Ban on women in combat lifted? - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Gas Chamber > Ban on women in combat lifted?

Veins McGee: May 26, 2004; Remember Veins?
He's back, in POG form

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...in-combat-roles

Lolita Baldor posted:

Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senior defense officials say Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is removing the military's ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war.

The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule banning women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta's decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.

There isn't a whole lot of information available about the details of this decision. I guess, potentially, the services could seek to exclude women from certain occupational fields.

edit: I thought the Army and Marine Corps were still evaluating the idea. As far as I know, no woman has completed Infantry Officers Course(2 have failed) and no new women have volunteered for the course.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...antry/?page=all

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/...omen/?hpt=hp_t3

Chris Lawrence and Barbara Starr posted:

The U.S. military is ending its policy of excluding women from combat and will open combat jobs and direct combat units to female troops, CNN has learned. Multiple officials confirm to CNN that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will make the announcement tomorrow and notify Congress of the planned change in policy.

“We will eliminate the policy of ‘no women in units that are tasked with direct combat,’” a senior defense official says.

But the officials caution that “not every position will open all at once on Thursday.” Once the policy is changed, the Department of Defense will enter what is being called an “assessment phase,” in which each branch of service will examine all of its jobs and units not currently integrated and then produce a timetable in which it can integrate them.

The Army and Marine Corps, especially, will be examining physical standards and gender-neutral accommodations within combat units. Every 90 days, the service chiefs will have to report back on their progress.

The move will be one of the last significant policy decisions made by Panetta, who is expected to leave in mid-February. It is not clear where former Sen. Chuck Hagel, the nominated replacement, stands, but officials say he has been apprised of Panetta's coming announcement.

“It will take awhile to work out the mechanics in some cases. 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.”

The official says the goal remains to open as many as possible. “We should open all specialties to the maximum extent possible to women. We know they can do it.”

The Pentagon must notify Congress of each job or unit as it is sent up to the secretary to be “opened” to women. And then the Defense Department must wait 30 days while Congress is in session before implementing the change.

It is a marked difference from the way the military ended the exclusion of gays serving openly, or “don’t ask don’t tell.” In that case, there were no stipulations attached to openly gay service members. There was no staggered approach that integrated openly gay troops into units. It was instead done all at once, across the board.

A senior Defense official explained the Pentagon’s reasoning behind the different approach: “You’re talking about personal choice of behavior vs. physical capability. And they were already in the units. If you take a unit that’s never had women before, that’s quite a culture change.”

Another senior Defense official says the goal is “to provide a level, gender-neutral playing field.”

The American Civil Liberties Union recently filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Defense, charging that combat exclusion is unfair and outdated, harms America’s safety and prevents women from getting training and recognition for their work. The plaintiffs, who include women awarded Purple Hearts, say the exclusion places them at a disadvantage for promotion.

Earlier this month, the Army opened the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment to women, and it has begun recruiting female pilots and crew chiefs. The Navy has put its first female officers on submarines in the past year, and certain female ground troops have been “attached” to combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than 800 women were wounded in those wars, and at least 130 have died.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 20:38

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 20, 2013 05:11

GAS CURES KIKES: Sep 9, 2001; ASK ME ABOUT BEING A RETIRED AIR FORCE POTHEAD AND MY LITTLE PONY ENTHUSIAST

Holy poo poo those poor women's vagina's are gonna get ruined. I'm talking destroyed.

Like, picture some ground beef-- then smash that ground beef up with a mallet.

That's gonna be their vagina's before they even pin on E-2.

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jan 23, 2013 20:42

LEGIT WAR CRIMINAL: Aug 29, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Was expecting a duffelblog link.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 20:46

Veins McGee: May 26, 2004; Remember Veins?
He's back, in POG form

LEGIT WAR CRIMINAL posted:

Was expecting a duffelblog link.

Come on man

# ? Jan 23, 2013 20:47

vacation in kabul: Dec 6, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Now women and gays can be fodder for Imperialist Death Machine too! We live in a truly progressive country that let's people make horrible decisions for themselves regardless of their sexuality, sex, race, or brain power. God bless America

# ? Jan 23, 2013 20:51

HATE CURES TRANNYS: Aug 16, 2005; PUSSY ALL NIGHT!

Oh god don't look at Facebook.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 21:00

overdesigned: Apr 10, 2003; I CAN'T FOLLOW THE SIMPLE TRADITION OF POSTING THE MARINE MONTHLY OP BECAUSE I AM A LAZY FUCK

I actually have several progressive .mil friends on facebook and so far it's pretty good!

But uh that won't last.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 21:01

No Butt Stuff: Jun 10, 2004; Seriously. This. Again?
i hate you so much

Too late.

My O5 boss just came out and told us the news. He was about to start bashing on it until he realized his secretary was right there.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 21:01

MoraleHazard: Aug 21, 2012; It's Zoidberg, John Fucking Zoidberg!

Personally fine with it; so long as the physical fitness standards are also equal.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 21:40

Mortabis: Jul 8, 2010; Lemoncakes!

At PT in ROTC, my running form was wrong and one of the MS4s corrected me and said I'd get "tanker's knees."

I asked him what that was and he said "the vibrations in the tank combined with the small, cramped space results in tankers often having hosed up knees."

I then asked him "Well, if they're so cramped, why not put women in them instead, since women are smaller?"

He thought that idea was retarded.

Does operating a tank require a ton of upper body strength or something, or was he just being sexist? I mean, I can understand why people would think, say, women serving in infantry would be a problem, I guess. Every single male cadet in my "battalion" outperforms every single female cadet without fail at PT. But for things where small size is a plus, wouldn't they be perfectly suited? It just seems to me like there are some combat roles where women might actually perform better on average than men.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 21:45

Veins McGee: May 26, 2004; Remember Veins?
He's back, in POG form

Mortabis posted:

At PT in ROTC, my running form was wrong and one of the MS4s corrected me and said I'd get "tanker's knees."

I asked him what that was and he said "the vibrations in the tank combined with the small, cramped space results in tankers often having hosed up knees."

I then asked him "Well, if they're so cramped, why not put women in them instead, since women are smaller?"

He thought that idea was retarded.

Does operating a tank require a ton of upper body strength or something, or was he just being sexist? I mean, I can understand why people would think, say, women serving in infantry would be a problem, I guess. Every single male cadet in my "battalion" outperforms every single female cadet without fail at PT. But for things where small size is a plus, wouldn't they be perfectly suited? It just seems to me like there are some combat roles where women might actually perform better on average than men.

Being on a tank requires some heavy lifting.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 21:49

Vasudus: May 30, 2003

I don't have a problem with women combat engineers but if you get a EO complaint for telling them to 'man the gently caress up' when they can't lift whatever equipment, something's wrong. I don't want to have to adjust my slurs with people that can't perform.

In general, so long as you can actually meet the physical requirements (ie jobs that are classified as very heavy lifting requirements) it shouldn't really matter. The social adjustment to women being in combat arms is going to be hellish, but should quiet down in like...five years or so. I'm actually surprised it's happening now, I would have figured 2015 or so at least. Military is finally catching up with this century.

If anything, this will give me more material to write for school so hooray.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 21:52

Cole: Nov 24, 2004

MoraleHazard posted:

Personally fine with it; so long as the physical fitness standards are also equal.

Equal is fine and this wont work without it, but don't lower the standard for men just to accommodate women.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 22:21

ZappDash: May 8, 2005; View in me
The active slayer of these men;
For though you fail and flee,
These captains of the hostile hosts
Shall die, shall cease to be.
Arise, on fame, on victory,
On kingly joys intent!
They are already slain by me;
Be you the instrument.

Cole posted:

Equal is fine and this wont work without it, but don't lower the standard for men just to accommodate women.

Highly anecdotal, but when OIF was A Thang, standards enforcement was ludicrously low just to shovel warm blood into the Middle East. Our S-4 broke both ankles in the Army v. Air Force game, which was two weeks prior to our deployment. We deployed the next month with his rear end on the plane. He had to shower with a field stool and used crutches to get everywhere.

On our second deployment, someone in my platoon tore his ACL three months prior to deployment. He was placed in the training room until his was able to heal up and join us on patrols halfway through our deployment.

I don't even want to get started on the obscenely lax policy with regards to PT, either. I got out not too long ago, so the trend could continue in the opposite direction, but when people offer up the "women need to have equal physical standards as men" idea then base enforcement of standards needs to apply, too. Though I do agree that base standards should be equal regardless of gender/orientation/fingernail-length/whatever-the-gently caress-is-the-new-hotness-to-hate-on.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 22:55

EVA BRAUN BLOWJOBS: Feb 15, 2005; Puttin' on the Reich

Veins McGee posted:

Being on a tank requires some heavy lifting.

It does. It's not even the rounds that are super heavy, it's the maintenance. Any track maintenance aside from setting tension needs some muscle. And if you can't lift the front side skirts by yourself without a tanker bar, you're a scrub.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 23:12

Christoff: Jun 18, 2004; I'm the living embodiment of every negative military stereotype

Where's this?

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/in...-marine-captain

quote:

In an article for the Marine Corps Gazette, Captain Petronio advises the military to “Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal,” opining that women’s bodies are not able to take the punishment of long military careers involving infantry operations, and warning that the Marines will experience “a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females” if they are placed in such roles.

How does the IDF handle it? Are the PT standards equal?

I haven't been doing this poo poo for long. But if they really want to poo poo in holes, sleep in holes, and can hike obscene distances through hills with 80 lb packs on...

# ? Jan 23, 2013 23:35

LEGIT WAR CRIMINAL: Aug 29, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

The IDF isn't rucking around mountains in Afghanistan.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 23:46

GAS CURES KIKES: Sep 9, 2001; ASK ME ABOUT BEING A RETIRED AIR FORCE POTHEAD AND MY LITTLE PONY ENTHUSIAST

I doubt we see poo poo like female 11A/B's or 18X's anytime soon, if ever.

But hey, I don't see anything a 13F does that a chick couldn't do. That's combat arms.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 23:53

genderstomper58: Jan 9, 2005; by Y Kant Ozma Post

GAS CURES KIKES posted:

I doubt we see poo poo like female 11A/B's or 18X's anytime soon, if ever.

But hey, I don't see anything a 13F does that a chick couldn't do. That's combat arms.

Wow, get a load of this guy. Don't feed the trolls!!!!

# ? Jan 23, 2013 23:55

GAS CURES KIKES: Sep 9, 2001; ASK ME ABOUT BEING A RETIRED AIR FORCE POTHEAD AND MY LITTLE PONY ENTHUSIAST

There are already female JTACs and FAC-A's.

I mean, honestly. It's a thing.

# ? Jan 23, 2013 23:57

NAPALM CURES NIPS: Dec 6, 2005

Our military is turning into a giant pussy lol

# ? Jan 23, 2013 23:59

vacation in kabul: Dec 6, 2009; by Y Kant Ozma Post

GAS CURES KIKES posted:

I doubt we see poo poo like female 11A/B's or 18X's anytime soon, if ever.

But hey, I don't see anything a 13F does that a chick couldn't do. That's combat arms.

Well they couldn't do anything that the 13F's you've run into couldn't do that's for sure. How many women would even want to do this or succeed at it? They would wind up in staff positions and guarding TOC's and poo poo unless they accounted for so many Infantry/FA/Cav slots they couldn't possibly fill all of the wussy-rear end jobs we already have bunches of combat arms people in, I don't think it's a big problem to be honest.

# ? Jan 24, 2013 00:03

genderstomper58: Jan 9, 2005; by Y Kant Ozma Post

overdesigned posted:

I actually have several progressive .mil friends on facebook and so far it's pretty good!

But uh that won't last.

I was gonna use that word!!!

So progressive.....

# ? Jan 24, 2013 00:19

ZappDash: May 8, 2005; View in me
The active slayer of these men;
For though you fail and flee,
These captains of the hostile hosts
Shall die, shall cease to be.
Arise, on fame, on victory,
On kingly joys intent!
They are already slain by me;
Be you the instrument.

vacation in kabul posted:

Well they couldn't do anything that the 13F's you've run into couldn't do that's for sure. How many women would even want to do this or succeed at it? They would wind up in staff positions and guarding TOC's and poo poo unless they accounted for so many Infantry/FA/Cav slots they couldn't possibly fill all of the wussy-rear end jobs we already have bunches of combat arms people in, I don't think it's a big problem to be honest.

The best 13F we had were quick witted, not carrying machines. Idgaf how heavy your radio is if you can't generate a CFF in an acceptable time, let alone land nav to an appropriate location.

(The carrying helps, we would give the dumber guys the GVLLD and other team-based equipment.)

# ? Jan 24, 2013 00:27

Tight Booty Shorts: Apr 28, 2012

our VA hospitals are going to be overrun.

# ? Jan 24, 2013 00:44

GAS CURES KIKES: Sep 9, 2001; ASK ME ABOUT BEING A RETIRED AIR FORCE POTHEAD AND MY LITTLE PONY ENTHUSIAST

Tight Booty Shorts posted:

our VA hospitals are going to be overrun.

With smeared pap's.

# ? Jan 24, 2013 00:46

psydude: Mar 31, 2008; Perry'd.

Vasudus posted:

I don't have a problem with women combat engineers but if you get a EO complaint for telling them to 'man the gently caress up' when they can't lift whatever equipment, something's wrong. I don't want to have to adjust my slurs with people that can't perform.

In general, so long as you can actually meet the physical requirements (ie jobs that are classified as very heavy lifting requirements) it shouldn't really matter. The social adjustment to women being in combat arms is going to be hellish, but should quiet down in like...five years or so. I'm actually surprised it's happening now, I would have figured 2015 or so at least. Military is finally catching up with this century.

If anything, this will give me more material to write for school so hooray.

Women have been leading route clearance platoons in theater for a while now. The third place finisher on the sapper course ruck in my BOLC class was a woman; as long as they can lift a cratering charge and a picket pounder I don't really see the issue.

# ? Jan 24, 2013 01:00

Vasudus: May 30, 2003

psydude posted:

Women have been leading route clearance platoons in theater for a while now. The third place finisher on the sapper course ruck in my BOLC class was a woman; as long as they can lift a cratering charge and a picket pounder I don't really see the issue.

Pretty much yeah. I don't care what you've got between your legs (or anything else irrelevant, like who they're loving) if you're doing your job.

Engineer that can't pound a picket is a shameful engineer, man or woman.

# ? Jan 24, 2013 01:03

ZappDash: May 8, 2005; View in me
The active slayer of these men;
For though you fail and flee,
These captains of the hostile hosts
Shall die, shall cease to be.
Arise, on fame, on victory,
On kingly joys intent!
They are already slain by me;
Be you the instrument.

Vasudus posted:

Pretty much yeah. I don't care what you've got between your legs (or anything else irrelevant, like who they're loving) if you're doing your job.

That's probably the biggest caveat to "I don't care who you gently caress" that I would propose.

Some downright trailer park poo poo froths its way into the office some days.

# ? Jan 24, 2013 01:11

Chewbacca Defense: Sep 6, 2009; High speed, low drag.

I will continue to support anything that brings us closer to the Starship Troopers movie.

# ? Jan 24, 2013 01:11

Vasudus: May 30, 2003

ZappDash posted:

That's probably the biggest caveat to "I don't care who you gently caress" that I would propose.

Some downright trailer park poo poo froths its way into the office some days.

Yeah, that statement applies to any relationship. Don't make waves, don't cause drama and I don't care. It's not my business unless you make it my business.

# ? Jan 24, 2013 01:12

GAS CURES KIKES: Sep 9, 2001; ASK ME ABOUT BEING A RETIRED AIR FORCE POTHEAD AND MY LITTLE PONY ENTHUSIAST

See, in the USAF women have been a major part of our combat forces for a while. Tons of women pilots, security forces, etc. They started letting them do EOD a while back too. And honestly, the women in a unit tend to be fitter than most of the slovenly fat SNCO's anyway, so there really isn't a USAF argument for women not being equal to the men.

But, obviously, we're a special little snowflake of the DoD and all. But hey, chicks are on subs and stuff too-- I figure the navy is more or less the same as us, hell. There are women Seabees and poo poo.

# ? Jan 24, 2013 01:19

Tight Booty Shorts: Apr 28, 2012

hahaha good luck being mission ready when females in your unit are experiencing unintended pregnancy rates at twice the national average

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/...le-u-s-average/

# ? Jan 24, 2013 01:30

genderstomper58: Jan 9, 2005; by Y Kant Ozma Post

GAS CURES KIKES posted:

But hey, chicks are on subs and stuff too-- I figure the navy is more or less the same as us, hell. There are women Seabees and poo poo.

*only officers

*only on boomers

look the navy may be pretty pussyish but please dont compare us to the air force ty

# ? Jan 24, 2013 01:31

Christoff: Jun 18, 2004; I'm the living embodiment of every negative military stereotype

Would they even be held to the same PT standards? I know the USMC is changing the pullups to, well, actual pullups.

# ? Jan 24, 2013 01:45

GAS CURES KIKES: Sep 9, 2001; ASK ME ABOUT BEING A RETIRED AIR FORCE POTHEAD AND MY LITTLE PONY ENTHUSIAST

I think having identical PT standards is honestly kind of.. dumb.

There are no-poo poo physiological differences between an 18 year old female, and an 18 year old man. It's not as though the PT tests are indicative of anything more than being able to pass a PT test anyway.

# ? Jan 24, 2013 01:53

genderstomper58: Jan 9, 2005; by Y Kant Ozma Post

GAS CURES KIKES posted:

I think having identical PT standards is honestly kind of.. dumb.

There are no-poo poo physiological differences between an 18 year old female, and an 18 year old man.

I think thats part of the argument against it but

# ? Jan 24, 2013 01:54

Christoff: Jun 18, 2004; I'm the living embodiment of every negative military stereotype

Yes but having to do 20 pullups for a max score instead of deadhanging for whatever x amount of time it is....

But they want equality, right?

# ? Jan 24, 2013 01:55

genderstomper58: Jan 9, 2005; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Are females from the mil seriously the major voice behind this or is it congress people and poo poo wanting the military to be ~~~~~~progressive~~~~~~ because not a whole lot of women tried that marine infantry officer training right?

e: oh missed this

The American Civil Liberties Union recently filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Defense, charging that combat exclusion is unfair and outdated, harms America’s safety and prevents women from getting training and recognition for their work. The plaintiffs, who include women awarded Purple Hearts, say the exclusion places them at a disadvantage for promotion.

I thought you couldn't sue the DoD if you were in the military????

# ? Jan 24, 2013 02:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 20, 2013 05:11

Wingnut Ninja: Jan 11, 2003; Mostly Harmless

genderstomper58 posted:

I think thats part of the argument against it but

There's a difference (or there should be) between a "PT test" that measures some vague overall fitness level, and a no-poo poo requirement to be able to carry X pounds for Y miles and do Z whatever else. I don't see a problem with having different PT standards based on gender and age, and having other job-specific standards that are absolute.

# ? Jan 24, 2013 02:10

«‹›3 »

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Gas Chamber > Ban on women in combat lifted?