Women to be cleared for combat roles (Page 10)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2013-01-25 8:15 AM in reply to: #4593940 |
Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles trinnas - 2013-01-25 5:24 AM folded and refolded so the area of interest actually showed up in the window. Of course I jest... or do I??? |
|
2013-01-25 8:25 AM in reply to: #4594097 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles GomesBolt - 2013-01-25 9:15 AM trinnas - 2013-01-25 5:24 AM folded and refolded so the area of interest actually showed up in the window. Of course I jest... or do I??? Either way I'm good! |
2013-01-25 9:00 AM in reply to: #4592006 |
Expert 1099 Broadlands | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles I have read through this whole thread and I have to say, some of the arguments are just crazy. here's a quote from one of the Armed Forces sites in the UK "There are a number of roles in the AF (Armed Forces) which are closed to women on grounds of medical or combat effectiveness/team cohesion" - I understand this, I might not agree but I understand the thought process. I was in the British Military I have served with some US forces but I will speak from my experience. I have deployed in small sections, I have deployed as part of a 2 man team. I have also deployed as part of a much larger force. I have served in forward locations with "knuckle dragging" straight up scary/hard dudes - (Recce Platoons) I have been fortunate enough to spend time working with the SF in forward operating locations as well. I believe everything I did in my time serving could have been done by a female. In fact I know of two such young ladies, (they were terrible on the technical aspect of our role, that's an aside), but in the physical, military and mental side they were excellent. Did they get chance to deploy the way I did - Nope. Should they - absolutely. There are arguments for females not to be allowed in what we call "teeth" arms - I get that, the thought that one of my girls could grow up and be involved in that role is not appealing to me as a father. If one of my girls grows up and wants to join the forces in a combat role (US or UK) I would however support them all the way. The way I see it, there are criteria for anyone going in to those roles, physical and mental criteria. Everyone going in to those roles has to be trained, physically and mentally. If you can get through the training - and it must be the same training across the board without lessening of standards, then you should be allowed to do the job regardless of sex. Will that ever be truly the case? I doubt it, there will always be units in the military that simply do not have women as active combat soldiers, in the UK the SAS, SBS and Pathfinders for example and I'm sure in the US there will always be certain roles that are simply only open to the physically and mentally toughest male soldiers, with training requirements that are literally torturous. These roles may be open to male soldiers to apply, but only a small percentage do apply and an even smaller percent succeed. |
2013-01-25 9:34 AM in reply to: #4592006 |
Expert 1146 Johns Creek, Georgia | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles If we as a country are going to go this far I simply suggest EVERYONE serve 2 years as our friends in Israel do. This might solve the issue in question. This means Congressional sons and Daughters get to play as well I think the POTUS has 2 young ladies that get participate as well. You want equal, there you go! |
2013-01-25 9:59 AM in reply to: #4592006 |
Champion 10154 Alabama | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles I think there are some woman who could do the jobs in front line combat units. The question that should be asked is, would adding women make the units more effective or less effective? And I don't think one answer fits every situation. Take a tank crew who live inside an M1A1 Abrams tank. If the tank is bottoned up on the battlefied there is no 'privacy'....I can think of several situations where having a woman as part of that team would make the team less effective. Straight leg infantry units are another combat arms unit that I can't think of how adding females to the unit would make them more effective....but I can think of a few ways they would become less effective....mostly because of a man's instinct to protect woman more so than other men. Regardless of whether one thinks this is gonna increase or decrease unit effecitivness, it seems like it's going to happen. Time will tell. The world we live in today is not the world our parents lived in and is not the world our children will live in. Times change.....sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse.
|
2013-01-25 10:15 AM in reply to: #4594276 |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles hrliles - 2013-01-25 9:34 AM If we as a country are going to go this far I simply suggest EVERYONE serve 2 years as our friends in Israel do. This might solve the issue in question. This means Congressional sons and Daughters get to play as well I think the POTUS has 2 young ladies that get participate as well. You want equal, there you go! I don't understand your point. Why is further removing the ability of the American people to determine if a war is a just cause as a solution to the issue in question?
|
|
2013-01-25 2:30 PM in reply to: #4594276 |
Master 2277 Lake Norman, NC | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles hrliles - 2013-01-25 10:34 AM If we as a country are going to go this far I simply suggest EVERYONE serve 2 years as our friends in Israel do. This might solve the issue in question. This means Congressional sons and Daughters get to play as well I think the POTUS has 2 young ladies that get participate as well. You want equal, there you go! Like I wrote, "been there, done that." Women in combat - it works.
|
2013-01-25 3:31 PM in reply to: #4594373 |
Expert 1146 Johns Creek, Georgia | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles My point, by having each and every American serve 2 years in our Military, everyone plays. Unfortunately it's not a game. When we all have something at risk including those sitting on the sidelines cheering for or against women on the front lines, we may think harder about putting boots on the ground in certain circumstances, especially under the UN Operations. I want the best team at my 6. I don't care who or what sex but they should all meet the same physical criteria and standards. Semper Fi.
|
2013-01-25 3:33 PM in reply to: #4594904 |
Expert 1146 Johns Creek, Georgia | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles BugFuzzy, Air Fore Bus Drivers dont count. Anyway, I didn't say women didn't work. When I served we hardly had any on deployments 84-90. They were there but support in the ROP.
|
2013-01-25 3:45 PM in reply to: #4594978 |
Veteran 698 | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles hrliles - 2013-01-25 1:33 PM BugFuzzy, Air Fore Bus Drivers dont count. Anyway, I didn't say women didn't work. When I served we hardly had any on deployments 84-90. They were there but support in the ROP.
The nice young ladies of the Magav, Karkal and Kfir units, among others, would be happy to explain that they are not bus drivers. Unfortunately, they are a bit too busy being on combat duty to talk to you, so you will have to wait a bit. |
2013-01-25 5:22 PM in reply to: #4594974 |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles hrliles - 2013-01-25 3:31 PM My point, by having each and every American serve 2 years in our Military, everyone plays. Unfortunately it's not a game. When we all have something at risk including those sitting on the sidelines cheering for or against women on the front lines, we may think harder about putting boots on the ground in certain circumstances, especially under the UN Operations. I want the best team at my 6. I don't care who or what sex but they should all meet the same physical criteria and standards. Semper Fi.
How does conscription reconcile with a free society? How did draft shorten the Vietnam War or any war for that matter? The answer is forced service has no place in a free society and prolong war, not prevent it. In a society of free individuals there should never be a requirement of national service. There should only be a requirement to follow the laws of the land. I think free people can be counted on to volunteer to protect their homes and their country when they are threatened. I want free people defending freedom....not slaves. I agree with you that you want the best team, male or female. I think someone who wants to be there will likely be better than someone who is forced to be there. |
|
2013-01-25 5:42 PM in reply to: #4595098 |
Elite 4547 | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles Jackemy1 - 2013-01-25 6:22 PM hrliles - 2013-01-25 3:31 PM My point, by having each and every American serve 2 years in our Military, everyone plays. Unfortunately it's not a game. When we all have something at risk including those sitting on the sidelines cheering for or against women on the front lines, we may think harder about putting boots on the ground in certain circumstances, especially under the UN Operations. I want the best team at my 6. I don't care who or what sex but they should all meet the same physical criteria and standards. Semper Fi.
How does conscription reconcile with a free society? How did draft shorten the Vietnam War or any war for that matter? The answer is forced service has no place in a free society and prolong war, not prevent it. In a society of free individuals there should never be a requirement of national service. There should only be a requirement to follow the laws of the land. I think free people can be counted on to volunteer to protect their homes and their country when they are threatened. I want free people defending freedom....not slaves. I agree with you that you want the best team, male or female. I think someone who wants to be there will likely be better than someone who is forced to be there.
Jackemy and hrliles, you both made good points. I bolded the ones that stood out to me. I agree with Jackemy most though, forced service is not the best option. It seems to me that a lot of folks opposed to clearing women for combat roles are envisioning new, lower physical standards and/or a quota system to allow females into these roles...and I've read nothing of that sort. Also, if this was a purely political maneuver, wouldn't it have made sense to do this during campaign season? Just going out on a limb there, but aren't we at least 4 months past the time this could have brought in some votes? I don't think it was as much political as it was common sense. |
2013-01-25 6:31 PM in reply to: #4594974 |
Member 154 Kansas City, Missouri | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles hrliles - 2013-01-25 3:31 PM My point, by having each and every American serve 2 years in our Military, everyone plays. Unfortunately it's not a game. When we all have something at risk including those sitting on the sidelines cheering for or against women on the front lines, we may think harder about putting boots on the ground in certain circumstances, especially under the UN Operations. I want the best team at my 6. I don't care who or what sex but they should all meet the same physical criteria and standards. Semper Fi.
I would get behind this. |
2013-01-25 6:31 PM in reply to: #4594974 |
Member 154 Kansas City, Missouri | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles hrliles - 2013-01-25 3:31 PM My point, by having each and every American serve 2 years in our Military, everyone plays. Unfortunately it's not a game. When we all have something at risk including those sitting on the sidelines cheering for or against women on the front lines, we may think harder about putting boots on the ground in certain circumstances, especially under the UN Operations. I want the best team at my 6. I don't care who or what sex but they should all meet the same physical criteria and standards. Semper Fi.
I would get behind this. |
2013-01-26 11:38 AM in reply to: #4595115 |
Master 1585 Folsom (Sacramento), CA | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles ChineseDemocracy - 2013-01-25 3:42 PM Jackemy1 - 2013-01-25 6:22 PM hrliles - 2013-01-25 3:31 PM My point, by having each and every American serve 2 years in our Military, everyone plays. Unfortunately it's not a game. When we all have something at risk including those sitting on the sidelines cheering for or against women on the front lines, we may think harder about putting boots on the ground in certain circumstances, especially under the UN Operations. I want the best team at my 6. I don't care who or what sex but they should all meet the same physical criteria and standards. Semper Fi.
How does conscription reconcile with a free society? How did draft shorten the Vietnam War or any war for that matter? The answer is forced service has no place in a free society and prolong war, not prevent it. In a society of free individuals there should never be a requirement of national service. There should only be a requirement to follow the laws of the land. I think free people can be counted on to volunteer to protect their homes and their country when they are threatened. I want free people defending freedom....not slaves. I agree with you that you want the best team, male or female. I think someone who wants to be there will likely be better than someone who is forced to be there.
Jackemy and hrliles, you both made good points. I bolded the ones that stood out to me. I agree with Jackemy most though, forced service is not the best option. It seems to me that a lot of folks opposed to clearing women for combat roles are envisioning new, lower physical standards and/or a quota system to allow females into these roles...and I've read nothing of that sort. Also, if this was a purely political maneuver, wouldn't it have made sense to do this during campaign season? Just going out on a limb there, but aren't we at least 4 months past the time this could have brought in some votes? I don't think it was as much political as it was common sense. Aren't there already existing lower physical standards that would set precedent for something like that? |
2013-01-27 7:54 AM in reply to: #4595653 |
Elite 4547 | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles uclamatt2007 - 2013-01-26 12:38 PM ChineseDemocracy - 2013-01-25 3:42 PM Jackemy1 - 2013-01-25 6:22 PM hrliles - 2013-01-25 3:31 PM My point, by having each and every American serve 2 years in our Military, everyone plays. Unfortunately it's not a game. When we all have something at risk including those sitting on the sidelines cheering for or against women on the front lines, we may think harder about putting boots on the ground in certain circumstances, especially under the UN Operations. I want the best team at my 6. I don't care who or what sex but they should all meet the same physical criteria and standards. Semper Fi.
How does conscription reconcile with a free society? How did draft shorten the Vietnam War or any war for that matter? The answer is forced service has no place in a free society and prolong war, not prevent it. In a society of free individuals there should never be a requirement of national service. There should only be a requirement to follow the laws of the land. I think free people can be counted on to volunteer to protect their homes and their country when they are threatened. I want free people defending freedom....not slaves. I agree with you that you want the best team, male or female. I think someone who wants to be there will likely be better than someone who is forced to be there.
Jackemy and hrliles, you both made good points. I bolded the ones that stood out to me. I agree with Jackemy most though, forced service is not the best option. It seems to me that a lot of folks opposed to clearing women for combat roles are envisioning new, lower physical standards and/or a quota system to allow females into these roles...and I've read nothing of that sort. Also, if this was a purely political maneuver, wouldn't it have made sense to do this during campaign season? Just going out on a limb there, but aren't we at least 4 months past the time this could have brought in some votes? I don't think it was as much political as it was common sense. Aren't there already existing lower physical standards that would set precedent for something like that? Yeah, someone made a good point earlier regarding the declining fitness level and epidemic of obesity in the general population. Without "lowering the bar" will we have enough folks, male or female, passing the tests? (I guess in this case, it's not about lowering the bar, it's about widening the doorway) Hopefully, the military will continue to skim the cream of the crop off the top...I believe they'll do the right thing. There have been a lot of posts that seem to generalize, "women are this" or "women are usually..." That junk doesn't matter. Judge each person on their merits and take the best. |
|
2013-01-27 10:27 AM in reply to: #4593127 |
Expert 1186 North Cackalacky | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles I realize I never weighed in with anything other than my earlier inter-service jab and snark. I know you've all been sitting on the edges of your seats. In short, as someone slated next for Director of Operations (I think the rest of the services call them XOs) and then Commander of a squadron in the Air Force special operations field, my philosophy is that I want the most capable personnel. The idea of sectioning off an entire pool of talent based on conjecture about capabilities and limitations is ludicrous. In the interest of honesty and full disclosure, I did not have this same perspective on things when I was a younger officer serving in all-male units. So, I guess some things do change. Further, my experience has been that nearly every argument ever made about how this or that group of people will undermine or degrade unit cohesion based simply on what they are has proven false. People make units what they are, not demographics. GomesBolt - 2013-01-24 2:17 PM Oh boy... Page 8 already... I think I'm fairly qualified to give an informed opinion about this. I find an interesting paradox in your post. I didn't quote the entire thing. In my experience, the higher you go in your proposed Tiering structure, and especially when you reach the top, the less interested those units are in what you describe as the "optimal" infantrymen. Those units would toss somebody right out for the Youtube puppy incident (whether that was real or not), and rightly so (and not just because it was on the internet). In my opinion, what we want and seek out at those levels are individuals who are adjusted (or maladjusted, i don't know) enough that they don't have to engage in that type of behavior in order to deal with the dark side of their work. In short, professionals. This is probably why individuals aren't screened for those types of units until they are fairly senior. They're given a chance to outgrow it. Edited by ScudRunner 2013-01-27 10:30 AM |
2013-01-27 1:50 PM in reply to: #4592006 |
Extreme Veteran 799 | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles Did a quick search and found these examples (one is in UK) of requirements for firefighters being lowered, and processes changed to allow for weaker people. Hopefully the ACLU waits a few decades before they start trying to put in Affirmative Action in the military. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375381/Fire-service-strength-fitness-tests-relaxed-allow-women-firefighters.html |
2013-01-27 4:53 PM in reply to: #4596476 |
Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles ScudRunner - 2013-01-27 10:27 AM I realize I never weighed in with anything other than my earlier inter-service jab and snark. I know you've all been sitting on the edges of your seats. In short, as someone slated next for Director of Operations (I think the rest of the services call them XOs) and then Commander of a squadron in the Air Force special operations field, my philosophy is that I want the most capable personnel. The idea of sectioning off an entire pool of talent based on conjecture about capabilities and limitations is ludicrous. In the interest of honesty and full disclosure, I did not have this same perspective on things when I was a younger officer serving in all-male units. So, I guess some things do change. Further, my experience has been that nearly every argument ever made about how this or that group of people will undermine or degrade unit cohesion based simply on what they are has proven false. People make units what they are, not demographics. GomesBolt - 2013-01-24 2:17 PM Oh boy... Page 8 already... I think I'm fairly qualified to give an informed opinion about this. I find an interesting paradox in your post. I didn't quote the entire thing. In my experience, the higher you go in your proposed Tiering structure, and especially when you reach the top, the less interested those units are in what you describe as the "optimal" infantrymen. Those units would toss somebody right out for the Youtube puppy incident (whether that was real or not), and rightly so (and not just because it was on the internet). In my opinion, what we want and seek out at those levels are individuals who are adjusted (or maladjusted, i don't know) enough that they don't have to engage in that type of behavior in order to deal with the dark side of their work. In short, professionals. This is probably why individuals aren't screened for those types of units until they are fairly senior. They're given a chance to outgrow it. You and I agree that there is a paradox. The goal is to have the best. If you have no women, how can you say you've truly found the best when you've excluded 1/2 of the population? Some have made the gender/race connection which is interesting. The Tuskeegee Airmen were outstanding because they had harder qualification hurdles to jump and harder tests to pass just to make muster. If you did the same in this instance, you'd have fewer women, but you would make sure the ones who showed up were going to excell instead of setting up the women and their units for failure. My point overall was that if they're able to do the job, they should be there, if not, they should not be allowed into the units in the first place. |
2013-01-27 8:20 PM in reply to: #4596852 |
New user 214 Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles
You and I agree that there is a paradox. The goal is to have the best. If you have no women, how can you say you've truly found the best when you've excluded 1/2 of the population? Some have made the gender/race connection which is interesting. The Tuskeegee Airmen were outstanding because they had harder qualification hurdles to jump and harder tests to pass just to make muster. If you did the same in this instance, you'd have fewer women, but you would make sure the ones who showed up were going to excell instead of setting up the women and their units for failure. My point overall was that if they're able to do the job, they should be there, if not, they should not be allowed into the units in the first place. I agree. Your last statement should be true of everyone, regardless of gender. It makes things relatively simple in the recruiting process - can you meet the base-level requirements of the job? If yes, are you capable of being trained to do what is required of you? These are the only questions that should matter. Edited by hgoudreau 2013-01-27 8:23 PM |
2013-01-27 9:19 PM in reply to: #4597073 |
Extreme Veteran 799 | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles hgoudreau - 2013-01-27 8:20 PM It makes things relatively simple in the recruiting process - can you meet the base-level requirements of the job? If yes, are you capable of being trained to do what is required of you? These are the only questions that should matter. I think it is perfectly valid to look at if adding a person, even if they meet requirements, will have a positive or negative affect on the rest of the team. I think they're doing it right now. Have the generals of each department review and have the authority to reject women if they believe it will have a negative impact. My only hope is that the final decision isn't based on politics. |
|
2013-01-29 1:17 PM in reply to: #4597136 |
Champion 15211 Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles jmcconne - 2013-01-27 9:19 PM hgoudreau - 2013-01-27 8:20 PM It makes things relatively simple in the recruiting process - can you meet the base-level requirements of the job? If yes, are you capable of being trained to do what is required of you? These are the only questions that should matter. I think it is perfectly valid to look at if adding a person, even if they meet requirements, will have a positive or negative affect on the rest of the team. I think they're doing it right now. Have the generals of each department review and have the authority to reject women if they believe it will have a negative impact. My only hope is that the final decision isn't based on politics. What are the standards by which that is judged though? |
2013-01-29 2:02 PM in reply to: #4599868 |
Extreme Veteran 799 | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles crowny2 - 2013-01-29 1:17 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-27 9:19 PM hgoudreau - 2013-01-27 8:20 PM It makes things relatively simple in the recruiting process - can you meet the base-level requirements of the job? If yes, are you capable of being trained to do what is required of you? These are the only questions that should matter. I think it is perfectly valid to look at if adding a person, even if they meet requirements, will have a positive or negative affect on the rest of the team. I think they're doing it right now. Have the generals of each department review and have the authority to reject women if they believe it will have a negative impact. My only hope is that the final decision isn't based on politics. What are the standards by which that is judged though? It would be based on the experience and knowledge of the general. Hopefully with as little political input as possible. I would imagine that most of them just want the best possible team to complete their assigned tasks. By opening the pool of options to include women, they increase the potential of getting the best possible. They'll need to weigh this against any negative impact they believe women in these positions will have on the overall team. |
2013-01-29 2:06 PM in reply to: #4599967 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles jmcconne - 2013-01-29 3:02 PM crowny2 - 2013-01-29 1:17 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-27 9:19 PM hgoudreau - 2013-01-27 8:20 PM It makes things relatively simple in the recruiting process - can you meet the base-level requirements of the job? If yes, are you capable of being trained to do what is required of you? These are the only questions that should matter. I think it is perfectly valid to look at if adding a person, even if they meet requirements, will have a positive or negative affect on the rest of the team. I think they're doing it right now. Have the generals of each department review and have the authority to reject women if they believe it will have a negative impact. My only hope is that the final decision isn't based on politics. What are the standards by which that is judged though? It would be based on the experience and knowledge of the general. Hopefully with as little political input as possible. I would imagine that most of them just want the best possible team to complete their assigned tasks. By opening the pool of options to include women, they increase the potential of getting the best possible. They'll need to weigh this against any negative impact they believe women in these positions will have on the overall team. So in place of defined metrics you will let personal bias decide if women are allowed the same opportunities as men?
|
2013-01-29 2:14 PM in reply to: #4599975 |
Extreme Veteran 799 | Subject: RE: Women to be cleared for combat roles trinnas - 2013-01-29 2:06 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-29 3:02 PM crowny2 - 2013-01-29 1:17 PM jmcconne - 2013-01-27 9:19 PM hgoudreau - 2013-01-27 8:20 PM It makes things relatively simple in the recruiting process - can you meet the base-level requirements of the job? If yes, are you capable of being trained to do what is required of you? These are the only questions that should matter. I think it is perfectly valid to look at if adding a person, even if they meet requirements, will have a positive or negative affect on the rest of the team. I think they're doing it right now. Have the generals of each department review and have the authority to reject women if they believe it will have a negative impact. My only hope is that the final decision isn't based on politics. What are the standards by which that is judged though? It would be based on the experience and knowledge of the general. Hopefully with as little political input as possible. I would imagine that most of them just want the best possible team to complete their assigned tasks. By opening the pool of options to include women, they increase the potential of getting the best possible. They'll need to weigh this against any negative impact they believe women in these positions will have on the overall team. So in place of defined metrics you will let personal bias decide if women are allowed the same opportunities as men?
These aren't some random guys off the street. We've put these men in charge of the strongest military the world has ever seen. Yes, I believe we should trust their judgement on something like this. |
|