US Military to open all combat jobs to women by next year according US SecDef - Polidicks

[url=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/12/03/women-in-combat-defense-secretary-ash-carter/76719938/]Source[/url] [quote]WASHINGTON — All combat jobs, including infantry units, will be open to women beginning next year, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced Thursday. Carter said the decision was part of his commitment to build a force of the future. "In the 21st Century, that requires drawing strength from the broadest pool" possible, he said. We can't succeed to defend the nation by eliminating half of the U.S. population from combat roles, Carter said.[/quote]

This is great news and a big step forward. I just hope that they maintain the same standards for women. It's not to exclude anybody, that's just the grade of person needed on the battlefield. Affirmative action is troubling enough when it's not being used to funnel people who aren't up to snuff into life or death situations.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49236734]This is great news and a big step forward. I just hope that they maintain the same standards for women. It's not to exclude anybody, that's just the grade of person needed on the battlefield. Affirmative action is troubling enough when it's not being used to funnel people who aren't up to snuff into life or death situations.[/QUOTE] IIRC, SecDef Carter has ordered committees to look up the scenarios/needs/things to prepare for for women in combat roles a few months ago. He also ordered another separate committee to gather up data on allowing trans into our ranks as well and that those findings will not be put out until some time next year.

[QUOTE]"No. 1, this is being done for political reasons," Hunter said. "What is it going to do to our ability to be lethal at the small-unit level? It degrades that ability."[/QUOTE] Keep the standards just as high as they are now and that won't be a problem. He may be right though. Women may demand lower standards in the name of equality like they did with the Seals, etc.

I would be honored to serve along side any service member, even if they were female, but as a man, I would want to stand in harms way first before sending a female out.

I'm fine with this so long as it doesn't put soldiers' lives in danger. A fireteam is only as strong as it's weakest member, and if a woman is accepted on lesser standards than a man it could hurt all members of that fireteam. That being said, so long as standards remain uniform across sexes I don't see this being that horrible of a problem. Of course women and men do have some major personality differences, and we will have to see how this kind of thing works out in the long run. It's totally possible that there could be some interpersonal conflict that occurs as a result of this, but it's equally likely that there might not be. We've just got to wait and see.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49236766]Keep the standards just as high as they are now and that won't be a problem. He may be right though. Women may demand lower standards in the name of equality like they did with the Seals, etc.[/QUOTE] The problem is that even at the same level women were underperforming. If you're going to deploy people somewhere where they might die, underperforming is not good enough. I hope this open opportunity to the ones that can trully be cutting edge.

I don't see why people think that women in combat roles would ever accept being held to lower standards. That's the literal opposite of what people want - it's saying "hey, we're inferior! accommodate our inferiority!" rather than saying "we're on equal footing." This isn't unusual. Almost every modern nation either has already done this or has plans in motion to remove these restrictions. Norway just recently made women eligible for mandatory military service. New Zealand has had zero [i]legal[/i] restrictions for women in the military since 2001 - the only branch that women have been unable to join is the NZ SAS. Sweden also has zero legal restrictions against women in the military. This is removing restrictions that say "[i]you have to be a man to have this job[/i]," opening up opportunities for women to qualify. The idea that they'll set a different standard isn't even mentioned and doesn't seem realistic in the slightest.

And now they want to have under performing soldiers out in the field? Oh wow, this will end so well for service men around the world.

Cant wait for people to bitch about this. Oh wait they already are. Its 20-fucking-15, no reason why females shouldn't be given the same opportunities as males.

I support equal opportunity and all but weren't there recent tests in ranger certification that the women were notably less effective?

[QUOTE=Code3Response;49237109]Cant wait for people to bitch about this. Oh wait they already are. Its 20-fucking-15, no reason why females shouldn't be given the same opportunities as males.[/QUOTE] What's so special about 2015 as opposed to 2014 or 2016?

[QUOTE=Code3Response;49237109]Cant wait for people to bitch about this. Oh wait they already are. Its 20-fucking-15, no reason why females shouldn't be given the same opportunities as males.[/QUOTE] Same opportunities, I agree everyone deserves a chance on EQUAL tests! Not special tests made for women to pass which, like in the Swedish armes forces, are alot easier than the ones carried out for men.

The first female M1 armor crewmen start training next September. It's a job that requires a lot of stamina and heavy lifting but no more so than mechanics, which women can already be. As for infantry, anyone can be an infantryman. What other jobs are they being opened up to?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49237202]The first female M1 armor crewmen start training next September. It's a job that requires a lot of stamina and heavy lifting but no more so than mechanics, which women can already be. As for infantry, anyone can be an infantryman. What other jobs are they being opened up to?[/QUOTE] That's gonna be the most cleanliest and most prettiest tanks out in the battlefields ever!

[QUOTE=itisjuly;49237197]What's so special about 2015 as opposed to 2014 or 2016?[/QUOTE] He is making the point that arbitrarily preventing women from performing roles they are capable of is archaic. Doubly so when you keep in mind the kind of warfarw that exists today and will only become more ubiquitous in the future

[QUOTE=.Isak.;49236932]I don't see why people think that women in combat roles would ever accept being held to lower standards. That's the literal opposite of what people want - it's saying "hey, we're inferior! accommodate our inferiority!" rather than saying "we're on equal footing."[/QUOTE] We've seen this with firefighters, people just don't want to see it happen with anything else. Not that the tests standards were lower, but they demanded to be accepted and some even were.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49237202] As for infantry, anyone can be an infantryman.[/QUOTE] No they fucking can't

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;49237255]We've seen this with firefighters, people just don't want to see it happen with anything else. Not that the tests standards were lower, but they demanded to be accepted and some even were.[/QUOTE] In Sweden you are supposed to be able to carry 85kg out of harms way, sometimes in form of "logs" or dummy soldiers. Sometimes even more weight is and are added because of equipment and/or weapons! Women usually only have to be able to carry and/or move 60/75kg TOTAL to be accepted and approved in such a "combat test" My mate who's in the military weighs in at 107kg. Muscles. With equipment and the KSP58 he's around 130 to 150kg at most. Do the maths.

What we really should be doing is rather than just simply just putting women into any old squad is instead make separate squads for them that focus on the physical positives of them. Not only would this make things to be able to a bit more specialized on the battlefield, it wouldn't mess with any dynamics of the squad because actual tests have shown that, unfortunately, mixing a woman or some women into a male squad significantly decreases the combat effectiveness of it. Mind you not because the capabilities of the woman (or women) but rather the psychological effects on the males. It might sound a bit... sexist but if we want to be able to maintain our combat effectiveness this is unfortunately what we need to do.

[QUOTE=4NGRY MUFF1N;49237216]That's gonna be the most cleanliest and most prettiest tanks out in the battlefields ever![/QUOTE] This is the stupidest fucking post I've seen on Facepunch in forever. All women wear pink puffy dresses and can't do anything but decorate and clean, right? Fuck off, man, women are fully capable of running a tank and being machinists and all sorts of physical activities like that. [editline]3rd December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=4NGRY MUFF1N;49237279]In Sweden you are supposed to be able to carry 85kg out of harms way, sometimes in form of "logs" or dummy soldiers. Sometimes even more weight is and are added because of equipment and/or weapons! Women usually only have to be able to carry and/or move 60/75kg TOTAL to be accepted and approved in such a "combat test" My mate who's in the military weighs in at 107kg. Muscles. With equipment and the KSP58 he's around 130 to 150kg at most. Do the maths.[/QUOTE] You're making the assumption that the tests will be easier for women - give me a citation that the US military is planning to make the tests easier on women and I'll concede, but right now you're operating on assumptions based on a country with a tiny military on the other side of the Atlantic. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("flaming" - Orkel))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=4NGRY MUFF1N;49237279]In Sweden you are supposed to be able to carry 85kg out of harms way, sometimes in form of "logs" or dummy soldiers. Sometimes even more weight is and are added because of equipment and/or weapons! Women usually only have to be able to carry and/or move 60/75kg TOTAL to be accepted and approved in such a "combat test" My mate who's in the military weighs in at 107kg. Muscles. With equipment and the KSP58 he's around 130 to 150kg at most. Do the maths.[/QUOTE] Well i can tell you from first hand experience that this doesn't happen here, or at least not at Benning.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49237305]Well i can tell you from first hand experience that this doesn't happen here, or at least not at Benning.[/QUOTE] IN the socialist feminist republic of Sweden it does.

[QUOTE=milktree;49237276]No they fucking can't[/QUOTE] Yes actually they fucking can. Don't underestimate Army training.

i still believe that women in certain roles could perform better than men, and vice versa

[QUOTE=4NGRY MUFF1N;49237309]IN the socialist feminist republic of Sweden it does.[/QUOTE] Ok. How is that relevant at all?

[QUOTE=4NGRY MUFF1N;49237279]In Sweden you are supposed to be able to carry 85kg out of harms way, sometimes in form of "logs" or dummy soldiers. Sometimes even more weight is and are added because of equipment and/or weapons! Women usually only have to be able to carry and/or move 60/75kg TOTAL to be accepted and approved in such a "combat test" My mate who's in the military weighs in at 107kg. Muscles. With equipment and the KSP58 he's around 130 to 150kg at most. Do the maths.[/QUOTE] In the case of the firefighter, the female firefighter FAILED the test and was still accepted. [QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49237313]i still believe that women in certain roles could perform better than men, and vice versa[/QUOTE] Are you implying man and women are different and that you can apply the advantages they have to different jobs? YOU'RE INSANE!

however it is good to see they are finally getting rid of this requirement, it made sense back in ancient times but it is entirely unneeded now

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49237315]Ok. How is that relevant at all?[/QUOTE] Because he's holding on to antiquated views of gender, which he already showed above by assuming that women will make the tanks the prettiest and cleanest. Which is absurd - they'll be run like military tanks, which they are. Women are capable of that. Nobody had even mentioned feminism before this point, he's just trying to start an argument by being a dipshit and talking like an 80-year-old conservative man.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;49236932]I don't see why people think that women in combat roles would ever accept being held to lower standards. That's the literal opposite of what people want - it's saying "hey, we're inferior! accommodate our inferiority!" rather than saying "we're on equal footing." This isn't unusual. Almost every modern nation either has already done this or has plans in motion to remove these restrictions. Norway just recently made women eligible for mandatory military service. New Zealand has had zero [i]legal[/i] restrictions for women in the military since 2001 - the only branch that women have been unable to join is the NZ SAS. Sweden also has zero legal restrictions against women in the military. This is removing restrictions that say "[i]you have to be a man to have this job[/i]," opening up opportunities for women to qualify. The idea that they'll set a different standard isn't even mentioned and doesn't seem realistic in the slightest.[/QUOTE] My aunt is a captain in the Army and one of the strongest, most capable people I know. It is, however, a fact that, due to societal norms, women are not typically as physically capable as men, and certainly not as common in labor-oriented environments such as the military. Not that women are inherently less capable for the fact that they are women, but that our society has heavily enforced gender roles - which, thankfully, have been dissolving for a while. However, this country still tends to misunderstand what equality is really about, resulting in counterproductive "solutions" like affirmative action and other biases that allow people who don't really know what they're doing to land jobs they aren't exactly qualified for on the basis that they're an under-represented minority. Therefore there is a valid concern that women may therefore be held to lower standards for the same tasks in order to pad out the numbers and say "look, we're equal!"