QuiteWhittle
Member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...how-womens-roles-in-the-military-will-expand/
Searched but I didn't find a thread on this.
Searched but I didn't find a thread on this.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Pentagon Opens All Combat Positions to Women
- Thread starter QuiteWhittle
- Start date
- Status
Peanut0423
Member
That's awesome!!
UnemployedVillain
Member
This is all that really matters. And as long as they don't have to dumb down the requirements all around
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/full...a-military-turning-point-for-women-in-combat/
Great interview with Ash Carter on this from PBS tonight. Talks about what post 2 and 4 both mentioned. You two should watch.
Great interview with Ash Carter on this from PBS tonight. Talks about what post 2 and 4 both mentioned. You two should watch.
King Tubby
Member
Good. Soon our armed forces will look like XCOM.
I don't do this much, but this. Don't lower the requirements for men, don't lower the requirements for women, and don't have an expectation that any vast ammount of women will be able to be combat ready, and this can only be a good thing.
Also, open the draft to women, now that they are combat able.
ehretreue.m.h
Banned
On one hand, fuck yeah, equality. On the other, haven't most studies shown this actually decreases a unit's combat efficiency?
Thought I read something about that somewhere.
Thought I read something about that somewhere.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I'm fine with this. There are certain roles that the vast majority of female soldiers can't qualify for based on physical requirements alone, but if a soldier meets the mark she should be able to get the job.
easterislandhead
Member
Haven't read it, but I can believe it. Naturally the women are separated for things like sleeping quarters(Except in the field) and showers, while everyone else eats sleeps and showers together making a tighter Section/platoon by default.
tornjaw
Member
I can only speak for the U.S. Army as I've been apart of it for almost 15 years. There are different physical fitness standards for women. If you look here you will see a breakdown of the fitness requirements for the Army Physical Fitness Test.
You will see the 50 and 60 highlighted. Those are points based on the number of repetitions performed. If you look at the 17-21 age group (the ages most people enlist at) the males must do 42 push-ups in order to get 60%. The bare minimum required to pass a PT Test whereas females receive 100% of points at the same number of repetitions.
Not only are the physical fitness requirements skewed. All males enlisting will have their heads shaved completely for the entire duration of Basic Training. Females are not required to do the same.
From Day 1 there is no such thing as equality.
I am all for women entering combat roles. I was an Infantryman for several years before I reclassed to be a Combat Medic. But I've never been pleased with the discrepancy between the two genders. Having females in Combat Arms roles is a good thing, will be a good thing, but have two different standards for physical fitness, especially in this capacity; is not a good thing.
Yeah that makes sense, and I doubt that would ever change for political points.
But that doesnt stop people I know in the military from making slippery slope arguments that weakened requirements and common false rape accusations (just two of the many shitty stupid arguments) are the ultimate result of women in combat positions.
EDIT:
Hmm this is interesting. That's not good at all. I wonder what the rational is for that. I've seen it happen before in fire departments and thought it was stupid. I don't think the majority of people in this day and age care who's doing these jobs (I mean, Im sure some people might care if they're muslim or black, but that's a different subject), but they have to be able to accomplish the task. Also different standards would so obviously affect moral and team mentality.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Now they need to be required to register for Selective Service. Or it be abolished completely. One or the other.
ehretreue.m.h
Banned
ROTC myself, so I'm kind of in the same boat. I get your meaning, believe me, so when I said equality, I mean the potential to do the same is now here; there are some women in the battalion that are total studs (studettes?).
In my opinion, if you can do around fifty push-ups or so, regardless, you're not in terrible health either way, though you'll definitely be in a lower percentile compared to your comrades.
tornjaw
Member
Of course. There are always some women that are absolute badasses that can max the scale of the male 17-21 standards. The problem there is that it's only a handful at most. Currently I'm an Instructor and so I oversee the MOS training of hundreds of Soldiers during the six week cycle that I have them. The Companies usually have a breakdown of 220 males and 80 females (approximate) of that maybe, maybe 15 get 90-100% in all three categories (for females) and of those 15 maybe 5 can max out on the male standards.
H.Protagonist
[-_-]/
Awesome news~
And for everyone already wringing their hands over the elite units being 'watered down' somehow, it does specifically say it
For more general positions, plenty of other countries have had women in combat roles for years and their units didn't collapse into useless chaos or anything, so what's the big stress about? I'd say the greatest threat to the effectiveness of women in combat comes not from their physical or mental capabilities but from their male colleagues (on all fronts social and sexual), and that's something I think will take time to work out but is totally doable, and needs to be done, really.
And for everyone already wringing their hands over the elite units being 'watered down' somehow, it does specifically say it
For more general positions, plenty of other countries have had women in combat roles for years and their units didn't collapse into useless chaos or anything, so what's the big stress about? I'd say the greatest threat to the effectiveness of women in combat comes not from their physical or mental capabilities but from their male colleagues (on all fronts social and sexual), and that's something I think will take time to work out but is totally doable, and needs to be done, really.
ehretreue.m.h
Banned
Elite units tend to have nuts training anyway from my understanding. If you can pass that, you're easily SF material.
The issue I've heard -and this came from the IDF- is that in the event men see a female squadmate go down, tend to just lose their minds, which, while it could be good for a fighter, can absolutely wreck unit cohesion.
I think you're right in that the biggest obstacle will just be from the males having to adjust to having women in the ranks more regularly, though I think the Army is getting better about it - especially in regards to sexual assault.
yep. if both sexes can pass the exact same test there should be no reason to prohibit either from serving any role
H.Protagonist
[-_-]/
Yup yup. They're badass, all of them (men and women).
For the issue, I've definitely heard that a lot as well, but that seems to be a failing they need to address on the men's side. Somehow despite that, whenever this topic comes up, the responsibility for that seems to penalize women. Some men can't accept them as colleagues or equals so they shouldn't be admitted because it will weaken units, some men can't control themselves so to avoid sexual assault issues women shouldn't be allowed in units, etc., etc. While I understand that overcoming deeply ingrained social norms is going to take time, it depresses me that the argument is so often framed as allowing women into combat units is asking for trouble instead of men's issues regarding women in combat is the barrier we need to overcome for a better military. That's why so many find it easier to focus on not allowing women in because they think they're physically not capable...even though the military has said again and again that only those who can meet the standards will be allowed.
But, things are getting better, and this ruling is a great first step. Plenty of guys are just fine and respect all their teammates regardless of gender, so it's only a matter of time and concentrated social effort until we reach a nice balance, I think.
I remember reading a study posted on Gaf two or three months ago about this very topic. The problem with it was the gaping caveat of the women in the studies had no combat experience compared to the male counterparts.
One study, with (apparently) a questionable methodology. And there pribably were studied showing that race integration decreased a unit's combat efficiency back in the day.
Hard to blame men for the years of socialization that ingrains the belief that the life of a woman is more important than that of a man. "Women and children" first is how even the most liberal countries still behave.
TheVampire
Banned
If they let women on the front lines in WW2 wouldnt that have doubled their fighting power and effectiveness since more soldiers?
No. The physical differences matter because they're less effective as a group overall (strength/speed/etc)- it's not just a numbers game.
H.Protagonist
[-_-]/
I'm not blaming men for having them, I'm blaming the people who continue to frame the argument in a way that makes women the problem and not these kinds of beliefs even while knowing that the current problems we face in trying to move forward are rooted in those very ideas. As I said, I know it's going to take time and social effort because they really are just that deep for some people. After lots of research and deliberation, the decision to let women in has been made, though, so lets move forward and start addressing them for what they are, is all I'm saying on that point.
Elfforkusu
Member
As long as they can pass the (same) physical test, this makes perfect sense to me.
Your previous post indicated that it is the beliefs of men that are pernicious. I'm telling you it isn't merely the belief of men that women's lives are more important, but that of men and women in even the most liberal societies.
I served (in Israel) in a combat unit that had both male and female soldiers, and physically the woman could not hold up with the male soldiers, moreover they were much more prone to injury from the physical stress that was put on them.
that doesn't mean they weren't good soldiers, but having the same physical requirements for men and woman doesn't actually work.
Interesting point that everyone is ignoring. Why is the selective service system still males only at this point in time?
Armies have never been limited by the number of bodies to throw at the foe. We are an extremely numerous species. The real limit has always been equipping said bodies.
H.Protagonist
[-_-]/
Well, within the military, I'd say that's the case as I'd presume those women who join believe they're perfectly capable of being useful in their positions combat or no or they wouldn't join (I'd be sad to find out otherwise, but you never know). The people arguing against it outside the military are certainly both some men and women, which is I why I tried to make that a bit clearer in my second post.
As for the belief that women's lives are more important, I feel like that's moved a bit past the old black and white version people used to hold. I'd say people do still feel a strong instinctual urge to protect that which they perceive to be weaker/smaller than them for sure, but to value more? I'm not sure. Humans aren't in such a position that we need to protect the pool of those humans who bear the vital next generation anymore. Of course, emotionally-speaking you're probably not wrong at all even if we know that. The military seems like a special case outside of that, though, because training and weapons are great equalizers for one, and because when they sign on it's basically to join a group who's purpose in itself is to protect others. I'd say that sheds a bit of the normal expectations people have. Maybe I'm just optimistic, though?
I think it's more a question of "will they be useful in combat (in general)," and I believe the answer is yes, so there's no real reason not to allow them to serve in combat positions. It'll take some adjusting, sure, but guys who can't cut it don't last and neither will women who don't cut it.
And that there is the problem, the physical tests are geared towards men who typically have greater physical attributes so do you-
-Keep the same tests ensuring equal abilities, at which the equal rights groups moan because women are at a natural disadvantage.
-Reduce the tests for women producing a two tier system, the armed forces will hate this for max efficiency they really want clones. Also at this men's rights moan because men face harder tests then women and women's rights groups moan because it may make people think of women as 'weaker'.
-Simply allow women in who want to join, to the hell with fitness tests we have quotas to fill!
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
The Soviets say hi.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
No, the same total number of bodies need to be acting as cogs in the overall war machine, which includes participation in agricultural and industrial labor plus rear echelon duties (like medical stuff) and administrative work. You might get a small increase in combat effectiveness by weeding out low quality men on the front-lines and replacing them with exceptional women, but it would be nowhere near double effectiveness since you won't wind up with extra soldiers, or if you do it will be at the expense of other vital war industries. Female participation in WWII was extremely high, it just wasn't as people shooting guns most of the time.
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
Well, thankfully this was a net positive as more women were accepted into labor and in some science fields. "Computers" were originally mostly women.
http://www.military.com/military-fitness/army-fitness-requirements/army-pft-two-mile-run-score-chart
.............
As a former Army scout, I think this is a good thing. If a female can meet the standards (the male standards), you can't exclude them from combat positions without it ultimately being discriminatory.
I'll tell you what people are really angry about: women in combat arms breaks up the boys club. Simple as that. I've never heard a single argument against it that wasn't outright BS, or couldn't be properly dealt with using smart policies and good leadership.
SolidusDave
Member
That already happened in the army, marines etc. (flexed arm-hangs instead of pull-ups etc....).
In principle that's fine because there are other jobs to fill than just active combat roles, having more women in these male-dominated organizations can help with a lot of problems.
But the combat positions should only be for women who can actually compete on the same level as their male peers.
20 minutes to go two miles? breh that is a brisk walk lol
The boys club thing is true, but have you seen that guy that can't get points because he'll never run a 14 minute two mile? Have you seen the guy after he realizes that a woman got the promotion because running 16 makes her God's gift to the military? That's the root of the problem, even more than the sexist bs fostered by generally never having to grow up in the military.
Also, the amount of women that can (or should tbh) go around in full kit regularly is extremely low. Hip problems are one of the biggest medical KOs for women in the military. Shitty running and training is bad enough, but when you take women that aren't even given a real foundation - because the physical standard is plainly embarrassing - then you're just asking for long-term damage and attrition problems.
Women in combat arms? Cool whatever. But the physical standards overall are going to keep setting women up to fail. That's my issue.
I see that I misunderstood your sarcasm earlier. As a 33 year old dude who can pull off a 21:30 3 mile, 20 for a 2 mile is indeed slow, lol.
As far as the injuries and the PT stuff go, women who want to join the combat arms need to be held to the correct standard from the very start of their military careers - and those that would like to crossover from a support job to a combat MOS should be made to understand what's expected of them.
Stating that women are more prone to injuries... sure, perhaps true, but it doesn't matter, because not all of them will be, and it's unfair to assume so. Let every individual prove themselves.
I get what you're saying though. A lot of women currently in the military will be totally set up for failure if they tried to move into the Infantry or Armor branches. Hopefully the Army and the Marine Corps are able to implement intelligent policies that correct this, but we'll see.
mcz117chief
Member
I don't like to see women in combat. Nothing against women, but in my opinion seeing women die in combat is a huge hit to morale since natural instincts of men are to protect women, so casualties among women could lead to some very unfortunate incidents and PTSDs.
Women should have the opportunity to do and excel at anything they put their minds to, but seeing women in harms way makes me very uneasy.
Maybe it is just me but even in books, movies and video games, every time a woman dies it just hits me hard.
Is it just me? I hope I am not offending anyone, that is definitely not my intent, just my thoughts on this.
Women should have the opportunity to do and excel at anything they put their minds to, but seeing women in harms way makes me very uneasy.
Maybe it is just me but even in books, movies and video games, every time a woman dies it just hits me hard.
Is it just me? I hope I am not offending anyone, that is definitely not my intent, just my thoughts on this.
What's the difference between a girl or a really good friend since boot? Soldiers see their friends not only killed, but maimed all the time.
They're professionals. I don't see much of a difference.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked