SPLIT--> Women in the Military

[the iron horse]

Women in Combat

My first thought is that this is not a good idea.

I'm still grappling this issue.


One good article I found:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/w...g-to-israel-for-clues-on-women-in-combat.html


What do you think?

 

[corianderstem]

http://www.u2interference.com/forums/f199/split-women-in-the-military-203267.html

 

[The_Pac_Mule]

And this is what I was worried about.
Our top military brass is fucking nuts

(CNSNews.com)- Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday that with women now eligible to fill combat roles in the military, commanders must justify why any woman might be excluded – and, if women can’t meet any unit’s standard, the Pentagon will ask: “Does it really have to be that high?”

Dempsey’s comments came at a Pentagonnews conferencewith Defense Sec. Leon Panetta Thursday, announcing the shift in Defense Department policy opening up all combat positions to women.Dempsey, who is at the pinnacle of the military’s top brass, was asked by a reporter: “You indicated that -- well, at least it sounds like that there may be certain combat operational forays that women might be excluded from still. I mean, what would be the reasons for that? What sorts of operations?”
Dempsey replied: “No, I wouldn't put it in terms of operations, Jim. What I would say is that, as we look at the requirements for a spectrum of conflict, not just COIN, counterinsurgency, we really need to have standards that apply across all of those.”

He added: “Importantly, though, if we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn't make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high? With the direct combat exclusion provision in place, we never had to have that conversation.”As CNSNews.comreported, the military acknowledges that women will not be able to fill every combat role: But Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday that "everyone is entitled to a chance."“If members of our military can meet the qualifications for a job--and let me be clear, we’re not talking about reducing the qualifications for a job--if they can meet the qualifications for the job then they should have the right to serve,” Panetta said at a Pentagon press conference.

The Defense Department announced Thursday that it would rescind its 1994 policy restricting women from serving in combat-focused positions such as infantry units, potentially opening up 230,000 positions to female service members.

http://m.cnsnews.com/news/article/g...tandard-pentagon-will-ask-does-it-really-have

 

[Jive Turkey]

Ya, fuck that. It's not like these guys are out there flipping burgers; they're being shot and worse. Yes, the standards need to be that high.
The only reason I could ever see for dropping the minimum requirements is if they're really hurting for more troops. That isn't the case, is it?

 

[The_Pac_Mule]

no, in fact the military is downsizing and they're kicking lots of people out.

 

[BonosSaint]

I think part of the reason for questioning a standard is whether that standard is truly effective and necessary for doing that particular job. For example, if a standard is for a soldier to carry a 150 pound pack and that particular position does not actually require that to happen in performance of any real duties, then it might be an unnecessary standard. And then the standard might be questioned for its relevance.

But if a standard is reasonably necessary for optimum job performance, then it stays. If a standard is necessary and very few (or no) women can meet it (as well as likely most guys not meeting it), then the standard stays.

 

[Jive Turkey]

But carrying a 150 pound pack says more about the soldier than just the ability to carry a 150 pound pack

 

[deep]

I think part of the reason for questioning a standard is whether that standard is truly effective and necessary for doing that particular job. For example, if a standard is for a soldier to carry a 150 pound pack and that particular position does not actually require that to happen in performance of any real duties, then it might be an unnecessary standard. And then the standard might be questioned for its relevance.

But if a standard is reasonably necessary for optimum job performance, then it stays. If a standard is necessary and very few (or no) women can meet it (as well as likely most guys not meeting it), then the standard stays.

a firefighter should be able to drag/carry an adult out of a burning building


and since they have been saying there no longer is a front line of combat anymore, that attacks can happen many places,
I would not want to tell someone that their family member died because we decided to allow soldiers in positions that were too weak to drag wounded soldiers out of harms way.

 

[BonosSaint]

Then the ability to carry the 150 pound weight would have significance, would it not? And be a reasonable standard. One is not eliminating a standard by questioning it.

(A person who cannot carry 150 pounds miles and miles may be able to drag a 150 or more pound soldier out of harm's way. But I said earlier that the standard should not be lowered if it any real way lowers the ability of the soldier/firefighter/police officer, etc. to do an optimum job. I don't believe in lowering relevant standards. And if carrying 150 pounds is relevant, the standard stays).

 

[BonosSaint]

But carrying a 150 pound pack says more about the soldier than just the ability to carry a 150 pound pack

Does it say enough about the soldier? It tells us he/she is strong and has stamina. It doesn't tell us about his/her judgment or courage under fire or ingenuity. Is there significant difference between someone able to carry 150 pounds and 140 pounds? Maybe there is.

Don't get stuck on the weight carrying argument. I just threw it out there as one possibility.