As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
United States Armed Forces finally recognizes combat duty of women
Henroid
Mexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
Mexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
The Pentagon ended a ban that prohibited women from serving in combat in the military. Actually, that's not entirely accurate. Women have been serving in combat ever since the ban was officially put into effect back in 1994. Despite participation in combat, because of the ban, women would not have their service in combat recognized because it officially never happened. Such as the case below, noted in the article the New York Times has about this news.
Combat duty is also linked to advancement in the military as well, so the allowance and recognition for women in combat now opens the doors for them to attain higher ranks in any given branch. So the military as a career path for women has been given way to equalize.
My reaction to this news is the same as when DADT was thrown out. There are people way the fuck braver than I willing to lay it on the line. There's your qualifier for military service. And the fact that we're allowing these people to serve as who they are, and recognize everything they do now, is a big step. And that said, as always, I give my thanks to anyone who has served in the military or continues to at this time (we have many forumers who have and do so).
As recently as two months ago, four servicewomen filed a federal lawsuit against the Pentagon challenging its combat restriction, saying they had all served in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan but had not been officially recognized for it. One of the women, Maj. Mary Jennings Hegar, an Air National Guard helicopter pilot, was shot down, returned fire and was wounded while on the ground in Afghanistan, but said she could not seek combat leadership positions because the Defense Department did not officially acknowledge her experience as combat.
Combat duty is also linked to advancement in the military as well, so the allowance and recognition for women in combat now opens the doors for them to attain higher ranks in any given branch. So the military as a career path for women has been given way to equalize.
My reaction to this news is the same as when DADT was thrown out. There are people way the fuck braver than I willing to lay it on the line. There's your qualifier for military service. And the fact that we're allowing these people to serve as who they are, and recognize everything they do now, is a big step. And that said, as always, I give my thanks to anyone who has served in the military or continues to at this time (we have many forumers who have and do so).
+1
Posts
I did read that branches will have time to apply for "special exceptions," I guess we'll see what that ends up meaning.
I'm also a but curious about this whole "failure to recognize combat" thing. Never heard of it before. I've seen females with CABs (and I think CMBs), and obviously with campaign ribbons.
I guess there are special positions that have some kind of other distinct recognition of combat? That's dumb. And if so, I'm glad that piece of the glass cieling in the military is being broken as well.
I'll likely have more to say on this later, when I have time.
Now they just need their own fast attack subs and I'll be significantly happier.
From what I understand as a non-military person, it's that women tend to be passed over for promotions to upper echelon ranks because their service wasn't technically combat-related.
And I may be oversimplifying.
They haven't been in direct combat action, aka infantry units, but they still earn combat ribbons in combat support.
And for that matter, the fact that they aren't in DCA is also sort of shaky. For instance, commanders in Afghanistan tend to take a female NCO or officer with them when going on combat patrol, so they can deal with women and bridge that cultural gap.
It's good to see the armed forces finally recognize that women are already in combat, you might as well just lift the barrier and let them be in infantry units and be combat leaders.
I am most interested to see how this plays out in the special operations commands.
e: I am also curious to see how long it takes for some knucklehead GI to come out with some "open letter" about how his female commander got people killed, and if she had been a man it wouldn't have happened. That WILL happen at some point.
Yeah, me too.
As for support soldiers, I found it amusing that "officially" we didn't have females (in the Army) at the battalion level or below in combat units. But we reorganized our brigades (at least the heavy brigades) so that forward support companies were attached to the combat arms battalions. So a female couldn't serve in the HHC of a heavy battalion, but could serve in the FSC in a role that was previously part of the HHC before reorganization. Because she wasn't technically in an infantry battalion, she was in the FSC's support battalion. So dumb.
Of course it will. But really, I'm not sure how broad the audience for that shit even is anymore. Probably broader than we'd hope, but less than we'd fear?
I also would want awards/commendations/citations/medals to be given without regard to gender. That being said don't forget that a female infantry person would be eligible for EIB/CIB whereas a female artillery operator would not.
Well yeah, that's no different than male. It's always cool when (male) cavalry scouts spend a year attached to an infantry unit, performing the exact same duties in the exact same conditions, and are ineligible for CIBs. This was, of course, the reason the CAB was created (though it veered pretty hard from that original purpose).
And yeah, I can definitely see holding females in combat arms MOSs to gender-blind physical standards. Or at least to some higher standard than the status quo.
As a 19D, that pissed me off to no end. In fact we had to often act as cadre during the EID course. "Hey dipshit, you know you have to charge that thing before you enage the safety, right? Enjoy your shiny badge."
none of the articles I saw mentioned the two candidates pft or CFT scores heading into the course. They also said there hasn't been any more volunteers yet.
Good.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Pretty happy.
So what do we think, ~25 years to seeing a female Chief of Staff?
Standards should also be relevant to the role.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
First, what guarantee do we have that the physical standards will not be lowered? I'm guessing not a lot of women will volunteer for these jobs (not a lot of men do either), and out of the ones that volunteer, even fewer will pass. As mentioned earlier, only two women volunteered for the Marine Infantry Officer course and both washed out. If years and years go by without a single successful female candidate, will people start clamoring that the standards are sexist and need to be revised?
Second, unit cohesion. This is already a big problem in the military right now. I don't blame women for this. I blame youth, hormones, and general stupidity. Still, the fact remains that this is a problem that has not been successfully dealt with, no matter how many Power Point presentations are thrown at it.
I personally know many people who were kicked out due to fraternization. In my unit alone, three women were pulled out of a deployment because they got pregnant. This is highly disruptive, especially if they performed valuable jobs with no back-fills. Not to mention all the stupid relationship drama that happens when young people start hooking up in strange places.
I remember my CO once gave a speech about how we're all a family, and if you start hooking up with someone, that'd be like hooking up with a member of your family. I thought it was a pretty good speech. Still didn't work.
Cmon let's hope for sooner than that!
So, I'll believe that one when it happens.
Racial integration faced similar detractors. But it's too hard! But problems and tensions and people will never be able to follow rules!
One of the women that testified in front of congress talked about how not being considered equal undermined the ability of women in the military to be free of sexual harassment and sexual assault. Recognition empowers women and will prevent some of the behavior you're talking about.
Plus they're already in combat. Now they just get recognition.
When someone makes a racist or homophobic remark, he or she gets written up. I personally took people aside and told them to cut that shit out.
When a woman gets pregnant, she gets sent home, which is way more disruptive to the unit.
That's a tricky one. How do we decide what the requirements of the job are? By seeing how much men can run, carry etc, and then setting the standards at the upper limit of those. Maybe the standards could stand to be changed, particularly in the modern age when warfare is so much more technical and less about marching.
I know in the UK we have gradually reduced, and I believe now eliminated, the height requirement for a police officer over the years. Some senior officers decried this, as they felt it was essential. But the police force survived just fine with shorter people doing the work.
And so does the soldier that got her pregnant, right?
oh wait.
and what does that have to do with combat vs. regular serving? why let babyfactories in the military at all then?
boys will be boys durr hurr
it's hard for me to not think you are assuming women won't be able to cut it and thus won't be allowed in combat anyway.
When someone gets shot they generally are shipped out as well. I don't see how a somewhat more foreseen medical absence is all that different.
Depends on the case and commander, but usually no unless the guy was married. Keep in mind that for some people, they don't see it as a privilege to fulfill the rest of their deployment.
And I already mentioned that this is a big issue right now, regardless if a woman is in a combat arms position or not. It's a big issue that we have yet to figure out.
When you get shot, you don't get in trouble. When you and some other dipshit are playing with a gun after being warned about not playing with the gun and one of you gets shot you both get into trouble, but only one gets to go home.
As long as both parties are held accountable (assuming the male is in the military as well) it should be no problem.
Most won't and that's the point, only allow in the few that can. I served in a military police unit and only a handfull of the women in it could even pass the men's test. Some of the roles women are currently in..ie military police..should have a single standard, but do not.
I didn't realize that the military was full of a bunch of softies when it comes to disciplinary action.
I'd agree there should be a single standard, but I'm not sure that it should be the same as now.
Some will definitely pass, to be sure.
But at the same time, you can find the numbers of medians and standard deviations on PT score...the bulk of women can't pass the men's test, and few can exceed the minimum (which is generally an expectation in infantry units).
Still, more power to them.
Also, pregnancy and the increased nonavailability to it is a serious issue for the Army. It's one of those issues that the military largely doesn't even want to touch. It's also unavoidable, given the age demographics. But, for instance, current Army policy allows a woman an honorable discharge, period, on demand if she becomes pregnant. I can't think of any other circumstances, offhand, where a soldier (male or female) can similarly get an honorable discharge without any negative repercussions. And it already causes problems across the force, even with women restricted from the bulk of units.
Still, not like there's no solution to that problem.
The minimum (at least in the Army, Navy, and Airforce) isn't unreasonably high. For the marines, I think it's somewhat challenging, at least in comparison.
But that's just for standard roles. More specialized roles may have more stringent physical requirements, and generally with good reason. If a woman can do it, more power to her.
Edit; Huh, hadn't even considered the implications on registering for selective service.
http://news.yahoo.com/women-combat-register-draft-225900518.html
I think it's more is this person going to be able to pick me up and drag me away from where I got shot/blown up by themselves. If the standard ruck weighs 75 pounds, is she going to only be able to lug 60? That is what people mean by the same physical standards. Being in an infantry unit is different than just being in a combat zone being shot at just cuz you're there.
Before this change, the women who could meet the same standards as men were professionally fucked over for no reason other than their vaginas. Now they're not. I'm sure those women want their fellow combatants to be just as qualified as they had to be.
Grasping at straws to justify "just feeling this is wrong".
Yes. This is exactly my point.