Post: #1

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-sources-panetta...itics.html

Surprisingly, most of the comments are against this move as the commentators wisely recognize that having women in combat roles is bad news for the military and good news for the other side.

Some of the top rated comments:

Quote:So when are females expected to have the same PT test standards as males

Quote:I don't believe he should be making this decision right before he leaves. Some women might be able to handle this but they should meet all the exact same physical requirements as the job requires of a man.

Quote:physical standards? We tried letting women medics come with us on patrols in Afghanistan... We ended up carrying their medic gear as well as our own. They couldn't drag a wounded soldier to cover while wearing body armor and gear either. This is another terrible move by the single worst administration in U.S. history.

When will this stop? How far must the pendulum swing before it finally swings the other way?

Post: #2

Its also a huge problem because of biologically wired protection instincts. There was a study done, I'll try to find it. Basically, men may ignore orders etc in order to protect the women in the group and thus endanger the whole group and potentially ruin the mission.

Of course, the media never mentions these facts as they imply biological differences in the sexes.

Post: #3

They asked for it, now they're going to get it.

A chance to prove themselves as equal to men on the battlefield. Let's how much male privilege they feel when they're getting their legs ripped off by an insurgent IED.

It's just too bad dozens or even hundreds of men are going to die as a direct consequence of this decision, not to mention our fighting force will be drastically weakened.

When will it ever be enough for them?

Post: #4

If they're lowering the standards to allow them in, they're lowering the standards of their soldiers. This difference is negligible if you were talking about logistical, engineering, intelligence etc, but physical fitness is incredibly important in infantry.

This is bad news. That takes us one step closer to the day the British Army will try the same bullshit.

How long till women want the standards of special forces to be lowered to allow them in?

Post: #5

Another problem is that horny dudes on deployments will be put with women and inevitably "rape" & "sexual harassment" will become a serious issue.

Oh, well.

One of my hopes is that the US military gets slowly defunded. No more foreign wars means they will mostly do maintenance, drills and simulations, so hopefully this development will become moot.

Post: #6

i dont see a problem with this. i was angry when i had to sign my draft papers at 18 and the women turning 18 didnt. this was and still is not fair. why are mens lives worth less?

i do think this could be a problem as a group of soldiers is only as strong as its weakest link. but to get around this just make all female units, that will cut down on male casulities, and rape charges.

Post: #7

This is a fantastic idea. We should have all female infantry units as well. Guys are expendable but when female bodies start piling up the American people will have a sudden change of heart about these foreign excursions and demand their cessation. It will also serve as a reality check about the physical capability of women versus those of men. The body count will prove the blank slatists wrong.

Post: #8

So this means they have to sign up for the Selective Service, right?

Post: #9

I say give it a few years and see how it turns out. If women perform shitty and put their fellow men in danger by their presence then we can forever bring closure to this topic. If they actually manage to fill a role that makes the armed forces more successful, well then that's to the best for everyone. Win/win the way I see it. (well maybe not for the poor sods that will give their lives if women fuck up in the field)

Post: #10

(01-23-2013 05:02 PM)Faust Wrote:  So this means they have to sign up for the Selective Service, right?

I posted on this topic a few months back and that's exactly what I suggested. If women want the right to serve in combat roles, then it's only fair that they are eligible for the draft as well. It sickens me how selective women can be in their pursuit of equal treatment.

Post: #11

This just speaks to where we are as a country. The WWII generation wouldn't have any of this nonsense.

Post: #12

Madness...

Post: #13

I ask myself, can I imagine either of my granddads landing on Omaha Beach with a LC full of women?

Can I imagine my grandfather getting pulled from his post after being shot by a Nazi machine gun during the Battle of the Bulge by a lady?

This is a low moment for America.

Post: #14

I don't see a problem with this as long as it means they are opening up the opportunity to qualify for these positions - not simply handing them out to women you aren't up to the standard as set by and for men. Just don't lower the standards.

Post: #15

Who cares? Our military's efficiency in it's ability to invade sandy countries full of brown people is really that important to you guys?
I hope they make them register for selective service too, while they're at it. Lets see just how far equality goes before women realize they were better off under the shelter of the "patriarchy". xD

Post: #16

They should let women do the same stuff that the guys do.

But, they should also make sure and test them women to see if they can lift the amount of weight and score the same exact thing that the guys do on the tests. She should also be able to beat up the guys as easily the guys can.

Only then should she be allowed to fight.

Post: #17

Actually, its a genius move.

Say that women will be assigned to combat, then fewer women will enlist.

Post: #18

(01-23-2013 08:18 PM)germanico Wrote:  Actually, its a genius move.

Say that women will be assigned to combat, then fewer women will enlist.

Good point.

Post: #19

(01-23-2013 05:20 PM)Vicious Wrote:  I say give it a few years and see how it turns out. If women perform shitty and put their fellow men in danger by their presence then we can forever bring closure to this topic. If they actually manage to fill a role that makes the armed forces more successful, well then that's to the best for everyone. Win/win the way I see it. (well maybe not for the poor sods that will give their lives if women fuck up in the field)

The only snag in that plan is this:

From a civil rights perspective, people will view it as a step backward to rescind this decision. Unless something drastic happens, this decision is unlikely to be reversed.

Post: #20

Look at all the efforts to get women into STEM fields...they haven't been very effective. The same is likely to be true for this: there will not be a stampede of women going into combat roles...it's just not in their nature.

Post: #21

polymath Wrote:From a civil rights perspective, people will view it as a step backward to rescind this decision. Unless something drastic happens, this decision is unlikely to be reversed.

The decision itself isn't a huge deal one way or the other. Practically speaking, an arbitrary ban on certain people being able to serve is not a good thing. All that will need to happen if things don't work out is for people to stop caring about it politically-- so long as nobody is forcing women into combat roles the ban itself isn't a big deal. It's the political pressure to actually get women fighting that would cause the problems.

(01-23-2013 05:20 PM)Vicious Wrote:  I say give it a few years and see how it turns out. If women perform shitty and put their fellow men in danger by their presence then we can forever bring closure to this topic. If they actually manage to fill a role that makes the armed forces more successful, well then that's to the best for everyone. Win/win the way I see it. (well maybe not for the poor sods that will give their lives if women fuck up in the field)

I'm afraid it's going to be neither of those. I think women soldiers will work out alright but there will be lots of hidden costs. An inefficiency in the system, one of many, and by the time it comes back to bite us no one know how it got so bad.

That's my pessimistic theory anyway. I have no military background so that's all I'm willing to say on the matter.

Post: #22

"Speak softly and carry a... well, big sticks are phallic and reinforce gender standards, i'm afraid."

Post: #23

(01-23-2013 08:55 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 08:18 PM)germanico Wrote:  Actually, its a genius move.

Say that women will be assigned to combat, then fewer women will enlist.

Good point.

I wouldn't be surprised if feminists and women actually lobby even harder to have physical standards lowered so women can achieve "fair representation" in the army.

Wasn't an article posted on this forum a while ago how NYC firefighting department was being forced to accept more women and the women were endangering the very people they were rescuing because they physically can't match up with their male counterparts. The feminists were still complaining that the system was unfair.

Post: #24

the hr department of the army is gonna get overloaded with sexually harassment and assault claims.

they say more woman soldiers are raped than killed in combat.

do you think it will get better when they drop these chicks into all male units on the front line?

Post: #25

Someday soon America will have the armed forces it deserves.