Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

Article says can. Pentagon says will. Congrats ladies and remember long uncontrolled bursts!

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/03/458319524/pentagon-will-allow-women-in-frontline-ground-combat-positions

Pentagon Says Women Can Now Serve In Front-Line Ground Combat Positions
Updated December 3, 20151:17 PM ET
Bill Chappell
Twitter
Pentagon chief Ash Carter is expected to announce that women can now serve in frontline combat posts. Here Carolina Ortiz moves away from a 155 mm artillery piece after loading it during a live-fire exercise at the Marine base in Twentynine Palms, Calif., earlier this year, in a a months-long study of how women might perform in ground combat jobs.

Pentagon chief Ash Carter is expected to announce that women can now serve in frontline combat posts. Here Carolina Ortiz moves away from a 155 mm artillery piece after loading it during a live-fire exercise at the Marine base in Twentynine Palms, Calif., earlier this year, in a a months-long study of how women might perform in ground combat jobs.
David Gilkey/NPR

Saying America's military must draw from "the broadest possible pool of talent," Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Thursday that women in the U.S. military – including the Army and Marines – can now serve in combat posts.

The formal process to open combat jobs to women began in January of 2013; in finishing that process, Carter acknowledged that in recent years, U.S. women have fought — and sometimes given their lives — in combat posts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Carter made the announcement at noon Thursday; the event was not attended by Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, whose branch of the service was the only one to request the ability to make exceptions to the new rule. Dunford is now the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"There will be no exceptions," Carter said today.

We're updating this post with news from the event.

Update at 12:46 p.m. ET: No 'Absolute Choice'

Carter says the new rule means women in the military who are deemed fit for combat can be assigned to those roles, rather than relying on their own initiative to seek roles in combat. The lack of "absolute choice" for posts and assignments is part of being in the military, he says.

Earlier in the briefing, Carter said women can now vie for spots on Navy SEALS teams and other elite units.

Update at 12:36 p.m. ET: Selective Service Registration For Women?

"That is a matter of legal dispute right now," Carter says, adding that the outcome of that process won't affect his decision.

Update at 12:26 p.m. ET: Marines' Resistance

Answering a question about Joint Chiefs chairman Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford's resistance to the idea of full integration of women in combat roles, Carter says he "strongly agreed" with Dunford's idea that the way implementation is handled is the key to the new policy's success.

He adds that there's "a great value" to implementing the process on a joint basis, with all branches of the service included.

Carter did not directly respond to what flaws he found in Dunford's analysis.

In September, the Marine Corps released results of a study that found all-male units perform better in combat than do mixed units.

As reporters at the briefing note, Dunford is not attending today's announcement.

Update at 12:26 p.m. ET: Guidelines For Implementation

Listing details about how the new rules would take effect, Carter says no quotas will be imposed on women's numbers in the military. He adds that the military will also have to dispel the idea — held by some men and women in the military, he said — that women might be included in a unit for any reason other than their qualifications.

Carter said that women's qualifications and the ability to perform combat roles will be main priorities as the new rules are implemented.

The process of integrating women into combat roles must begin in the next 30 days, he said.

Update at 12:18 p.m. ET: Carter Makes It Official

Secretary Carter says the Pentagon can't afford to omit half of America's population from consideration.

He then added that since the 1970s, women have been able to attend U.S. service academies, and that in the early 1990s their military roles were expanded, with some exceptions allowed to exclude the.

"There will be no exceptions," Carter says of today's change in the rules.

Our original post continues:

Women are being cleared to play a greater role in combat — and vie for thousands of jobs — after the military conducted an internal review of how they might perform in artillery, armor, and infantry roles.

From NPR's Tom Bowman and our national security desk:

"Some Pentagon officials, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Joe Dunford, have said they worry about the ability of Marine infantry units to be as effective with both male and female troops. Carter is expected to say he'll take Dunford's concerns into consideration in opening the military jobs.

"The Pentagon has been opening up jobs to women throughout the Obama administration, admitting women to Navy submarines and to the Army's elite Ranger School."

The formal announcement comes as more female servicemembers have been training for roles on the front lines. In August, two female soldiers graduated from the U.S. Army's Ranger School at Fort Benning, Ga. Currently, women make up less than 10 percent of Marine Corps personnel.

The announcement comes more than 20 years after women were officially excluded from serving in small ground combat units back in 1994. It also comes three years after a group of servicewomen sued the Pentagon and then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in 2012. Two months after that suit was filed, Panetta announced that women would be gradually allowed to serve combat roles.

**hotsauceman1**

Good, its time this finally happened. its almost 2016, this "Women are only food for X" needs to stop.

**AncientSkarbrand**

I'm sorry, but doesn't this just come on the heels of a study saying that women realistically are a slight liability in combat?

I'm really not trying to be mysoginistic here, but isn't it more ideal to have the strongest men out there at all times? Women can serve the military in so many ways other than direct ground combat... like logistics and communication and medicine.

I commend the bravery of these women, it's amazing. But... why do they want to fight? Nothing good comes from it, at the least you'll live to deal with the ptsd that comes afterwards. Women are valuable in ways that don't really involve smashing face or taking wounds. I for one could never even entertain the thought of sending a woman, who is so much more useful and valuable anywhere but the front lines, to the front lines. She would have to really, really want it for me to consider it. And even then I'd feel sick about it the whole time. I just don't understand the willing subjection to all this danger and torture when men already accept the responsibility of it.

Men are blunt instruments. We have a long long history of dying in combat. One might say it's been a selected trait that has grown with time, until we stopped letting natural selection happen. If there's going to be a conflict, it's up to us to protect the women and children. Once again not trying to play the (women need protection) card, I'm just saying.

It's a controversial issue I guess, in a way. Please don't think I'm a mysoginist.

**Sigvatr**

Putting less able fighters in the front line seems like a good idea.

...and get away with that SJW stuff. There's enough studies proving that women are worse at the same job than their male counterparts are. It's a biological disadvantage and even with hard training, you cannot best the physical aspect.

**Spinner**

AncientSkarbrand wrote:

I commend the bravery of these women, it's amazing. But... why do they want to fight?

Why does anyone want to fight?

**hotsauceman1**

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
I'm sorry, but doesn't this just come on the heels of a study saying that women realistically are a slight liability in combat?

I'm really not trying to be mysoginistic here, but isn't it more ideal to have the strongest men out there at all times? Women can serve the military in so many ways other than direct ground combat... like logistics and communication and medicine.

I commend the bravery of these women, it's amazing. But... why do they want to fight? Nothing good comes from it, at the least you'll live to deal with the ptsd that comes afterwards. Women are valuable in ways that don't really involve smashing face or taking wounds. I for one could never even entertain the thought of sending a woman, who is so much more useful and valuable anywhere but the front lines, to the front lines. She would have to really, really want it for me to consider it. And even then I'd feel sick about it the whole time. I just don't understand the willing subjection to all this danger and torture when men already accept the responsibility of it.

Men are blunt instruments. We have a long long history of dying in combat. One might say it's been a selected trait that has grown with time, until we stopped letting natural selection happen. If there's going to be a conflict, it's up to us to protect the women and children. Once again not trying to play the (women need protection) card, I'm just saying.

It's a controversial issue I guess, in a way. Please don't think I'm a mysoginist.

So much to dissect
You do realize that in several african cultures, women where the fighters? What is it that makes women better than men in logistics or medicine?
And why can you not stomocah the idea of sending a women to battle, but find sending a men? Why is it ok for men to die, but not women?

**Ashiraya**

Great! If they want to and they pass all the tests that the military deem a soldier must pass to be allowed to serve, then there is no reason to keep them out.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spinner wrote:
AncientSkarbrand wrote:

I commend the bravery of these women, it's amazing. But... why do they want to fight?

Why does anyone want to fight?

Word.

**AncientSkarbrand**

Are the tests the same, or altered for gender difference?

**MrMoustaffa**

Really not sure how I feel about this.

If they finally are putting women to the same standards men are judged by for combat worthiness? Fine, good for them.

If they're still using different standards that are easier, then no, this is a terrible idea and it needs to be shot down NOW.

I'm all for gender equality and all that, but equality is a two way street. If a woman is going into combat, she should be held to the same standards as her male comrades. Not for some SJW bullcrap, but for the safety of herself and others.

Because if the recent studies are anything to go by, no, most women are not cut out for frontline infantry combat just for physical standards. Sure, they can make great pilots, tankers, etc. But front line grunts really aren't their best place.

And yeah, I know I'm gonna get heat for this, but I don't exactly see how "equality" means men have a drastically different standard going into combat than women do, and how putting both sexes at risk by allowing lower standards for women is good in any way, shape, or form.

**AncientSkarbrand**

It's okay for those African cultures to do things differently. I'm not one to tell them they're wrong. Did their women have larger bone structure and more heavily muscled bodies? Did the men primarily care for children?

If not, then I simply question the physical advantage they saw as to why it was the women doing the fighting, as I am now.

**hotsauceman1**

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
It's okay for those African cultures to do things differently. I'm not one to tell them they're wrong. Did their women have larger bone structure and more heavily muscled bodies? Did the men primarily care for children?

If not, then I simply question the physical advantage they saw as to why it was the women doing the fighting, as I am now.

Cause they saw women as better fighters, more aggressive and more protective than men.
Really this idea that women are better than men at somethings, and mean vice versa is an idea that needs to die.

**AncientSkarbrand**

Huh? How can it die? We are physically different in both body and mind.

**Ashiraya**

But many of the perceived differences are cultural, not genetic.

**Frazzled**

So much to dissect
You do realize that in several african cultures, women where the fighters?

How'd that work out for them...

What is it that makes women better than men in logistics or medicine?

Nothing. Not related to the issue.

And why can you not stomocah the idea of sending a women to battle, but find sending a men? Why is it ok for men to die, but not women?

Don't care.

**hotsauceman1**

No, men and women are no different in mind, maybe in body, but our culture has created the idea of the fragile women who cant do the same stuff.
Oh another thing, in ancient scandinavia, Alot of the viking warriors where.....women.
Believe it or not, the idea that women are weaker and different than men, is a socially constructed one.

**Frazzled**

Ashiraya wrote:
But many of the perceived differences are cultural, not genetic.

Maybe in Europe

but in FREEDOMLand our ladies aren't as physically built as the men are, on average.

**hotsauceman1**

Frazzled wrote:

So much to dissect
You do realize that in several african cultures, women where the fighters?

How'd that work out for them...

What is it that makes women better than men in logistics or medicine?

Nothing. Not related to the issue.

And why can you not stomocah the idea of sending a women to battle, but find sending a men? Why is it ok for men to die, but not women?

Don't care.

Im curious what you point is here.

**Crazy_Carnifex**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
AncientSkarbrand wrote:
I'm sorry, but doesn't this just come on the heels of a study saying that women realistically are a slight liability in combat?

I'm really not trying to be mysoginistic here, but isn't it more ideal to have the strongest men out there at all times? Women can serve the military in so many ways other than direct ground combat... like logistics and communication and medicine.

I commend the bravery of these women, it's amazing. But... why do they want to fight? Nothing good comes from it, at the least you'll live to deal with the ptsd that comes afterwards. Women are valuable in ways that don't really involve smashing face or taking wounds. I for one could never even entertain the thought of sending a woman, who is so much more useful and valuable anywhere but the front lines, to the front lines. She would have to really, really want it for me to consider it. And even then I'd feel sick about it the whole time. I just don't understand the willing subjection to all this danger and torture when men already accept the responsibility of it.

Men are blunt instruments. We have a long long history of dying in combat. One might say it's been a selected trait that has grown with time, until we stopped letting natural selection happen. If there's going to be a conflict, it's up to us to protect the women and children. Once again not trying to play the (women need protection) card, I'm just saying.

It's a controversial issue I guess, in a way. Please don't think I'm a mysoginist.

So much to dissect
You do realize that in several african cultures, women where the fighters? What is it that makes women better than men in logistics or medicine?
And why can you not stomocah the idea of sending a women to battle, but find sending a men? Why is it ok for men to die, but not women?

For your first statement: got a source? It sounds interesting.

Second statement: Biological hard-wiring. Females in any species are more important to the success of the species (or population) than males are. I believe the figure is 10% males minimum. Below that you start suffering from the genetic bottleneck, but above it your reproductive ability is not affected. In contrast, reducing the number of females reduces rate of reproduction immediately. Let's say you have a three 200-strong tribes. They start a war, and all suffer 50% casualties. One tribe loses 90% of their men and 10% of their women. Another loses 50% of both sexes. Third loses 90% of their women, 10% of their men. Let's see who recovers faster:

Tribe 1: 90 babies per year
Tribe 2: 50 babies per year
Tribe 3: 10 babies per year

As you may imagine, tribe 1 is going to recover better.

**Frazzled**

1. Your comparison of African societies is lame. African societies got the crap kicked out of them by everyone. They are literally the wimpiest place on earth vs. anyone else. Its a continent dominated by cats, what do you expect?

2. Logistics requires brains. Active front line units require braun too. You can't just FEELZ that away any more than I can use the power of FEELZ to have babies.

**AncientSkarbrand**

To me, equality means respect and opportunity. It doesn't mean they should be seen as exactly the same as men.. otherwise we close our eyes to reality for the sake of political correctness. The two forms are flat out different, sexual dimorphism exists.

Are women not better than men at a variety of things? I certainly think so?

Also, I guess I just don't see being a front line soldier as "opportunity". I don't see it benefitting the individual as of late, wars seem to be done for the sake of private interests.

If a draft came out tomorrow, and they took my wife and left me here... i wouldn't understand. Ever.

**Grey Templar**

hotsauceman1 wrote:

Believe it or not, the idea that women are weaker and different than men, is a socially constructed one.

It was socially constructed because women do have a different body construction, which lends to them being worse overall at fighting. Less upper body strength, smaller bone structure, less muscle mass overall.

The difference is relatively minor, and certain women can achieve similar or greater feats than certain men. But the average is lower overall. This doesn't mean its acceptable to disqualify women from serving of course.

Everyone needs to pass the same test though. I am 100% ok with women fighting so long as they pass the same standards as the men. Yes, this means women will pass less often than men do. Thats ok. We cannot lower the standards to appease the SJW crowd and put all our troops in danger because we let substandard soldiers in the army.

**hotsauceman1**

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
AncientSkarbrand wrote:
I'm sorry, but doesn't this just come on the heels of a study saying that women realistically are a slight liability in combat?

I'm really not trying to be mysoginistic here, but isn't it more ideal to have the strongest men out there at all times? Women can serve the military in so many ways other than direct ground combat... like logistics and communication and medicine.

I commend the bravery of these women, it's amazing. But... why do they want to fight? Nothing good comes from it, at the least you'll live to deal with the ptsd that comes afterwards. Women are valuable in ways that don't really involve smashing face or taking wounds. I for one could never even entertain the thought of sending a woman, who is so much more useful and valuable anywhere but the front lines, to the front lines. She would have to really, really want it for me to consider it. And even then I'd feel sick about it the whole time. I just don't understand the willing subjection to all this danger and torture when men already accept the responsibility of it.

Men are blunt instruments. We have a long long history of dying in combat. One might say it's been a selected trait that has grown with time, until we stopped letting natural selection happen. If there's going to be a conflict, it's up to us to protect the women and children. Once again not trying to play the (women need protection) card, I'm just saying.

It's a controversial issue I guess, in a way. Please don't think I'm a mysoginist.

So much to dissect
You do realize that in several african cultures, women where the fighters? What is it that makes women better than men in logistics or medicine?
And why can you not stomocah the idea of sending a women to battle, but find sending a men? Why is it ok for men to die, but not women?

For your first statement: got a source? It sounds interesting.

Second statement: Biological hard-wiring. Females in any species are more important to the success of the species (or population) than males are. I believe the figure is 10% males minimum. Below that you start suffering from the genetic bottleneck, but above it your reproductive ability is not affected. In contrast, reducing the number of females reduces rate of reproduction immediately. Let's say you have a three 200-strong tribes. They start a war, and all suffer 50% casualties. One tribe loses 90% of their men and 10% of their women. Another loses 50% of both sexes. Third loses 90% of their women, 10% of their men. Let's see who recovers faster:.

That is less of a problem in modern day though. How much of a percentage does our military take up?
As to the fist
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/dahomeys-women-warriors-88286072/?no-ist
Several others aswell. This isnt a tribe I was talking about though. I read the book so long ago I just internalized it. but, there is precedent

**AncientSkarbrand**

Women are different in mind. Explain the increased organizational skills and the ability to perceive more colour variation than men in any other way. There's lots of studies that show men and women work differently mentally in some ways. There are also some that show there isn't a difference in many other areas.

I understand that the differences are probably perceived as bigger than they are, and the human mind has problems looking at all data at once, but they are not the same.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
About the study I mentioned in my first post, I don't have a link but there was a thread on here about it months ago.

**hotsauceman1**

Frazzled wrote:
1. Your comparison of African societies is lame. African societies got the crap kicked out of them by everyone. They are literally the wimpiest place on earth vs. anyone else.

2. Logistics requires brains. Active front line units require braun too. You can't just FEELZ that away any more than I can use the power of FEELZ to have babies.

1: Well, when all they have is pre-bronze age weapons, and their conquerors have armor, guns and disease it isnt a fair idea to say that the reason they got their butt kicked was because their warriors where women.
2: So, if women are better in logistics, and thay requires brains, does that mean men have less brains then women?

**AncientSkarbrand**

In certain areas, yes. And vice versa.

**Frazzled**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
1. Your comparison of African societies is lame. African societies got the crap kicked out of them by everyone. They are literally the wimpiest place on earth vs. anyone else.

2. Logistics requires brains. Active front line units require braun too. You can't just FEELZ that away any more than I can use the power of FEELZ to have babies.

1: Well, when all they have is pre-bronze age weapons, and their conquerors have armor, guns and disease it isnt a fair idea to say that the reason they got their butt kicked was because their warriors where women.

Fair point. Egypt vs. the Sea Peoples, Hittites, Persians, Romans, Turks...

2: So, if women are better in logistics, and thay requires brains, does that mean men have less brains then women?

My wife would say yes. She would be right.

**AncientSkarbrand**

For evidence women and men have differing brain structure and function: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences

**SilverMK2**

Good. Give everyone who wants to serve their chance.

**Crazy_Carnifex**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
AncientSkarbrand wrote:
I'm sorry, but doesn't this just come on the heels of a study saying that women realistically are a slight liability in combat?

I'm really not trying to be mysoginistic here, but isn't it more ideal to have the strongest men out there at all times? Women can serve the military in so many ways other than direct ground combat... like logistics and communication and medicine.

I commend the bravery of these women, it's amazing. But... why do they want to fight? Nothing good comes from it, at the least you'll live to deal with the ptsd that comes afterwards. Women are valuable in ways that don't really involve smashing face or taking wounds. I for one could never even entertain the thought of sending a woman, who is so much more useful and valuable anywhere but the front lines, to the front lines. She would have to really, really want it for me to consider it. And even then I'd feel sick about it the whole time. I just don't understand the willing subjection to all this danger and torture when men already accept the responsibility of it.

Men are blunt instruments. We have a long long history of dying in combat. One might say it's been a selected trait that has grown with time, until we stopped letting natural selection happen. If there's going to be a conflict, it's up to us to protect the women and children. Once again not trying to play the (women need protection) card, I'm just saying.

It's a controversial issue I guess, in a way. Please don't think I'm a mysoginist.

So much to dissect
You do realize that in several african cultures, women where the fighters? What is it that makes women better than men in logistics or medicine?
And why can you not stomocah the idea of sending a women to battle, but find sending a men? Why is it ok for men to die, but not women?

For your first statement: got a source? It sounds interesting.

Second statement: Biological hard-wiring. Females in any species are more important to the success of the species (or population) than males are. I believe the figure is 10% males minimum. Below that you start suffering from the genetic bottleneck, but above it your reproductive ability is not affected. In contrast, reducing the number of females reduces rate of reproduction immediately. Let's say you have a three 200-strong tribes. They start a war, and all suffer 50% casualties. One tribe loses 90% of their men and 10% of their women. Another loses 50% of both sexes. Third loses 90% of their women, 10% of their men. Let's see who recovers faster:.

That is less of a problem in modern day though. How much of a percentage does our military take up?
As to the fist
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/dahomeys-women-warriors-88286072/?no-ist
Several others aswell. This isnt a tribe I was talking about though. I read the book so long ago I just internalized it. but, there is precedent

While modern society may be less concerned about the population-level effects of women dying in combat, it does explain why there is an instinctive reluctance to let women fight.

As for the African tribe, in the article it suggests that the female regiment was formed in part due to the tribe being badly outnumbered. So it may have been something that was initially born out of necessity, rather than preference. From what I remember of Norse Shield-maiden legends it's a similar thin- the last line of defence, once the men had all been killed.

**JimOnMars**

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
For evidence women and men have differing brain structure and function: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences

Just debunked:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/12/01/brains-arent-actually-male-or-female-new-study-suggests/

The only real issue here is the one the Marines studied. Women met the minimum requirements in that study, but the minimums are actually pretty low. Most male Marines far, far exceeded the minimums, and therefore are better fighters. The simple fix for this is to up the minimums until it starts impacting the total number of needed recruits. Most women wash out under that system, leaving only the few who would actually be decent fighters.

Which is what is needed.