Department of Defense officials announced on Thursday that they would be making two key adjustments to open up more than 14,000 assignments to women that had previously been unavailable.
The basics: the first change will revoke a 1994 policy prohibiting women from serving in positions that are near combat units. That means women will now be able to serve in roles like as tank mechanics and field artillery radar operators.
The second change is an “exception to policy” instituted by the Department of Defense to allow women to officially be assigned at the battalion level to jobs they already perform but currently at the brigade level or by virtue of being “attached” to a battalion rather than officially assigned. This will open up roughly 1,200 assignments to women.
I watched the live press conference and the tone and tenor of the questions by the press were definitely coming from a “women are equal everywhere else and should be in the military and why are you not announcing the total integration right now?” kind of place. In the journalist’s defense, there was a previous report to DoD by the Military Leadership Diversity Commission which advocated a more comprehensive lifting of the ban, but still.
I find this interesting because as a female in the military I will say that if any further integration into combat roles is to take place, it should take place carefully.
This could be among the largest cultural shifts in military culture and done wrong it could really mess some shit up.
I get that people who aren’t in the service want to showcase the drama of some plucky girl becoming a Navy SEAL despite all odds, but life ‘aint a Demi Moore movie.
I am beyond happy that women who have been doing jobs in theater are now able to claim combat experience just like their male peers. Up to this point they have been unable to be assigned below the brigade level. So folks got around that issue by “attaching” them to battalions, which let them do their jobs but didn’t make it official that they had served in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is important for several reasons. First because combat experience is helpful in promotion, especially in the Army and Marine Corps.
Second, because with war the way it is, women who have been in combat situations may need help from the VA and it’s important to have that designation to get the full menu of benefits and treatment one may need.
And finally, because fair is fair and women have been doing certain jobs and this change paves the way for them to finally get credit for it.
But further integration of women into combat roles must be done with careful, thoughtful and well-researched effort. Flash back to the integration of women aviators in the Navy and you’ll find out why. They were all but dumped on the aviation community doorstep and everyone was told to suck it up and get on with it. And that took decades to fix.
Now on the other end of the spectrum are those who say women shouldn’t be allowed in combat because the men will want to protect them or will be adversely affected by a woman being hurt or injured. Now that’s just crazy talk. Can we please stop meandering through 1956 and look around at the modern day military force?
If a guy in combat feels the need to protect the female to his right surpasses his job to seek out and kill the enemy, then he’s the one not fit for combat. I have a son– does that mean if I’m in combat I should give in to the urge to “mother” all the younger men I see injured? No.
As for the PT standards I’m all for stringent and equal requirements. I can say with a tremendous amount of confidence as one that takes regular PT tests with men that our guys could use a little competition. My last PT test I watched a younger man struggle to do 20 push ups while myself and other “weaker” chicks were pushing out 50 with time to spare on the clock. In this case what’s good for the goose really is good for the gander and the overall physical health of our military.
Overall I want this to work but I cringe at the notion that all military women are just champing at the bit to be the first female Green Beret. This issue could so easily turn into just another circus with those of us in uniform being used as poster children for a cause we never knew we signed up for.
So I applaud the DoD and their very cautious approach to this process. They may take heat from women’s groups or the general public but I feel better knowing my future in the military won’t be the result of some knee jerk reaction to civilian standards of gender equality. After all, we are in the military. It’s a different world here and a change of this magnitude deserves the judicious study and service branch input that DoD is asking for.
And as women we have to be okay with the fact that standards exist for a reason and those standards may show there are areas in which many of us (if not all of us) simply aren’t equipped to serve. Yes, I said it. After all the research is done and the standards measured let’s get our heads around the fact that we should do those jobs which we are best suited for; mentally, emotionally, educationally and physically.
For those of us who have raised our right hand and taken that oath, national security does and should trump any individual need every day and twice on Tuesday. The best and most qualified people for the right jobs, end of story.
Not every guy in the military is a SEAL, or combat controller or Special Forces. We are ok with that when it comes to men and we should be ok with that notion when it comes to women. That, my friends is true equality. Or as Secretary Panetta himself said, “We will continue to open as many positions as possible to women so that anyone qualified to serve can have the opportunity to do so.”
In other words, this won’t be a free for all. And as a girl, I’m ok with that.
Comments
I'm with you that implementing change in policy has to be done carefully. But you seem to be coming at this one with a "need a good reason to change the status quo" rather than a "need a good reason NOT to" perspective.
I don't think "opening jobs to women" is the same is saying "every woman is qualified." You're right — most of us aren't qualified to be a SEAL. (I certainly am not). Most men aren't either. Most people of either sex don't WANT to be. But for the ones who do want to, who are qualified (truly qualified, not gender-normed-standards qualified), what possible reason could there be to say they shouldn't be? If GI Jane can make it through the training, after making it TO training, wouldn't she have proven her fitness for the job? And think of some of the places we're operating these days…women spec ops would give us a bit of a tactical advantage.
Like you said, opening up more jobs allows women to get combat credit for jobs they have been doing anyway. It's also about opening up the jobs needed for advancement. But most important, integration opens up the talent pool for getting these jobs done in the first place.
And that last point is why I think DoD needs to keep moving in this direction. DoD needs to be allowed to take into consideration logistics issues, and take the time to overcome those issues (like berthing on subs), but the time is long past for any kind of automatic exclusion based on anything to do with one's reproductive system or anything other than ability to do the job.
Honestly I feel women are just going to danger the men in combat. I feel women shouldnt even be in the military period, Women just need to leave combat jobs to the men. Women becoming infantry is just going to screw up everything.
a woman can handle being in combat.
Like Jessica Lynch. Read about Patrick Miller.
What I find funny is that there are guys here that say the inclusion of women in combat units is the cause of increased sexual assaults – what a crock! Are you actually trying to pin criminal behavior on the availability of the target victim? Most men do NOT rape women despite being within close proximity to them. Yes, you can argue that the services definition of what is a sexual assault needs to be changed, but women are not the problem, men who cannot control themselves are.
I don't believe that most women can physically hack it in a combat environment, particularly the infantry. Humping your own personal equipment along with extra ammo for crew served weapons up and down hills takes a lot of physical strength and stamina. That being said, if women can maintain the required physical fitness, evaluated by an equal and fairly administered physical fitness test, then I feel that they should be REQUIRED to serve in combat units and face the same conditions and risk that men do.
When you start saying women should serve in combat, you always get the old saw "America would never stand to see women coming home in body bags or missing limbs." Well, what's the flipside of that? That it's perfectly acceptable to see men come home that way. if we're talking about equal opportunity, it's about time we get serious when we think about the term equal – you can put it in front of responsibility, obligation, and risk. Women don't complain about having different standards because it gives them an advantage, you can see that in the article above, most don't complain about combat except as a vehicle for promotion. For women it would be best to continue the inequitable physical standards and have them serve in units that could be designated as “combat” but actually not do any fighting just so they could get promoted more easily.
Thoughtful and articulate, well done.
As a retired naval aviator I lived the "get on with it" from the inside, and it was a mess. The blood of early "spectacles of drama," of which the author speaks, remains on the hands of politicians who were more interested in making a statement than they were the well-being of those naval aviators.
As this evolves, I'm wondering when women will demand the responsibility of registering for selective service at 18 years of age, and service in combat roles will be optional for men as well. I'm not holding my breath.
Oh come on… this is just for the Feminists to get what they want… screw everyone else… Just like women throughout history they are never happy with what they have so they just b*tch… and now we are actually listening to them. God help us all.
God help the sexist pigs otherwise know as men who cannot wrap their miniscule brains around the fact that SOME women are BETTER than them. Or are you just saying women are the inferior race to men? Just remember that us inferior people…are the only reason your are alive right now.
Thank you very much for your insight. I wholeheartedly agree with you. Things have become more "complicated," which has hampered the mission of seek and destroy.
When i was in the jungles of vietnam, i was probab,y in the best shape ive ever been with a mass body fat of 3.7% and sill 195 lbs, and it was tough going. My worry about women in combat is if i was wounded could a 120 lb. women can pick me up and carry me to and lz where i could be medi-vaced out. That is only one problem, there are many more.
Gysgt Ray Kelly usmc ret.
To themarine1946: I understand your concern, but we do get training on how to carry someone larger than yourself. With proper training and being physically fit; I don’t think there would be an issue. I was a volunteer firefighter for several years and being a 125lb female, I carried a 180lb man down a ladder from a second story window. If you would have asked me prior to the training I had; if I could carry a man that weighed 55lbs more than me down a ladder; I would have laughed.
Hi… you are crazy… women do NOT have the same upper body strength as men that is a biological fact. I don't care how much training you have you DO NOT have the same physical capabilities of a male who is equally sized to you. You also do not have the same lung capacity of a sililar sized male… it goes on and on and on… but hey some feminist professor said all those facts are just the "man" keeping you down… so keep on believing it honey.
No your crazy. Men will never be the stronger kind because they are such big babies about everything. When women go through so much more. Women may not be as big as men or physically big. But can handle a lot more than men therefore stronger than men.
???????????
If women are equal to men….the standards should also be equal. If a male in the Infantry has to do a 20+ mile road march with 100lbs, the female should have to do the same. The PT standards should be the same. No more female vs. male standards. If the female can't do it…..that must mean they're not equal. The problem is that the standard will have to be lowered in order for the female to make it. The average female will not be able to make through SF training…so, the standards will have to be lowered…and on and on and on it will go. This will weaken our combat forces. It's not personal, it's just a fact of life…men are more physical and stronger than women…..get over it.
Its not that men are mentally and physically strOnger than women because they are not. Its who can do it and who can’t do it.
If men are not stronger than women, why do we have different ht/wt standards and different PT standards? Like I said, females in the military need to put up or shut up. If you can't pass a male PT test and do what males do everyday, this discussion should be over with. Just because there may be one or two females that might be strong enought to hang with the average male infantry, doesn't mean that the military should open it wide up. If you want to play with the guys…you must be able to do everything the guys can do. It's that simple.
Yeah I know I get it. I don’t know why they can’t just make the PT equal and make the women do the same as men because females can handle just as much as males and maybe more.
HUH?????? They are not huh? Please provide facts… would love to see this research. Just because you "say it's so" doesn't make it so. Men pound for pound have more muscle strength and have bone structure to back it up. Women have smaller lungs than men (even if same "size") so they just can not process as much oxegen as a man can under stress… oh wait… and men physically react to stress differently then women… oh but you are probably going to tell me brain chemistry is "all in my head"… yes that's right the professors teach you all in school now that "facts' don't matter just "feelings'
Bravo, Drew Lee!! Thanks for stating the facts clearly and cogently.
look not all men are stronger and not all women are weaker then men! I have grown up in a military family and I would love to join by doing what I wanted to do, but Im not aloud because of what gender I am? really I could out do you in anything just to prove myself!!! Ill stand by that in anyway!
I think people are so wrapped up in this rather absurd that 'anything a man can do, a woman can and there is absolutely no difference between the two EVER'. For some strange reason people don't like to admit that men and women -are different-. Besides physical anatomy, we think, feel, and react differently to things. I don't feel women should be in combat situations at all. Not because they are inferior, but because they aren't designed or meant to. I'm tired of everyone assuming that because a woman not doing/being a certain thing means she's not good enough. Our roles regarding gender have their own individual traits, strengths, and weaknesses, but that doesn't make one better then the other. A person's eyes aren't better then their hands, they merely have different jobs and abilities. One is not weaker then the other in regards to their peruse.
Right on, Jessie!!!!!
What is this 1900?
Sexual Assault and related crimes are at an all time high. Allowing women in combat arms will not help this, it will continue to get worse. I'm not saying its right, because it is not. But, if we allow women in the Infantry…sexual assualt will rise. I think that should be taken in consideration.
What about the sexual assualts that women in combat will face from the enemy????? Are we just tribal animals now with no sense of civility??? Why even have a military if you are just going to destroy your own society with it?
In addition, let the sodomites in, okay their perverse behavior, and there will be sexual assaults against men.
I am not saying that sexual assault and related crimes do not happen to women but should women have the training to deal in combat positions, whose to say that she cannot deal with her own teammates?
At least the VA will have less than the actual 94% claim by women of some type of sexual incident to which separating women are claiming and rewarded with close to 100% compensation! Stop the insanity and interview one honest female…in return they will tell u that while deployed regardless of marital status or looks…they received Demmi Moore attention. You put men and women together on long deployments and…well u figure it out. Talking from personal experience.
It all fine and good until 1,000,000 Chinese soldiers come across the DMZ
You couldn't be more correct, Tom.
we all know where this is going, standards will be will ''not'' be the same and people will be killed and the mission not accomplished,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gay's in the military women in combat what else???????????
Seriously!!!? I get where people are coming at about women. As a female I don't like it but I get it. But gays…really? Yes there is that fact that they might be "distracted" but if they are qualified enough to fight than why would they ruin it by being "distracted"?
It's barbaric to have women in combat… plain and simple. If you don't understand that then you don't have your head screwed on straight. What you are not telling your "sisters" is you are now opening them up to the Draft… and when they are drafted your "sisters" can now be assigned combat just like men… IS THAT WHAT MOST WOMEN WANT???? OR are you just an extreme feminist who doesn't really care about anyone but herself? Yeah thought so. Mark my words if we continue down this road there will be NO America left to defend in 50 years!
Some of our "sisters" will just have to suck it up and get on with life. SO WHAT if we are open to the draft! What is it about women in combat that men have such a hard time wrapping their head around? If a women is completely qualified to do the exact same job as a man, why can't she? If she can complete the same training, then how the hell is she not "good enough"?
just because women are entering the combat zone means there is going to be no America left. is that whati am getting… so a woman can not do a man's job at all? no wonder we are such a sexist country. some men just do not believe in women at all, times are changing we(women) dont just belong in the kitchen etc anymore we belong anywhere we want to be ( i believe) did you know that in some countries there have been more women politicians then EVER in the USA. in fact in some countries women have actually been top dog !.. i believe this is a good movement for America. Please draft me in!!! yes i am in that group of women that in fact wants this
I am glad we still have the USMC. They don't go looking for the Jessica Lynch's. The Jessica Lynch's come looking for them. The military continues to degrade the weakness of women by continuing with the unequal PFT standards. Please read the Patrick Miller-Jessica Lynch story. Bring back all-male military academies! N.F.L. = not for ladies. The NFL is the example par excellence of why women will never be equal to men physically. You are only as strong as your weakest link!
And you, sir, judging by your intolerant comments you've been posting on this site, are a weak link in the male species…
I don' know if any of the men writing in ever heard of what the old Indian Fighters used to tell the FNG's or not but I'll tell you anyway, "KEEP 1 BULLET FOR YERSLF, WHEN WE GETS OVERRUN CUZ YOU DASN'T WANT TO BE LEFT TO THE WOMEN!!!!" in other words they were more afraid of being captured and given to the Indian women than being killed by the Indians!!!! Some of the most savage and ferocious fighters of all time are women!!!During WWII the Russians had some of the BEST snipers in world fighting in Stalingrad, guess what, most of them were teenage girls to twentyfive year old women!!!! They averaged 50+ kills in an envionment that included some of the best countersnipers in the world and 88mm cannon fire directed by crack waffenss officers with 10X50 binoculars on stands. So don't tell me women can't stand the rigors of warfare, I know better!
So we won the Civil War and WWII on the battlefields without the women. And your point? We don't need them. They are not necessary.
Of those 2500 women snipers… I don't think even a handful survived.
That's right…you don't think.
Equal, I think NOT! Likely scenario: Single, sexually active female soldier in a combat zone takes P/test in latrine, result positive. Within 20 min. she's evacuated to the rear, and is replaced by a MALE soldier. Some equality!! Watch StarShip Troopers,,register for the draft, then, you're partially EQUAL, maybe….What a PC joke. The military has one goal, to protect the USA by killing the enemy, period. Not breaking the glass ceiling, not getting stars on the collar, but doing the job…
And that's why I am not in the military: women and gays. Women have taken the equality factor out with the current unequal PFT standards for both sexes. And my taxpayer dollars have to fund military abortions and other special amenities for the gals. And then you have the limp-wrists, the sodomites who have infiltrated a once noble and honorable "male conservative" institution. I am actually glad that I am not in this wussified p.c. military, and I don't blame any young man for not wanting to join. How I pine for the days when the military housed those of the "Greatest Generation" and the "Baby Boomers." Bring back honor, discipline, equality, and p.c. eradication!!!
Have you ever heard of the Hyde Amendment? It's a provision barring federal funds from being used for abortions. There is no such thing as 'military abortions'. Women and spouses have to pay out of pocket if they want one.
Sodomites? Are you kidding me? Sexual orientation has nothing to do with fighting ability. Do you think all of the men who signed up to fight in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc were all heterosexual? Do you think that all the men in the military before DADT was repealed were straight? I know of at least five males and three females from the LGBT lifestyle that were serving before the ban. They were, and are, damn good at their jobs. As a matter of fact, I'd rather have them serving for me than most straight guys because of how professional and devoted to their duty they are!
Did you also know that most of the branches in the military have actively stopped recruiting because they are so swamped with applicants? And that now they can literally pick and choose who they want to accept into training because of it? The Coast Guard is basically only accepting people with degrees and ASVAB scores in the high 90s because of how swamped they are.
Based on your comments, I'm assuming you're uneducated, irrational, and uber-conservative. A dangerous combination. I'm also going to assume you've never served, especially not as a Colonel, because I couldn't see someone as intolerant as you advancing very far in the military. Your comments of honor, discipline, and equality make me laugh, especially the equality one. Equality is exactly what we're doing by allowing LGBT and women into the military and combat zones. I hope for the sake of MY military, people like you aren't allowed in. We don't need or want people like you.
Time to go make some delicious fried chickens. Mmmmmmmmmm…
Wow…that's pretty sad. All you have to say. So pathetic. I agree with ProudToServe. I believe you are a sexist pig that really has nothing better to do with his life than degrade women because he could not qualify for a job he wanted. And probably got beat out by a women too. Such a pathetic excuse for a man…
I wonder what the late great General George S. Patton would say to this bleeding heart liberal, ProudToServe. Actually, I did serve, and I am educated, but one book had changed my life in regards to the limp-wristed, effeminate new military that you so lovingly embraces. I would recommend to you (since I read all the time), "Women in the Military: Flirtiing with Disaster," by a former Captain in the Army Rangers. He makes many great points in that book. And by the way, many do agree with my aforementioned viewpoints. Sexual harassment of women has increased with their inception into the military; and now sadly with the repeal of DADT (which was a fetter on unacceptable "behavior"), young men too will be sexually harassed. I would also recommend to you another great book called "The Soul of Battle" by Vicor Davis Hanson, which addresses the importance of "morality" in a conquering army for good.
Colonel Sandersky is proud of you, GLEN. Please educate ProudToServe.
I would definitely join again if the military across the board would just make the PFT the same, the typical male PFT standard, not watering it down. In addition, I would join again if all female recruits got their noggins shaved. Finally, if DADT were reinstituted, then that would be a big sell as well. I would most absolutely join if delicious fried chicken with special herbs and spices with the colonel's secret recipe were included. Heck, I'd charge the gates of hell for that offer!
I do not believe the PFT has to be different and yes maybe only a few women can qualify but what about the ones who can?? Isn't America all about freedom and equality or is that just for men?
Do u realize how DUMB you women sound when u say u can be infantry? Yes, im sure their are women that could but a very select few and guarantee not you!! The women on here haven't even made a good comment on why they believe women would be good infantrymen.. oh wait never mind, one girl said because women are mental and physically stronger..HAHAHA DUMB! how could u honestly think that? Women u know ur not on the same level with men or there would be no WNBA. THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK!! This is one of the reasons why women are not in combat roles because they are (proven fact and read a psychology book if u doubt me) react and think with emotions rather than logic way more often than men. This entire website is a prime example of women thinking with emotions rather than logic!! HAHAHA how dumb do u women feel now? You haven't even had a good agruement all u are saying is this is sexist blah blah blah women are stronger !!! and feel free to commet back with something emotional and irrelevant. Because if u dont agree with me ur just dumb and thick headed
1. You must be as dumb as you sound, if you think psychology is an exact science. Psychology is a case-by-case science; just as no two fingerprints are the same, neither are two people the same. Some women think with their emotions, others with logic. And don't try to say that men are more logical than women, you have no evidence. Also, studies have shown that women are, on average, smarter than men. All the evidence I need is your punctuation and grammar in your former statement. Idiot.
2. You are assuming that you are completely right. That is the dumbest and most thick headed act I've seen anyone do, not just women. "Because if u dont agree with me ur just dumb and thick headed." Right? Try thinking with your brain a little, you bumbling oaf. Assuming you have one, that is. Try being a little more open minded.
3. Sexism is, "sex discrimination: discrimination against women or men because of their sex." Because of this, it is not stupid or emotional to say that the military is sexist against females. It's just a fact. 4. Women would be excellent infantry because they have the mental capacity, unlike you, to think through a situation so as to not get themselves killed, and also the physical capacity to carry out their plans. Some would dispute my point about the physical capacity, such as dunderheads like you and "Colonel Sandersky", so I will explain further. Although they are a small percent of the population, the women from the Olympics could whoop your asses in their particular fields. Though there aren't many with innate physical fitness, such as you great, manly, macho selves, women can be trained to great physical ability. Of course, there are wimpy women, as there are wimpy men, like you, that are hopeless cases. Women are also useful as infantry, because you great macho men might hesitate for a split second before shooting. That's all that's needed to shoot first. There are a number of ways to use women as a tactical advantage over the enemy. It's idiots like you and that "Colonel" that will waste them, and lose us a war. 5. It has been scientifically proven that women have a higher capacity for pain. If what I say isn't enough to change your mind, if you even have one, and if you are going to continue posting sexist comments, then I only have one request.
Please, use spellcheck.
Statement 1- u r correct. I'm not about to use proper grammar cuz I don't feel like it n I'm doin this for a grade, I'm also not sexist. U r also rite on statements 2 n 3. In regards to 4 it's not about keeping ur self alive but ur comrades as well. U said the physical capacity to carry out *THEIR PLANS*, u operate as a unit n let's say ur plans go wrong n sum 1 is down, do u think a woman is gonna carry a 185-210+ pound man in full 85-110+ pound gear mile apon miles to evac. Their have been male Olympic athletes who have failed BUDS(seal training) and we both could agree that a male Olympic athlete would whoop a female Olympic athlete in their particular field hence y they can't compete against one another. Yes women can be trained to physical greatness, but a wimpy female could never surpass the level that a wimpy male could achieve. There are few and when I say few I mean few women who could pass infantry training. U wild start missing ur period from the testosterone boost from all the training. Ask ur self this, how many women could u imagine holding a gun up to sumo news face who they don't even know and enjoy doing it. Not a whole lot n the same goes for men, that's tough for anyone to deal with but a man is more emotionally adept to handle it better psychologically thnx to testosterone(average woman produces 90-98%less test than average man). N can u explain how a woman would not possibly hesitant behing the trigger. My friends dead was a sniper for the rangers for ten years n from stories he's told me, u develop a genuine hate for the enemy and killing insurgents was the highlight of his day(he's technically a serial killer) enjoyed the killing. Yes u r right with statement 5 but a persons thresh hold level for pain Is exclusive to that particular individual and contradicts statement 1- no two fingerprints r the same no two people r the same. I thnk we both can agree that majority of women go with emotion before logic n that the majority of women have a higher pain thresh hold before passing out although I didn't see a purpose for pain threshold when ur in a situation pumped full of adrenaline but either way a bullet hurts regardless of pain thresh hold so statements 1 n 5 although correct are irrelevant to the argument. And if u reply angrily and dispute the facts I have stated u would have thus put emotion before logic.
Just let them if they REALLY REALLY want to! and maybe they would stop cryin'. And once they do they will FAIL and can never bring up this topic again. What is wrong with u emotional women? Just because you WANT to doesn't mean u have the right to! the Military isn't about women rights and feelings. The women who have posted on here probably couldn't even carry a 100 lb ruck sack 20 miles. if u say u can u are a liar. Only a very small percentage of women could do that. I mean c'mon most men can't even do that. what makes u so special? determination and will power can only get you so far!!
Help save our soldiers' lives and protect our way of life! Sign this petition and pass it on!
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/keep-co…
According to you…if a women is able to qualify for a combat position and is doing so under male standards, how the hell is she not qualified? Since when does that make sense. Women such as myself are able to complete the training and do wish to be in combat to serve our country, same as you. How is that wrong?