in my physical ranking here at the Academy.
 
PDB88 said:
Diffferent article: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/23/military-to-open-combat-jobs-to-women/
“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. Panetta is setting the goal of January 2016 for all assessments to be complete and women integrated as much as possible.

The Pentagon has left itself some wiggle room, however, which may ultimately lead to some jobs being designated as “closed” to women. A senior Defense official says if, after the assessment, a branch finds that “a specific job or unit should not be open, they can go back to the secretary and ask for an exemption to the policy, to designate the job or unit as closed.”
Click to expand...

Much more informative article then the one I posted.

Sounds like the Physical Standards will be part of the assessment process.
 
That would have pretty serious ramifications here. A significant number of female cadets would not be able to meet the male standard on the APFT, the IOCT, etc. So will all females be held to this standard, or will females have to self-select that they want to go combat arms and would like to be held to the male standard? Otherwise, females will have an unfair advantage when competing for class rank/branches/posts
 
Since Sec Def Panetta is on his way out what role will the new successor play in all of this?

At least there will be an assessment involved instead of just opening the flood-gates.
 
As with everything, we'll see how this actually goes down. We've hashed this conversation out before and it didn't necessary go anywhere productive. At this point the military just sorta has to roger up and at least give it a shot before punting the issue down the road.

I really hope they don't change the standard to fill some quota of females in combat arms. The best solution in my opinion would be a gender blind test that focuses on the strengths required in a combat arms branch (devised by that branch)...the Marines sort of do this with the CET to enter IOC.

I don't think (and maybe I'm wrong or talking to just a small subset of females) most women want there to be an easier standard for them to go infantry or anything else. The Officers I know (both male and female) want to do right by their Marines in the place they're best suited for. That place isn't the infantry for most people (again, male and female, and I'm DEFINITELY including myself in that) and they should be honest with themselves based on their interests and abilities.
I'm, frankly, kinda disgusted by the women (even vets!) who talk about how not being able to go infantry was terrible because it limited their career options. That's BS; if you're going to make an argument that you should be able to do something, it should be based on what you can bring to the table to help out that organization, not "Oh, I want to be a General."

Dude in my platoon: "Hey Hurricane, gonna drop that air contract and go to IOC now?"

tumblr_mbalwubnzi1rpkxiu.gif



FAC or AirO tour sometime down the line? Maybe.
 
So, the next logical step is for all 18 year old women to register for the Selective Service. Be interesting to see if everyone who thinks this is great idea will go for mandatory Selective Service registration.
 
Hurricane12 said:
I'm, frankly, kinda disgusted by the women (even vets!) who talk about how not being able to go infantry was terrible because it limited their career options. That's BS; if you're going to make an argument that you should be able to do something, it should be based on what you can bring to the table to help out that organization, not "Oh, I want to be a General."
Click to expand...

Haven't posted for a while, but had to check in after reading the news yesterday. I admit I am totally unqualified to opine on the issue. I generally lean towards inclusiveness of the truly qualified, but am respectful of the opinion expressed by Ryan Smith in this AM's Wall Street Journal.

The problem I had yesterday was that the preponderance of favorable opinions towards women in combat roles was based purely on the issue of career advancement...exactly what disgusts Hurricane. If women are thinking this, the men have to be thinking this in spades. Careerism in an era retrenchment would be a terrible thing.

Hurricane, maybe you could get some of your pals, go up to Capital Hill, and tell Barbara Boxer et al to STFU.
 
If they can fight like my mom and wife, I am all for it. We will never lose a battle.
 
sprtzm said:
So, the next logical step is for all 18 year old women to register for the Selective Service. Be interesting to see if everyone who thinks this is great idea will go for mandatory Selective Service registration.
Click to expand...

I'm down. I don't really see what the logical opposition to that would be.
 
I'm only in high school, but I have a read a lot on the subject especially from those who have served in infantry during war. In my opinion, most of them have the same view and I don't understand why America doesn't listen to those who have served in these positions and not listened to their opinions. My mom saw this on the news last night and said it was a complete joke that they were going to do this. NO MY MOM IS NOT CRAZY, SHE KNOWS THERE IS A REASON WHY WOMEN SHOULDN'T/HAVEN'T EVER SERVED IN INFANTRY/SPECIAL FORCES.


I'm not trying to offend anyone here, but this is my personal opinion. MEN AND WOMEN ARE NOT GENETICALLY EQUAL. The strongest man will always be stronger than the strongest women. There is a reason why men and women don't compete in sports together. For example, what if the NFL allowed women to play? I guarantee you that they would get tossed around even if they were very strong. There is a difference between a man's strength and a woman's strength. Look at the Olympics, men always have a better record/time than the women do and there is a reason for that. Not only that, but when you're at war you can't get a shower whenever you want. Imagine a woman not getting a shower for 2 weeks let alone a month. In addition to that, where are they suppose to go to the bathroom in front of a bunch of guys in the middle of a desert? Women would cause distractions and sexual tensions and ruin the groups cohesion in my opinion. If they are doing this for equal rights it's the dumbest idea I have ever heard because I believe it will end up weakening America's military. If they really want to do this they should form all female infantry and see how the do compared to all male infantry. THERE ARE THINGS IN THE MILITARY THAT ARE BETTER SUITED FOR MAN AND THERE ARE OTHER THINGS IN THE MILITARY THAT WOMEN ARE BETTER SUITED FOR, BUT INFANTRY/SPECIAL FORCES IS NOT ONE OF THEM!
 
maxpatty02 said:
I'm only in high school, but I have a read a lot on the subject especially from those who have served in infantry during war. In my opinion, most of them have the same view and I don't understand why America doesn't listen to those who have served in these positions and not listened to their opinions. My mom saw this on the news last night and said it was a complete joke that they were going to do this. NO MY MOM IS NOT CRAZY, SHE KNOWS THERE IS A REASON WHY WOMEN SHOULDN'T/HAVEN'T EVER SERVED IN INFANTRY/SPECIAL FORCES.


I'm not trying to offend anyone here, but this is my personal opinion. MEN AND WOMEN ARE NOT GENETICALLY EQUAL. The strongest man will always be stronger than the strongest women. There is a reason why men and women don't compete in sports together. For example, what if the NFL allowed women to play? I guarantee you that they would get tossed around even if they were very strong. There is a difference between a man's strength and a woman's strength. Look at the Olympics, men always have a better record/time than the women do and there is a reason for that. Not only that, but when you're at war you can't get a shower whenever you want. Imagine a woman not getting a shower for 2 weeks let alone a month. In addition to that, where are they suppose to go to the bathroom in front of a bunch of guys in the middle of a desert? Women would cause distractions and sexual tensions and ruin the groups cohesion in my opinion. If they are doing this for equal rights it's the dumbest idea I have ever heard because I believe it will end up weakening America's military. If they really want to do this they should form all female infantry and see how the do compared to all male infantry. THERE ARE THINGS IN THE MILITARY THAT ARE BETTER SUITED FOR MAN AND THERE ARE OTHER THINGS IN THE MILITARY THAT WOMEN ARE BETTER SUITED FOR, BUT INFANTRY/SPECIAL FORCES IS NOT ONE OF THEM!
Click to expand...

Yup, I can tell you're in high school. Bravo.

I appreciate tpg's evaluation better. Then again, I would expect a more mature and thoughtful argument from a veteran marine who is well-respected in these parts. Thanks, tpg.
 
Oh Boy.

I have to ask one question, What in the world is the difference between a woman not taking a shower for 2 weeks or more and a man not taking a shower? You know, drawing from your vast experience in the military...oh wait...high school.
 
I just wanted to speak my mind. Also what I meant by the whole not showering thing for 2 weeks is that you know men don't really need to shave, it would just be different to see women with hairy legs/armpits and I couldn't imagine them wanting to be seen in front of men like that, but I could be wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top