Panetta to lift ban on women in combat

[gilliam]

It was adopted in the wrong way because such a significant change in longstanding military personnel policy, with potentially serious implication for the effectiveness of the fighting force, should not be made without holding congressional hearings in advance to explore all the issues involved.
It was adopted for the wrong reasons because it was driven by political and social considerations. Some women have complained that their chances of career advancement within the military are hampered by their exclusion from ground combat positions, and the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit on their behalf.
Read the Article

 

[stinkcat_14]

let’s test how egalitarian you are. a big war comes along and we need 300,000 people for combat. a draft is necessary. should we draft both men and women to serve in the infantry?

Why should women be exempt?

 

[Kelfa28]

Why should women be exempt?

because putting a bunch of single women and single men in an outpost together will never result in attraction, sex and pregnancy…and an innocent life will never be put in harms way.

why would it? This stuff never happens now…

Seriously…you put a bunch of men and women together…the mission has been lost. The focus is no longer on what you have to do but on that pretty girl next to you going on a ruck march.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Why should women be exempt?

From the draft? They should be.

From combat arms MOSs? Because pretty much every study done on the subject has concluded with the fact that in order for a woman to get near the physical standards needed for these jobs she has to basically run her body into the ground and then some. She’d spend more time as a non-combat causality (injured due to physical strain, stress fractures, etc) than as fit for duty.

 

[stinkcat_14]

because putting a bunch of single women and single men in an outpost together will never result in attraction, sex and pregnancy…and an innocent life will never be put in harms way.

why would it? This stuff never happens now…

Seriously…you put a bunch of men and women together…the mission has been lost. The focus is no longer on what you have to do but on that pretty girl next to you going on a ruck march.

Personally, i think they should draft married couples. They won’t bother each other and they already know how to fight.

 

[stinkcat_14]

From the draft? They shouldn’t be.

From combat arms MOSs? Because pretty much every study done on the subject has concluded with the fact that in order for a woman to get near the physical standards needed for these jobs she has to basically run her body into the ground and then some. She’d spend more time as a non-combat causality (injured due to physical strain, stress fractures, etc) than as fit for duty.

There is no reason they shouldn’t drafted. Whether they are capable for combat is an empiricle question.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

There is no reason they shouldn’t drafted. Whether they are capable for combat is an empiricle question.

They should be. Thanks for catching that. I went back and edited my post.

 

[Kelfa28]

Personally, i think they should draft married couples. They won’t bother each other and they already know how to fight.

Tell that to my supervisor who sent home a pregnant woman in his unit who became pregnant by her husband, also from the same unit, while they were all in Iraq.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

The Catholic SF writer John Wright said it best:

My theory is that if American women are such helpless ninnies that they cannot save enough pin money to buy their cheapass lovers condoms at the drugstore without my Archbishop having to take money out of the church poor box to foot the bill, then the girls are not man enough to storm Normandy Beach.

scifiwright.com/2013/01/battles-are-ugly-when-women-fight/

 

[Wolseley]

because putting a bunch of single women and single men in an outpost together will never result in attraction, sex and pregnancy…and an innocent life will never be put in harms way.

why would it? This stuff never happens now…

Seriously…you put a bunch of men and women together…the mission has been lost. The focus is no longer on what you have to do but on that pretty girl next to you going on a ruck march.

In World War II, the Soviet Union put thousands of women on the front lines in combat----but they found out the only way to make it work was to have units strictly segregated by sex.

Thus, you had all-female units, and you had all-male units. The units sometimes fought side-by-side, but never intermingled together.

 

[wanabesaint]

Women are no longer of a chivilary civlization that honors and protects its women, by the men, but more so an expendable object.

Send these beast of women off to defend the nation is the same today as those that are off to evangellize the heathens, ASKS, From and TO what???

what are we defending the nation from, so far, the booggie man is the biggest threat.
what are we calling people back to in the sense of religion, nobody knows to tell us…

Good thing nobody thought of training dogs off to defend the nation from the boggie man, that could be sent with the men, that might get a dog killed. definitely smarter to send the women than a good dog.

People have too much ignorance and stupidity when they come up with the idea a civlization would send its women off to save the houghty and the rich so they didnt have to defend the nation…

what the US needs to do is not send the women, go back to the days if you sent your children/boys off to die for the country, then you also held a expectation that those that held the land would give that up to defend the nation…
You throw that one out in place of sending the women off to fight to defend the US, and you will shut up a whole sector of the US, and never ever hear this nonsense of sending the women off to fight a war…

People, sending women off to fight a war is now officially mute issue, ; ask the wealthy top forfite their wealth to defend the nation, and the war will be over in a hour…

if you want peace, vote to take the rich peoples wealth to fight the war, and peace will be immidiately. the US will cease its miltary before the sunsets again…

 

[lerapt78]

I don’t have a strong opinion either way on whether women should be able to serve in combat, though I lean toward “no”. Among other problems that arise, I am generally critical about lowering standards in all walks of life, military ones included. Physical differences exist, and the exceptions (while they can be admired) don’t make the rule. Sometimes women will just have to accept that biological limitations will mean certain doors are closed to them.

An observation though: Among those who criticize the feminist intrusion upon military life, one complaint I have seen often (not necessarily here, but on different websites) is that if women want full equality, they should have to serve in the military - just like men. And they call them hypocrites if they refuse that role. Ironically, some of those very same people who complain about the feminist double standard will vehemently protest when women *are *willing to serve, saying they’re pushing their way into everything. So which is it? Demand the double standards be removed and force women to serve? Or allow feminists the opportunity to try and live up to their ideals, only to close the door in their faces?

Not offering a solution here - just commenting that it seems like a “darned if you do, darned if you don’t” situation.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I don’t have a strong opinion either way on whether women should be able to serve in combat, though I lean toward “no”. Among other problems that arise, I am generally critical about lowering standards in all walks of life, military ones included. Physical differences exist, and the exceptions (while they can be admired) don’t make the rule. Sometimes women will just have to accept that biological limitations will mean certain doors are closed to them.

An observation though: Among those who criticize the feminist intrusion upon military life, one complaint I have seen often (not necessarily here, but on different websites) is that if women want full equality, they should have to serve in the military - just like men. And they call them hypocrites if they refuse that role. Ironically, some of those very same people who complain about the feminist double standard will vehemently protest when women *are *willing to serve, saying they’re pushing their way into everything. So which is it? Demand the double standards be removed and force women to serve? Or allow feminists the opportunity to try and live up to their ideals, only to close the door in their faces?

Not offering a solution here - just commenting that it seems like a “darned if you do, darned if you don’t” situation.

The problem is that there are no double standards.

-Promotion rates for women in the military range from just below, the same as, and above the promotion rates for men. One of the studies I read showed that the promotion rate for black female officers was the same as the promotion rate for black male officers. It also showed that women (I think white, but it could have been all women) have a 5 point percentage led in promotion from O3 to O4 (both of which are the pay grades you would want to focus on if your concern is gender diversity; Captains and Majors make up the bulk of career officers in the military, have the most interaction and influence on subordinates, and pretty much actually run the officer side of the house; the “Specialist Mafia” of the officer world).

-The “women can’t physically do the job” isn’t a “we hate women” tag line. Multiple studies have been done for at least the last 30 years and they all come out with similar conclusions. Bad idea, the female body isn’t physically designed to operate under the same conditions that the male body can.

edit- a '04 military report that I just googled lists the following
-as a whole 1 officer for every 5.2 enlisted; 1 female officer for every 5 female enlisted
-female percentage of the active duty force- 14.9; percentage of officers that are female- 15.4; percentage of enlisted that are female- 14.8
Show me the double standards being applied to women (oh by the way non-female minorities, since female is apparently a minority now, do a lot worse 36% of the force, 21.7% officer, 38% enlisted, 1 minority officer for every 12 minority enlisted)

 

[LisaA]

The Catholic SF writer John Wright said it best:

My theory is that if American women are such helpless ninnies that they cannot save enough pin money to buy their cheapass lovers condoms at the drugstore without my Archbishop having to take money out of the church poor box to foot the bill, then the girls are not man enough to storm Normandy Beach.

scifiwright.com/2013/01/battles-are-ugly-when-women-fight/

LOVE THIS! The same “I am woman hear me roar” Sandra Fluke is so helpless she can’t find a Walgreens to buy birth control for seven bucks a month. And this is the same woman who think she could master survival skills and be dropped out of a helicopter behind enemy lines?

Lisa

 

[GaryTaylor]

Panetta is pandering to the equal rights popularity of Obamas administration. Its deceptive, and its dangerous.

No-one has an issue with women who serve or their equal rights.

edition.cnn.com/2013/01/25/opinion/boykin-women-in-combat/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

“I’m not talking about reducing the qualifications for the job — if they can meet the qualifications for the job, then they should have the right to serve,” Panetta.

That does not mean the standards may not change.

Army Gen. Robert Cone said the physical standards will be studied and set and be the same for men and women.

Cone said surveys of soldiers indicate they are willing to give women a chance in their fields, provided standards are not lowered. “We assure them we don’t think that will be the case,” Cone said.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think it might have been Thomas Sowell who said “Liberalism is the abandonment of what works for what sounds good.”

 

[Kelfa28]

The Catholic SF writer John Wright said it best:

My theory is that if American women are such helpless ninnies that they cannot save enough pin money to buy their cheapass lovers condoms at the drugstore without my Archbishop having to take money out of the church poor box to foot the bill, then the girls are not man enough to storm Normandy Beach.

scifiwright.com/2013/01/battles-are-ugly-when-women-fight/

THIS!

Such an awesome post and thank-you for sharing!

 

[TimeEntrance]

Panetta is pandering to the equal rights popularity of Obamas administration. Its deceptive, and its dangerous.

Actually, I think the United States is trying to reassert itself as “The Land of the Free” and the nation that affords the most opportunity to the most people on earth. Doing this in a time when the West and America are undergoing some economic hardships. Making the U.S. look even more appealing to intelligent, ambitious homosexuals and women across the world. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

If so… not a particularly bad image strategy. Reviving the American narrative.

Overall, I think the Obama administration has been leading the U.S. down the right trajectory into the early 21st Century. Though, I’d prefer not to see women in infantry roles, and it irks me some, but I can accept it and adapt to the change if it comes. I don’t know how women as a whole will adapt to infantry life and its demands but I suppose that will be solved simply by the infantry schools and infantry life culling out women that can’t measure up to its demands.

But more unfortunate is that injuries and tragedies will be extend from 19 year old old boys to 19 year old girls. But I suppose everyone has their path to go down in life.

 

[Kelfa28]

Panetta is pandering to the equal rights popularity of Obamas administration. Its deceptive, and its dangerous.

No-one has an issue with women who serve or their equal rights.

edition.cnn.com/2013/01/25/opinion/boykin-women-in-combat/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

“I’m not talking about reducing the qualifications for the job — if they can meet the qualifications for the job, then they should have the right to serve,” Panetta.

That does not mean the standards may not change.

Army Gen. Robert Cone said the physical standards will be studied and set and be the same for men and women.

Cone said surveys of soldiers indicate they are willing to give women a chance in their fields, provided standards are not lowered. “We assure them we don’t think that will be the case,” Cone said.

Well…we’ll just have to wait and see, I guess.

But, given the military’s history…they will cave.

They’ve caved on every other social experiment they’ve introduced.

 

[LisaA]

I think it might have been Thomas Sowell who said “Liberalism is the abandonment of what works for what sounds good.”

Professor Sowell is an American TREASURE. What amazing wisdom and good sense. Too bad HE isn’t our first black president.

Lisa