DCSportbikes.net  
» Help Support .NET!
DCSportbikes Premier Membership for 25$ per year. Discounts! Click here for full information.

Now available in the .NET Shop:



Get your DCSBN Gear!
» Shoutbox
Sorry, only registered users have the ability to use our real-time shoutbox to chat with other members.

Register now, it's free!
» Online Users: 891
3 members and 888 guests
nootherids, Scot, Slider
Most users ever online was 4,519, September 2, 2015 at 03:26 AM.
Go Back   DCSportbikes.net > Non-Sportbike Forums > Non-Sportbike Chat

View Poll Results: Should women be allowed in military combat specific roles?
Yes 8 17.02%
No 11 23.40%
Only if they can consistently pass the current standards for men in the same role 28 59.57%
Voters: 47. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools
Panetta opens combat roles to women
Unread
  (#1)
unapologetic
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Posts: 3,822
Join Date: August 21, 2004
Location: banging a hammer
Panetta opens combat roles to women - January 23, 2013, 04:54 PM

AP sources: Panetta opens combat roles to women - Yahoo! News

Discuss.

I'd really value the opinions of those .net members that have actual combat MOS's in their resume's although we are sure to hear from lots of Call of Duty champions as to their thoughts as well.

Personally I think it's a mistake of epic proportions. The military will now have to revamp all of it's standards (or create new, different and separate ones for women) in multiple arenas. Clearly the military has plenty of money to burn with all of the new required studies and JAG officers that will need to be implemented to handle the blowback from this course of action.


"ride on #47, ride on"

on the internet you can be anyone you want, it's strange that so many people choose to be so stupid
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#2)
Knarly Adventurer
 
wildjester's Avatar
 
Posts: 4,925
Join Date: March 22, 2006
Location: Omaha, NE
January 23, 2013, 04:58 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
Personally I think it's a mistake of epic proportions. The military will now have to revamp all of it's standards (or create new, different and separate ones for women) in multiple arenas. Clearly the military has plenty of money to burn with all of the new required studies and JAG officers that will need to be implemented to handle the blowback from this course of action.
Agree and stealing for my facebook.
Thanks bro!


Everytime you cook up...a little boy gets crushed by a bridge. -JTG40cal



2013 Triumph Tiger 800XC
2009 Scrambler SOLD
2007 ZX14 SOLD
2005 R1 SOLD
1999 ZRX SOLD
1996 FZR SOLD
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#3)
Cager
 
JarvisB's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,255
Join Date: July 26, 2011
Location: NE DC
January 23, 2013, 05:02 PM

I hate to be a sexist, but I dont think this can be good at all.

Even women themselves know it that men and women are all mismatched in almost every form besides the mental ability.

I can imagine them employing women in combat roles such as operating machinery that is involved in combat situations. But nothing more?

Honestly, what do I know about military.. LOL


-J. Beaver
--bike-less for now
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#4)
Your Ad Here
 
Heist's Avatar
 
Posts: 32,591
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: Washington, D.C.
January 23, 2013, 05:11 PM




“Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a Prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires”.

- Nicolo Machiavelli 1469-1527

  Facebook Page MySpace.com Page Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#5)
Your Ad Here
 
Heist's Avatar
 
Posts: 32,591
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: Washington, D.C.
January 23, 2013, 05:19 PM

In all seriousness, there are certain roles in our modern military that any sex is perfectly capable of. There are certain down and dirty roles where men have a decided physical and conditioning advantage. A physically weaker and slower member presents a serious detriment to the battle readiness and the overall success of the unit.

I'm not even going to touch things like unit cohesion and morale. Those are too subjective, however, that doesn't mean there will occasionally be women who can handle the role, and they ought not be excluded if they can, but not if it means we need to LOWER any current standard in order to make the tests more gender neutral and favorable to promoting inclusion.



“Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a Prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires”.

- Nicolo Machiavelli 1469-1527

  Facebook Page MySpace.com Page Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#6)
ಠ_ಠ The Cleaner ಠ_ಠ
 
Posts: 2,691
Join Date: August 10, 2010
Location: Ft. Wayne, IN
January 23, 2013, 05:25 PM

from one of my indiana shooting sites:

Women in combat units isn't as simple as some think. It's not the combat that's the problem, it's the type of unit.

For instance, I've never known a woman who could serve successfully in an infantry unit, particularly a light infantry unit. The physical demands are just too great.

I spent three years in a light infantry unit, and 8 years in Air Defense Artillery. In Air Defense, we had women, because technically they could do the work. But they couldn't. They could do the work of working in the control van, or operating the radars, but that was something a male soldier had to work his way up to. A new male soldier had to first prove himself dragging cables and operating a leveling jack, and other difficult grunt work. Later he would be moved up to the less demanding more mental tasks.

Because we were always being evaluated and the consequences of failure were severe, we simply couldn't afford to have a woman pulling a heavy cable under timed conditions, so a woman got a plum job just by virtue of being a woman. This created resentment, and at certain times, even the battery commander would be pulling a cable, or operating a jack. But a woman soldier couldn't do those things.

I think woman should be able to serve. But I think the physical standards should be the same for the same jobs. They are not. If women had to pass the physical fitness test under the male minimum standard, nearly all the women currently serving would wash out. And most combat arms soldiers are far above the minimum standard.


Whenever a post needs posting, I appear, then I'm gone.
  Send a message via AIM to Send a message via AIM to hokierider  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#7)
Riz
Hallmark card?!?
 
Riz's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,557
Join Date: November 15, 2008
Location: Ellicott City, MD
January 23, 2013, 06:09 PM

I do not have a military background, but I do have a human capital bacground, and I will say that if they want to do this properly, this will take a lot of time and manpower. The speed at which they are trying to roll this out (the article said positions maybe available as early as this year), will result in disaster. It will take even longer if they do decide to make the qualifications different for women (I believe this would be a mistake) since thorough analyses will have to be conducted to determine what those standards are. Furthermore, this is a huge change. As such extensive planning and implementation is needed to ensure this change is managed properly. Evaluation after implementation will also have to take place to ensure that this change was the correct change to make (E.g., performance has not been negatively effected). This is just a limited summary of what will have to take place from a high level stand point Taking into consideration how much red tape there is, it will take a while to make sure everything is kosher and on par even tho the command is coming from the top.

Basically, all the investment that has been conducted up to do this point regarding the military workforce will have to be done again in addition to managing such a big change. That being said, maybe I wont have to move the private sector anymore
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#8)
Ballaugh Bridge
 
CrazyMotorcycleGuy's Avatar
 
Posts: 6,875
Join Date: September 29, 2002
Location: VA
January 23, 2013, 07:05 PM

If women want 'equality' it's time for them to register with the Selective Service too.


'08 MARRC Expert Racer of the Year
2009 #3 Combined Overall Championship

  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#9)
The last urrbendah
 
Stillie's Avatar
 
Posts: 18,909
Join Date: February 5, 2003
Location: Kickin' it with Stevie Janowski
January 23, 2013, 07:16 PM

I met two women during my 7 years who would no doubt make great infantryman. Only two, a very small minority in a military awash with hooahcunts that think they can do anything but have issues with the PT test, height weight, and other physical standards.

The other issue is having to adopt a second set of bayonet training standards to incorporate sandwhich making movements.


13 KTM 200 XC-W
15 KTM 350 XC-F

I might have a dirt bike problem.
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#10)
Sick!!!
 
The Bogert's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,333
Join Date: August 12, 2006
January 23, 2013, 07:32 PM

Had one female and one gay dude with us this deployment. Female did fine on the patrols even when we took contact. As for here being directly in a combat role, no. She doesn't have the physical strength. Also hygiene would be a problem. During a 21 day op we had a "coist" female LT with us. She had to go back early because of female stuff. The gay guy fit in fine, maybe we were lucky not to have any anti gay fear mongers in our company. He did his job and with flare!
  Send a message via AIM to Send a message via Yahoo to The Bogert  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#11)
TNT
GP Champ
 
Posts: 1,670
Join Date: August 21, 2011
Location: Annapolis, MD
January 23, 2013, 07:35 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
AP sources: Panetta opens combat roles to women - Yahoo! News

Discuss.

I'd really value the opinions of those .net members that have actual combat MOS's in their resume's although we are sure to hear from lots of Call of Duty champions as to their thoughts as well.

Personally I think it's a mistake of epic proportions. The military will now have to revamp all of it's standards (or create new, different and separate ones for women) in multiple arenas. Clearly the military has plenty of money to burn with all of the new required studies and JAG officers that will need to be implemented to handle the blowback from this course of action.
Military already has separate standards for women, both PT and non-PT (i.e. official and unofficial). I think that women in the military is a potential huge advantage because you pull from essentially 1.25-2x the population base (depending on how you parse the numbers) to get a fixed number of people in the military. If I have more to draw from, I can be more selective in who I pick, and maintain much higher standards. This isn't really the case in the system we have implemented though. My opinion is that standards should be set by the job and whether you are man, woman, white, black, blue, green, straight, gay, have 3 arms, have 3 balls, missing an eye, etc. it does not matter. All that matters is whether or not you can meet standards (which includes cooperating if the job so requires it). If that means that some jobs are only filled by haitian albino dwarves, then so be it. Objective criteria net fair (not necessarily equal) results, and that's the way it should be.
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#12)
SRWJTS SGT-At-Arms
 
Fitz's Avatar
 
Posts: 17,473
Join Date: October 1, 2002
Location: King George, VA
January 23, 2013, 08:01 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNT View Post
Military already has separate standards for women, both PT and non-PT (i.e. official and unofficial). .
And in roles like Infantry/ Cav, etc, this is a very, very BAD thing.

There's two kinds of combat. Big "C" Combat, and little "c" combat.

I've seen women do fine in combat, even excel. When rounds come in, they react, lay down covering fire, and do the right thing...When they get into Combat, however, there are certain psychological and physiological differences that are very, very rarely overcome.

Stillie is talking about the two women who would also be on my "10/10, would operate with" list. These two women are fucking ANOMALIES. Tough as nails, strong as oxen, and mentally hard as a rock.

That said, I'd support the decision if the following things happened:

- No special treatment, whatsoever. Do everything your male counterparts have to do, without question. Fail to keep up, you're gone.
- For combat arms specialties, force the women to adhere to the male standards for physical fitness. A Maximum score on the female scale, currently, is below the minimum standards for males. In big "C" Combat, this is a huge problem.
- SAME ruckmarch standards, same weights, carry the same weapon systems. If some woman wants to be in a line company, she should have to hump the M240 or AG gear just the same as a man would.

The two women that Stillie and I know would not only do fine if the above happened, they would EXCEL.


Now, here's why I don't support this decision.

ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THAT will happen. None whatsoever.

The Marine Corps already did a trial where they let female officers go to infantry school (the female officers, in general, are already WELL ahead of the enlisted females in fitness and intelligence).

Every last one of them either quit or washed out. And, this was WITHOUT equalizing the PT standards.

The Army is going to start a similar trial for Ranger school... and the Ranger school has already been issued fucking DIRECTIVES concerning how many will pass, and established a special ombudsman solely for those females and their concerns, who reports DIRECTLY to the Department of the Army. The goddamn program hasn't even started yet, and already females are receiving consideration that their male counterparts don't get.


And all this represents my concerns BEFORE even considering the mental differences in big "C" Combat. Taking some rounds in a convoy, and spending 18 hours kicking in doors and getting into brutal close quarters combat are entirely different things. Again, those two women I mentioned are the only ones I have EVER met who I think would be mentally ready to do gruesome, gruesome things to their enemies.

This is a terrible idea, and will have catastrophic effects on our infantry, armor, and cav units. I really, REALLY hope someone with some common sense puts a stop to this.


-Fitz

2016 Harley Softail Slim S
2012 Harley Ultra Limited in Ultra Annoying Orange Sold!
2012 V-Strom 1000 Sold!
2009 Buell 1125R Sold!
2005 Superhawk Sold!
2001 Superhawk Abandoned!
1981 CB650C Destroyed!

Brace Yourselves... the cries of "It's too cold to ride" are coming...

Last edited by Fitz; January 23, 2013 at 08:03 PM..
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#13)
unapologetic
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Posts: 3,822
Join Date: August 21, 2004
Location: banging a hammer
January 23, 2013, 08:33 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heist View Post
In all seriousness, there are certain roles in our modern military that any sex is perfectly capable of. There are certain down and dirty roles where men have a decided physical and conditioning advantage. A physically weaker and slower member presents a serious detriment to the battle readiness and the overall success of the unit.

I'm not even going to touch things like unit cohesion and morale. Those are too subjective, however, that doesn't mean there will occasionally be women who can handle the role, and they ought not be excluded if they can, but not if it means we need to LOWER any current standard in order to make the tests more gender neutral and favorable to promoting inclusion.
Excellent points

Quote:
Originally Posted by hokierider View Post
from one of my indiana shooting sites:

Women in combat units isn't as simple as some think. It's not the combat that's the problem, it's the type of unit.

For instance, I've never known a woman who could serve successfully in an infantry unit, particularly a light infantry unit. The physical demands are just too great.

I think woman should be able to serve. But I think the physical standards should be the same for the same jobs. They are not. If women had to pass the physical fitness test under the male minimum standard, nearly all the women currently serving would wash out. And most combat arms soldiers are far above the minimum standard.
Excellent points as well. If she can hump the gear and suck it up, then I'm okay with it. The problem is; those kinds of women aren't exactly falling out of the sky everywhere. I knew shitbirds that had made it through SOI, AICT and then an Amphib school who were the ones who were constantly fucking up. Right until the unit would get tired of it and they would get cycled off to some police or motor T company at the end of the rainbow bridge. Line companies have a way with dealing with the weakest links, and I can only begin to imagine the headaches and bullshit that these professional leaders of fighters will have to endure to make it "right for everyone", especially if there are new fighters on board that are going to get treated differently because they have boobs. I assume that this will be especially prevalent in the junior ranks where pack mentalities develop early.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitz View Post
And in roles like Infantry/ Cav, etc, this is a very, very BAD thing.

There's two kinds of combat. Big "C" Combat, and little "c" combat.

I've seen women do fine in combat, even excel. When rounds come in, they react, lay down covering fire, and do the right thing...When they get into Combat, however, there are certain psychological and physiological differences that are very, very rarely overcome.

Stillie is talking about the two women who would also be on my "10/10, would operate with" list. These two women are fucking ANOMALIES. Tough as nails, strong as oxen, and mentally hard as a rock.

That said, I'd support the decision if the following things happened:

- No special treatment, whatsoever. Do everything your male counterparts have to do, without question. Fail to keep up, you're gone.
- For combat arms specialties, force the women to adhere to the male standards for physical fitness. A Maximum score on the female scale, currently, is below the minimum standards for males. In big "C" Combat, this is a huge problem.
- SAME ruckmarch standards, same weights, carry the same weapon systems. If some woman wants to be in a line company, she should have to hump the M240 or AG gear just the same as a man would.

The two women that Stillie and I know would not only do fine if the above happened, they would EXCEL.


Now, here's why I don't support this decision.

ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THAT will happen. None whatsoever.

The Marine Corps already did a trial where they let female officers go to infantry school (the female officers, in general, are already WELL ahead of the enlisted females in fitness and intelligence).

Every last one of them either quit or washed out. And, this was WITHOUT equalizing the PT standards.

The Army is going to start a similar trial for Ranger school... and the Ranger school has already been issued fucking DIRECTIVES concerning how many will pass, and established a special ombudsman solely for those females and their concerns, who reports DIRECTLY to the Department of the Army. The goddamn program hasn't even started yet, and already females are receiving consideration that their male counterparts don't get.


And all this represents my concerns BEFORE even considering the mental differences in big "C" Combat. Taking some rounds in a convoy, and spending 18 hours kicking in doors and getting into brutal close quarters combat are entirely different things. Again, those two women I mentioned are the only ones I have EVER met who I think would be mentally ready to do gruesome, gruesome things to their enemies.

This is a terrible idea, and will have catastrophic effects on our infantry, armor, and cav units. I really, REALLY hope someone with some common sense puts a stop to this.
Well said. There would be a few women out there that could "do it like a grunt" and for them I would support their decision. I get the women pilot thing, and as far as I know they go through the exact same flight school their male counterparts go through to get their wings. I would have a hard time believing many women could make it through an amphib indoc or ranger school. Although it looks like we are about to find out.


"ride on #47, ride on"

on the internet you can be anyone you want, it's strange that so many people choose to be so stupid
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#14)
SRWJTS SGT-At-Arms
 
Fitz's Avatar
 
Posts: 17,473
Join Date: October 1, 2002
Location: King George, VA
January 23, 2013, 08:37 PM

Forgot to mention one thing. MEN are incapable, for the most part, of treating women equally. The protective instinct in many men is hard to overcome. Once they start prioritizing in the heat of battle, based on gender instead of actual mission readiness, that will be a problem. Big problem.

So, it's not only the women that will make this a disaster, it's the men too

EDIT to add: I really hope I'm proven wrong. I don't like my military being a disaster. I hope this works flawlessly and women everywhere start laying waste to turrists for 'murrica, and excel in the infantry.

If I'm wrong, i'll happily live with being wrong.


-Fitz

2016 Harley Softail Slim S
2012 Harley Ultra Limited in Ultra Annoying Orange Sold!
2012 V-Strom 1000 Sold!
2009 Buell 1125R Sold!
2005 Superhawk Sold!
2001 Superhawk Abandoned!
1981 CB650C Destroyed!

Brace Yourselves... the cries of "It's too cold to ride" are coming...

Last edited by Fitz; January 23, 2013 at 08:40 PM..
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#15)
Member of SRWJTS
 
HumanNippy's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,471
Join Date: May 27, 2010
Location: Ashburn
January 23, 2013, 08:50 PM

when i'm playing black ops i've noticed that all the females tend to suck so i'm sure it applies to real life.


2001 Kawasaki ZX6R: Yoshi slip-on
1999 Trans AM WS6, Long tubes, full exhaust, extra sexy
2006 GTO 6spd, 1 of 390 Silver, SLP LM1 (Sold)
2001 R1; blue, Yoshi slip on (sold Jan 12, 2012)
(RIP) 2000 Camaro SS
1999 Trans Am Ws6 30k miles, 6spd (sold)
1999 Camaro coupe 6 cyl (traded in after a week to get the SS)
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2010 by DCSportbikes.net. DCSportbikes.net is owned by End of Time Studios, LLC.