View Profile
View Forum Posts
View Forum Threads
Show All Albums
View Friends
It's probably still the same, ED, but it's just a matter of equal opportunity. In the end, political correctness will cost some lives—THAT seems shallow to me.
Re: FOX: Panetta opens combat roles to women
It's probably still the same, ED, but it's just a matter of equal opportunity. In the end, political correctness will cost some lives—THAT seems shallow to me.
Re: FOX: Panetta opens combat roles to women
they certainly should be.Originally Posted by TMK9973
the draft will never be used again w/o a world war, if then
------
“These are the ideas that people come to America to get away from.”Rubio
How should society view a cure for a ailment of limited duration that takes another's life to 'cure'?
It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion. ...Dean Inge
Re: FOX: Panetta opens combat roles to women
That is the sense I have as well.I'll wait and see whether this involves "allowing women to try for some or most combat roles" rather than "forces unqualified women into every single combat situation regardless of the needs of the mission" before I decide what to think about it.
Some of our posters appear to be assuming the latter, but I'm doubting that is what is really going on.
I'm most familiar with the Coast Guard so I will give an example from them. In the CG women can choose any job (though some billets are off limits due to berthing requirements). AST (rescue swimmer) is the most physically demanding job there is. Few people get to the school and many wash out either BC the fail, give up, or get injured and don't go back later. I believe the have only ever been a handful of women to make it through AST A School and they did it at the exact same standards as the men.
What some people don't seem to understand is that simply opening up opportunities is not the same as gifting a job to someone. I am sure that the Army, Marines, Navy, and Air Force are perfectly capable of determining how to train men and women to serve in combat roles, and determining the situations in which serving side by side is absolutely not safe.
Re: FOX: Panetta opens combat roles to women
Brandy, I'm not sure what you're getting at about the birth thing, ignoring for the moment that 10 pounds isn't even close to the average birth weight. I was next to my wife for both her deliveries, and I respect the hell out of her for going through it. Doesn't mean she could go run a half marathon with me...in fact, I don't think she can even run a mile. And she sure as hell isn't as strong. Giving birth doesn't mean squat in this case.
Re: FOX: Panetta opens combat roles to women
I'm sorry, ren. That doesn't meet our basic "respond to the topic like a reflexive limbic-driven dumbass" metric for deployment in the tailgate.
You may not like this, but the truth is I have noted the women here have much greater difficulty meeting that standard than the men. Deal with it.
Last edited by Jumbo; January-23rd-2013 at 06:24 PM.
"Captain, it's a viewpoint--not one of ours! We're under attack!"
"I see it, ensign! Engage amygdala! Transfer all power from frontal lobes!
Suspend critical thinking field! Go to course heading of reflexive response 101 at full bias!
Now!'Enter' at will!"
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
Re: FOX: Panetta opens combat roles to women
deleted post
Last edited by wpns3/5; January-23rd-2013 at 06:29 PM.
Re: FOX: Panetta opens combat roles to women
What I'm saying is that there are many things women could do, even in combat, that some men would automatically discount. I brought up the baby issue b/c believe it or not, a lot of strenuous labor (not just giving birth btw) and pain tolerance is mind over matter. When your adrenaline is rushing a million miles a minute, you'd be surprised what the average woman can do. Not to mention, if men would have such an issue with this, why can't there be women combat units (no men, just women)? No offense, but if I'm under fire, I guarantee you a woman would shoot a mofo as quick as a man would.
I do understand what your getting at with the lugging around 200 pounds, but if there are women only platoons, maybe it wouldn't be as difficult as if the women were thrown in with the men? My issue isn't so much about the fact that women should HAVE to be right beside the men, just that they should be able to have the opportunity if that's what they want. Like I said, I'd be ok with men and women being totally separate.
No it's not the average. It's what happened to me LOL! With Both my kids! 15 hours of labor w/ no pain med's with my daughter, and she was a whopper. My son was big too, but I got drugs with him lol. I'm just saying there are things women can do in combat. I wonder if men are more afraid to let women actually do this? Like the protective instinct in men kicks in and they assume it's not proper???
Re: FOX: Panetta opens combat roles to women
I see what you are getting at, but gear is gear, it doesn't change if you are a man or a woman. A M249 weighs 22lbs loaded. That doesn't change. Tasks that are accomplished in combat don't change. Women will pull the trigger the same as a man will, but what happens if she gets into CQB with a male opponent? I think the thing people lose sight on is the military's job is to win in combat not provide an equal opportunity feel good environment for everyone. If someone doesn't do their job or is physically not able to people die. What if a female is a loader for artillery? How long before she tired out loading 25lb artillery shells? I have served with many female soldiers, many of them better than their male counterparts, but when it comes to line units where physical strength and endurance matter. I just don't think they belong.
Re: FOX: Panetta opens combat roles to women
sac, I think you're an intelligent and experienced guy, and would you not think that there are some still-restricted-role situations, even in line unit operations, where a properly trained and appropriately capable woman would be up to the task? Even allowing for such being the more "cream of the crop" of that group for that role?
"Captain, it's a viewpoint--not one of ours! We're under attack!"
"I see it, ensign! Engage amygdala! Transfer all power from frontal lobes!
Suspend critical thinking field! Go to course heading of reflexive response 101 at full bias!
Now!'Enter' at will!"
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
Re: FOX: Panetta opens combat roles to women
They have two years to come up with a list where each branch you simply cannot have women in said position (or it would hurt more then help). I agree with the need for equal physical requirements and women having to sign up for SS with this move. If you want to be treated equally, you have to meet the same damn standards then, this is national security we are talking about.
I support this for sorta the same reason I supported gays being allowed in, if your willing to put your life on the line for my freedom, there's a certain level of respect that is earned with that. Besides, its not like they're going to be putting Jessica Simpson on the ground in Afghanistan. I imagine a good number of the first infantry women are going to be rather, um, masculine, if you catch my drift...
We don't know what we think, we don't know what we know. All we have to go on, is what we say and what we show...
Re: FOX: Panetta opens combat roles to women
It will be interesting to see how this shakes out. And whether or not it goes more the way of "allow women to be unrestricted in their MOS" or "place no restrictions on MOS that women can choose". For example....in a light infantry unit, the so called "line unit" you can find multiple MOS's(military occupational specialty) all in that unit. Not everyone is an infantryman. You have cooks, radio operators, personnel clerks, intelligence analysts, etc...these are known as "low density MOS" by some("soft skilled" by others). Currently those low density MOS are open to women...they just can not be assigned to a light infantry unit(at the battalion or below level). So you can have a female radio operator assigned to an infantry brigade but not an infantry battalion. You can have a female personnel clerk assigned to an aviation battalion but not an infantry battalion. You can not find a female infantryman anywhere.
The nature of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq pretty much broke down the barrier of having all of the female soldiers off of the front line...there was no front line. What I would predict happening is that some of the conventional units will eliminate the restriction. The female radio operator at brigade will be able to be assigned at the battalion level. The female personnel clerk assigned to the aviation battalion could be assigned to an armor battalion. I suspect the restrictions on some MOS's will be loosened. I do not foresee the combat arms MOS(infantry, artillery, armor, etc) changing much in the short term.
Re: FOX: Panetta opens combat roles to women
^ saw interview on CBS early show with a former general saying same thing about there not being front line in Iraq or Afghanistan, but women still dying in combat. Regardless of their "position", you have women fighting and dying in these wars, and what he was saying is that this is just as much about recognition as it is a realisation of current reality.
I'm not military, but there are more then enough people that won't fight for anything. If someone is willing to fight and die for my freedom, I'm really going to need a damn good reason to tell them no.
We don't know what we think, we don't know what we know. All we have to go on, is what we say and what we show...
Re: FOX: Panetta opens combat roles to women
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2534873.html
"Unplanned" pregnancies in the military at twice the rate of the GP and rising.
Last edited by mboyd784; January-24th-2013 at 07:32 AM.
Re: FOX: Panetta opens combat roles to women
Is that a argument against free birth control effectiveness?
Are they comparing the same demographics?(link to study cited didn't work)
------
“These are the ideas that people come to America to get away from.”Rubio
How should society view a cure for a ailment of limited duration that takes another's life to 'cure'?
It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion. ...Dean Inge
Re: FOX: Panetta opens combat roles to women
Just read this from an actual female marine that has served in combat. I think this is a must read for anyone that is going to engage in this conversation. She is just one person and everyone body responses differently but from her first hand expereince, she does not believe women belong on the front lines.
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/a...d-equal?page=5
kind of long but here is an portion that I found more interesting.
As a young lieutenant, I fit the mold of a female who would have had a shot at completing IOC, and I am sure there was a time in my life where I would have volunteered to be an infantryman. I was a star ice hockey player at Bowdoin College, a small elite college in Maine, with a major in government and law. At 5 feet 3 inches I was squatting 200 pounds and benching 145 pounds when I graduated in 2007. I completed Officer Candidates School (OCS) ranked 4 of 52 candidates, graduated 48 of 261 from TBS, and finished second at MOS school. I also repeatedly scored far above average in all female-based physical fitness tests (for example, earning a 292 out of 300 on the Marine physical fitness test). Five years later, I am physically not the woman I once was and my views have greatly changed on the possibility of women having successful long careers while serving in the infantry. I can say from firsthand experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not just emotion, that we haven’t even begun to analyze and comprehend the gender-specific medical issues and overall physical toll continuous combat operations will have on females.
I was a motivated, resilient second lieutenant when I deployed to Iraq for 10 months, traveling across the Marine area of operations (AO) and participating in numerous combat operations. Yet, due to the excessive amount of time I spent in full combat load, I was diagnosed with a severe case of restless leg syndrome. My spine had compressed on nerves in my lower back causing neuropathy which compounded the symptoms of restless leg syndrome. While this injury has certainly not been enjoyable, Iraq was a pleasant experience compared to the experiences I endured during my deployment to Afghanistan. At the beginning of my tour in Helmand Province, I was physically capable of conducting combat operations for weeks at a time, remaining in my gear for days if necessary and averaging 16-hour days of engineering operations in the heart of Sangin, one of the most kinetic and challenging AOs in the country. There were numerous occasions where I was sent to a grid coordinate and told to build a PB from the ground up, serving not only as the mission commander but also the base commander until the occupants (infantry units) arrived 5 days later. In most of these situations, I had a sergeant as my assistant commander, and the remainder of my platoon consisted of young, motivated NCOs. I was the senior Marine making the final decisions on construction concerns, along with 24-hour base defense and leading 30 Marines at any given time. The physical strain of enduring combat operations and the stress of being responsible for the lives and well-being of such a young group in an extremely kinetic environment were compounded by lack of sleep, which ultimately took a physical toll on my body that I couldn’t have foreseen.
By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change. My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions. At the end of the 7-month deployment, and the construction of 18 PBs later, I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment. Regardless of my deteriorating physical stature, I was extremely successful during both of my combat tours, serving beside my infantry brethren and gaining the respect of every unit I supported. Regardless, I can say with 100 percent assurance that despite my accomplishments, there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement. I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females.
There is a drastic shortage of historical data on female attrition or medical ailments of women who have executed sustained combat operations. This said, we need only to review the statistics from our entry-level schools to realize that there is a significant difference in the physical longevity between male and female Marines. At OCS the attrition rate for female candidates in 2011 was historically low at 40 percent, while the male candidates attrite at a much lower rate of 16 percent. Of candidates who were dropped from training because they were injured or not physically qualified, females were breaking at a much higher rate than males, 14 percent versus 4 percent. The same trends were seen at TBS in 2011; the attrition rate for females was 13 percent versus 5 percent for males, and 5 percent of females were found not physically qualified compared with 1 percent of males. Further, both of these training venues have physical fitness standards that are easier for females; at IOC there is one standard regardless of gender. The attrition rate for males attending IOC in 2011 was 17 percent. Should female Marines ultimately attend IOC, we can expect significantly higher attrition rates and long-term injuries for women.
There have been many working groups and formal discussions recently addressing what changes would be necessary to the current IOC period of instruction in order to accommodate both genders without producing an underdeveloped or incapable infantry officer. Not once was the word “lower” used, but let’s be honest, “modifying” a standard so that less physically or mentally capable individuals (male or female) can complete a task is called “lowering the standard”! The bottom line is that the enemy doesn’t discriminate, rounds will not slow down, and combat loads don’t get any lighter, regardless of gender or capability. Even more so, the burden of command does not diminish for a male or female; a leader must gain the respect and trust of his/her Marines in combat. Not being able to physically execute to the standards already established at IOC, which have been battle tested and proven, will produce a slower operational speed and tempo resulting in increased time of exposure to enemy forces and a higher risk of combat injury or death. For this reason alone, I would ask everyone to step back and ask themselves, does this integration solely benefit the individual or the Marine Corps as a whole, as every leader’s focus should be on the needs of the institution and the Nation, not the individual?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
