|
quote:WASHINGTON — 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. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...6624.html?hp=bn This is a pretty rapidly developing story, but it seems pretty clear this is a done deal now. evilweasel fucked around with this message at Jan 23, 2013 around 20:46 |
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 20:44 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 12:03 |
|
|
I haven't ready anything about this recently. Was this move expected?
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 20:48 |
|
|
TheBuilder posted:I haven't ready anything about this recently. Was this move expected? It caught me completely by surprise. I didn't know anyone was considering this.
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 20:50 |
|
|
Yeah, I hadn't caught any inkling this was even being contemplated; hope its a harbinger for how this administration will act moving forward with respect to progressive policy.
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 20:50 |
|
|
What's the process to overturn the ban, does it need any congressional approval, the Joint Chiefs, etc? Fantastic news all the same, even if there are still hurdles.
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 20:51 |
|
|
This is, honestly, super surprising. Anyone know why they decided to do this now?
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 20:52 |
|
|
DrProsek posted:What's the process to overturn the ban, does it need any congressional approval, the Joint Chiefs, etc? Fantastic news all the same, even if there are still hurdles. The article says the Joint Chiefs have already signed off, and it implies Panetta is doing this on his own authority which means Congress shouldn't need to be consulted.
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 20:53 |
|
|
There have been a few stories about it during the election season. And I think that the Army just had its first two female students go through their Officer Combat Course (not sure of the name). They didn't finish, but neither did more than half of the men if I recall.
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 20:53 |
|
|
BootStrap posted:And I think that the Army just had its first two female students go through their Officer Combat Course (not sure of the name). They didn't finish, but neither did more than half of the men if I recall. This is probably off-topic for the first page, but does anyone have a quick link for what the Officer Combat Course requires?
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 20:57 |
|
|
To what extent are the physical requirements on the higher level combat courses geared towards things like upper body strength where the is a genuine sexual dimorphism even if doesn't necessarily reflect itself on combat ability?
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 20:57 |
|
|
In an age of guns, airplanes and drone strikes, a combat ban didn't make any sense anyway. If we were talking medieval warfare where things like height, weight and strength could actually determine battles, or where you didn't have armored trucks to haul things around, it would be a different story. Regardless, it's about time women as well as gays got the privilege, nay, the sacred right to legally kill third-world civilians. Progress!Dusseldorf posted:To what extent are the physical requirements on the higher level combat courses geared towards things like upper body strength where the is a genuine sexual dimorphism even if doesn't necessarily reflect itself on combat ability? That might matter for a SEAL/Ranger or whatever, but tons of combat troops are in miserably bad shape anyway so it matters basically not at all. Women can carry a backpack and a gun just fine, and can aim just like anyone else.
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 21:00 |
|
|
Any word on whether women will now be required to register for Selective Service?
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 21:02 |
|
|
Nunya posted:Any word on whether women will now be required to register for Selective Service? I expect that would require congressional approval. I don't really see it happening or anyone really pushing for it, to be honest.
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 21:03 |
|
|
BootStrap posted:There have been a few stories about it during the election season. There's no unified course for combat arms officers. You're thinking of Ranger School, which is not an officer school, but is almost universally attended by infantry officers following the Infantry Officer Basic Course.
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 21:05 |
|
|
Am I the only one that sees a big difference between this and the repeal of DADT? 1. Homosexuals were already in units. Therefore all DADT did was allow existing and future armed forces members to come out of the closet. So this could be fundamentally different. 2. Women in the armed forces are already at incredible risk of surprise sex by their comrades. How will this be addressed in combat units? 3. Following on from #2, what are the implications for female POW's? It's only a matter of time before some get captured. I recognize men get tortured as well, but I worry about putting females into that position. I mean just look at what happens when you send a female journalist to a war zone - they are particularly vulnerable and it's pretty common for big-named journalists to experience horrific sexual abuse while covering these sorts of conflicts.
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 21:08 |
|
|
It was the marine corps that the first two women were unsuccessful. http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiedr...ne-corps-women/ (ignore the weighted title, I just picked the first thing I saw!)cymbalrush posted:This is probably off-topic for the first page, but does anyone have a quick link for what the Officer Combat Course requires? Probably something around 40 pushups in two minutes, fifty situps in the same, and a two mile run in 16 minutes. Presumably there's also some kind of 10 mile hike or something, with pack. This is obviously going to be different branch to branch, I'm just trying to give a vague idea. For basic/AIT all those numbers are significantly lower for women, I have no idea if there will be an adjustment.
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 21:08 |
|
|
Arabidopsis posted:3. Following on from #2, what are the implications for female POW's? It's only a matter of time before some get captured. I recognize men get tortured as well, but I worry about putting females into that position. I mean just look at what happens when you send a female journalist to a war zone - they are particularly vulnerable and it's pretty common for big-named journalists to experience horrific sexual abuse while covering these sorts of conflicts. There's not a draft. Women in combat wanted to be in combat and chose that. And women in "non-combat" roles already get taken prisoner (there was that whole to-do about rescuing one whose name escapes me in the Bush years).
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 21:10 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:I expect that would require congressional approval. I don't really see it happening or anyone really pushing for it, to be honest. Neither do I, but I hope someone brings it up. Equality rights and equal responsibilities. It would hopefully push our leaders to find more peaceful solutions.
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 21:11 |
|
|
Talmonis posted:Neither do I, but I hope someone brings it up. Equality rights and equal responsibilities. It would hopefully push our leaders to find more peaceful solutions. The draft might still be legal but it is a dead letter in our politics and it's an argument nobody is interested in having just for the sake of having.
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 21:12 |
|
|
I know this is ridiculous but it's hard not to imagine actual planning efforts to drive Republicans into apoplexy in the hopes that some will make really stupid public comments, scream embarrassingly during the SotU, or just explode.
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 21:16 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:There's not a draft. Women in combat wanted to be in combat and chose that. And women in "non-combat" roles already get taken prisoner (there was that whole to-do about rescuing one whose name escapes me in the Bush years). Jessica Lynch is who you're thinking of.
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 21:16 |
|
|
Arabidopsis posted:2. Women in the armed forces are already at incredible risk of surprise sex by their comrades. How will this be addressed in combat units? This is my concern. It is a good step forward to allow women, but this is a problem that needs to be addressed before full equality is reached.
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 21:19 |
|
|
So have they managed to develop some new psychological training that will prevent men from being helplessly overcome by their manly protective nature when they see a woman in danger, putting the entire unit at risk, and all the other bullshit reasons they had for denying women official combat positions and recognition?
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 21:26 |
|
|
Arabidopsis posted:3. Following on from #2, what are the implications for female POW's? It's only a matter of time before some get captured. I recognize men get tortured as well, but I worry about putting females into that position. I mean just look at what happens when you send a female journalist to a war zone - they are particularly vulnerable and it's pretty common for big-named journalists to experience horrific sexual abuse while covering these sorts of conflicts. It's terrible no matter who it happens to, but I don't really see why it's intrinsically worse for a woman to be tortured than a male. Men are sexually assaulted in captivity as well.
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 21:36 |
|
|
Fojar38 posted:It's terrible no matter who it happens to, but I don't really see why it's intrinsically worse for a woman to be tortured than a male. Men are sexually assaulted in captivity as well. Honestly the only way I can think of it being "worse" is from a PR perspective. The viewers at home (mother of god that's a sobering concept...) will not take a female soldier being tortured/mutilated very well at all.
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 21:41 |
|
|
I'm not sure if this is a good thing. I'm all for equality but the net effect of this is that more women are going to be maimed, violently killed or drove to suicide. This is pretty much the worst success.
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 21:54 |
|
|
This is sort of sudden, but I'm surprised at how surprised some of you are. I thought this was known to be in the works? When I went through MCT in June/July we participated in a study about the feasibility of women in combat. It involved a couple of tests: a dummy-drag with both you and the dummy in combat gear, lifting a mk 12 HMG (about 75lbs) over your head and a 20k hike (as opposed to the 15k normally done in MCT). Personally I think that organizational culture and attitudes will be the bigger obstacle than physical fitness though, especially in the Marine Corps.
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 21:55 |
|
|
Yep, the real concern here is how well the military will adjust. Hopefully more women in more roles means a stronger push for action against sexual violence. It sounds like the end of DADT went pretty smoothly, hopefully this will, too.
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 21:56 |
|
|
I assume the resistance to this will probably be based on the idea the 100% of the combat effectiveness of a soldier revolves around lifting heavy things.
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 21:59 |
|
|
Laterbase posted:I'm not sure if this is a good thing. I'm all for equality but the net effect of this is that more women are going to be maimed, violently killed or drove to suicide. This is pretty much the worst success. You have to take the bad and the good with equality. I'm not super thrilled about this either, but its better than "You can't do this because you have a vagina." Hopefully there will be some backwash into civilian society that helps promote the idea of male and female equality in home life/private sector work.
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 22:00 |
|
|
Hello Towel posted:This is my concern. It is a good step forward to allow women, but this is a problem that needs to be addressed before full equality is reached. Yeah that's worrying. In the short term, this could lead to an increase in assaults. I'd rather that instead of lifting a ban on women in combat, they instituted a ban on men. I can dream. 
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 22:00 |
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:I assume the resistance to this will probably be based on the idea the 100% of the combat effectiveness of a soldier revolves around lifting heavy things. I don't know there will be resistance. This has basically been dropped as an already-done thing, and the news is too saturated with other things for anyone to make any real headway making an issue of this. People complaining about it will simply be ignored.
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 22:02 |
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:I assume the resistance to this will probably be based on the idea the 100% of the combat effectiveness of a soldier revolves around lifting heavy things. The other one I hear alot is that women have special hygiene needs and therefore won't be as capable of serving on the frontlines where supplies are inconsistent and showers are nonexistent. It seems to ignore that I am pretty sure women service members are already put in these situations.
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 22:05 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:I don't know there will be resistance. This has basically been dropped as an already-done thing, and the news is too saturated with other things for anyone to make any real headway making an issue of this. People complaining about it will simply be ignored. It seems a bit early to say that this will make no waves.
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 22:08 |
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:It seems a bit early to say that this will make no waves. I could be wrong, but I just don't think there's any real chance of organized resistance. The military will do as it's told, and there's no chance of overturning it through legislative action. Where's the story going to come from? I'm sure right wing nutters will be talking about it but I don't see any way anyone else starts seriously discussing the opposition.
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 22:09 |
|
|
JoeCL posted:The other one I hear alot is that women have special hygiene needs and therefore won't be as capable of serving on the frontlines where supplies are inconsistent and showers are nonexistent. It seems to ignore that I am pretty sure women service members are already put in these situations.
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 22:11 |
|
|
If the joint chiefs are signing off on it whatever waves it makes won't really matter. Like yea I'm sure there are a few bubbas who are going to whine that those durn women will distract our fightin boys with their hot boobs or whatever, but there's not much that really can be done about it, so they'd have to know that all that will happen is they look like assholes when they complain.
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 22:12 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:I could be wrong, but I just don't think there's any real chance of organized resistance. The military will do as it's told, and there's no chance of overturning it through legislative action. Where's the story going to come from? I'm sure right wing nutters will be talking about it but I don't see any way anyone else starts seriously discussing the opposition. I agree there is probably nothing to stop it, but you also mentioned that it would lost in the news cycle, which is where I disagree. I think this will be a big topic, at least for a bit. But no, likely you can't stop it now, which is probably reason why it was a surprise. Zeitgueist fucked around with this message at Jan 23, 2013 around 22:18 |
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 22:13 |
|
|
Oh, if you just mean media waves sure, Hannity and whatever will have a little rant about Obama's PC thuggery and get some retired shitheads to go 'yea women totally can't handle combat', but that's not going to do anything. The people who are going to get all loud about this are the exact people we expect it from, so not like it's going to be a surprise.
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 22:15 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 12:03 |
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:To what extent are the physical requirements on the higher level combat courses geared towards things like upper body strength where the is a genuine sexual dimorphism even if doesn't necessarily reflect itself on combat ability? They have to train a lot more for it but most women should be capable of acquiring enough upper body strength to be able to handle just about any combat role. You can double or triple your strength with enough training, it's just that this process would basically be a requirement for a woman if she wants to say be able to drag a 200lbs injured soldier to safety, whereas most men would be able to do that without needing much additional training.
|
| # ? Jan 23, 2013 22:19 |
|
