MacNN Forums (http://forums.macnn.com/)
-   Political/War Lounge (http://forums.macnn.com/political-war-lounge/)
-   -   Ladies first. (http://forums.macnn.com/95/political-war-lounge/497470/ladies-first/)

 
The Final Dakar Jan 23, 2013 04:36 PM
Ladies first.
Panetta opens combat roles to women - Yahoo! News

Quote
Senior defense officials say Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is removing the military's ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war.

The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule banning women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta's decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.
Rule 8: If you have the guts and the ability, yeah, why not.
 
The Final Dakar Jan 23, 2013 05:14 PM
Interesting anecdote on another forum:
Quote
I have a friend who was injured when her convoy was ambushed in Iraq. They were evacuated to a town or a fort (I can't remember what the name was) and the attack continued for three days. They were pinned down, and every able bodied solider took up arms and fought, including her. When they sent her home after, they refused to give her her combat medal, because women are banned from combat.
 
andi*pandi Jan 23, 2013 05:42 PM
If they can complete the same training, and are already there in harms way, why the heck not. Just pay them the same, please.
 
Shaddim Jan 23, 2013 08:37 PM
My only issue is whether the female soldier can meet minimum physical standards; can they carry a wounded fellow soldier to safety, or assist them enough to where they can reach someone who can? Otherwise, "OO-RAH!" Let them work to qualify and serve like anyone else. :thumbsup:
 
ebuddy Jan 23, 2013 08:42 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Shaddim (Post 4213489)
My only issue is whether the female soldier can meet minimum physical standards; can they carry a wounded fellow soldier to safety, or assist them enough to where they can reach someone who can? Otherwise, "OO-RAH!" Let them work to qualify and serve like anyone else. :thumbsup:
:thumbsup: Women are not held to the standards of men which IMO would hamper overall fitness. Any such move should be accompanied by standardized metrics across the board and of course, equal pay.
 
Cold Warrior Jan 23, 2013 10:35 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by The Final Dakar (Post 4213443)
Interesting anecdote on another forum:
There are two different combat awards, at least in the Army. There's the combat infantry badge awarded to infantry or special forces, then there's the combat action badge, which can be awarded to non-infantry soldiers. But if her unit had poor NCOs and officers, they could certainly have not done anything to get her the awards.
 
subego Jan 24, 2013 02:55 AM
I approve of this to the point I'd actually make another thread about it.

But that would be stupid.
 
BLAZE_MkIV Jan 24, 2013 01:19 PM
My brother was in Iraq. On a convoy run they took fire. The first thing every guy in did was check to see if one of the drivers, who was the only female there, was okay. Then they did what they were supposed to do.
 
subego Jan 24, 2013 03:34 PM
Time for retraining.
 
subego Jan 24, 2013 03:56 PM
FWIW, I heard Jesse Ventura make this same point more than 15 years ago, and think what you may of him, it's a valid one.

Our cultural standard is men protect women. He noted that would have to change, and asked (I think also valid question) do we want to do that?


You can probably divine my answer.
 
BLAZE_MkIV Jan 24, 2013 04:29 PM
I don't think it's cultural. I think the term for men who wouldn't do this is sociopath.
 
subego Jan 24, 2013 04:40 PM
How does that make it not cultural?
 
The Final Dakar Jan 24, 2013 04:44 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV (Post 4213623)
I don't think it's cultural. I think the term for men who wouldn't do this is sociopath.
Whaaaaaaat? What about gays, cowards, and the self-centered?
 
andi*pandi Jan 24, 2013 04:49 PM
Was the female solder checking to see if her comrades were ok, or was she doing her job? Can you do both?

I think being protective of your fellow soldiers has got to hold a unit together, male or female. That and getting the job done together. I'd much prefer that kind of unit than those who attack their own female soldiers.
 
subego Jan 24, 2013 05:00 PM
This is actually a bigger problem than it may seem.

If it's acceptable for you to make a choice between checking on someone and doing your job, it's too easy to pick checking on someone, especially when your job is, say, charging someone who is shooting at you.

My understanding is the medic checks in on you, and that's it.
 
andi*pandi Jan 24, 2013 05:20 PM
Agreed that for all parties better to protect first and check later.
 
reader50 Jan 27, 2013 02:40 PM
I'm in favor. And it's not that much of a risk. Leon Panetta may think we've been at war for a decade, but Congress hasn't declared us at war since 1945. After 68 years of peace (longest in US history), no one still in the Armed Forces has seen war.

it is the PWL after all, lets have some fun
 
Snow-i Jan 27, 2013 11:37 PM
To be fair, no one has matched our strategic prowess for that long either. "War" implies that both sides are slaughtering each other.
 
subego Jan 27, 2013 11:46 PM
Like the War on Drugs.
 
MacGirl80 Feb 13, 2013 07:45 AM
I'd be interested in the situations that call for special exceptions and are closed to women. I'm thinking situations that require a certain level of physical strength?
 
subego Feb 13, 2013 08:24 AM
I'd be surprised if there's any strength requirement the military has in place which can't be met by some women, and I would hope the methodology would be to test individuals instead of exempt by gender.

Likewise, I assume endurance is equally, if not more important, and my understanding is the distaff side may have the advantage here.

Likely due to putting up with our shit. ;)
 
Shaddim Feb 13, 2013 05:21 PM
Years ago I read an article, I think it was in Newsweek, that mentioned a study where less than .5% of women were capable of passing Marine basic, by the male standards. Still, that's some, and it's encouraging.
 
subego Feb 13, 2013 05:44 PM
What percentage of men are capable?
 
mattyb Feb 13, 2013 05:47 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by reader50 (Post 4213961)
I'm in favor. And it's not that much of a risk. Leon Panetta may think we've been at war for a decade, but Congress hasn't declared us at war since 1945. After 68 years of peace (longest in US history), no one still in the Armed Forces has seen war.

it is the PWL after all, lets have some fun
Always use the quote button, always use the quote button ...
 
Shaddim Feb 13, 2013 08:54 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4217105)
What percentage of men are capable?
Officially? ~25% that are within the acceptable age range.
 
Shaddim Feb 13, 2013 08:56 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by reader50 (Post 4213961)
I'm in favor. And it's not that much of a risk. Leon Panetta may think we've been at war for a decade, but Congress hasn't declared us at war since 1945. After 68 years of peace (longest in US history), no one still in the Armed Forces has seen war.

it is the PWL after all, lets have some fun
Care to make a wager on that? ;)
 
subego Feb 14, 2013 03:23 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Shaddim (Post 4217134)
Officially? ~25% that are within the acceptable age range.
Do you know if that entrants, or the entire population?

More specifically, do you know what the requirements are?

I've known marines. They aren't necessarily physical specimens.
 
subego Feb 14, 2013 04:44 AM
Did a quick Google.

The bare minimum fitness requirements for a male young-un:

3 pull-ups
50 crunches
3 miles in 28 minutes

There's also a point system for these three PF trials, where you also have to meet a minimum, that makes the actual minimum more like:

7 pull-ups
50 crunches
3 miles in 26 minutes


Way more than .5% can swing that.


Sauce: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/marines/l/blfitmale.htm
 
Shaddim Feb 14, 2013 03:55 PM
More to it than the "official" requirements, a lot more.
 
subego Feb 14, 2013 05:07 PM
Dude. Your bullshit detectors should be on red alert.

I posit almost any 18-year-old girl who's over, say, 5'2", and isn't defective in some manner, can be trained to the point they'd get through "male" Marine Basic.
 
Shaddim Feb 14, 2013 05:43 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4217307)
Dude. Your bullshit detectors should be on red alert.

I posit almost any 18-year-old girl who's over, say, 5'2", and isn't defective in some manner, can be trained to the point they'd get through "male" Marine Basic.
Really, they can all run 15 miles w/ an 80lb pack? They can all carry another Marine 50yds to safety through a simulated battlefield? Crawl under 100' of barbed wire, through mud, w/ a rifle, with gunfire and sirens blaring (and a DI calling you the worst things you can imagine)? Traverse the Parris Island obstacle course, including the 20' vertical wall? If the MSoF were all that mattered, sure, anyone could, unless they're defective, but as I said, there's so much more than that.
 
subego Feb 14, 2013 05:51 PM
Yes. They can do all those things.

I'm not implying the minimum requirements are the sum total of the experience. What I'm saying is that the gap between the minimum and the reality can't be so huge that any young woman could handle one and only .5% could handle the other.

This is bullshit. You know this is bullshit.
 
Shaddim Feb 14, 2013 06:27 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4217323)
Yes. They can do all those things.

I'm not implying the minimum requirements are the sum total of the experience. What I'm saying is that the gap between the minimum and the reality can't be so huge that any young woman could handle one and only .5% could handle the other.

This is bullshit. You know this is bullshit.
No it isn't, I do not "know" that (telling me what I know doesn't help), and we likely will not agree on this issue. A lowered standard, with less physically demanding activities, can and will work, so long as they can still be effective. But, there are physiological differences between the sexes that can't be wholly ignored. Tests show that women can be just as effective as men at being fighter pilots, gunners, artillery officers, MPs, and many other very demanding duties, but some things they aren't typically as adept at handling.

This isn't a slam against females, and if they can pass the same physical requirements as men in any combat role, then they should be allowed to serve in that capacity. However, don't expect the success rate to be as high. If you planted 100 random, healthy, American women 18-30 at the depot on Parris Island and made them adhere to all the male standards for all of Basic, you'd be lucky if 1 made it. Not because they're inferior in any way, just because that isn't their main strength.
 
subego Feb 14, 2013 09:27 PM
I apologize for telling you what you think (honestly).

What specifically needs to be done which 99% of these women can't accomplish?
 
subego Feb 14, 2013 09:31 PM
Let me ask you this. What if you would give each of those women a million dollars if they made it through?

Still only 1 out of 100?
 
Shaddim Feb 14, 2013 11:51 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4217359)
Let me ask you this. What if you would give each of those women a million dollars if they made it through?

Still only 1 out of 100?
I don't believe that offering money is going to change the laws of physics, or a person can carry a pack that's >60% of their own weight, 15 miles over hilly terrain, at a brisk march. I've also not encountered very many women how can climb, hand-over-hand, up a 20' rope, or carry a grown man, with gear, 50yds.
 
subego Feb 15, 2013 01:06 AM
Let's take this one at a time.

15-mile fast march with gear.

What's the percentage of women who meet the qualifications I listed above (young, healthy, 5'2"+) for which there is simply no amount of physical training that could get them in good enough shape to accomplish this march?

My answer: 0%.
 
Shaddim Feb 15, 2013 03:46 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4217373)
Let's take this one at a time.

15-mile fast march with gear.

What's the percentage of women who meet the qualifications I listed above (young, healthy, 5'2"+) for which there is simply no amount of physical training that could get them in good enough shape to accomplish this march?

My answer: 0%.
I don't agree. In fact, I disagree so much I don't even know what to say to that.
 
The Final Dakar Feb 15, 2013 10:19 AM
So confused right now. Please, continue.
 
BLAZE_MkIV Feb 15, 2013 02:55 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4217373)
Let's take this one at a time.

15-mile fast march with gear.

What's the percentage of women who meet the qualifications I listed above (young, healthy, 5'2"+) for which there is simply no amount of physical training that could get them in good enough shape to accomplish this march?

My answer: 0%.
Do you know how much gear they carry? The lower limit on the weight is fixed. Its not like recreational hiking were you can spread around some of the common equipment.

"With backpacks and protective gear often weighing 130 pounds — and sometimes more for those packing extra ammunition"
Hearing to focus on troops’ heavy combat packs - Marine Corps News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Marine Corps Times

The armies max weight for 5'2" females is only 138lbs
Army Weight Charts for Females
 
mattyb Feb 15, 2013 03:20 PM
I bet that there are women in Pakistan and other mountainous third world countries that could shit all over the majority of males in first world armed forces.

While wearing flip flops.

At -20.

Celsius.
 
subego Feb 15, 2013 04:25 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Shaddim (Post 4217377)
I don't agree. In fact, I disagree so much I don't even know what to say to that.
It was a request for you to provide a percentage. Don't hurt yourself. ;)
 
subego Feb 15, 2013 04:33 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV (Post 4217496)
Do you know how much gear they carry? The lower limit on the weight is fixed. Its not like recreational hiking were you can spread around some of the common equipment.

"With backpacks and protective gear often weighing 130 pounds — and sometimes more for those packing extra ammunition"
Yes. I do know how much they carry. It averages about 60-80 lbs.

130 lb. loads are for SAWs, mortars, and grenadiers. That's info in in the link BTW.
 
subego Feb 15, 2013 04:37 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by The Final Dakar (Post 4217408)
So confused right now. Please, continue.
In what way? I'm here to explain.
 
ebuddy Feb 15, 2013 08:37 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by mattyb (Post 4217499)
I bet that there are women in Pakistan and other mountainous third world countries that could shit all over the majority of males in first world armed forces.

While wearing flip flops.

At -20.

Celsius.
How much?
 
subego Feb 16, 2013 11:37 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Shaddim (Post 4217377)
I don't agree. In fact, I disagree so much I don't even know what to say to that.
Seriously. You're not going to give your own answer? 20%? 50%? 90%?

Others can answer too.

15-mile fast march with 80 lb. pack.

Female. Young, healthy, 5'2"+.

For what percentage would it be physically impossible to do this, regardless of the amount of PF training they had?
 
Shaddim Feb 16, 2013 05:36 PM
With only the two usual 5min breaks? <1%.
 
subego Feb 16, 2013 11:21 PM
To be clear, you are catching I'm saying these women get training, right? I'm not talking someone off the street.

Edit: wait, I may be reading you wrong. Less than 1% succeed with the challenge, or less than 1% fail.
 
Shaddim Feb 17, 2013 04:42 AM
<1% succeed, day in, day out, it's too much, physically. There's no shame, I'm not being a chauvinist, it's simply about physics.
 
turtle777 Feb 17, 2013 05:10 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by mattyb (Post 4217499)
At -20.

Celsius.
This is funny as shit. :D

Lest someone thing it was F, and hence, no big deal.
Or worse, think it's -20K.

-20F = -29C

-t
 
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:42 PM.

Copyright © 2005-2007 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2