Latest news women in combat roles

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.
 
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.
 
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. "

: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.
 
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.

Huh. Aren't you in high school?
 
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:
 
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:

The Marine Corps may beg to differ.

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

The women’s recent washout after only a few days in the course follows the failure of two other female officers attempting to complete the same program in October.

The Corps now stands 0-4 in its search to find female Marines who have the physical strength and endurance to complete one of the most rigorous infantry schools in the military, located at the Quantico, Va., base.

Of 110 lieutenants in the first phase of the course, called the Combat Entrance Test, 14 failed, including the only two women, according to the Marine Corps Times.

“We will continue to solicit women to take part in the IOC program,” Marine Corps spokesman Capt. Richard Ulsh told The Washington Times. “I don’t know how [the failures] could stretch to mean something broader than what you’ve got.”

Gen. Dempsey has made it clear that if any service wants to continue the ban for certain jobs because the demands are too high, then the service should provide a good reason why those standards should not be lowered to allow women to succeed.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?

Let the cadets DREAM!!!
 
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".
 
"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:
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.
 
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.

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".
 
Back
Top