Pentagon to open combat roles for women

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.

**Shadowseer_Kim**

I find the statements about "everyone acknowledges women have been in combat." statements laughable. I have known a few women who were disability injured in combat, fire fights, etc.

Everytime they go to the VA for an appointment, they get the same "are you waiting for your husband?" attitude and looks of disbelief and denial of medical care for what could not possibly have been a combat related injury because "women are not allowed in combat".

Seems to me some very open acknowledgement of "yes women see combat." is the least they can do.

**Seaward**

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
I find the statements about "everyone acknowledges women have been in combat." statements laughable. I have known a few women who were disability injured in combat, fire fights, etc.

Everytime they go to the VA for an appointment, they get the same "are you waiting for your husband?" attitude and looks of disbelief and denial of medical care for what could not possibly have been a combat related injury because "women are not allowed in combat".

Seems to me some very open acknowledgement of "yes women see combat." is the least they can do.

I suspect there is more to those stories than we're getting.

**CptJake**

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
I find the statements about "everyone acknowledges women have been in combat." statements laughable. I have known a few women who were disability injured in combat, fire fights, etc.

Everytime they go to the VA for an appointment, they get the same "are you waiting for your husband?" attitude and looks of disbelief and denial of medical care for what could not possibly have been a combat related injury because "women are not allowed in combat".

Seems to me some very open acknowledgement of "yes women see combat." is the least they can do.

Women make up about 15% of the active duty force. Unlike males (who tend to have a distinct haircut and other traits), when out of uniform they look strangely like female civilians as they wear makeup and let their hair down. When you add in the small percent relative to males, and the fact that out of uniform they are not evidently soldiers, it happens. Heck, in my personal life when my wife and I are out someplace often I get mistaken for the active duty person and she the spouse though at this point the opposite is true (we were both active duty the first 10 years we were married). I still keep a military haircut and am in somewhat decent shape, and she has long hair and is very pretty.

In short, being mistaken for the wife of a trooper is NO indication that anyone doesn't acknowledge women have been and are in combat.

Honestly, unless you work at a large VA I am VERY surprised you claim to know "a few women who were disability injured in combat, fire fights, etc. " The percentage of women wounded, like the percentage of women in the military, is pretty low. For a civilian to know "a few women who were disability injured in combat, fire fights, etc" is very surprising to me. According to this NYT editorial, about 800 women have been wounded out of the 1.4 million active duty troops... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/04/opinion/women-in-combat.html?_r=0 Pretty impressive if you know a few of those 800.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I was REALLY hoping we wouldn't see this, and frankly surprised to see it so soon.

GEN Dempsey, Chairman JCS wrote:

He added: “Importantly, though, if we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn't make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high? With the direct combat exclusion provision in place, we never had to have that conversation.”

From: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gen-dempsey-if-women-can-t-meet-military-standard-pentagon-will-ask-does-it-really-have

**hotsauceman1**

Ok, I have been reading tweets, many say that they do not want women in combat. Especially if they ar mother. I agree that women should be held to the same standard as men when it comes to fitness.
But why would people not want to see mother in combat, but not fathers. what is the difference?

**Seaward**

That's all great until some forward-thinking feminists decide that not enough women are making the cut and start demanding lowered standards.

**AustonT**

Seaward wrote:
That's all great until some forward-thinking feminists decide that not enough women are making the cut and start demanding lowered standards.

Pretty much the reason the military shouldn't be an EOE, and yet is.
They could have at least waited until the end of FY 13 to see how Ranger School went, even with them hand holding the females through I'm sure it will be illuminating to see how females do in RTB.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Some perspective from a friend of mine, her credentials are a Marine Corps sergeant, two combat tours and a CAR (Combat Action Ribbon)

The military isn't an occupation where standards should be altered to "fit" genders for "gender equality" (Or really, "equal gender representation" is what they're trying to go for). The fact of the matter is this occupation is hard on the body as it is on the mind. If a female has the capability to preform at the same level as their male counter part, by all means we can use another body in combat.

But this isn't a sales gig where a male and a female are competing to get above a quota - they're hacking 80+ pounds of gear on 12 hour patrols while taking fire and maneuvering through urban environments.

It's bad enough we have lower physical standards for the females that "make them equal" to their male counter parts for career advancement. A 300 point female fitness test is NOT equal to a 300 point male fitness. If we want to be equal we need to compete at the same level and stop worrying about a quota to keep females in the military. We should only have the ones that are actually qualified for the job in.

I know many female Fire Fighters that would never dream of arguing for lower standards for themselves because their occupation REQUIRES their standards across the gender board. Bunker pants & O2 tanks weigh the same for both genders, just like my flak jacket, rifle & pack weigh the same for both genders. Don't turn the military in to a social experiment for the sake of "gender equality", we're going to waste a lot of tax payers money physically and mentally breaking a lot of females trying to train them for this and let me tell ya from experience- the VA's women's health care system is desperately lacking, so be prepared to see even more vets that can't get help because this wasn't thought all the way through.

We need to stop this worry of whether a female can "advance her career". Who gives a crap about the "career", we need mission accomplishment. THAT is the purpose of a military.

And some more excellent points on the subject from another female Marine, it is worth pointing out that our females get that extra month of basic infantry training we all do in addition to the three months of fairly tough boot camp, so if anyone's got the girl power required for infantry posting I'd be putting female leathernecks to the front of the line. I can also vouch personally for the gal I quoted above. She's got a hell of a right hook and is a crack shot with a rifle.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/the-problems-of-women-in-combat-from-a-female-combat-vet/

Fallujah Iraq Dec 8 2004 1 The Problems of Women in Combat From a Female Combat Vet

It’s not all about qualification. I’m speaking as a female Marine Iraq war vet who did serve in the combat zone doing entry checkpoint duty in Fallujah, and we worked with the grunts daily for that time. All the branches still have different standards for females and males. Why? Because most women wouldn’t even qualify to be in the military if they didn’t have separate standards. Men and women are different, but those pushing women into combat don’t want to admit that truth. They huff and puff about how women can do whatever men can do, but it just ain’t so. We’re built differently, and it doesn’t matter that one particular woman could best one particular man. The best woman is still no match for the best man, and most of the men she’d be fireman-carrying off the battlefield will be at least 100 lbs heavier than her with their gear on.

Women are often great shooters but can’t run in 50-80 lbs of gear as long, hard, or fast as men. Military training is hard enough on men’s bodies; it’s harder on women’s. And until women stop menstruating, there will always be an uphill battle for staying level and strong at all times. No one wants to talk about the fact that in the days before a woman’s cycle, she loses half her strength, to say nothing of the emotional ups and downs that affect judgment. And how would you like fighting through PMS symptoms while clearing a town or going through a firefight? Then there are the logistics of making all the accommodations for women in the field, from stopping the convoy to pee or because her cycle started to stripping down to get hosed off after having to go into combat with full MOP gear when there’s a biological threat.

This is to say nothing of unit cohesion, which is imperative and paramount, especially in the combat fields. When preparing for battle, the last thing on your mind should be sex; but you put men and women in close quarters together, and human nature is what it is (this is also why the repeal of DADT is so damaging). It doesn’t matter what the rules are. The Navy proved that when they started allowing women on ship. What happened? They were having sex and getting pregnant, ruining unit cohesion (not to mention derailing the operations because they’d have to change course to get them off ship.)

When I deployed, we’d hardly been in the country a few weeks before one of our females had to be sent home because she’d gotten pregnant (nice waste of training, not to mention taxpayer money that paid for it). That’s your military readiness? Our enemies are laughing – “Thanks for giving us another vulnerability, USA!”

Then there are relationships. Whether it’s a consensual relationship, unwanted advances, or sexual assault, they all destroy unit cohesion. No one is talking about the physical and emotional stuff that goes along with men and women together. A good relationship can foment jealousy and the perception of favoritism. A relationship goes sour, and suddenly one loses faith in the very person who may need to drag one off the field of battle. A sexual assault happens, and a woman not only loses faith in her fellows, but may fear them. A vindictive man paints a woman as easy, and she loses the respect of her peers. A vindictive woman wants to destroy a man’s career with a false accusation (yes, folks, this happens too); and it’s poison to the unit. All this happens before the fighting even begins.

**Shadowseer_Kim**

I know a lot of people and Oregon National Guard is deployed all the time as well, so between branches, it should not be too suprising to know 3.

**CptJake**

Yes, it is surprising that out of only 800 or so wounded females from 10 years of war that you know 3, especially if you only know soldiers from one state's NG and are not even in the unit. Add in that the National Guard over all (all states) has taken about only 1/5 of the total wounded from both and it is even more surprising. That 1/5th is mostly Iraq. Afghanistan is about 10% NG casualties.

**AustonT**

Oh Math, you are the great equalizer.
500 seals served in Vietnam, I've met about 5000 of them.

**d-usa**

Every drunk suicidal patient that I run into was special forces.

**Seaward**

AustonT wrote:
Oh Math, you are the great equalizer.
500 seals served in Vietnam, I've met about 5000 of them.

NSW has always been prolific.

**sebster**

Seaward wrote:
I'd go back and have someone explain it to you, then, before you start trying to explain it to someone else. The ban on combat arms postings doesn't conflict with the fact that a lot of women find themselves involved in combat in our various two-way ranges, many of them, it must be said, with distinction.

That's right, they are facing combat. Which is why it makes sense to take away the law saying they're not supposed to be in combat. How are you not getting this?

But none of them are currently in a 'combat' MOS, so why would we need to open those up in order for them to "make sense" in their current career track?

If they're good enough, they can be. Likely few, or none, will be, so nothing will change.

Except that a stupid law on the books saying 'don't put women into combat' will go away. And that will be good, because it will allow commanders to attach the most appropriate specialist to a unit, without any concern about possible repercussions from a badly outdated 1994 law.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:
That's all great until some forward-thinking feminists decide that not enough women are making the cut and start demanding lowered standards.

This 'we must resist this reform because at some point down the line someone could insist on something stupid' is getting to be a really boring line of debate.

Debate this reform, as it exists today. If that stupid reform ever comes along... then debate than then.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
Every drunk suicidal patient that I run into was special forces.

On any wargaming board about 2/3 of the posters are active or retired soldiers.

**KalashnikovMarine**

sebster wrote:
Seaward wrote:
I'd go back and have someone explain it to you, then, before you start trying to explain it to someone else. The ban on combat arms postings doesn't conflict with the fact that a lot of women find themselves involved in combat in our various two-way ranges, many of them, it must be said, with distinction.

That's right, they are facing combat. Which is why it makes sense to take away the law saying they're not supposed to be in combat. How are you not getting this?

Nothing in the law stops them from being in combat! They just can't enlist in the freaking infantry or try out for special forces. How are you not getting that? If the law prevented them from being in combat they wouldn't be deployed in the first place.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
Every drunk suicidal patient that I run into was special forces.

On any wargaming board about 2/3 of the posters are active or retired soldiers.

I find a lot of soldiers of various stripes enjoy wargaming and other nerdy pursuits. I know we're all supposed to be mouth breathing robots who live only to kill and all but really we're regular folks just like you who live only to kill.

**Monster Rain**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I find a lot of soldiers of various stripes enjoy wargaming and other nerdy pursuits. I know we're all supposed to be mouth breathing robots who live only to kill and all but really we're regular folks just like you who live only to kill.

This one guy I know played a lot of M:TG, 40k and, somehow, the Sailor Moon CCG with a lot of other Marines while he was enlisted.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Monster Rain wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I find a lot of soldiers of various stripes enjoy wargaming and other nerdy pursuits. I know we're all supposed to be mouth breathing robots who live only to kill and all but really we're regular folks just like you who live only to kill.

This one guy I know played a lot of M:TG, 40k and, somehow, the Sailor Moon CCG with a lot of other Marines while he was enlisted.

...huh, I mean my barracks had a D&D sit in table with pre built chars ready to go every weekend and stuff like that, but the Sailor Moon CCG I would not have called.

**Ahtman**

Just out of curiosity, about how much of the population do you think considers our soldiers "mouth breathing robots who only live to kill"?

Sure you see the occasionally get a pacifist hippy, but the vast majority don't have that attitude.

**Seaward**

Ahtman wrote:
Just out of curiosity, about how much of the population do you think considers our soldiers "mouth breathing robots who only live to kill"?

Sure you see the occasionally get a pacifist hippy, but the vast majority don't have that attitude.

Hey man, some things never change.

**Monster Rain**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I find a lot of soldiers of various stripes enjoy wargaming and other nerdy pursuits. I know we're all supposed to be mouth breathing robots who live only to kill and all but really we're regular folks just like you who live only to kill.

This one guy I know played a lot of M:TG, 40k and, somehow, the Sailor Moon CCG with a lot of other Marines while he was enlisted.

...huh, I mean my barracks had a D&D sit in table with pre built chars ready to go every weekend and stuff like that, but the Sailor Moon CCG I would not have called.

Apparently it was being given away, and the field can be very boring.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Ahtman wrote:
Just out of curiosity, about how much of the population do you think considers our soldiers "mouth breathing robots who only live to kill"?

Sure you see the occasionally get a pacifist hippy, but the vast majority don't have that attitude.

sar·casm
/ˈsärˌkazəm/
Noun
The use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

I have been spit on, called a baby killer, etc, but I don't think many people hold that thought or opinion. Even amongst the filthy hippies.

Monster Rain wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I find a lot of soldiers of various stripes enjoy wargaming and other nerdy pursuits. I know we're all supposed to be mouth breathing robots who live only to kill and all but really we're regular folks just like you who live only to kill.

This one guy I know played a lot of M:TG, 40k and, somehow, the Sailor Moon CCG with a lot of other Marines while he was enlisted.

...huh, I mean my barracks had a D&D sit in table with pre built chars ready to go every weekend and stuff like that, but the Sailor Moon CCG I would not have called.

Apparently it was being given away, and the field can be very boring.

I've never been /that/ bored in the field, and I made a checkers set of of rocks while I was at MCAS Yuma at one point.

**sebster**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Nothing in the law stops them from being in combat! They just can't enlist in the freaking infantry or try out for special forces. How are you not getting that? If the law prevented them from being in combat they wouldn't be deployed in the first place.

And to go through this one more fething time... the rule as written is a nonsense. It prevents women being attached to front line military units, even though many of the people attached to those units aren't front line infantry but various kinds of support, medics etc... who come from units in which women can serve. Right now the rule as written means these women, even if they are the best qualified for the role, cannot be attached. Meanwhile they can complete building sweeps and other actual stuff with guns and bad guys, they just can't sit in a helicopter and move out to the front line to provide first aid.

When you get a law like that that simply doesn't make sense in the modern environment, you change it. It's just that fething simple really.

I find a lot of soldiers of various stripes enjoy wargaming and other nerdy pursuits. I know we're all supposed to be mouth breathing robots who live only to kill and all but really we're regular folks just like you who live only to kill.

What the hell are you on about? Who said anything living only to kill? Why would robots breath at all? You talk the language of the crazy hobo, and I do not.

And yeah, the military in general is probably pretty strongly correlated with nerdy pursuits, and with wargaming especially. But you know what else is correlated with nerdy pursuits and wargames? Being a fat guy living in his parent's basement. And yet I've met maybe two people in my whole time on wargaming threads who said they were fat guys who lived in their parent's basement... but every other nerd is a current or former soldier.

It's almost as if... some people on the internet liked to tell stories about themselves.

**CptJake**

sebster wrote:

And to go through this one more fething time... the rule as written is a nonsense. It prevents women being attached to front line military units, even though many of the people attached to those units aren't front line infantry but various kinds of support, medics etc... who come from units in which women can serve. Right now the rule as written means these women, even if they are the best qualified for the role, cannot be attached. Meanwhile they can complete building sweeps and other actual stuff with guns and bad guys, they just can't sit in a helicopter and move out to the front line to provide first aid.

When you get a law like that that simply doesn't make sense in the modern environment, you change it. It's just that fething simple really.

Wrong, it prevents them from being assigned. And there IS a difference. They have been being attached regularly, and that isn't new.

Service members are eligible to be assigned to all positions for which they are qualified, except that women shall be excluded from assignment to units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground.

**AustonT**

Seaward wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Just out of curiosity, about how much of the population do you think considers our soldiers "mouth breathing robots who only live to kill"?

Sure you see the occasionally get a pacifist hippy, but the vast majority don't have that attitude.

Hey man, some things never change.

Lets be honest...sailors and dogs aren't people.

**Seaward**

sebster wrote:
And to go through this one more fething time... the rule as written is a nonsense. It prevents women being attached to front line military units, even though many of the people attached to those units aren't front line infantry but various kinds of support, medics etc... who come from units in which women can serve. Right now the rule as written means these women, even if they are the best qualified for the role, cannot be attached. Meanwhile they can complete building sweeps and other actual stuff with guns and bad guys, they just can't sit in a helicopter and move out to the front line to provide first aid.

No, it doesn't. Please stop lying.

**AustonT**

Medics are organic to the combat arms battalion and lower. Which means they are not attached, they are assigned and form a part of unit organization. FM 3-21.20 identifies the Mdeical Platoon as an organizational element subordinate to Headquarters and Headquarters Company in the light infantry battalion. The Supply SGT, Armorer, and NBC NCO at the Infantry Company. Are other non-infantry MOS' assigned organically to the Infantry Battalion. Medics, supply, and NBC are all female dense MOS'. The infantry brigade can supplement the medical and logistical readiness of its infantry battalions with a Health Services Battalion or a Forward Support Battalion but these elements do not fall under the provisions of the DGCAR.
Army G1 sums up the policy change:

Army G1 wrote:At present, DoD’s Direct Combat Assignment Rule (DGCAR) policy states that women service members can be assigned to all positions for which they are qualified, except within units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground. The Army co-location assignment restriction further states that women can serve in any officer or enlisted specialty or position, except in those specialties, positions or units (battalion size or smaller) which are assigned a routine mission to engage in direct combat, or which collocate routinely with units assigned a direct combat mission.
The exception to DGCAR effectively opens approximately 755 Army positions across nine Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) to women. The Army will begin an assessment period of the exception to policy on 14 May 12; Soldiers will have received orders to the participating units and will report on that day. All women Soldiers assigned will be company grade officers in the grade of 2LT-CPT or noncommissioned officers in the grade of E5-E7. The goal is to assign 35 Women Soldiers to these positions per each BCT. (For more details on participating BCTs and open MOSs, reference the Q&A section of this PAG.)

**KalashnikovMarine**

I find a lot of soldiers of various stripes enjoy wargaming and other nerdy pursuits. I know we're all supposed to be mouth breathing robots who live only to kill and all but really we're regular folks just like you who live only to kill.

What the hell are you on about? Who said anything living only to kill? Why would robots breath at all? You talk the language of the crazy hobo, and I do not.

And yeah, the military in general is probably pretty strongly correlated with nerdy pursuits, and with wargaming especially. But you know what else is correlated with nerdy pursuits and wargames? Being a fat guy living in his parent's basement. And yet I've met maybe two people in my whole time on wargaming threads who said they were fat guys who lived in their parent's basement... but every other nerd is a current or former soldier.

It's almost as if... some people on the internet liked to tell stories about themselves.[/quote

sar·casm
/ˈsärˌkazəm/
Noun
The use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

**Ratbarf**

And yeah, the military in general is probably pretty strongly correlated with nerdy pursuits, and with wargaming especially. But you know what else is correlated with nerdy pursuits and wargames? Being a fat guy living in his parent's basement. And yet I've met maybe two people in my whole time on wargaming threads who said they were fat guys who lived in their parent's basement... but every other nerd is a current or former soldier.

Hey, I'm a fat bearded nerd who, while I don't live in my parents basement, does not go outside if there isn't a direct reason to. The fact that many people would be proud of their military service and not proud of their manchild status would seem to be the reason for your perceptions.

**Ahtman**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

sar·casm
/ˈsärˌkazəm/
Noun
The use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

failure

fail·ure
[feyl-yer]
noun
1. an act or instance of failing or proving unsuccessful; lack of success: His attempt at sarcasm over the internet was a failure.

You might also want to look at Poe's Law when considering taking ridiculious positions without going to greater lengths to indicate that you are indeed joking.

It doesn't come across as sarcasm for two reasons:

1. Sarcasm can be very difficult to pull of in a text based medium. A great deal of the conveyance of sarcasm comes from non-verbal language and tone.
2. It sounds like a position, attitude, and argument you would make. It is less likely you would make a joke about it, so it is more believable that you would hold that belief than to joke about it.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Ahtman wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:

sar·casm
/ˈsärˌkazəm/
Noun
The use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

failure

fail·ure
[feyl-yer]
noun
1. an act or instance of failing or proving unsuccessful; lack of success: His attempt at sarcasm over the internet was a failure.

You might also want to look at Poe's Law when considering taking ridiculous positions without going to greater lengths to indicate that you are indeed joking.

It doesn't come across as sarcasm for two reasons:

1. Sarcasm can be very difficult to pull of in a text based medium. A great deal of the conveyance of sarcasm comes from non-verbal language and tone.
2. It sounds like a position, attitude, and argument you would make. It is less likely you would make a joke about it, so it is more believable that you would hold that belief than to joke about it.

I'll make sure to apply tags in the future to wildly outlandish statements that wouldn't be held seriously by anyone just for people who struggle with such things like you. Don't worry Ahtman. One day you'll get what everyone's laughing about.

And if you're actually applying number two to me, that you think I'd actually think something like that, you clearly don't read my posts very much. Or anyone on Dakka's for that matter because I can't think of a single poster who'd argue the position that the majority of civilians think the military is a bunch of unthinking murder machines. Thus why it's a joke, because in it's most basic form it's exaggerated to the point of lunacy. As to going to greater lengths to indicate I'm not serious a string of words like "mouth breathing robots who live only to kill" is hard to take greater lengths beyond. Maybe if I'd added "jack booted baby killers" in there some where.

**Cheesecat**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:

sar·casm
/ˈsärˌkazəm/
Noun
The use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

failure

fail·ure
[feyl-yer]
noun
1. an act or instance of failing or proving unsuccessful; lack of success: His attempt at sarcasm over the internet was a failure.

You might also want to look at Poe's Law when considering taking ridiculous positions without going to greater lengths to indicate that you are indeed joking.

It doesn't come across as sarcasm for two reasons:

1. Sarcasm can be very difficult to pull of in a text based medium. A great deal of the conveyance of sarcasm comes from non-verbal language and tone.
2. It sounds like a position, attitude, and argument you would make. It is less likely you would make a joke about it, so it is more believable that you would hold that belief than to joke about it.

I'll make sure to apply tags in the future to wildly outlandish statements that wouldn't be held seriously by anyone just for people who struggle with such things like you. Don't worry Ahtman. One day you'll get what everyone's laughing about.

Except no offense but I don't find you to be that funny in comparison to other posters on this board so I'm not sure even the laughing statement is true, unless I'm the odd one out and everyone else thinks you're some kind of comedic genius.