Military to open combat jobs to women
By Chris Lawrence, with reporting from Barbara Starr
[Updated at 9:30 p.m. ET] 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, multiple officials told CNN on Wednesday.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will make the announcement Thursday and notify Congress of the planned change in policy, the officials said.
"We will eliminate the policy of 'no women in units that are tasked with direct combat,'" a senior defense official said.
The officials cautioned, however, 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 its jobs and units not currently integrated and then produce a timetable for integrating them.
Go to CNN's iReport to share your thoughts on women in combat
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 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 a while 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 explained. Panetta is setting the goal of January 2016 for all assessments to be complete and women to be 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 said 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 said the goal remains to open as many jobs as possible. "We should open all specialties to the maximum extent possible to women. We know they can do it."
CNN readers skirmish over women in battle
Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican who spent six years as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War, said he supports lifting the ban on women serving in combat, pointing out women are already serving in harm's way. But he said the move should not fundamentally change the military.
"As this new rule is implemented, it is critical that we maintain the same high standards that have made the American military the most feared and admired fighting force in the world - particularly the rigorous physical standards for our elite special forces units," McCain said in a statement.
By the numbers: Women in the U.S. military
Thousands of women in the military have already found themselves in combat situations, said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington. Recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan have lacked a real front line, and women serving there have come under fire and had to fight back alongside male counterparts, she said.
Murray, who leads the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee and is a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, called Panetta's decision a "historic step for equality" that recognizes the role women play in the military.
The Pentagon must notify Congress of each job or unit as it is sent up to the secretary to be opened to women. 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 the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. 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 versus 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 said 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 receiving training and recognition for their work. The plaintiffs, who include women awarded Purple Hearts, say the exclusion places them at a disadvantage for promotion.
Former troops say time has come for women in combat units
The ACLU said it is thrilled about Panetta's planned announcement.
"But we welcome this statement with cautious optimism, as we hope that it will be implemented fairly and quickly so that servicewomen can receive the same recognition for their service as their male counterparts," Ariela Migdal, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Women's Rights Project, said in the statement.
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.
@natlsecuritycnn on Twitter
Yea, I know, women can pull a trigger just like a man. Put a 60 pound pack on her back and keep up with the boys in the field and lets see what happens! i DO NOT WANT TO SEE PHYSICAL FITNESS STANDARDS LOWERED EITHER!
True, but it's about much more than that. It's about the feminization of our society. Should men stay home and send their wives and daughters to fight and die for their safety and freedom? Even pagan societies know better than that. We are a completely confused and lost society. When I was a child I was proud to be an American, but now I'm embarrassed and ashamed because of what the damn Democrats have done to destroy us. They are evil, vile criminals. The Founding Fathers started the American revolution over a vastly lesser infringement by the English crown on freedom and right than what the Democrats are doing today.
Women
in
COMBAT
MWA HHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
i think
i just
sh........
my pants
Women have been flying combat aircraft "in units that are tasked with direct combat" for years. Martha McSally is a retired United States Air Force colonel. She was the first American woman to fly in combat since the 1991 lifting of the prohibition of women in combat, flying the A-10 over Iraq and Kuwait. Major Kim Reed-Campbell is an officer and Senior Pilot in the U.S. Air Force. She was decorated for piloting her A-10 Thunderbolt II back to base in southern Iraq after taking heavy anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) damage in aerial combat over Baghdad during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. Those are 2 examples of women in units with direct combat rolls. Woman dropping bombs and pulling triggers. This story is behind the times.
women
in
combat
this
gotta
be
a
joke
it is a very Good JOKE
however
MWA HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
can t stop laughing
w0men are ........... stoopid
Yet, history provides us with examples of warrior women far superior and capable than any male.
I highly doubt this will include integration into infantry or special operations roles, but I'm glad to see they have broadened the lines none the less. Now they need to make their physical standards the same as men, it's only fair.
Um, it sure seems that way to me. I think we all need to stop our wishful thinking and be honest about ourselves about who Obama really is... and it sure doesn't look like an American.
Ahhh!
Oh MY G0D , my hair got ruined
my nails are broken
i wanna wear HEELS not BOYISH B00TS
MWa hahahahahahahaha
she pulled my hair first
I don't want my daughter in combat–they act like it is a privilege–too many children have already died for these wars based on lies. Definitely do NOT think girls should be in combat–but since they want to be "equal" (physically women will NEVER be equal to a man) I guess this is part of it. How tragic.
If the only excuse you can come up with is that women are physically weaker than men you dont have a leg to stand on to keep them from the front line.
Do you even know anything about combat? Obviously not. Physical strength and endurance is extraordinarily important in combat. What is the average woman going to do when the 200lb guy next to her takes a bullet in the chest and needs to be dragged 200m to shelter? Stop posting such uninformed and biased garbage.
@vet Im posting biased garbage while you are thinking women are weak and while under stress cant perform the same a man can wow hello pot meet kettle.
No, Krisagi does not know anything about combat. She (or he) probably only knows about how to acquire and illegal drugs and get stoned out of her (or his) mind.
Make no mistake. This came from the top (i.e., Obama). Obama is either intentionally trying to destroy this country or he is a complete and total imbecile who is merely good at parroting the words given to him by those who control Hollywood (i.e., intelligence on the level of Susan Sarandon, whose mother even thinks she's a liberal idiot). And if you notice, this came AFTER the election and inauguration, and THAT was NO accident. I really think we should impeach Obama immediately, remove him from office, subpoena his true birth records and college transcripts and find out where he's really from because he CAN'T be a true American citizen. And don't anyone DARE call me a birther. I'm an American and Obama's citizenship is what's really questionable here... actually, I think it's doubtful.
Krisagi, you need to SHUT UP NOW because you know absolutely NOTHING... you're an idiot. You got that?!?!
You are very correct. Women are no less apt to believe the lies that lead up to a war than men are. They might be even more gullible in that regard. Need more "men" in time of war? Hey, problem solved.
Sorry Krisagi but until the physical fitness tests and the standards for success are the same as the men's, women will never be successful in a combat role. I agree that combat jobs should be open to women but if the standard is 77 push ups, 85 sit ups, 10 pull ups, 2 mile run in 13:00 minutes, 5 mile run in 40 minutes and a 12 mile ruck march with a 55lb pack in under 3 hours for the men, then it needs to be the same for the females. Right now a woman is only required to do 42 push ups, 82 sit ups, 1 pull up, a 15:16 2 mile run, and a 12 mile ruck march with 35lb pack in under 3 hours in order to max out her physical standards. No woman will never earn the respect of the men if she's not required to go through the same gauntlet. When it comes to the front line jobs you either carry your weight or you don't and if you can't then you need to go somewhere else. My major worry is that the commanders will see that and in their effort to make it fair they just end up lowering the men's standards and that is the wrong answer
@JustaGuy, define "success"? I knew a female E4 mechanic that stayed under the First Sergeant's boots all day long. She never had to turn a wrench, got promoted quickly and the 1SGT always had a big smile on his face.
A 60 lbl ruck is a training ruck; 80-115 lbl is reality. I don't have an issue with women in a combat role if they can perform, but the physical standard must not change just so someone can feel good about receiving a badge/designation. I spent 6 years as an infantry scout, and I believe a women could easily handle the mental side of that job; I have never met one that could perform the physical side of the job. I'm not saying 'Rudy' doesn't exist; just that the standard should not change.
Ann and Lou. YOU are a birther.
JustAguy, did you pull those numbers out of your ass? I believe so.
RobertUSMC, there's a shock, a Jarhead that can't use a simple google search to do a minor research. The numbers I put up for men are the Ranger School standards. Now the standards posted by the US Army for that school are the minimum to be allowed entrance but to anyone that has been to that school you know that if you don't get anything less than a 300 you're getting dropped. Since the claim is that women can't be promoted because they can't fill combat roles, then I assume it is Ranger school that they want since every combat officer in the Army is required to be a grad. The numbers I pulled for the women are from the Air Assault School standards and the Army PFT Max scores for the hardest age group. Air Assault school is the closest thing to a combat line school that women currently go to.
This whole internet thing isn't hare dude...
they
gonna
get
k...lled
the TAL IBAN are laughing
You do realize we have a volunteer army right? If you do not wish to join, don't. If your kid, daughter or son, wishes to actually contribute to thier country rather than only complain, be glad that they have the equality of choice in where they serve.
Now they had better start drafting women in to war to get torn in to bits, along with the men, when the next draft occurs.
Which will be never.
In WWII they were very close to drafting women, and the general public was in support of it.
It depends on the position, I don't know any female who isn't nuts who'd want to be in a tank crew, but that was traditionally a male-only MOS, due to the fact that one is in close, confined quarters with each other for a long period of time. Everyone is trained to be a soldier with the basics of ground combat in the same way, at least in the Army which I am most familiar with.
"In WWII they were very close to drafting women" Not true. US has never planned to draft women because someone had to work in factories. USSR drafted some women because they were running out of cannon fodder.
As a woman, I can say that I don't like this idea. first of all, I work what is considered a "man's job." I do heavy lifting, heavy labor and have found myself in an industry dominated by men. I am the only female on my shift. I am able to do my job, but I would be lying if I said that I didn't have limitations. I have days when I have to work a lot harder, and sometimes, I even have to call my male coworkers for help. For some women, this may not be a problem. Kudos to you. All I can say, is realize that your body is made differently. You will have to work harder at some things. But is it impossible? Of course not. I am all about equality, but when human lives are at stake..you are playing in a new kind of ball game.. you are in a game where the balls explode.. On another note, I could never do it simply because I hate violence and guns. I disagree with unneccessary wars..(which seem to be most of them these days) ..Well, those are my thoughts ..
Then dont volunteer to join the military and pick a combat arms MOS. Stay in the kitchen baking cookies where your self imposed 2nd class citizenship can be protected by people who actually give a crap about the country.
BUSTED. You're not a woman, you're a TROLL of a man. Dude,you're arguement is tailor-made for the anti-woman in combat crowd. So you really have to stop and ask for "help" on your "heavy lifting" job??? I'd say be a man, but you're clearly ok being a female "impersonator". YA BEEN BUSTED, DUDE!!!!!!!!!!
You utter fo o l !! I reread your post. You said "You will have to work harder at things." Who is the "you" in your statement. You tard, you forgot you were impersonating a woman halfway through your piggish little post. Anything else you'd like to share with the class, may we call you "Mary?"
I thought women were already being used in combat. I guess I've been on Mars for the past 30 years.
Only in Canada, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, China, Thailand, Denmark, Germany, Ireland...you know, countries that believe in equality. Not some antiquated concept of chivalry.
Most of the comments left on this article are retarded and clearly not written by any one that has served in the last two decades. There are no front lines. We fight asymmetrical wars now. Chicks were in combat as military police, transportation, ordnance, medics etc during both Iraq and Afghanistan. Military police for instance serve much the same role as Infantry but are considered combat support and not combat arms so women have been allowed to serve in that role for years. This might open up a couple of MOSes but don't act like women in combat is anything new!
The key issues of this being a negative is the social issues, the fraternization which always happens no matter what rules are in place. This is not the one night stand but the long term relationships which do impact on the moral and spirit of the unit.
Fraternization being one of the major issues in non combat units as it fuels jealousy, anger, nepotism and other social ills.
The other major issue that the military does not deal with properly is the children of husband and wife military teams. Not only do the military members both leave their family responsibility while overseas but the effects of combat on a mother and father are far worse to a family if both are serving in front line duties.
Finally having been in the military ( a combat unit ) and knowing that the physical requirements are a challenge it always makes me wonder about the social impacts on women being in a team that is predominantly male. That has its challenges, and seeing these obvious challenges in non combat units I can say more work needs to be done to make this work.
Support for families, education within the military, both for women and men and stricter regulations on etiquette and fraternization. It alway fascinates me when some military members have no problem with integration from a progressive side but seem to act like children once women are assigned to a unit. You want progression, equal opportunity then stop treating women in the army like girls and treat them like professionals and it goes both ways, women have to be a part of the unit and not look at the men as opportunity.
Here lies the problem though, the above is impossible, we know it.
At the end the issues is far more a social one than a physical one.
"Panetta is setting the goal of January 2016 for all assessments to be complete and women to be integrated as much as possible."
I think they are aware of what you are saying. This is going to take years and different situations will call for different solutions. One solution may well be that certain jobs stay closed. At least for now, until we can figure out a way to resolve the hormone issues. Perhaps its time to go back to Saltpeter in the rations? Anyway, families have been destroyed at an amazing pace for generations and we are already dealing with two parent deployments now. A lot of this stuff is already going on in ways that are indistinguishable from a lot of the future integration.
Why not?... our shooting wars are over... for the time being.
Put Hillary Clinton on the group troops since she is one of the nasty bull dvkes of all time.
Im all for equal rights, but this im on the fence about. I have 6 combat deployements under me within the USMC infantry and I'll tell you this, if a young 20 year old is having a hard time running from building to building carring a full combat load in a 120 degree weather then how is a woman of lower body weight and strength going to do it? Honestly..how? The middle of a firefight that could get some ppl killed. Women are just as smart as men (smarter then alot too), just as brave and deticated. But the the fact is that a majority of women can do the same exact things as the male counterparts with all the same rules applying. Why do you think that there is a diffrence in a PFT between men and women. Our bodys are built diffrently. You have to honor that. Now should a woman be able to do those very same things..she honestly should be givin the chance. At that point shes already proven herself and im up for it. Bring on GI Jane
She won't be able to and she won't qualify to perform the duties of Marine infantrymen. Just like a weak guy has no business there either. The criteria will be (should be, anyway) gender neutral–based on capabilities. Women typically won't qualify, but some will, and they'll be exceptions for sure. I agree–if you have to carry their load, they have no business doing the job, be they men or women.
The army is in the planning phase for MOS specific PT tests. I'm curious if that is in response to this.
Congrats to all the lezbos out there, now they can be more macho, their fantasies have just come true.
Now they can be like the close gays who need shoot guns to hide the fact that they are gay.
that was a step backwards. we need to get men out, not women in. sheesh you guys...you are so brainwashed in patriarchy its crazy stupid.
So now we have to wonder how many chicks will get knocked up to avoid deployment. This medic I deoloyed with..twice had to do back to back deployments..because his replacement magically got pregnant..just before deployment. He lost his wife and ate a bullet. But hey were all equal!!
You've got a point...sadly. I certainly don't think ALL females do that, but I know there are definitely plenty who do.
Steve I think that is the most, truthful statement. I know a female now who planned on getting pregnant to avoid deploying. With change in policy should come new standards and expectations.
My daughter was placed on mandatory birth control for a duty assignment–if she wanted that job, she had to be on long term bc. She wanted the assignment.
How many wome does it take to kill a Taliban? Zero, they cant make the ruck march into combat
Most of the comments left on this article are retarded and clearly not written by any one that has served in the last two decades. There are no front lines. We fight asymmetrical wars now. Chicks were in combat as military police, transportation, ordnance, medics etc during both Iraq and Afghanistan. Military police for instance serve much the same role as Infantry but are considered combat support and not combat arms so women have been allowed to serve in that role for years. This might open up a couple of MOSes but don't act like women in combat is anything new!
cool for them now let them register for the draft just like us men only fare
Well, as long as it's "fare" and not "fair," Larry– I'm thinking you're talking about food here– I'll allow it.
How does some women volunteering for combat have ANYTHING to do with forcing all girls to register for a draft? You are just eating too many sour grapes. Its addled your brain.
[Updated at 9:30 p.m. ET] The U.S. military is ending its policy of excluding toddlers from combat and will open combat jobs and direct combat units to children under 4, multiple officials told CNN on Wednesday.
It would be nice to have a female armor crewman in my Abrams 😉
Stupid idea period...maybe it's nice to look at on paper, but it will simply not work. I am in an active duty combat unit (Army) and have deployed with women attached in the past and unfortunately they proved to be a huge distraction and as cliche as it sounds, they ended up getting pregnant, sleeping around, and affecting morale. I'm not saying at all that it was the women's fault (or sole fault), but they create temptation in an arena that requires 100% focus at the tasks at hand. The consequences in combat roles often lead to dire results.
So, what you're saying is that men should be removed from combat? If men get distracted so easily and their morale can't handle having women around, they are simply too weak for combat. It's surprising to hear this from a man like you, but I guess since you;re in combat, you know better than a lot of people. Do you think they will phase men out or just remove all of them at once?
I think women have the power to give life, we men don't. They should remain the side that is reluctant to battle, to take life. Not everything in modern times has to change, not every tradition, every gender role is borne of discrimination or devoid reason and purpose. This is sad development.
I concur with Steven. If they are segregated it may be okay but putting them together is bad mojo. Think of it – eve of a patrol and the chick or two sleep with some of the guys but not you. Now you are on patrol, thinking about that and not the job. Anything less than 100% focus can get a lot of people killed. Sorry but distraction is a fact and needs to be addressed before politicians tell the brass that they know best.
Hey Feminists! How about registering for Selective Service?..... (I hear crickets).....
TONS of women register. It's a point of pride to do so. Where on Earth have you been? The crickets must be in your brain.
You have to be kidding. You seriously don't know any women who have registered for Selective Service? It's extremely common. You don't *have* to register if you're a girl, but you have never been banned from doing so. There are a lot of girls who register when they turn 18 because the boys they know register and they want to be equal. Maybe you should pick up a book or go outside and talk to people?
AAAAAAAAAAA your mother wears combat boots!
When joining a combat related MOS it is mostly about strength and endurance. So women should have to register for
all male standards including body fat percentage, shave their heads in boot camp, no maternity leave, no special accommodations including rooms, hygiene, equipment load outs, ect. Look we already know how it will play out. Jessica Lynch saw combat and milked the media. She has a book and a lifetime movie. But what about the other men and women that fought by her side and lived or died? Those are true soldiers. They did their job and didn't seek out fame and fortune. Matter of fact I don't know of a single person besides her that got a movie and book deal from their time in the war.When joining a combat related MOS it is mostly about strength and endurance. So women should have to register for
all male standards including body fat percentage, shave their heads in boot camp, no maternity leave, no special accommodations including rooms, hygiene, equipment load outs, ect. Look we already know how it will play out. Jessica Lynch saw combat and milked the media. She has a book and a lifetime movie. But what about the other men and women that fought by her side and lived or died? Those are true soldiers. They did their job and didn't seek out fame and fortune. Matter of fact I don't know of a single person besides her that got a movie and book deal from their time in the war.
Expect standards to be lowered. There will be quotas to fill because once it gets in writing, the Defense department will have to show they are making progress.
It will be hard to fathomed a female in the infantry units I think they could make it initially but in units dealing with 25 mile road marches, 3 weeks in the field and a week in garrison seems it will break a girl down. This sounds good but there should be no special accomodations for them. These units do these things for morale, discipline, and esprit de corps and these elements should not change for no one. I served with an infantry unit for six and transportation for eight and there is a big difference in men excluding women in these jobs, so I know it will be too much for someone who would need to shower at least once a week. We had to make our own arrangement for cleanliness and they would to in the same time given....
Awww, the men are all scawed. It's ok, the ladies won't be too hard on you. You can keep your little standards for now. Eventually the women will likely push the standards up, though. Women tend to be in better health, are more flexible and exercise more. Maybe you should start preparing for higher standards now before you find yourself phased out.
Women have fought for many countries, in many wars. 10-20% of Soviet forces in WW2, for example, were women. They drove T-34s, manned artillery and anti-aircraft guns, acted as snipers, machine gunners, and pilots. About 25% of the women who served ended up being decorated. War is a horrible thing, and horrible things happen to participants on all sides, regardless of gender. If you believe in the cause you are fighting for, and are capable of performing the duty, gender should not matter, and has proven to not matter many times and many places throughout history.
True, but if you did your homework you would find that many women in the soviet army were treated like second class citizens. They were there to fill a role, it was not equality.
In africa eritrea fought with a nearly 50% female army against ethiopa and the usa and won their independance. So it is possible. I just don't feel that every woman would be ok for war fare uless there is no other option. Like myself for instance i know it would seriously mess me up. I cannot even sit through some fictional horror films or some shows about crime on discovery channels. But i guess the same can be said for men.... I just hope we don't have to go through a draft again.. Knocks on wood
No doubt women can fight in wars and the reason behind this move is for officer rank. But the soviet ww2 example depicts an invasion, the others are also serious need situations. The US has for many decades sent soldiers abroad to fight "in defense" of our way of life. This is why the citizens tend to get upset with these wars. It will now be faster as the citizens watch young women as well as men come home in body bags, with 1/2 their faces blown apart, missing arms and legs. Although I know many women are capable of doing the job, I suspect its the officers who are looking for combat experience that will get the greatest benefit while the majority of the less fortunate enlisted pay the price.
New MOS: Combat Blo wJob Specialist.
LMAO! Sign me up for that combat any day..... With a hottie of course
Okay -another try at ANYTHING other than concentrating on fixing this economy. Taxing the "rich" isn't going to do it, even at a 200% tax. This topic is just another DIVERSION to get america divided and not watching the next $35Billion increase in China trade deficit this next month or the several thousand more jobs being outsourced, or gathering information on the hundreds of thousands of jobs outsourced that our graduating college seniors should be taking, as the IRS continues to allow those expenses for outsourcing to be tax deductible, shirking US payroll taxes, local, state, and federal income tax as well.
Its also really interesting how this hits the media, just as the gun ban talks run out of gasoline. Why are we wasting our time on any of these laws that are trying to "fix" something that isn't broken. It's our ECONOMY that is broken, largely due to corporations given tax breaks and being allowed to deduct expenses of outsourcing jobs. It's our ECONOMY that is broken, largely due to corporations given billions of tax dollars in federal contracts and being allowed to deduct expenses of outsourcing jobs. Its about having unfair trade policies with China and no protection to the US economy, while the US treasury prints another wheelbarrow of money to buy bread with. Good diversion folks !!!!
No wonder they call ours a sick society with all these ignoramuses here praising these trigger-happy, blood thirsty broads. This is truly disgusting!
How many blonds does it take to change a light bulb? In combat?
What a sickening scenario this is! These blood thirsty broads must really be happy now that they have an opportunity to prove that they can slaughter as many people as men can! Nobody should put killing people on their priority list. There is neither glory nor honor in it!
Right.. Because we're just slaughtering people like Stalin's Russia or something. You obviously have no idea how the military or the world works. There are people out there who would not hesitate to put a bullet through your head if given the chance, the least you could do is show these men and women some respect because they volunteer to put themselves between you and those bad guys. Don't feel special though because they ain't doing it for you, they're doing it because 1.) Who will step up if they don't? People like John Geheran? (That's rhetorical) and 2.) They're doing it for their battle-buddies, friends, family, etc.. i.e. People who care.
Wow. Our country is going to let women in the infantry JUST SO they can have the same opportunity for promotions!? I would think the only reason for wanting to go to war would be to defend our country the best we can, not so a handful of military career females can get promotions. Sad reading through all these comments & so many think this is a good idea. Attempting to exclude women from combat & keeping them out of the infantry was a privilege. So sad so many women can't see this. What's next?! Requiring 18 yr old girls to sign up for selective service?! Why don't we get rid of domestic violence laws that cater to women next? When will you feminists realize that you are not creating "equality," you are just destroying femininity and creating a bunch of men who are going to see nothing wrong with beating up women & expecting them to perform jobs most of us are physically incapable of doing.
You are more than your v agina. Step away from the kool aid.
Why is it that the same feminists that want to send women to war with an AR-15 are completely against the same woman returning home to have an AR-15 to protect her home and family ?
The US Military does not use AR-15s. They use M-4 Carbines, M16A2s, M-249s, and M-40s.
Giving women more choice over their own destinies is kind of the definition of feminism. Not all women are going to jump into combat. I won't be there. I have no in interest in the military and never have. But, someone who loves it and wants to do her best in the military and progress as far as she can should have the choice of being in a combat role. Otherwise, what is the U.S. even fighting for? For people to be subjugated and defined by their genders? Or, for a free society in which anyone can try their best and succeed at what they love due to their own hard work?
Great, a whole new demographic can now kill and be killed while protecting our strategic interests overseas. Yay progress!
Ok, I'm artillery, and my job requires me to move 100 pound rounds very quickly. Im not sayin females can't keep up, but im sure that 90% would be struggling. On the other hand, that 5 or 10 percent would prolly whoop my a$s
I play pick up basketball and do a basic amount of physical exercise. I'm 165 pounds, less than 1% of women can lift what I can.
I agree there's a lot of other issues at stake, but if it's purely one of physical fitness, I have passed men on their PT test (while 5 months pregnant), worked 30 hour shifts until the day I gave birth, then went back to work a week later (voluntarily, to finish my training). Just because you have balls, doesn't automatically make you more physically fit. Don't lower the expectations and those that can rise to meet it, will.
5 months pregnant and doing a PFT? Ya right docs would not let you. Does it matter if you run faster? No it doesn't. Can you throw a 200 lbs male on your back firemans carry for 60+ yards without stopping or dropping him? I bet not. The fact is that your not naturally as strong. I worked out 4 hours a day 7 days a week in the Marines just to stay in shape and keep battle readiness. How long will it take a female just to reach my strength BEFORE boot camp?
Didn't say I was doing a PFT. I was doing a practice PT test while the rest of the group was doing a real PT test and I passed them during the run. And as a doc, I have had quite a few patients run full marathons at 8 months plus pregnant. Didn't say I was personally a body builder, but I have seen plenty of women who could do what you suggest. I have also seen plenty of men who can't and come running for a profile before every PT test. Not saying there are a lot of women out there who can do it, but if there are those that can do it and you are basing your argument purely on the physically able aspect, then your argument is moot. As I said before, there a lot of other social issues obviously that aren't as straight forward as whether a female can meet -the standards or not, which I agree with you, should not be lowered to accomodate.
I know for a fact you didnt out PT men in a combat unit, most likely you pass men in your own POG unit.
Air Force (AFDoc) I am assuming, which means different standards.
I've seen some PT studs in the Air Force, but I've seen some weak sauce just the same.
Done plenty of sick call to know there is enough weak sauce in all the branches to go around. 😛 You all have a good night and keep fighting the good fight no matter if on the front lines or in a support role.
For the combat positions they need to keep the standards equal. As AFdoc says, there will be a few women that can and will rise to the standard. As for the women who don't physically qualify, there's other jobs, just like for the men who don't physically qualify for these positions either (because there are lot who do not).
Women have been in combat roles throughout history. Boudica Burnt Roman London and backed a battle hardened Legion into a corner. The Romans due to better equipment was able to pull off a long hold battle against many times their numbers. Even into the founding of this country Women in Limited known and many more unsung roles through into civil war and even our modern wars have been part of them. A Enemy does not care what gender you are nor does the weapon they come to kill you with. If they choose to fight I say I let them as long as the standards are equally met. I know many women who can keep up or out do many well fit male counterparts. Bravo to Women to an end to the last tatters of dark ages mentalities
Funny in all the war footage of us soldiers Veitnam Korea WWll I only have ever seen men fighting didnt see any fighting women in the war footage.
You really think a front nurse did not fire a gun? Or use a knife on a enemy if attacked. Threw a grenade? How about the other side? Women did fight. Lastly it was not as "pc" to show this type of footage just as in earlier wars non-white ethnic groups received limited attention. We are ONE PLANET! ONE PEOPLE! ONE PROBLEM!
My point is there no women on the front lines any any of the wars (seems like a dangerous experiment) I mean could you imagine General Patton with a bunch of women Im sure man is rolling over in his grave with this news.
The Vietcong used women in infantry all the time. And if I recall correctly, they won.
My Aunt was a nurse in Viet Nam. She never fired a weapon, threw a grenade, or saw the frontline. Male docs were on the front line and brought patients back. She wasn't even issued a weapon. Research before you talk on subjects that require knowledge.
Using the small amount of heroic women from tales from the Roman and Medival times is no way to argue a point as 1. They are the exception not the rule and 2 often these stories have been manipulated through time to fit a fictional character. The reality was often very diffrenent
When asked why she didn't provide immediate supporting fire for her platoon mates, Crp. Leslie reported that her nail polish had yet to dry...
I feel sorry for these women if they ever become a prisoner of war they will be treated differently then men.(not in a good way) No ACLU over there to protect your rights
i have an opinion about women in combat roles but it doesn't really matter. Neither should the Presidents or his secretaries opinions matter,not even the genreals or admirals opinions. The only peoples opinions who do matter are the current combat troops. If they don't want them-think it will be detremental then they (women) shouldn't be allowed in.
Sorry the military isn't a democracy and it isn't likely that it ever will be one. The generals and admirals will always be the ones who make the call.
IT will be hard to kill the enemy if your trying to protect your sisters on the front line .
WORD
Then you do not belong in the armed forces. Your sister probably shoots better anyway.
So we're supposed to leave our brothers behind in battle and have him shot to pieces?
This is my point exactly. Look women are complaining about not being in combat. They always find something to complain about. Why aren't women fighting to work in the oil field as a rough neck? Oh that's right because they physically can't do the work. So they think being on the front line is easier? Just create a new armed forces for just the gays and women infantry. Their flg can be rainbow colored with a unicorn as their mascot.
Please tell me this is an early April Fools.
OK.
Your post is an early April Fools.
Feel better?
this is a bad idea not jut for the fact of what can or could happen to them but the Divorce rate will deffently go up higher then is already is in the military .....
I guess my traditionalist values are dated , but this is sad. What ever happened to the soft gentle creatures that women should be? What happened to welcoming the boys back from war with loving caring arms? To heal them from the horrors they see over there?
POW are fragile when they come home and need lots and lots of therapy, I can only imagine the things a female POW would and will go through in the darkest parts of my mind the horror of it is to much to bare.
I wish this country could go back to mothers at home teaching their children morals and how to be civil members of society. Making dinner for the family to eat at a table together and talk about their day. Not raped and Got knows what else in war. I mean in an ideal world their will be no war, but this is not an ideal world so until peace is established why can women just be women why do we always have to try and do what the boys do?
'What ever happened to the soft gentle creatures that women should be?'
They never existed.
I guess I remember my grandmothers and great grandmothers before they passed and how sweet and gentle they where as well as the stories of their mothers whom I did not know as well as my own mother who is such a sweet hearted woman.
I had sweet grandmothers as well and gentle grandfathers. My grandfathers fought in WWII yet were quite warm and gentle in their ways. My grandmothers were farm women and were tough as nails and could shoot better than the men (who were quite good themselves) yet were as loving and warm as any granny you would ever want to have....
Women have always been tough. They have always had to be. It is not a fair and easy world.
Oppression & sufferage does not a soft & gentle creature make. We have always been strong – we put up with much as we are more prone to pick & choose those battles which will win us the war – for the long term goals – not to stroke our egos or be egged on by our fellows. You have just been brought up with a male dominant mindset. A female tribal elder of a Nat Am tribe whose warriors were hand picked by the women was asked what she thought of the Asian habit of women walking 2 steps behind thier men replied, "The only reason I'd walk 2 steps behind a man is to kick him in his @ss."
Delusion much?!...
Wow. you sure do expect a lot from women. Be my therapist, my cook, my nanny, and my maid. While you do what, exactly?
I am a female and like I said..this topic is just something that I become quite a hypocrite on. I just am charmed by the idea of the clever mom. I do not mean to say women cannot do the job the men do I just feel like it's not a place for them / us.
Women can be just as brutal as men, often more so. If guys can risk being permanently injured, why can’t the women?
Some of these crybabies complaining about women fighters should google Boudica and see just how bad@ss we can be when provoked or have cause to fight for our freedom & country. They would do well to remember that those who bring forth life also have the same capacity to take it if need be.
You can not use historical figures from Roman times to promote this. They were the exception not the rule and many stories have been manipulated.
Women soldiers should be forced to fill in the front lines, and bare their breasts when they advance on enemy troops. They would provide an excellent distraction prior to being gunned down, and their bullet-riddled, semi-nude bodies would continue to be a distraction if used as a shield by the male soldiers behind them. Amen.
Funny : )
If there is one thing I know, it's that women are a distraction : ) my grades are a good example of my need to constantly indulge into passionate love making. I also am a slave to confectionaries too. Ahhh it feels good to finally tell the truth!
I LOVE WOMEN AND CHOCOLATE
I see a lot of comments suggesting that women should – or will – be required to register for Selective Service eventually. I don't see that happening simply because it would be too expensive to draft and then SCREEN the women (since the vast majority of women wouldn't have the physical strength). Why draft and then have to reject maybe 95% of those drafted? It's simple statistics. Actuallly... nevermind. I lost my head for a second there... since when does the government care about wasting money? My bad.
Ummm you realize the VAST majority of people in the military are not in direct combat fields right? Seriously it's about 90% of the military that are in support billets. By drafting women they could fill PLENTY of the needed support roles if they can't make the infantry, artillery et al requirements.
The answer to your first question is t its. And in response to your closing assertion, you're right. Your bad.
I'm in the Air Force and it didn't take a lot of 'physical strength' to get through OTS or pilot training... I am totally classify myself as a girly-girl, and am by no means a workout fiend, and the first time I had ever gone camping was courtesy of Uncle Sam when the USAF sent me to SERE school (which was by far the toughest thing I ever had to do, and it only lasted a few weeks).
Virtually any woman that doesn't have an injury or disqualifying condition can easily be fit enough to run 1.5 miles in 16.5 minutes, do 18 push ups and 38 situps – the minimum standards for the USAF physical fitness test.
We aren't talking Navy Seal or Army Ranger standards here...
most combat jobs are in the army. Run standards for my age group(21 yo male) is 15:54 for 2 miles. keep up with that.....
ViperChick,
Minimum Standards for a Male in the Military (Age 17-21) is 42 Push-Ups in 2 minutes, 53 Sit-ups in 2 minutes, and a 2-mile run in 15:54; (Age 22-26) 40; 50; 1636 – But it is harder to max as well) That Minimum will earn you a score of 180 out of a possible 300.
You ask leaders (NCO's and Officers) in Combat Units such as Infantry or Cavalry, this score is completely unacceptable and will cause you to be in a remedial PT program. Most Expect a Score of at least 250 (And that is being generously low).
I am not saying that women can't do it. I've seen women who can. What I am saying is there needs to be an equal standard that doesn't involve lowering current standards. This doesn't take into account other factors such as kit, pack, or wounded comrades.
Current Females Minimum Score:
(17-21) 19/53/18:54
(22-26) 17/50/19:36
Apologies, those are the Army Standards. Should have clarified that.
I realize that the minimum PFT standards are going to be a lot lower than the minimum standard for a lot of the combat roles. Just replying to a post that said 95% of women wouldn't be able to qualify for military service. Probably the same percentage of women qualify for military service as men do, now to qualify for infantry or special forces is a whole different deal. I would suspect, barring injury or illness (that would be disqualifying in and of itself), the majority of women in the 18-25 age group should be able to get into the shape required to pass an Air Force or Army physical fitness test.
Also, while I speak as a female in the military, I do realize I have one of the more cush jobs in the military. Unlike infantry, it doesn't take a whole lot of physical strength to fly a plane. I personally wouldn't be able to make the cut for many of those jobs. However, women aren't too weak for military service (as been proven by many females currently serving), and some can and will rise to the standards for the combat roles, if given the chance.
Being an F-16 pilot, I have to deal with quite a bit of people who do not think I belong in that role, so I'm sensitive to the argument here. Many men and women aren't cut out to be fighter pilots, as is the fact that many men and women aren't cut out for front line combat (albeit, usually for different reasons).
As a pilot in the AF you must also be aware then that your physical size and weight play a role in even what aircraft you are even allowed to fly. I'd bet you are a cargo or tanker pilot? There are also height and weight minimums and maximums for the various combat jets. Many women and even some men don't even meet the physical requirements of the ejection seats. That requirement alone would eliminate many women from being combat pilots.
dang thats it for the standard in AF?? i can do that in my sleep....zzzzzzz
If you are a female veteran, female wife of a veteran, the best reintegration program is run by Sunergos, go to Sunergosllc.com and look up Leading with Resilincy and Grace. It fills what is missing in post service offerings which are usually mental health or job fairs. This deals with the real life issues of coming back to a new world and the emotional transition necessary to be a complete and whole new woman in a changed environament and then to lead and integrate. You can speak to women who have gone through the program, breakthrough for them....
This is fine as long as they don't lower the bar for "sensitivity" or "equality" reasons. Equality means equal it doesn't mean two separate set of requirements; that's called UNEQUAL. As a veteran I just hope the military of the future is as well-trained and effective, I kind of fear a day where boot camp is less about PT and marksmanship and more about sensitivity training seminars and stress cards.
Also if this is the case women should be required to register with Selective Service as well (not that I think we'll ever have a draft again barring World War III they've invaded the US already scenario because it's absolute political suicide) because equal rights means EQUAL. Not "we want all the benefits but don't want these drawbacks."
Who is it that has refused? You're all upset that women might not register, and it's for absolutely no reason. A lot of girls register already. Get a life.
That is what it is headed to!! Technology will have to catch up so we will not have to send ground troops and we can get the enemy all the the time while in the States before this ideology could be successful!! Women are great in the military, because they bring diversity thinking to the table. But in combative units too much thinking will get you killed!!!
Lenin was trying to create an orangutan-human soldier. I think we are making progress!
what are you talking about? We've already got colored regiments.
After reading through these comments I'm left scratching my head. I can't understand how blind we are to history. One hundred years ago women couldn't vote. Why? Because women can't make decisions, they're too inferior to make the right call. Too emotional. Look at us today, with all these congresswomen and female senators who we've voted into decision making positions. Sixty years ago African American men couldn't serve along side their Caucasian counterparts because somehow the color of their skin made them inferior. We look back on this and think, "well it was different back then, they didn't think like us." Somehow being a woman makes them less physically able to carry an 80 lb ruck sack. If someone goes through combat training and comes out on the other side a "soldier" we shouldn't care who they are, where they come from, what color skin they have, who they love, or what's between their legs. We should trust the training and the person to our left and the person to our right. I fear that a hundred years from now people look back on us as a culture and are disappointed because after 237 years of being "free," after the likes of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, we still can't grasp the idea of Equality.
Downs syndrome soldiers are next. They are people too!
at least they'll go down smilin'!
Are you seriously saying that lacking a Y chromosome is the same as being mentally retarded? If so them please do us a favor and go get a Darwin Award.
We do care because they do not get the same level of training as men.
I would expect they did now that they're expected to do the same job.
That's true so the next step should be to make them go through the same training as the regular male soldiers. Yeah, a lot of women would probably get weeded out but they'll be glad they went through it once they end up in a firefight.
As a general rule, being a female *does* make you physically less capable of carrying an 80-pound ruck sack. You can't ignore basic physiology just because it doesn't give you the answer you want. This is like men demanding equal paternity and maternity leave- even though they don't give birth and don't breast feed. Having equal rights doesn't mean ignoring that there are still some fundamental differences present.
You are right!!! We are different and we have to understand some limits. If you a female, and we are in the field on an exercise we can't just stop the training because your period came on!!!
What is it that you people think a period does? You think it would keep you from combat? Um, I hate to tell you little boys this, but during my period I'm pretty much 500% more likely to go into combat, and I'm not even in the military.
Well, if the front line doesn't work, they can always go for the rear line. Most guys don't care.
Or they can go back to the Front Desk, for all we care.
Be careful, you might just get what you wished for.
huge step backwards. we don't need more women in, we need more men out.
Our armed forces are turning gay and female. That's a fomidable fighting force! I can hear Taliban laughing already!
Good. It works in our favor to be underestimated.
Ha! Well said!
Lol I think most women would love a shot at the Taliban. You've heard of a mother gaining superhuman strength to save her child? Oh, I think we could somehow muster the strength and determination to kill those woman-hating SOBs 😉
Yes, because when I'm tearing through the sky in an F-16 firing on the enemy, I'm sure the first thing they are thinking "Oh, S*!t it is a woman shooting at me!"
I'm sure when they are looking down the barrel of an M-16 being held by a female soldier they'll just laugh... as they get blown to bits...
Bet you said the same thing when they desegregated the military you chauvinistic swine.
Two women that went through Marine Combat Infantry training washed out
maybe its easier in the army
Well, I'm sure the Taliban are picking out new drapes for the rape rooms as we speak.
lol
I agree with Peters comment about special treatment and I am a young female Marine. I cringe at the thought of the day when I have to read the headlines about a female being raped and God knows what else when she has captured. It breaks my heart when any of our service members are captured and tortured, but to think of the unspeakable horrid that can and will be done to a female saddens me greatly. Females have a great role in the military but combat is best left to males only. It's not even a matter of quality, rather a matter of utmost respect for our women service members and their protection from horrors so great their family members will never be at peace if they are a casualty of war. Regardless of their desire to serve being widely known.
Why would getting raped be worse than getting your legs blown off?
Your post got the most stupid post of the day.
Well, if the front line doesn't work, they can always go for the rear line. Most guys don't care.
Interesting perspective. My sister joined the Marines when she graduated from USNA 30 years ago, specifically because she had been told by an Admiral that with her excellent performance at the Naval Academy she was almost assured an excellent liaison type position at an embassy. She almost immediately began the process of going into the USMC at graduation in order to have a better potential for deployment. She did serve in Desert Storm but decided to retire before the Iraq war. The idea of coddling woman soldiers makes her cringe and ultimately led to her leaving the service sooner than she ever intended. I'll have to call her tomorrow to find out what she thinks of this....
'Amy E' wrote:
' It breaks my heart when any of our service members are captured and tortured, but to think of the unspeakable horrid that can and will be done to a female saddens me greatly.'
Does it also break your heart when our service members torture and rape non-Americans?
With all due respect, females in the military (actually everyone) should know the risks and make decisions accordingly. If a women is willing to accept these risks, and capable of qualifying for one of these combat roles, there should be nothing to keep her from going.
There's a lot of women currently serving in roles where they could get captured. A lot of people end up on the front line by accident, even though it isn't part of their job.
I for one know that if I have to eject from my jet over enemy territory, my life is going to suck a lot. If captured I'm going to be treated different than my male counterparts. I can't say that it does not scare me, however, it is a risk I'm willing to take to serve my country and do a job I absolutely love doing. These women are smart enough to know that the stakes are higher in combat roles, but if this is what they are passionate about, then why bar them from it (if they qualify otherwise).
This is the most stupid idea. It will promote capture/rape were and women will be begging to die. Protect our women and give them jobs behind enemy lines.
In the mess hall, barefoot and pregnant?
They know the risks, it's their choice to serve. Besides, you say that as if men can't be raped. They can. With plungers. So let's not pretend that rape is something that never happens to male soldiers.
Come on fools. So you're saying you would be more interested in anal plunegering men then hooking up with chicks? lol
Surely there are some psychos out there but as history has shown, women get raped regardless in those situations.
If the politicians are *truly* after equality, then 18 year old girls will also have to register with selective service, and get buzz cuts in basic training (the purpose of which is hygiene in a combat environment). Or they can lower the standards, which is what will happen, because of the political implications of shaving their heads and making them register with the selective service. Equality my a$$.
One step at a time.
We can't even get past the stigma of a man fighting a women yet somehow we're okay with a women getting killed?
im a feminist and i agree with your stance on equality. all or nothing. can't have it both ways.
I hope the lawyers and their daughters are enlisting and signing up for combat units (i.e. infantry). I guess tha also means women will be required to register for Selective Service soon also.
You are commenting on an issue of which you clearly have no knowledge. Including the little bit that can be obtained by actually reading the article.
Any woman serving in the military will have a good idea of what combat role entails, and if they so choose or wish to serve in the capacity, why should they not be permitted? Especially, if they can withstand the physical and emotional standards of the combat role. http://www.thecollinscrimewave.com
Because they can not handle the physical portion. If they could then there physical fitness test would have been the same as a mans throughout history. Even their boot camp is easier. If they want to be like a man then they should have to forfeit maternity leave since we don't get it.
I agree the physical fitness test should be the same. Especially for combat troops.
And if guys want paternity leave, they should have that choice. But please, maternity leave should not be a question. Anyone's body would need time to recover after they carried another human being for 9 months and gave birth.
First of all, why don't you show some respect. Men cry passing a damn kidney stone through their penis. So when you can carry another human inside you for nine months and then push that basketball out of you through a hole that's not that big to start off with for several hours then you can ask for maternity leave. Second, men can get paternity leave now, for essentially doing nothing. So you if you want to go down that road, really think about it. Third, IF there are women who CAN physically meet the requirements and WANT to then why the hell not? If men are so worried about it, then make the requirements more difficult so it's more of an elite group. And if you read the article, they still are not allowing certain MOS's to be included in this.
Says who? If there are women who can be just as physically fit as most men and who can shoot just as well as most men then why can't there be women who can be as good of a soldier as a man?
By that logic we should kick out a doctor, computer programmer, pilot, etc, out of the USAF, because they only meet the minimum standard and not the special forces standard???
As for female PFTs being different than males, for non-combat roles (especially the aforementioned jobs) there is no real physical stregth required, so a basic test of fitness is all that is necessary to insure that they are not completely out of shape, and thus it is fair for those standards to be different, since a female with a basic level of overall fitness is going to run slower, do fewer pushups, etc, than a man of the same level of health and fitness.
Now with combat roles, I hope the standards are the same. Some women, but very few overall, will qualify and they should be allowed to serve in these roles. This isn't a desk job where only a basic level of physical fitness needs to be established, they need a level of fitness to keep up with the group as a whole, and to insure that their presence in the group is not a detriment to the group as a whole. (Hence why the basic physical standards for these jobs is a lot tougher for men than the basic level needed to do a desk job in the military.)
The problem isn't being "permitted" – something with which I have no issue. The problem is "permitting" now, but not "requiring" when all hell breaks loose. Are we ready to have our daughters register for selective service? I'm not sure. But you cannot ethically pick and choose when you want equality. Supreme Court will be forced to act – and I don't see how they can get around that one.
You want to treat "women" as if they all want the same thing and are equally represented by the women asking for equal treatment. You seem to resent women being your equal. That is a personal problem.
However, access to combat jobs by qualified women has nothing to do with the draft or selective service. There hasn't even been a draft for about 40 years. Personally, I think older men should be equally subject to a draft if they want to be equal to younger men. Especially since it is generally older men that decide to send soldiers to die.
You have got to be kidding me.. You're arguing semantics of the word "permitting"? This shouldn't be a big deal, and neither should having them sign up for the Selective Service, it's only fair. I thought all "men" were created equal?
Now it's fair. Females will fell how do men feel like in the combat. And Females will learn self-defense and then there would law crimes. But still, no one knows if it will become true.
Grammar, much??
I'm sure the lowered PT standards for women will be "fair."
I guess the average 18 year female betta be running at the same time and doing the same pushups!!! (Equality to everyone I guess)
Another terrible idea. The first thing that will happen to women in combat, when captured, is merciless and non stop Gang rape! Does the US military not know that? This is not about discrimination, equal rights.. This is about BIOLOGY! There's a reason why the old adage 'Women and children first'.. And its not because people thought women and children were just as capable to handling harsh situations. How much will male soldiers now try to protect the female soldiers and in the process make rash decisions driven by chivalry, which in turn could jeopardize entire operations??,
Nice job of weakening the military further
Where have you been for the last 250 or so years?
rich, you're an idiot. what she said is true. we aren't ready to see our women die, or get brutally gang raped in captivity.
Most of us are not ready to see our sons, brothers and fathers brutalized and killed either. Doesn't seem to stop us from sending them to war though.
There is no draft and I can assure you that it is extremely unlikely that we would ever see the day women are drafted into combat roles. However, it should make you stop and think why we recoil in repugnance at the idea of drafting girls to go fight but are so willing to accept the necessity to send boys to die.
After reading through these comments I'm left scratching my head. I can't understand how blind we are to history. One hundred years ago women couldn't vote. Why? Because women can't make decisions, they're too inferior to make the right call. Too emotional. Look at us today, with all these congresswomen and female senators who we've voted into decision making positions. Sixty years ago African American men couldn't serve along side their Caucasian counterparts because somehow the color of their skin made them inferior. We look back on this and think, "well it was different back then, they didn't think like us." Somehow being a woman makes them less physically able to carry an 80 lb ruck sack. If someone goes through combat training and comes out on the other side a "soldier" we shouldn't care who they are, where they come from, what color skin they have, who they love, or what's between their legs. We should trust the training and the person to our left and the person to our right. I fear that a hundred years from now people look back on us as a culture and are disappointed because after 237 years of being "free," after the likes of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, we still can't grasp the idea of Equality.
Exactly. Who's the idiot that came up with this idea?
Men can be raped too. Soldiers are trained to do things that go against their biology all the time. What is your natural response when someone shoots at you? They train you to go against your fear and to do your job. Of course, soldiers who protect other soldiers are often called heros when they do it for their male compatriots, why would that be any different for a female one?
Prejudice, mysogony, mindless fear of change. Those come to mind.
Everyone should have the right to fight but will this make the mission combat effective. When dealing with women in the Army we had to have port-a-johns and different kind of sanitation neccessities around but when you are in a long firefight there will be no time for stuff like that. The participants will have to be pre-screened to make sure they are capable of not taking showers or other givens while in those exercises.
That's right we must protect our women only because its obvious that they're the only ones that will be tortured if they get captured. I mean, its not like that men won't be subject to beatings, electrical shocks, and maybe something worse like a little bit of castration if we get captured.
I think females could have their own infantry/sniper units. I do not condone segregation but in this topic it will be effective at the task at hand. This will rise the rape in the Armed Forces because a lot of guys in the infantry were disturbed. They should have a special elite force for them that is an equivalent to Special Forces/Navy Seals/Infantry. Men and women are different but women actually have good shooting skills because they are easy to learn. The lifestyles are different and this will be a barrier for our national defense in the end.
I've heard this argument a lot- women shouldn't be allowed because men would try to protect them. Men would be chivalrous. Men would be distracted. What you and those like you are really saying is that men aren't cut out for combat. I don't know why you guys think that describing all the ways that men misbehave means that women shouldn't be in combat. Obviously men shouldn't be there if they don't know how to act. They're too weak and distracted. Well, luckily for yo women are coming to save the poor men.
I've never heard that chivalry stuff when I was over there. But the only thing you can't be the weak link in the squad or you may get everyone killed!!! Some will do just fine but many will be detrimental to the combat effectiveness of a team. Most combat units travel in teams and you have to hold your own.
We will see how far they want to take this. Pregnancy, Menstrual Cycles, will be deterrents in a team's success.
Are d ild os allowed on the front lines, or will men do?
Well, if they don't them on the front line, they can certainly come here for a near infinite supply.
If you're actually stupid enough to be thinking about your libido in a firefight, then you really deserve to get shot.
Surely they will have the same physical fitness standards right? Oh, no. That would be impossible, because women cannot do pull-ups, or even pushups for that matter. What a joke.
Does this mean men can punch women now? (
Men are worried women will turn out to be just as tough as they are.
Speaking as a Man in the Army Infantry your not even close.
my pennis disagrees
It is pretty funny how insecure some of these men are...
This will finally open up the highest ranks of military service to women, progression toward in many instances requires combat experience.
And now tell me why that is good?
What do you know about combat experience? Should the mentally or physically disabled be allowed in the infantry as well? People with no military experience making decisions that affect conditions which peoples lives depend on. This is a joke.
At the risk of appearing arrogant, one would think by this time the root cause of Islamic terrorism would have been deciphered. It's hard to account for this lapse in intellectual honesty. Is it due to PC, willful blindness, death wish, moral relativism or just plain stupidity? Or perhaps a case of deja-vu all over again. How long did it take Western liberals who, for decades, were duped into believing Communism was the best thing since sliced bread, to realize that it was all a big lie? Was it the fiendishly clever propaganda of the Comintern, the Potemkin showcase villages or articles in the New Republic by John Dewey (father of modern public education) praising Russian leadership for their bold vision of the future – all designed to convince the 'proletariat' that the time had come to overthrow the capitalistic society. What is the common denominator of this madness? Could the answer be a belief system that is so deeply flawed, it spawned 150M misunderstaners (that's only a "tiny minority" of 10-15%) who wreak havoc not only on unbelievers but also their brothers and sisters cut from the same cloth?
We are witnessing the slow death of the American Military Forces. First openly gays serving and now women in combat. In the next 4 years we will see the volunteer forces gone and in their place will be a mercenary type force, highly paid, mostly single males, no dependents (which cost scads of money), and they will have no 'ties or honor or love for country", just for the paycheck. As a veteran I have seen the decline and it is shocking.
You can predict the future?
Yes
Common sense and knowledge of history....
The gays don't really bother me as they can take care of themselves in combat. Women ? I don't know. Figure out of a combat platoon 4 or 5 women, you are under attack and you are watching out for their safety as we were brought up as men to do instead of what you were trained to do by the Military. The distraction could get everyone killed
Now you can die in combat with equality. You've come a long way baby.
The problem is that most women do not pass the same physical tests as men. Women have trouble with pushups. They have trouble with chinups. They have trouble climbing ropes, and carrying heavy packs. This has been known for years by people teaching basic training. So what, if there is one woman out there who can bench press 200 pounds! So, one woman out of a 1000 can do this, therefore, all women are heavy lifters? Therefore, because of this one muscular woman, all women make great soldiers? How about it, ladies! No, you aren't good at pro football. No, you aren't good at lifting heavy weights. Let's end the fantasizing. If you can't get out there, and do the heavy lifting, don't act as if you can. You should realize that you are endangering your fellow soldiers, because you can't do the work. Men realize that they cannot do as well as women at managing children, and ladies, we know just how arduous and difficult is the care of children. It's time for women to realize their limitations. Women make terrific mothers, nurses, and workers. It's not a weakness to realize that ladies don't make good combat soldiers.
Most women don't pass the male PRT standards, but some do. And it's not "one in a thousand". Females who make it a point to max the male PRT standards every time are something you see fairly often in the military. A woman will never be as strong as the strongest of men, but strong enough to pass the male physical requirements for military service? Yeah, they exist. The military's physical strength and fitness requirements are not unattainably high.
I see no reason to bar those females who can do it from serving.
Deborah Sampson dressed as a man and enlisted in the Continental Army under her dead brother's name, Robert Shurtlif Sampson.
She served a year and a half, was wounded in battle and dug the musket ball out of her leg herself with a pen knife.
She was discovered when she came down with a fever.
General George Washington made her a sergeant.
She was honorably discharged at the end of the war and received a soldier's pension.
And she had bigger balls than you ever will...
That is an utterly irreverent argument. One woman in a completely different war environment does not validate and justify the changing of a system that works. This is about more than just one woman its about a group of them being able to both mentally and physically integrate into a very select group and not being a burden in any way, I can tell you as a Sergeant First Class in the Army Infantry I kick out week men who don't posses what it takes and these are men who are much stronger than the above average woman. But then what do I know I am not on the sidelines giving history lessons I am out there doing the job. Just some food for thought for all you people who have never even warn a uniform much less been in combat.
As long as these women can pass the physical qualifications, let them go for it. Women strong enough to that are not a dime a dozen, but they do exist.
As for the threat of rape/mistreatment as POWs/etc – hey, it's volunteer army and women will know those risks when they sign the dotted line. Men don't really have the right to decide what's best for females whether they like it or not. We traditionally protected them in the past, yeah, but if they don't want that anymore it's their decision. If you're "shielding" someone who doesn't want to be shielded – that's not altruism, it's just condescension.
Yeah dude so my wife should be joining the team next week........LOL
Women have and always will be a very important part of our nations defense. From the women that performed heroic feats in the revolutionary war to the every war since, they have played the roles given and some not given. I as a person and as a member of the US Armed forces believe that as long as the standard doesn't change for women's supposed weaknesses then there is not issue. As far as the POW situation, well this is something that could be exploited against the US, but just like our men, they will learn to endure. It's ludicrous to think that they have not already been put in harms way. The American public has been fooled all along, women have been put in harms way as much as any man. We just don't focus on it, so keep the standards, and let them do, just like you would any man.
So very valid points RDL, but we both know they will have to lower the standards, That's why there are two dramatically different standards right now in how the military measures physical fitness. As a soldier I have given the APFT to woman and there maximum effort in the upper body and run portions are so much lower that a female best efforts would cause a male to fail his test. This whole thing is nothing more than a stunt by an out going SECDEF pushing a politically correct agenda.
This is dangerous - Women's physical fitness requirements in the Army are a tiny fraction that of men's. A man who runs 10 miles in 20:18 gets zero "points", a woman gets 43 "points" for the same time - Men have to do 42 push-ups to "pass", women only have to do 19 push-ups to "pass"... In battle, a squad is only as strong (and fast) as its weakest (and slowest) link. This social-engineering policy will be deadly.
So are the different standards for age categories okay then? They must be or we would have to weed out very experienced and battled-tried soldiers since we do all get older. Additionally, if you know anything about your Army PT standards you would know that the average for male and female PT scores are very close and not polarized like the max/min standards would suggest. I know that in my time in the Army, as a female, I have maintained a higher than average male score in the younger male category and I am certainly not alone. In fact, most of the females I know are the same way. Last PT test, the person with the highest, correct push-ups was a female who pushed out 85 push-ups. Don't assume that just because the standards are one way that the reality is another.
PT requirements for males and females are massively different (for every test except situps). If they were the same, then I'd have no problem with this. But until the PT requirements are equal, it's a deadly policy...
I don't necessarily agree with the different PT standards but my question is why do we allow lower standards for different age ranges if they are doing the same jobs?
41 year old men only need 33 pushups to "pass" because very few of them are in combat ... but this is still far more than the 19 push-ups required for 21-year old females that these nuts want to send into combat just to prove some social engineering point.... You need to be strong enough to carry a 120 pound load while quickly dragging a 200 lb wounded soldier 100 yards to a medivac helicopter or people will die.
But their weapons can do the same.
PT test requirements for older male soldiers are also a fraction of the requirements for younger soldiers – but the older (and more experienced) soldiers are often the most valuable in the squad. PRT scores are one small part of what makes a soldier.
You're also leaving out that many of the more motivated female soldiers DO max the male standards.
The ultimate disgrace to Islam. Let women kill them. Exceptional!
hahahah thats funny
When is the ACLU going to sue the NFL for not opening up ALL positions (defensive line, etc) to women?
Women have less career opportunities in sports because of this blatant discrimination!
The NFL is open to women moron. Unlike the military (until recently of course) there's no rule saying women are not allowed to play in the league. And wow!!!!!! somehow the NFL is still fine. Just because the number of women capable of running a 4.2 40 yard dash while weighing in at 200+ lbs is quite tiny, why shouldn't those who can have the opportunity to play? And why should 195 lb me who can barely bench my own body weight be considered more deserving of an opportunity to play in the NFL than a much more athletic woman? Your reaction to this story is really quite pathetic and shows a great deal of insecurity. Grow a pair man.
So why aren't they playing MORON?
If women were really equal, where are all the great women defensive lineman, linebackers, etc?
FYI, if you can barely bench your own body weight, face it, you are a sack of S*%T.
You should be doing 2x your body weight for reps.
In addition to 99% of women, a weakling like you wouldn't even make it through 11B training at Benning, never mind Ranger School.
The only thing that pops in to mind is that if a female soldier is caught by those willing to perform horrible tortures to a man, they may have less concern for what they do to a woman. Just something to consider other than the selective service
Only men consider this. They try to use it as "We know what's best for you."
Women want to be in combat so they can feel equal? OK thats fine; they can come home euqally burnt, equally paralyzed and equally traumatized, war is an equal oppurtunity traumatizer. The question you should be asking is, why now? Why at the end of major combat operations? I'll tell you why,if women had been on the front lines at the beginning of both these wars their would have been as many of them killed as thier male counterparts. Is America ready to see it's mothers, daughters and sisters come home in flag draped coffins by the thousands? This will fail because the women who are pushing this are a minute minority who are more concerned about advancing their carreers rather than ensuring the security of thier nation. Men and women are not equal; some things women do better and some things men do better. Women will never understand the concept of brotherhood no more than men will understand the concept of motherhood. This will only weaken our military by forcing men to adapt in a proffesion that is far from being "sensative." In the infantry we use very vulgar words to drive home a point or motivate a stragler; with ladies in the mix men will be forced to watch their langauge or face possible reprecutions. No military can ever discipline away men and womens desire to be with one another between the sheets. This will create an unnecessary unit tension. This was a desicion that was made to pander to a certian political base and not the security of our wounded, but beloved nation. Wake up America and learn to read between the lines.
I don't even know where to start on your post. First, there are many service member that have served on the front lines unofficially that have scooped up the brains of their battle buddies during war and have come home with PTSD. They didn't get the credit for firing back when no one else could or would. True story. Second, there have been many service women die in the line of duty. Where have you been?
i fell that this is a step in the right direction but the fear of what will happen to female POW's is very real. there are a lot of things a terrorist could do to a female soldier that they couldn't do to a male and this is why we need to go at this with caution.
Male POWs also get ra ped...
Let's see, there was a time in this country when women couldn't vote, they couldn't own property, they couldn't run corporations, they couldn't become welders, they couldn't run the marathon in the Olympics, etc, etc, etc. And every time, the naysayers were proven wrong!! So, all of you naysayers, just get ready for another bite of humble pie. You will be proven wrong again. Women will enter combat – some will do well, some not. But in 10 or 20 years this conversation will be absurd because women in combat will be the norm.
very wise of you...
Many women died near the front lines in WWIl . They were not engaged in combat but died as soldiers anyways.
Yes, as soon as men are allowed to give birth.
This is total B.S.! It is further proof that America's War Machine is stretched to thin and is on the decline! Now, we need to put our mothers, sisters, and daughters on the front lines. Crazy. Stop fighting foreign wars!
American men traditionally protect women. What happens if or when a squad is captured and the entire squad is threatened of possible rape of the one or two female members? Former Soldier thoughts.
How threatened would you have felt if they held a weapon to the throat of your male squad member? Would you truly have made a different choice than if they threatened to rape/kill your female squad member? As a military woman, I would expect the same treatment as any of my other squad members. If you feel that you have to treat me differently, I'm sorry, that is your hang-up, not mine.
Don't get me wrong, women are loved, revered, and respected in the military. A strongf emale Soldier commands respect. However,a combat situtation is totally different. The emeny will purposely target the females togain an advantage. Right or wrong that is human nature. Females in my opinion are a liability to an American fighting force.
American men traditionally also protect fellow men (soldier). Men also can get raped and tortured.
so women will also be registered for draft since it's all about "equality". Sure hope so!!!
It's about time!!!
Women have been holding their own in domestic law enforcement for decades now, there should be no problem with gender integration into combat jobs.
Really?
Some women in LE spend 2-3 years of their career on "light duty" because they're pregnant. They're also more likely to resort to a use of force, including deadly force, because their weak appearance invites attack by violent suspects. Many of these women then spend years on workers comp as a result of injuries sustained on the job.
If I was in a brawl with a suspect, I would rather know a 6'4" 250 lb male officer was en route as back-up instead of a 5' 100 lb female.
What do you mean "allowed"? Do women have to ask for permission like they do in Saudi Arabia? Allowed by whom?
Exactly. Still many men don't get it. They are not the ones to 'allow' or 'disallow' women.
I appreciate your comment because it was exactly what I was asking myself. As a female, it is just as much my right to serve my country as it is a male's. If I meet the standards, which I do, than there should not be an issue. I have had to listen to concerns about women getting raped by friend and foe, different physical capabilities, and other issues all under "they." What do "they" think about this? I can tell you from experience no matter how physical fit a female is it still doesn't matter. There will always be a reason to exclude unwanted members. All of the things that could happen to women in war, excluding pregnancy, can and do happen to men. It's just not as talked about because it is taboo. Putting restrictions on women being in certain units because of how the men will react is stupid. How about not accepting that men will act that way? And, once again from experience, a woman can surpass men in her age group and in younger male age groups and the "right" for her to be there will still be questioned. It sucks.
Many women have fought for the right to fight for their country. And these same women are aware that they may be added to the draft. So what. I have no issue with men and women being drafted into the military. I think a big issue is that when people think of the military they think of infantry only on the front lines but there are many different jobs besides infantry such as medics (which have been filled by women for a long time but they don't get the recognition for it), military intelligence, linguists, and many more. Many of these positions are filled by women and it is really a shame that such comments are being made concerns Veterans who have fought for the United States of America. To disrespect the men and women is a disgrace.
Women in combat will cost lives. Men will do stupid things to protect the women. There are differences in men and women and their combat abilities. I don't mean to be disrespectful to women. It's just a fact, our enemies will rape our captured women. Our men will go beyond extremes to prevent this.
Men also watch out and protect fellow soldier men. Men also can get raped and tortured.
In the late 80s at 29 Palms CA, Marine Corps Air- Ground Combat center, I had the opportunity to work with women in live fire combat positions. Like the men the women’s abilities, strength etc. was unique to each individual. However there were physiological limits with the women that were less pronounced in the men. For example a loaded pack ways 75 lbs, 30% of my total body weight, while it was 75% of the average woman Marines weight. Even with the increased demands carrying 175% of their body weight for long periods, the women physically did an amazing job. However because of the extra stresses on the body of caring the women tended to have more injuries, stress fractures, sprains etc.
It was not a lack of ability, heart, or physical strength that caused them issues; it was the physiological structure of their bodies. Stress fractures, sprains, and such were more prevalent in women than men. It is a simple matter of physics, if your framework was made to support Xlbs and you make it support 2X lbs, it is going to give out.
As for those of you with the “rape” argument, are you under the impression that men do not get tortured. Believe it or not, there are things worse than being raped. To keep women out of combat because they may have to go through what men have gone through for 100’s of years is a wrong.
The women Marines I served with have the same love for their country I do, they have the same willingness to help an enemy lay down his life for his Country, the shed the same Marine Corps Green blood in the same mud as I have. They are my sisters and it is my great honor to have served with them.
As long as there isn't a different standard for women in terms of physical strength and ability, then I suppose it might be okay. But we are opening up a whole other can of worms in terms of treatment of POWs...Women will become one of the biggest "trophies" of war...It could get even uglier than combat is now...
Totally agree! The Taliban for example aren't exactly great observers of rules of engagement. A woman would most definitely be a trophy. Gang rape, tortured and killed. That's exactly what will happen to female POWs.
This is a case of political correctness gone awry. I really hope mothers of young children are prevented from joining combat positions. Bad enough we have too many fatherless kids thanks to recent wars. We don't need motherless ones too.
Men also get raped and tortured.
This does not create an environment that does not already exist. Women go outside of the wire all of the time...these women are constantly at risk. If anything, combatant females would be less likely to be taken then the medical and public affair teams that are already out on the streets of Kandahar. The loss of any soldier, sailor, marine or airman is a tragedy; it does not matter the gender.
Hey, great! Now, how soon before women between the ages of 18-25 have to register with Selective Service? I mean, fair is fair, right?
You act as if women are protesting this It is men who have disllowed women from selective service, as a woman I have no problem with us being included.
And it has been women who haven't had to worry about a potential draft, either. You see, it's one think to voluntarily join the military...but quite different when you are drafted. Until now, men have been doing women a favor.
Hats off, E. Thank you.
It has been a long time since the draft has been used anyhow.
to swoho – "Men have been doing women a favor" By causing wars that their children die in?
Iinsecure or jealous or both?
Deborah Sampson dressed as a man and enlisted in the Continental Army under her dead brother's name, Robert Shurtlif Sampson.
She served a year and a half, was wounded in battle and dug the musket ball out of her leg herself with a pen knife.
She was discovered when she came down with a fever.
General George Washington made her a sergeant.
She was honorably discharged at the end of the war and received a soldier's pension.
I agree with George...
This is a amazing day for all women in my opinion. They want to show the guys that they can do it! Let them do so! I don't mind giving up my pride. It only makes the girls think of us men as apes and dogs. Guys and Girls. Lets make this country proud again by working together! Seriously. The time of stereotypes need to stop and have a different look on life.
If I get shot and the only person to carry me out(I only weigh 240 with full gear) is a little 5 foot nothing 120lbs rambo lady.... good as dead
So this means, I assueme, that women now have to register for selective service too, right?
I am a woman and have no problem with that.
Didn't see this comment before I posted my own. I guess there's more than one guy who thinks the same way about this as I do.
That means woman will soon be required as men to sign up for selective service as well right...
This is so wrong. there are so many reasons why a woman doesnt belong on the front line. Some silly girl is going to come on here and say that it doesnt matter, WELL IT DOES! This stupid progessive agenda has no compunctions no limits. STOOGIES. I hope its repealed. I cant even imagine how it could be. CRAZIES!
Why is it wrong? I like to see why you think it is wrong instead of whining and crying about it.
Why is it wrong? I like to see why you think it is wrong instead of whining and crying about it.
how about yeast infections??? you wont be getting showers everynight and may go 20 or more days without showering.
Women serve in combat in other countries without problem.
Who do you think you are to judge?