Women now on the front lines of battle
 

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/...jobs-for-women


Who thinks this is a good idea?

Put them out there at their time of the month on the front lines and we should have no issues.

Be careful what you wish for

I don't get the "why" of this discussion. Are there really women who feel that they can ONLY contribute by being on the front line?

I didn't read the article but if women are fighting for equality in other fields why not in the front line. They get paid the same, and the gun in their hands shoot the same bullets. Nothing wrong with that.

Distraction issue to make us forget that unemployment is exactly the same as when Obama took office, record number of people out of workforce, record number of people in food stamps, debt at record levels, recovery that isn't.

As long as they don't change the standards, let women do it. If they lower the standards to let women participate, they are putting lives at danger.

You know as well as I do that isn't the case. It is all about equality.

If the front line requirements are something that a woman can achieve, then great, let them fight there. If they can't, too bad. I suspect many women will not be able to meet the requirements and it is just for the sake of not "oppressing" women because of their gender.


I suspect they would be most effective in the mess halls, cooking male soldiers a hot meal. :shhh:

Technically they're already there and many of them have experienced combat. What this will do is allow women to serve with an infantry MOS. Frankly, I'm torn on the issue. Part of my wants to say "if they want it and are able, let them do it". But there could easily be deleterious effects to unit cohesion and combat readiness that we aren't prepared for. I'd like to see a pilot program conducted and analyzed before we go ahead with a full directive for every service. But I think this is change in policy is due more to political pressure rather than those in the military clamoring for women infantry.

Interestingly enough, a half year before Panetta's directive, a female Marine captain wrote about why the Marines shouldn't integrate women with men in combat roles.

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/a...-created-equal

For one thing, in the current military, to be competitive amongst peers for promotions, achieve high rank, or make a career out of military service, being in a combat position, having combat experience, or ground combat arms MOS is a must. At least in the Marines it is. With the exception of the current Commandant of the Corps (who's an aviator), most have been infantry officers.

lol. Tell 03xx Marines this and you will get laughed at.

You want to rank up, don't go to combat.

With equal rights come equal responsibilities and burdens.

Why shouldn't women be expected to shoulder the burdens of combat any more or less than men? Are the lives of our sons and brothers any less or any more dear than the lives of our daughters and sisters?

Many/most of the same arguments regarding unit cohesion and combat readiness were also made regarding integrating blacks fully into the military. Were there issues in that transition? Yes, but the answer wasn't to re-segregate the military. Should this occur in a deliberate, careful yet forward-moving fashion? Of course. Should women in combat roles meet the same objective standards and criteria as men? Absolutely. The biggest problem with that seems not to be the women, but rather, the men (see high rates of sexual abuse and assault against their fellow women soldiers in arms). If there are problems, I would focus on the men.

As mentioned though, in reality and in today's "wars," women have effectively if quietly already been in combat roles for many years now. A telling quote from an NPR story:
"And Lt. Col. Juanita Chang told Blake that since he was interviewing her about women in combat, 'please make sure you focus in on my combat action badge, which is right here.'"

...and the majority of flag officers in the Marines are coming from a combat arms background...

Rats, I said 13xx, meant to say 03xx. Darn numbers

lol, what 03XX types were you talking to? Can't speak for the Army, but most Division, MEF, Marine COCOM commanders were 03XX Officers when starting out. ISAF Commander, Gen Allen, was an Infantry type too.

This will destroy the military just like allowing gays into the military did.



Oh, wait.......

A few of my buds are dark horse and blue diamond and they are all 03xx. Most I know are really in sh!t spot at e3 and seemingly make it impossible for rank advancement while pogs make nco who have seen less time/experience.

Darkhorse - good unit.

Ah, there's the issue.

In the infantry, it's not a small MOS. So basically because there are a lot of 03XX types, there are more Marines to compete with, hence a lower promotion rate. Now other MOSs, such as Communication Marines, have a smaller group of peers, and because it's a small MOS (compared to the 03XX types), they promote faster. Sometimes, as with my case, I had a young NCO Cpl that got promoted to Sgt, and he was obviously a bit immature.

So I guess I should be fair, and make the caveat that, depending on your MOS, it varies too. However, what transcends all MOSs is the combat experience.

Now we can start making young women sign up for the draft like their male counterparts. We're getting close to equality by the day.

you mean Selective Service registration?

It's all the same. Yes.