Options

US Military to Allow Women in Combat Roles

2456715

Posts

  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    milski wrote: »
    I prefer WW2 pinups on aircraft to anime waifus. It seems somehow less skeevy.

    It's supposed to be as skeevy as possible. WW2 pinups are just past their expiration date

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    DecomposeyDecomposey Registered User regular
    The combat infantry badge is for infantry, period. The combat action badge is for anyone who engages in combat. The former is specifically exclusionary, but there is an exact equivalent for everyone else. And honestly, infantry getting extra pretty badges is a fair reward for how much bullshit they put up with.

    If it is fair that infantry get extra rewards, why is it fair to exclude someone who is willing to do EVERYTHING to get those extra rewards from doing so. If someone wants to to be infantry, and do everything infantry does, but can't because reasons, why is THAT fair?

    Hint: it's not. And the US Military has decided to fucking fix it.

    There are a lot of men in the military not suited for combat roles. The military gives them a Military Occupational Specialty that do not involve combat.

    There are a lot of men in the military that ARE suited for combat roles. The military gives them a MOS that involves combat.

    There are a lot of women in the military not suited for combat roles. The military gives them a MOS that do not involve combat.

    There are a lot of women in the military that ARE suited for combat roles. Until this change, they were NOT given a MOS that involves combat, thus barring them from the accolades, career opportunities, or even the sense of pride that the male soldiers they are just as capable as are able to get.

    JUST. AS. CAPABLE.

    Any argument that they are not is fucking made up sexist bullshit.

    Yes, combat is a harsh meritocracy. Now soldiers will be judged on their merits, and not whether their crotch has an inny or an outy.

    Before following any advice, opinions, or thoughts I may have expressed in the above post, be warned: I found Keven Costners "Waterworld" to be a very entertaining film.
  • Options
    milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    Decomposey wrote: »
    The combat infantry badge is for infantry, period. The combat action badge is for anyone who engages in combat. The former is specifically exclusionary, but there is an exact equivalent for everyone else. And honestly, infantry getting extra pretty badges is a fair reward for how much bullshit they put up with.

    If it is fair that infantry get extra rewards, why is it fair to exclude someone who is willing to do EVERYTHING to get those extra rewards from doing so. If someone wants to to be infantry, and do everything infantry does, but can't because reasons, why is THAT fair?

    Hint: it's not. And the US Military has decided to fucking fix it.

    There are a lot of men in the military not suited for combat roles. The military gives them a Military Occupational Specialty that do not involve combat.

    There are a lot of men in the military that ARE suited for combat roles. The military gives them a MOS that involves combat.

    There are a lot of women in the military not suited for combat roles. The military gives them a MOS that do not involve combat.

    There are a lot of women in the military that ARE suited for combat roles. Until this change, they were NOT given a MOS that involves combat, thus barring them from the accolades, career opportunities, or even the sense of pride that the male soldiers they are just as capable as are able to get.

    JUST. AS. CAPABLE.

    Any argument that they are not is fucking made up sexist bullshit.

    Yes, combat is a harsh meritocracy. Now soldiers will be judged on their merits, and not whether their crotch has an inny or an outy.

    You seem very angry considering you basically agree with Program and he was commenting on a very specific medal.

    I ate an engineer
  • Options
    surrealitychecksurrealitycheck lonely, but not unloved dreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered User regular
    edited December 2015
    Paladin wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    I prefer WW2 pinups on aircraft to anime waifus. It seems somehow less skeevy.

    It's supposed to be as skeevy as possible. WW2 pinups are just past their expiration date

    exactly

    WW3 (waifu war 3) will be fought with modern weapons appropriate for a more advanced age

    surrealitycheck on
    obF2Wuw.png
  • Options
    durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    I don't understand the reason for reflexive insistence that they'd better not make it easier on them.

    to point out, this thread was started by an argument that load requirements should be made easier so that more women can survive the training without a host of injuries

    Well, there you go. Sounds like a perfectly reasonable procedural alteration to ensure you get the most effective people through training in the most effective shape.

    The way it's been discussed is like finding out that your sister got an extra present. Like the military had better not just be coddling these people it's going to throw into a warzone.

    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited December 2015
    ronya wrote: »
    I don't understand the reason for reflexive insistence that they'd better not make it easier on them.

    to point out, this thread was started by an argument that load requirements should be made easier so that more women can survive the training without a host of injuries

    Well, there you go. Sounds like a perfectly reasonable procedural alteration to ensure you get the most effective people through training in the most effective shape.

    The way it's been discussed is like finding out that your sister got an extra present. Like the military had better not just be coddling these people it's going to throw into a warzone.

    I still haven't found an answer to the question of whether there is extant respectable-expert-opinion that this is, in fact, a perfectly reasonable procedural alteration

    which is what I wanted to know in the first place

    there are a bunch of US armed forces geeks in the place, I figured someone would know

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Decomposey wrote: »
    The combat infantry badge is for infantry, period. The combat action badge is for anyone who engages in combat. The former is specifically exclusionary, but there is an exact equivalent for everyone else. And honestly, infantry getting extra pretty badges is a fair reward for how much bullshit they put up with.

    If it is fair that infantry get extra rewards, why is it fair to exclude someone who is willing to do EVERYTHING to get those extra rewards from doing so. If someone wants to to be infantry, and do everything infantry does, but can't because reasons, why is THAT fair?

    Hint: it's not. And the US Military has decided to fucking fix it.

    There are a lot of men in the military not suited for combat roles. The military gives them a Military Occupational Specialty that do not involve combat.

    There are a lot of men in the military that ARE suited for combat roles. The military gives them a MOS that involves combat.

    There are a lot of women in the military not suited for combat roles. The military gives them a MOS that do not involve combat.

    There are a lot of women in the military that ARE suited for combat roles. Until this change, they were NOT given a MOS that involves combat, thus barring them from the accolades, career opportunities, or even the sense of pride that the male soldiers they are just as capable as are able to get.

    JUST. AS. CAPABLE.

    Any argument that they are not is fucking made up sexist bullshit.

    Yes, combat is a harsh meritocracy. Now soldiers will be judged on their merits, and not whether their crotch has an inny or an outy.

    I think the most charitable interpretation of his statements is that it boils down to a logistics issue, which I can understand. If increasing inclusivity makes problems for over recruitment - which is pretty severe in the modern military - then that has to be accounted for.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    DecomposeyDecomposey Registered User regular
    milski wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    The combat infantry badge is for infantry, period. The combat action badge is for anyone who engages in combat. The former is specifically exclusionary, but there is an exact equivalent for everyone else. And honestly, infantry getting extra pretty badges is a fair reward for how much bullshit they put up with.

    If it is fair that infantry get extra rewards, why is it fair to exclude someone who is willing to do EVERYTHING to get those extra rewards from doing so. If someone wants to to be infantry, and do everything infantry does, but can't because reasons, why is THAT fair?

    Hint: it's not. And the US Military has decided to fucking fix it.

    There are a lot of men in the military not suited for combat roles. The military gives them a Military Occupational Specialty that do not involve combat.

    There are a lot of men in the military that ARE suited for combat roles. The military gives them a MOS that involves combat.

    There are a lot of women in the military not suited for combat roles. The military gives them a MOS that do not involve combat.

    There are a lot of women in the military that ARE suited for combat roles. Until this change, they were NOT given a MOS that involves combat, thus barring them from the accolades, career opportunities, or even the sense of pride that the male soldiers they are just as capable as are able to get.

    JUST. AS. CAPABLE.

    Any argument that they are not is fucking made up sexist bullshit.

    Yes, combat is a harsh meritocracy. Now soldiers will be judged on their merits, and not whether their crotch has an inny or an outy.

    You seem very angry considering you basically agree with Program and he was commenting on a very specific medal.

    I am angry. Because I grew up wanting to be a soldier. I wanted to be infantry. But I never was able to be. Because it was people like Program who decided I couldn't be what I wanted to be. I could be a mechanic, or a nurse, or and interpreter, but never a tanker, or infantry, or paratrooper. I could be support, but never a fighter. I could never be what I wanted to be.

    Now I am happy for all the girls who don't have to watch their dreams die. But when I see Program say that he thinks combat roles should still be for men only except on very rare special circumstances exceptions commander approved, it PISSES ME OFF.

    Before following any advice, opinions, or thoughts I may have expressed in the above post, be warned: I found Keven Costners "Waterworld" to be a very entertaining film.
  • Options
    milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    E: then respond to that one not a different post since it's kinda unclear

    milski on
    I ate an engineer
  • Options
    joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    This is great news. Excluding women has led to common and incorrect views that are deeply awful for both genders. Examples:

    A) Women are incapable of being as physically fit for combat roles as men, and should either be restricted to roles that are suited to their delicate dispositions or stay out of the military entirely.

    B) Men are the expendable gender. They are expected to be in combat roles, even if their skill set is not suited to that. A man who serves in the military in a role that does not see active combat is somehow less of a man than those who do.

    Obviously these viewpoints are not always held up in this way as literal arguments, but the perceptions and biases are very real and color the way men and women who serve are viewed.

    I've personally been in conversations with women who will express a desire to see combat, and someone (usually a parent) will pooh-pooh their wishes and say something to the effect of, "Well, that's a man's job. You can still serve in another way," where the not-so-subtle insinuation is that other way, a woman's place, is X nonviolent, traditional female gender role task.

    I've also been in discussions where a man is serving in a non-combat role, say a mechanic at the local AFB, and someone will say to him, "Thank you for your service! Have you seen much action?", and he'll go on to explain that he fixes jets, and they'll respond with something like, "Oh! So you aren't in any danger. Not everybody can do what those guys do, but it's good that you can still serve." Because obviously the only reason a guy would want to be a fighter jet mechanic is if he wasn't cut out to be a real soldier.

  • Options
    milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    On the latter point, do the guys flying jets see much danger nowadays? I was under the impression most pilot deaths were accidents or equipment failure.

    I ate an engineer
  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Can recruitment handle the influx of newly applicable women?

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    surely the nature of 'the job' has changed from WW2 - the US does not seem to be in a position where WW2 or even Vietnam levels of death rates are acceptable

    I'm rather of the opinion that carrying 100lbs of weight is going to be something that dissapears very very soon and not because of relaxing requirements either. Things keep getting smaller.

    Nevermind those cool exoskeleton things they're prototyping. Technology is going to make alot of things obsolete.

    To some extent, but water is water, and water is heavy.
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    I don't understand the reason for reflexive insistence that they'd better not make it easier on them.

    to point out, this thread was started by an argument that load requirements should be made easier so that more women can survive the training without a host of injuries

    Well, there you go. Sounds like a perfectly reasonable procedural alteration to ensure you get the most effective people through training in the most effective shape.

    The way it's been discussed is like finding out that your sister got an extra present. Like the military had better not just be coddling these people it's going to throw into a warzone.

    I still haven't gotten an answer to the question of whether there is extant respectable-expert-opinion that this is, in fact, a perfectly reasonable procedural alteration

    which is what I wanted to know in the first place

    It's not. Ranger school is deliberately skewed hard, but it is pretty applicable to how to lead in a combat environment. I've carried heavier loads than many of the Ranger exercises call for. While I thankfully had a pretty reasonable sleep schedule, I know people who slept less downrange than they do at Ranger school. I know people who have been cutoff from resupply for over a week by weather and so were running on limited calories. Etc.

    Until loadouts change, reducing training weight loads is setting people up for failure. It's not acceptable. You can't afford to run out of food, water, ammo, batteries, dry clothes, medical supplies, etc. And honestly, my combat deployment already had exceedingly robust logistics setup compared to what you'd see in periods in which there is substantial forward movement or cutoff supply lines.

  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Can we afford to reduce the physical quality of these divisions? Having a really fit army is nice and all but is the fitness/benefit ratio steep or shallow where you're at right now?

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    Jean Claude Van CalmJean Claude Van Calm 'sup? Awesome Possum.Registered User regular
    The combat infantry badge is for infantry, period. The combat action badge is for anyone who engages in combat. The former is specifically exclusionary, but there is an exact equivalent for everyone else. And honestly, infantry getting extra pretty badges is a fair reward for how much bullshit they put up with.

    As a CIB wearer, glad to see someone gets it - thanks pj. :D When I run across another CIB it's not about knowing they also ran into combat, it's about knowing they signed up for that specific purpose and that their entire lifestyle is shaped by the circumstances that infantry places people in to. "[o]f all Soldiers, it was recognized that the infantryman continuously operated under the worst conditions and performed a mission that was not assigned to any other Soldier or unit ... [t]he infantry, a small portion of the total Armed Forces, was suffering the most casualties while receiving the least public recognition."

    Anyways, I never found the physical standards to be the limiting factor for females in combat roles. I myself am 5'6" and weighed about 120lbs when I joined, there are females reading this thread that could physically out perform me in just about every way. I kinda think of the "OMG but they aren't strawng!" as a sort of popular generic Hollywood answer. Same can be said for the fear that women will be exposed to more sever hygiene issues than men (this is another issue my infantry buddies like to bring up).

    The thing that always really concerned me about women in combat roles is the thing that plagued the military during my stint. Sexual assault and harassment, it is literally off the charts rampant in the military. I imagine it has to do with the inherent power asymmetry that comes with official rank and titles. In a stateside, non combat unit it's pretty normal for everyones personal business to be "known" - the majority of sexual relationships are predatory senior males targeting lower ranking females. Not only does it hurt the victim in all the ways that these abuses normally due, but it degrades the moral fabric of the unit who sees these things happening to a fellow soldier. In a highly over-sighted non combat unit these things are dealt with as they are in most places, they are swept under the rug or quietly "fixed" by moving soldiers out of the unit, it's rare that the root cause is ever addressed - it's not ideal but it does maintain the operations of the unit.

    My concern is that the "normal" sexual assault problems will increase drastically when women are introduced to combat roles. Combat roles tend to have less direct officer oversight as the units operate in smaller teams in combat, the stresses and isolation experienced in a combat unit are not even comparable to non combat units. All of these things increase the chances of sexual violence exponentially, this is a really bad thing when everyone is armed all the time.

    I hope this doesn't come off as me trying to "protect women from the world", I'm not particularly good at articulating the environment that I saw during my time in the Army. I don't think it's hopeless, and I'm not against women in combat roles. I just think the Army in particular still needs a massive culture change to get to the point were will women will be safe and effective in these units. They are getting there, and in all truth I would have done it the same way. Opening an advanced "badass" school like the Rangers to women before allowing them to just be infantry or scouts is a spectacular idea - there's no Infantrymen on the planet that can deny the shear awesome willpower it takes to earn a ranger tab. Hopefully this will have a positive trickle down effect, but I still don't think it's gonna address the assault issue :/

    PSN: Grimmsy- Xbox Live: Grimmsy
  • Options
    DecomposeyDecomposey Registered User regular
    THEY ARE NOT REDUCING STANDARDS.

    They have said repeatedly that they are not. That they have not. Even when a congressmen accused ranger school of fudging the results for the 3 women who graduated they have consistently and constantly said they are not changing standards.

    So again: THEY ARE NOT CHANGING STANDARDS FOR COMBAT ROLES.

    They are just allowing women who meet those standards to fill those roles.

    Before following any advice, opinions, or thoughts I may have expressed in the above post, be warned: I found Keven Costners "Waterworld" to be a very entertaining film.
  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    Decomposey wrote: »
    THEY ARE NOT REDUCING STANDARDS.

    They have said repeatedly that they are not. That they have not. Even when a congressmen accused ranger school of fudging the results for the 3 women who graduated they have consistently and constantly said they are not changing standards.

    So again: THEY ARE NOT CHANGING STANDARDS FOR COMBAT ROLES.

    They are just allowing women who meet those standards to fill those roles.

    Should they, though? (Reduce standards, I mean.) The entire point is to give them numbers and representation to combat injustice, but it seems like there is a great risk of exploitation in expanded roles without dependably expanded recruitment. There is strength in numbers, but epidemiologically the numbers at current standards may be an issue.

    Paladin on
    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited December 2015
    do you think it would be a good idea though

    e: with reference to the micro-fractures that was mentioned, and the argument that the standards are presently unnecessarily high; not paladin's particular concern

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    DecomposeyDecomposey Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    THEY ARE NOT REDUCING STANDARDS.

    They have said repeatedly that they are not. That they have not. Even when a congressmen accused ranger school of fudging the results for the 3 women who graduated they have consistently and constantly said they are not changing standards.

    So again: THEY ARE NOT CHANGING STANDARDS FOR COMBAT ROLES.

    They are just allowing women who meet those standards to fill those roles.

    Should they, though? (Reduce standards, I mean.) The entire point is to give them numbers and representation to combat injustice, but it seems like there is a great risk of exploitation in expanded roles without dependably expanded recruitment. There is strength in numbers, but epidemiologically the numbers at current standards may be an issue.

    Why should they reduce standards? Women can and do meet the current standards.

    Before following any advice, opinions, or thoughts I may have expressed in the above post, be warned: I found Keven Costners "Waterworld" to be a very entertaining film.
  • Options
    TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    THEY ARE NOT REDUCING STANDARDS.

    They have said repeatedly that they are not. That they have not. Even when a congressmen accused ranger school of fudging the results for the 3 women who graduated they have consistently and constantly said they are not changing standards.

    So again: THEY ARE NOT CHANGING STANDARDS FOR COMBAT ROLES.

    They are just allowing women who meet those standards to fill those roles.

    Should they, though? (Reduce standards, I mean.) The entire point is to give them numbers and representation to combat injustice, but it seems like there is a great risk of exploitation in expanded roles without dependably expanded recruitment. There is strength in numbers, but epidemiologically the numbers at current standards may be an issue.

    Why should they reduce standards? Women can and do meet the current standards.

    Less of a reduction in standards and more of a modernization of standards.

    Like clearly ranger training is supposed to be tough as nails but I'm not sure it should be causing bones to start to fracture because of the weight of your pack or how that weight is distributed or for the people going through it to lose 25-30lbs (I think that's the average) on average.

  • Options
    RobonunRobonun It's all fun and games until someone pisses off China Registered User regular
    edited December 2015

    The thing that always really concerned me about women in combat roles is the thing that plagued the military during my stint. Sexual assault and harassment, it is literally off the charts rampant in the military. I imagine it has to do with the inherent power asymmetry that comes with official rank and titles. In a stateside, non combat unit it's pretty normal for everyones personal business to be "known" - the majority of sexual relationships are predatory senior males targeting lower ranking females. Not only does it hurt the victim in all the ways that these abuses normally due, but it degrades the moral fabric of the unit who sees these things happening to a fellow soldier. In a highly over-sighted non combat unit these things are dealt with as they are in most places, they are swept under the rug or quietly "fixed" by moving soldiers out of the unit, it's rare that the root cause is ever addressed - it's not ideal but it does maintain the operations of the unit.

    My concern is that the "normal" sexual assault problems will increase drastically when women are introduced to combat roles. Combat roles tend to have less direct officer oversight as the units operate in smaller teams in combat, the stresses and isolation experienced in a combat unit are not even comparable to non combat units. All of these things increase the chances of sexual violence exponentially, this is a really bad thing when everyone is armed all the time.

    I hope this doesn't come off as me trying to "protect women from the world", I'm not particularly good at articulating the environment that I saw during my time in the Army. I don't think it's hopeless, and I'm not against women in combat roles. I just think the Army in particular still needs a massive culture change to get to the point were will women will be safe and effective in these units. They are getting there, and in all truth I would have done it the same way. Opening an advanced "badass" school like the Rangers to women before allowing them to just be infantry or scouts is a spectacular idea - there's no Infantrymen on the planet that can deny the shear awesome willpower it takes to earn a ranger tab. Hopefully this will have a positive trickle down effect, but I still don't think it's gonna address the assault issue :/

    If you wait for the climate to change before assigning women to combat roles you'll be waiting forever. The military used to keep minorities out in the name of "unit cohesiveness" too, yet somehow that problem got fixed.

    Robonun on
  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    THEY ARE NOT REDUCING STANDARDS.

    They have said repeatedly that they are not. That they have not. Even when a congressmen accused ranger school of fudging the results for the 3 women who graduated they have consistently and constantly said they are not changing standards.

    So again: THEY ARE NOT CHANGING STANDARDS FOR COMBAT ROLES.

    They are just allowing women who meet those standards to fill those roles.

    Should they, though? (Reduce standards, I mean.) The entire point is to give them numbers and representation to combat injustice, but it seems like there is a great risk of exploitation in expanded roles without dependably expanded recruitment. There is strength in numbers, but epidemiologically the numbers at current standards may be an issue.

    Why should they reduce standards? Women can and do meet the current standards.

    Logistics. Twofold problem:

    Too many women recruits clogs a clogged system with expensive attrition (pj's point)

    Not enough women succeed and become isolated pariahs without the chorus of numbers (jcvc's point)

    Both problems will be addressed by letting more women in in chunks rather than a trickle. Relaxing standards is the simplest way.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Western coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderator mod
    ronya wrote: »
    do you think it would be a good idea though

    e: with reference to the micro-fractures that was mentioned, and the argument that the standards are presently unnecessarily high; not paladin's particular concern

    Yeah, standards should be appropriate

    If they need to be super high, for whatever reason, then they absolutely do because that's how things are

    However, if they're either based on outdated stuff or the highness is not related to the likely level of fitness that's gonna be required, then they should be rethought

    I think that's true regardless of gender or like, species or anything, even. That's just baked into the core reason for standards.

  • Options
    DecomposeyDecomposey Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    THEY ARE NOT REDUCING STANDARDS.

    They have said repeatedly that they are not. That they have not. Even when a congressmen accused ranger school of fudging the results for the 3 women who graduated they have consistently and constantly said they are not changing standards.

    So again: THEY ARE NOT CHANGING STANDARDS FOR COMBAT ROLES.

    They are just allowing women who meet those standards to fill those roles.

    Should they, though? (Reduce standards, I mean.) The entire point is to give them numbers and representation to combat injustice, but it seems like there is a great risk of exploitation in expanded roles without dependably expanded recruitment. There is strength in numbers, but epidemiologically the numbers at current standards may be an issue.

    Why should they reduce standards? Women can and do meet the current standards.

    Logistics. Twofold problem:

    Too many women recruits clogs a clogged system with expensive attrition (pj's point)

    Not enough women succeed and become isolated pariahs without the chorus of numbers (jcvc's point)

    Both problems will be addressed by letting more women in in chunks rather than a trickle. Relaxing standards is the simplest way.

    You are basing your argument on the idea that women soldiers are inherently inferior to male soldiers, and that standards need to be relaxed in order for the females to succeed. You should stop doing that.

    Before following any advice, opinions, or thoughts I may have expressed in the above post, be warned: I found Keven Costners "Waterworld" to be a very entertaining film.
  • Options
    NinjeffNinjeff Registered User regular
    No way in hell should you relax standards.

    Thats just.....thats just dangerous.

  • Options
    Jean Claude Van CalmJean Claude Van Calm 'sup? Awesome Possum.Registered User regular
    Robonun wrote: »

    The thing that always really concerned me about women in combat roles is the thing that plagued the military during my stint. Sexual assault and harassment, it is literally off the charts rampant in the military. I imagine it has to do with the inherent power asymmetry that comes with official rank and titles. In a stateside, non combat unit it's pretty normal for everyones personal business to be "known" - the majority of sexual relationships are predatory senior males targeting lower ranking females. Not only does it hurt the victim in all the ways that these abuses normally due, but it degrades the moral fabric of the unit who sees these things happening to a fellow soldier. In a highly over-sighted non combat unit these things are dealt with as they are in most places, they are swept under the rug or quietly "fixed" by moving soldiers out of the unit, it's rare that the root cause is ever addressed - it's not ideal but it does maintain the operations of the unit.

    My concern is that the "normal" sexual assault problems will increase drastically when women are introduced to combat roles. Combat roles tend to have less direct officer oversight as the units operate in smaller teams in combat, the stresses and isolation experienced in a combat unit are not even comparable to non combat units. All of these things increase the chances of sexual violence exponentially, this is a really bad thing when everyone is armed all the time.

    I hope this doesn't come off as me trying to "protect women from the world", I'm not particularly good at articulating the environment that I saw during my time in the Army. I don't think it's hopeless, and I'm not against women in combat roles. I just think the Army in particular still needs a massive culture change to get to the point were will women will be safe and effective in these units. They are getting there, and in all truth I would have done it the same way. Opening an advanced "badass" school like the Rangers to women before allowing them to just be infantry or scouts is a spectacular idea - there's no Infantrymen on the planet that can deny the shear awesome willpower it takes to earn a ranger tab. Hopefully this will have a positive trickle down effect, but I still don't think it's gonna address the assault issue :/

    If you wait for the climate to change before assigning women to combat roles you'll be waiting forever. The military used to keep minorities out in the name of "unit cohesiveness" too, yet somehow that problem got fixed.

    For clarity, I agree. I even said they're doing it right. Just my opinion that the physical standards argument is a circle jerk compared to male debauchery. I never had to beat the enemy in a push up competition :P

    PSN: Grimmsy- Xbox Live: Grimmsy
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    The combat infantry badge is for infantry, period. The combat action badge is for anyone who engages in combat. The former is specifically exclusionary, but there is an exact equivalent for everyone else. And honestly, infantry getting extra pretty badges is a fair reward for how much bullshit they put up with.

    As a CIB wearer, glad to see someone gets it - thanks pj. :D When I run across another CIB it's not about knowing they also ran into combat, it's about knowing they signed up for that specific purpose and that their entire lifestyle is shaped by the circumstances that infantry places people in to. "[o]f all Soldiers, it was recognized that the infantryman continuously operated under the worst conditions and performed a mission that was not assigned to any other Soldier or unit ... [t]he infantry, a small portion of the total Armed Forces, was suffering the most casualties while receiving the least public recognition."

    Anyways, I never found the physical standards to be the limiting factor for females in combat roles. I myself am 5'6" and weighed about 120lbs when I joined, there are females reading this thread that could physically out perform me in just about every way. I kinda think of the "OMG but they aren't strawng!" as a sort of popular generic Hollywood answer. Same can be said for the fear that women will be exposed to more sever hygiene issues than men (this is another issue my infantry buddies like to bring up).

    The thing that always really concerned me about women in combat roles is the thing that plagued the military during my stint. Sexual assault and harassment, it is literally off the charts rampant in the military. I imagine it has to do with the inherent power asymmetry that comes with official rank and titles. In a stateside, non combat unit it's pretty normal for everyones personal business to be "known" - the majority of sexual relationships are predatory senior males targeting lower ranking females. Not only does it hurt the victim in all the ways that these abuses normally due, but it degrades the moral fabric of the unit who sees these things happening to a fellow soldier. In a highly over-sighted non combat unit these things are dealt with as they are in most places, they are swept under the rug or quietly "fixed" by moving soldiers out of the unit, it's rare that the root cause is ever addressed - it's not ideal but it does maintain the operations of the unit.

    My concern is that the "normal" sexual assault problems will increase drastically when women are introduced to combat roles. Combat roles tend to have less direct officer oversight as the units operate in smaller teams in combat, the stresses and isolation experienced in a combat unit are not even comparable to non combat units. All of these things increase the chances of sexual violence exponentially, this is a really bad thing when everyone is armed all the time.

    I hope this doesn't come off as me trying to "protect women from the world", I'm not particularly good at articulating the environment that I saw during my time in the Army. I don't think it's hopeless, and I'm not against women in combat roles. I just think the Army in particular still needs a massive culture change to get to the point were will women will be safe and effective in these units. They are getting there, and in all truth I would have done it the same way. Opening an advanced "badass" school like the Rangers to women before allowing them to just be infantry or scouts is a spectacular idea - there's no Infantrymen on the planet that can deny the shear awesome willpower it takes to earn a ranger tab. Hopefully this will have a positive trickle down effect, but I still don't think it's gonna address the assault issue :/

    The more women in combat roles, the higher women will be promoted (one issue with women in combat is that it's a faster route to officers hip and so on, so keeping women out was discriminatory in a simple hierarchy job way as well). And then women are less likely to put up with that shit and just fire the shithead.

  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited December 2015
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    THEY ARE NOT REDUCING STANDARDS.

    They have said repeatedly that they are not. That they have not. Even when a congressmen accused ranger school of fudging the results for the 3 women who graduated they have consistently and constantly said they are not changing standards.

    So again: THEY ARE NOT CHANGING STANDARDS FOR COMBAT ROLES.

    They are just allowing women who meet those standards to fill those roles.

    Should they, though? (Reduce standards, I mean.) The entire point is to give them numbers and representation to combat injustice, but it seems like there is a great risk of exploitation in expanded roles without dependably expanded recruitment. There is strength in numbers, but epidemiologically the numbers at current standards may be an issue.

    Why should they reduce standards? Women can and do meet the current standards.

    Logistics. Twofold problem:

    Too many women recruits clogs a clogged system with expensive attrition (pj's point)

    Not enough women succeed and become isolated pariahs without the chorus of numbers (jcvc's point)

    Both problems will be addressed by letting more women in in chunks rather than a trickle. Relaxing standards is the simplest way.

    You are basing your argument on the idea that women soldiers are inherently inferior to male soldiers, and that standards need to be relaxed in order for the females to succeed. You should stop doing that.

    I'm basing it off the training failure statistics pj presented. I am thinking about women as a population rather than individuals. You can make these judgments in macro without saying anything about the worth of a single person. Refute this assumption on the same scale, preferably using comparable statistics, and I'll adjust my concerns.

    Like, what is the relative percentage of women to men capable of taking advantage of this right now? Current presented data says that's small. Correct me.

    Paladin on
    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    Jean Claude Van CalmJean Claude Van Calm 'sup? Awesome Possum.Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    The combat infantry badge is for infantry, period. The combat action badge is for anyone who engages in combat. The former is specifically exclusionary, but there is an exact equivalent for everyone else. And honestly, infantry getting extra pretty badges is a fair reward for how much bullshit they put up with.

    As a CIB wearer, glad to see someone gets it - thanks pj. :D When I run across another CIB it's not about knowing they also ran into combat, it's about knowing they signed up for that specific purpose and that their entire lifestyle is shaped by the circumstances that infantry places people in to. "[o]f all Soldiers, it was recognized that the infantryman continuously operated under the worst conditions and performed a mission that was not assigned to any other Soldier or unit ... [t]he infantry, a small portion of the total Armed Forces, was suffering the most casualties while receiving the least public recognition."

    Anyways, I never found the physical standards to be the limiting factor for females in combat roles. I myself am 5'6" and weighed about 120lbs when I joined, there are females reading this thread that could physically out perform me in just about every way. I kinda think of the "OMG but they aren't strawng!" as a sort of popular generic Hollywood answer. Same can be said for the fear that women will be exposed to more sever hygiene issues than men (this is another issue my infantry buddies like to bring up).

    The thing that always really concerned me about women in combat roles is the thing that plagued the military during my stint. Sexual assault and harassment, it is literally off the charts rampant in the military. I imagine it has to do with the inherent power asymmetry that comes with official rank and titles. In a stateside, non combat unit it's pretty normal for everyones personal business to be "known" - the majority of sexual relationships are predatory senior males targeting lower ranking females. Not only does it hurt the victim in all the ways that these abuses normally due, but it degrades the moral fabric of the unit who sees these things happening to a fellow soldier. In a highly over-sighted non combat unit these things are dealt with as they are in most places, they are swept under the rug or quietly "fixed" by moving soldiers out of the unit, it's rare that the root cause is ever addressed - it's not ideal but it does maintain the operations of the unit.

    My concern is that the "normal" sexual assault problems will increase drastically when women are introduced to combat roles. Combat roles tend to have less direct officer oversight as the units operate in smaller teams in combat, the stresses and isolation experienced in a combat unit are not even comparable to non combat units. All of these things increase the chances of sexual violence exponentially, this is a really bad thing when everyone is armed all the time.

    I hope this doesn't come off as me trying to "protect women from the world", I'm not particularly good at articulating the environment that I saw during my time in the Army. I don't think it's hopeless, and I'm not against women in combat roles. I just think the Army in particular still needs a massive culture change to get to the point were will women will be safe and effective in these units. They are getting there, and in all truth I would have done it the same way. Opening an advanced "badass" school like the Rangers to women before allowing them to just be infantry or scouts is a spectacular idea - there's no Infantrymen on the planet that can deny the shear awesome willpower it takes to earn a ranger tab. Hopefully this will have a positive trickle down effect, but I still don't think it's gonna address the assault issue :/

    The more women in combat roles, the higher women will be promoted (one issue with women in combat is that it's a faster route to officers hip and so on, so keeping women out was discriminatory in a simple hierarchy job way as well). And then women are less likely to put up with that shit and just fire the shithead.

    People don't get fired in the Army. There are already proportionally high ranking women in non combat roles and this stuff still happens in their units. I guess I could be displaying a pretty big fancy logical fallacy here as I don't know the fix for this issue, it's just kinda a problem I foresee in the immediate future that a lot of people seem to ignore.

    PSN: Grimmsy- Xbox Live: Grimmsy
  • Options
    TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    The combat infantry badge is for infantry, period. The combat action badge is for anyone who engages in combat. The former is specifically exclusionary, but there is an exact equivalent for everyone else. And honestly, infantry getting extra pretty badges is a fair reward for how much bullshit they put up with.

    As a CIB wearer, glad to see someone gets it - thanks pj. :D When I run across another CIB it's not about knowing they also ran into combat, it's about knowing they signed up for that specific purpose and that their entire lifestyle is shaped by the circumstances that infantry places people in to. "[o]f all Soldiers, it was recognized that the infantryman continuously operated under the worst conditions and performed a mission that was not assigned to any other Soldier or unit ... [t]he infantry, a small portion of the total Armed Forces, was suffering the most casualties while receiving the least public recognition."

    Anyways, I never found the physical standards to be the limiting factor for females in combat roles. I myself am 5'6" and weighed about 120lbs when I joined, there are females reading this thread that could physically out perform me in just about every way. I kinda think of the "OMG but they aren't strawng!" as a sort of popular generic Hollywood answer. Same can be said for the fear that women will be exposed to more sever hygiene issues than men (this is another issue my infantry buddies like to bring up).

    The thing that always really concerned me about women in combat roles is the thing that plagued the military during my stint. Sexual assault and harassment, it is literally off the charts rampant in the military. I imagine it has to do with the inherent power asymmetry that comes with official rank and titles. In a stateside, non combat unit it's pretty normal for everyones personal business to be "known" - the majority of sexual relationships are predatory senior males targeting lower ranking females. Not only does it hurt the victim in all the ways that these abuses normally due, but it degrades the moral fabric of the unit who sees these things happening to a fellow soldier. In a highly over-sighted non combat unit these things are dealt with as they are in most places, they are swept under the rug or quietly "fixed" by moving soldiers out of the unit, it's rare that the root cause is ever addressed - it's not ideal but it does maintain the operations of the unit.

    My concern is that the "normal" sexual assault problems will increase drastically when women are introduced to combat roles. Combat roles tend to have less direct officer oversight as the units operate in smaller teams in combat, the stresses and isolation experienced in a combat unit are not even comparable to non combat units. All of these things increase the chances of sexual violence exponentially, this is a really bad thing when everyone is armed all the time.

    I hope this doesn't come off as me trying to "protect women from the world", I'm not particularly good at articulating the environment that I saw during my time in the Army. I don't think it's hopeless, and I'm not against women in combat roles. I just think the Army in particular still needs a massive culture change to get to the point were will women will be safe and effective in these units. They are getting there, and in all truth I would have done it the same way. Opening an advanced "badass" school like the Rangers to women before allowing them to just be infantry or scouts is a spectacular idea - there's no Infantrymen on the planet that can deny the shear awesome willpower it takes to earn a ranger tab. Hopefully this will have a positive trickle down effect, but I still don't think it's gonna address the assault issue :/

    The more women in combat roles, the higher women will be promoted (one issue with women in combat is that it's a faster route to officers hip and so on, so keeping women out was discriminatory in a simple hierarchy job way as well). And then women are less likely to put up with that shit and just fire the shithead.

    People don't get fired in the Army. There are already proportionally high ranking women in non combat roles and this stuff still happens in their units. I guess I could be displaying a pretty big fancy logical fallacy here as I don't know the fix for this issue, it's just kinda a problem I foresee in the immediate future that a lot of people seem to ignore.

    so lets tackle the problem head on instead of continuing to ignore it

  • Options
    TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    the fact that their might be a problem is absolutely no reason for this not to happen

  • Options
    Jean Claude Van CalmJean Claude Van Calm 'sup? Awesome Possum.Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    The combat infantry badge is for infantry, period. The combat action badge is for anyone who engages in combat. The former is specifically exclusionary, but there is an exact equivalent for everyone else. And honestly, infantry getting extra pretty badges is a fair reward for how much bullshit they put up with.

    As a CIB wearer, glad to see someone gets it - thanks pj. :D When I run across another CIB it's not about knowing they also ran into combat, it's about knowing they signed up for that specific purpose and that their entire lifestyle is shaped by the circumstances that infantry places people in to. "[o]f all Soldiers, it was recognized that the infantryman continuously operated under the worst conditions and performed a mission that was not assigned to any other Soldier or unit ... [t]he infantry, a small portion of the total Armed Forces, was suffering the most casualties while receiving the least public recognition."

    Anyways, I never found the physical standards to be the limiting factor for females in combat roles. I myself am 5'6" and weighed about 120lbs when I joined, there are females reading this thread that could physically out perform me in just about every way. I kinda think of the "OMG but they aren't strawng!" as a sort of popular generic Hollywood answer. Same can be said for the fear that women will be exposed to more sever hygiene issues than men (this is another issue my infantry buddies like to bring up).

    The thing that always really concerned me about women in combat roles is the thing that plagued the military during my stint. Sexual assault and harassment, it is literally off the charts rampant in the military. I imagine it has to do with the inherent power asymmetry that comes with official rank and titles. In a stateside, non combat unit it's pretty normal for everyones personal business to be "known" - the majority of sexual relationships are predatory senior males targeting lower ranking females. Not only does it hurt the victim in all the ways that these abuses normally due, but it degrades the moral fabric of the unit who sees these things happening to a fellow soldier. In a highly over-sighted non combat unit these things are dealt with as they are in most places, they are swept under the rug or quietly "fixed" by moving soldiers out of the unit, it's rare that the root cause is ever addressed - it's not ideal but it does maintain the operations of the unit.

    My concern is that the "normal" sexual assault problems will increase drastically when women are introduced to combat roles. Combat roles tend to have less direct officer oversight as the units operate in smaller teams in combat, the stresses and isolation experienced in a combat unit are not even comparable to non combat units. All of these things increase the chances of sexual violence exponentially, this is a really bad thing when everyone is armed all the time.

    I hope this doesn't come off as me trying to "protect women from the world", I'm not particularly good at articulating the environment that I saw during my time in the Army. I don't think it's hopeless, and I'm not against women in combat roles. I just think the Army in particular still needs a massive culture change to get to the point were will women will be safe and effective in these units. They are getting there, and in all truth I would have done it the same way. Opening an advanced "badass" school like the Rangers to women before allowing them to just be infantry or scouts is a spectacular idea - there's no Infantrymen on the planet that can deny the shear awesome willpower it takes to earn a ranger tab. Hopefully this will have a positive trickle down effect, but I still don't think it's gonna address the assault issue :/

    The more women in combat roles, the higher women will be promoted (one issue with women in combat is that it's a faster route to officers hip and so on, so keeping women out was discriminatory in a simple hierarchy job way as well). And then women are less likely to put up with that shit and just fire the shithead.

    People don't get fired in the Army. There are already proportionally high ranking women in non combat roles and this stuff still happens in their units. I guess I could be displaying a pretty big fancy logical fallacy here as I don't know the fix for this issue, it's just kinda a problem I foresee in the immediate future that a lot of people seem to ignore.

    so lets tackle the problem head on instead of continuing to ignore it

    Sweet, I'm with ya! I do hope some of these articles on women in combat start to address sexual harassment instead of just physical standards in the future. The Army is trying to get there with some of their annual Sexual Harassment and Assault Training but it's still kinda an elephant in the room dirty secret. Hopefully more women in combat roles will push the issue and bring it to light so we can start fixing it.

    PSN: Grimmsy- Xbox Live: Grimmsy
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    The combat infantry badge is for infantry, period. The combat action badge is for anyone who engages in combat. The former is specifically exclusionary, but there is an exact equivalent for everyone else. And honestly, infantry getting extra pretty badges is a fair reward for how much bullshit they put up with.

    As a CIB wearer, glad to see someone gets it - thanks pj. :D When I run across another CIB it's not about knowing they also ran into combat, it's about knowing they signed up for that specific purpose and that their entire lifestyle is shaped by the circumstances that infantry places people in to. "[o]f all Soldiers, it was recognized that the infantryman continuously operated under the worst conditions and performed a mission that was not assigned to any other Soldier or unit ... [t]he infantry, a small portion of the total Armed Forces, was suffering the most casualties while receiving the least public recognition."

    Anyways, I never found the physical standards to be the limiting factor for females in combat roles. I myself am 5'6" and weighed about 120lbs when I joined, there are females reading this thread that could physically out perform me in just about every way. I kinda think of the "OMG but they aren't strawng!" as a sort of popular generic Hollywood answer. Same can be said for the fear that women will be exposed to more sever hygiene issues than men (this is another issue my infantry buddies like to bring up).

    The thing that always really concerned me about women in combat roles is the thing that plagued the military during my stint. Sexual assault and harassment, it is literally off the charts rampant in the military. I imagine it has to do with the inherent power asymmetry that comes with official rank and titles. In a stateside, non combat unit it's pretty normal for everyones personal business to be "known" - the majority of sexual relationships are predatory senior males targeting lower ranking females. Not only does it hurt the victim in all the ways that these abuses normally due, but it degrades the moral fabric of the unit who sees these things happening to a fellow soldier. In a highly over-sighted non combat unit these things are dealt with as they are in most places, they are swept under the rug or quietly "fixed" by moving soldiers out of the unit, it's rare that the root cause is ever addressed - it's not ideal but it does maintain the operations of the unit.

    My concern is that the "normal" sexual assault problems will increase drastically when women are introduced to combat roles. Combat roles tend to have less direct officer oversight as the units operate in smaller teams in combat, the stresses and isolation experienced in a combat unit are not even comparable to non combat units. All of these things increase the chances of sexual violence exponentially, this is a really bad thing when everyone is armed all the time.

    I hope this doesn't come off as me trying to "protect women from the world", I'm not particularly good at articulating the environment that I saw during my time in the Army. I don't think it's hopeless, and I'm not against women in combat roles. I just think the Army in particular still needs a massive culture change to get to the point were will women will be safe and effective in these units. They are getting there, and in all truth I would have done it the same way. Opening an advanced "badass" school like the Rangers to women before allowing them to just be infantry or scouts is a spectacular idea - there's no Infantrymen on the planet that can deny the shear awesome willpower it takes to earn a ranger tab. Hopefully this will have a positive trickle down effect, but I still don't think it's gonna address the assault issue :/

    The more women in combat roles, the higher women will be promoted (one issue with women in combat is that it's a faster route to officers hip and so on, so keeping women out was discriminatory in a simple hierarchy job way as well). And then women are less likely to put up with that shit and just fire the shithead.

    People don't get fired in the Army. There are already proportionally high ranking women in non combat roles and this stuff still happens in their units. I guess I could be displaying a pretty big fancy logical fallacy here as I don't know the fix for this issue, it's just kinda a problem I foresee in the immediate future that a lot of people seem to ignore.

    Huh? You can get fired in the Army - that's what the Big Chicken Dinner (Bad Conduct Discharge) is all about. The problem is that the military refuses to actually deal with the situation. Which is why several female Senators have been pushing to strip unit commanders of authority to handle matters involving sexual assault and harassment - because they have been covering this up.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Oh, and that's in part why I want to see Tammy Duckworth (who, unsurprisingly, is completely for opening the combat arms to women, pointing out that she "didn’t lose [her] legs in a bar fight") become Senator - because she has the background to tell all the commanders that kvetched over losing authority on sexual misconduct to go fuck themselves.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    the fact that their might be a problem is absolutely no reason for this not to happen

    I would say that if this would bring military sexual assault to the forefront of the discussion, that is a good enough reason to do it all on its own.

    The equal treatment thing is also hugely important, obviously.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Options
    Jean Claude Van CalmJean Claude Van Calm 'sup? Awesome Possum.Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    The combat infantry badge is for infantry, period. The combat action badge is for anyone who engages in combat. The former is specifically exclusionary, but there is an exact equivalent for everyone else. And honestly, infantry getting extra pretty badges is a fair reward for how much bullshit they put up with.

    As a CIB wearer, glad to see someone gets it - thanks pj. :D When I run across another CIB it's not about knowing they also ran into combat, it's about knowing they signed up for that specific purpose and that their entire lifestyle is shaped by the circumstances that infantry places people in to. "[o]f all Soldiers, it was recognized that the infantryman continuously operated under the worst conditions and performed a mission that was not assigned to any other Soldier or unit ... [t]he infantry, a small portion of the total Armed Forces, was suffering the most casualties while receiving the least public recognition."

    Anyways, I never found the physical standards to be the limiting factor for females in combat roles. I myself am 5'6" and weighed about 120lbs when I joined, there are females reading this thread that could physically out perform me in just about every way. I kinda think of the "OMG but they aren't strawng!" as a sort of popular generic Hollywood answer. Same can be said for the fear that women will be exposed to more sever hygiene issues than men (this is another issue my infantry buddies like to bring up).

    The thing that always really concerned me about women in combat roles is the thing that plagued the military during my stint. Sexual assault and harassment, it is literally off the charts rampant in the military. I imagine it has to do with the inherent power asymmetry that comes with official rank and titles. In a stateside, non combat unit it's pretty normal for everyones personal business to be "known" - the majority of sexual relationships are predatory senior males targeting lower ranking females. Not only does it hurt the victim in all the ways that these abuses normally due, but it degrades the moral fabric of the unit who sees these things happening to a fellow soldier. In a highly over-sighted non combat unit these things are dealt with as they are in most places, they are swept under the rug or quietly "fixed" by moving soldiers out of the unit, it's rare that the root cause is ever addressed - it's not ideal but it does maintain the operations of the unit.

    My concern is that the "normal" sexual assault problems will increase drastically when women are introduced to combat roles. Combat roles tend to have less direct officer oversight as the units operate in smaller teams in combat, the stresses and isolation experienced in a combat unit are not even comparable to non combat units. All of these things increase the chances of sexual violence exponentially, this is a really bad thing when everyone is armed all the time.

    I hope this doesn't come off as me trying to "protect women from the world", I'm not particularly good at articulating the environment that I saw during my time in the Army. I don't think it's hopeless, and I'm not against women in combat roles. I just think the Army in particular still needs a massive culture change to get to the point were will women will be safe and effective in these units. They are getting there, and in all truth I would have done it the same way. Opening an advanced "badass" school like the Rangers to women before allowing them to just be infantry or scouts is a spectacular idea - there's no Infantrymen on the planet that can deny the shear awesome willpower it takes to earn a ranger tab. Hopefully this will have a positive trickle down effect, but I still don't think it's gonna address the assault issue :/

    The more women in combat roles, the higher women will be promoted (one issue with women in combat is that it's a faster route to officers hip and so on, so keeping women out was discriminatory in a simple hierarchy job way as well). And then women are less likely to put up with that shit and just fire the shithead.

    People don't get fired in the Army. There are already proportionally high ranking women in non combat roles and this stuff still happens in their units. I guess I could be displaying a pretty big fancy logical fallacy here as I don't know the fix for this issue, it's just kinda a problem I foresee in the immediate future that a lot of people seem to ignore.

    Huh? You can get fired in the Army - that's what the Big Chicken Dinner (Bad Conduct Discharge) is all about. The problem is that the military refuses to actually deal with the situation. Which is why several female Senators have been pushing to strip unit commanders of authority to handle matters involving sexual assault and harassment - because they have been covering this up.

    Huh? Not in combat arms during a time of war when every volunteer is needed. After 10 years I've never personally seen anyone get a BCD - this is different from saying I've never seen anyone doing bad conduct. I have heard about it, namely those infamous Black Hearts guys which is an interesting book that does a better job of me at explaining the issues in a combat environment.

    "The problem is that the military refuses to actually deal with the situation." This is completely true, and exactly what I've been repeating.

    PSN: Grimmsy- Xbox Live: Grimmsy
  • Options
    PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    So recruitment is on the rise again?

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Options
    spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Decomposey wrote: »
    THEY ARE NOT REDUCING STANDARDS.

    They have said repeatedly that they are not. That they have not. Even when a congressmen accused ranger school of fudging the results for the 3 women who graduated they have consistently and constantly said they are not changing standards.

    So again: THEY ARE NOT CHANGING STANDARDS FOR COMBAT ROLES.

    They are just allowing women who meet those standards to fill those roles.

    Should they, though? (Reduce standards, I mean.) The entire point is to give them numbers and representation to combat injustice, but it seems like there is a great risk of exploitation in expanded roles without dependably expanded recruitment. There is strength in numbers, but epidemiologically the numbers at current standards may be an issue.

    what

    no

    NO

    The point isn't to give them numbers and representation to combat injustice because that's not how you combat injustice.

    The point is to let capable people do the job regardless of gender. THAT is justice. No one should give a flying fuck how many women are in combat roles! Caring about the number of women who succeed is the worst sort of mistake.

  • Options
    MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    Going to be a bit circumspect but I do work with SA in the military.

    It is an issue. Big issue. And one that if reported the military brings down a hammer of external investigation. Problem is under reporting (~15% of cases every are reported and men report even less and have the higher total cases) and a culture that is based on aggressiveness and masculinity.

    Also you will see a lot of the reports have a lot in common with young folks in college. Booze, relationships, non-relationships turned ugly and so on.

    u7stthr17eud.png
  • Options
    NecoNeco Worthless Garbage Registered User regular
    Do we have any reason to think they are going to lower standards? I really don't see that happening. And if it does get lowered, I doubt it will have anything to do with women.

Sign In or Register to comment.