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

[QUOTE=4NGRY MUFF1N;49237216]That's gonna be the most cleanliest and most prettiest tanks out in the battlefields ever![/QUOTE] you're fucking kidding right [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariya_Oktyabrskaya[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandra_Samusenko[/url]

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49237514]Sorry, it's a little difficult to take a biotruther using slight average differences in body chemistry to justify his sexism seriously.[/QUOTE] Is it really sexist to say that there a biological differences that would make a gender difference in the military something that would naturally come into exist?

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49239694]Sorry didn't mean to come off rude[/QUOTE] See, this is why nobody likes corpsmans, Doc. The Navy/USMC has to suck cock to get propper medical care at Naval Hospitals (and no, motrin and water doesn't count asshole) and outside of work you're a dick to poor civies on the internet too. For Shame Doc, for shame.

...

[QUOTE=Ta16;49240766]See, this is why nobody likes corpsmans, Doc. The Navy/USMC has to suck cock to get propper medical care at Naval Hospitals (and no, motrin and water doesn't count asshole) and outside of work you're a dick to poor civies on the internet too. For Shame Doc, for shame.[/QUOTE] Hahah man these last 5 years have made me really abrasive sometimes I have to put myself in check when I realize I'm not at work. If you were one of my patients though I'd give you the best medical attention in the world ;) don't fall out at PT...got something long, thin, cold, and red that's just dying to see some action...

I don't see the "biological differences" ya'll are talking about being that big a deal. We're no longer charging into battle swinging axes and marching hundreds in organized rows to engage in day long melees. Physical strength simply doesn't play as big a role in the age of modern combat. Women can still run, hold and fire a rifle, engage in tactical maneuvering, take effective cover, etc, so what's the real limitation here? When it comes to actual modern combat skills, women are not in any way physically disadvantaged.

[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] The reason people are concerned is because men are almost always a better physical candidate for any military role than a woman. This is just a simple fact of our biology, men are bigger, stronger, and faster. Most of the time. Now, since women can participate in these same roles, people are afraid that standards will be modified so that they may be part of it. This is a problem.

[QUOTE=4NGRY MUFF1N;49237758]A family can always survive without a father. But without a Mother you are fucked.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=4NGRY MUFF1N;49237835]The mother is the caretaker.[/QUOTE] As somebody who lost his mother young, this is some truly misguided shit. Fathers can be every bit the caring and compassionate person that mothers are. In my case, even more so. Being a woman does not make you an inherently better caregiver, and not having a mother does not in any way whatsoever mean that you are 'fucked" and "cannot survive." The hell even gave you that idea?

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49240689]Is it really sexist to say that there a biological differences that would make a gender difference in the military something that would naturally come into exist?[/QUOTE] It's sexist to state that women aren't capable of performing at the same level as men period and therefore should be excluded from the military. No sane person is denying that there are differences in our body's op-centers but that can vary heavily and isn't grounds to deny women who can meet the standards without any help.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49243051]I don't see the "biological differences" ya'll are talking about being that big a deal. We're no longer charging into battle swinging axes and marching hundreds in organized rows to engage in day long melees. Physical strength just isn't as big of a deal in the age of modern combat. They can still run, hold and fire a rifle, engage in tactical maneuvering, take effective cover, etc, so what's the real limitation here?[/QUOTE] Ehh, i've talked to a few guys that have went overseas. [img]http://i.imgur.com/QNpyyDL.jpg[/img] Body armor is fucking heavy, ammo is heavy, everything on them is heavy as fuck, and it is hotter than hell in a lot of areas we go to. Physical fitness is a big deal for these types.

[QUOTE=Cocacoladude;49243088]Ehh, i've talked to a few guys that have went overseas. [img]http://i.imgur.com/QNpyyDL.jpg[/img] Body armor is fucking heavy, ammo is heavy, everything on them is heavy as fuck, and it is hotter than hell in a lot of areas we go to. Physical fitness is a big deal for these types.[/QUOTE] Physical fitness is important, yes, and I'm well familiar with how heavy that load is. I've carried it myself. But as long as the woman in question is capable of carrying that load over the course of her duty period, then what does it matter if she is theoretically less physically strong than an equivalent man?

[QUOTE=Ta16;49240766]See, this is why nobody likes corpsmans, Doc. The Navy/USMC has to suck cock to get propper medical care at Naval Hospitals (and no, motrin and water doesn't count asshole) and outside of work you're a dick to poor civies on the internet too. For Shame Doc, for shame.[/QUOTE] Don't worry, you got seaman dipshit in training to tend to your medical needs. [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49243100]Physical fitness is important, yes, but as long as the woman in question is capable of carrying the load over the course of her duty period, then what does it matter if she is theoretically less capable of bench pressing?[/QUOTE] Yes, if she meets standards and is capable of supporting the mission. There is no problem. The problem is if they modify standards for women.

[QUOTE=Cocacoladude;49243088]Ehh, i've talked to a few guys that have went overseas. [img]http://i.imgur.com/QNpyyDL.jpg[/img] Body armor is fucking heavy, ammo is heavy, everything on them is heavy as fuck, and it is hotter than hell in a lot of areas we go to. Physical fitness is a big deal for these types.[/QUOTE] I know for a fact that wearing full battle rattle is really not that demanding as you would think. Disclosure, I'm a pretty scrawny guy with shitty cardio and I can't tell you how many times I had to do ridiculous shit or run up stupid hills wearing that stuff. My point is that wearing that junk is not as demanding as you would think, if I could do it a female definitely could. Not to mention I know many females who would kick my ass from the moon and back at PT.

[QUOTE=Cocacoladude;49243106]The problem is if they modify standards for women.[/QUOTE] It's not as if our fitness standards are even that darn high, to be honest. The pushup and situp tests are a breeze, and the two mile run is totally doable for most people once they've had a chance to get used to running. Hell, even I managed to struggle my way through that run, and it was later revealed that I had crippled lung capacity and cardiac issues as a result of a birth defect. To be fair though, I wasn't in infantry. They probably have much tougher standards.

[QUOTE=The golden;49243126]Are they (women) able to carry out their assigned duties and responsibilities as well as be effective in combat? If yes: Then what's the problem? If no: Then adjust the standards and training accordingly. Duh.[/QUOTE] He's talking about lowering the standards to accommodate. If women can't hump 120lbs + a combat load then change the fitness schedule to get them there. Don't drop the pack load to 80 and remove items from the combat load. Edit: Although if I remember right the pack loads might have been 80 pounds for everyone, but you get the idea.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49243100]Physical fitness is important, yes, and I'm well familiar with how heavy that load is. I've carried it myself. But as long as the woman in question is capable of carrying that load over the course of her duty period, then what does it matter if she is theoretically less physically strong than an equivalent man?[/QUOTE] Honestly, if you were injured on the battlefield, unable to move on your own and you heard a fellow soldier running around the corner to carry you would you not care at all whether it was a woman or a man, assuming you knew nothing else about them? Physical strength becomes important in the worst of times, not the average every day trudgery.

[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] It would be really fucked up seeing women getting shot at in combat videos though. There are live leak videos of US soldiers getting their legs blown off by landmines out there.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49243229]Honestly, if you were injured on the battlefield, unable to move on your own and you heard a fellow soldier running around the corner to carry you would you not care at all whether it was a woman or a man, assuming you knew nothing else about them? Physical strength becomes important in the worst of times, not the average every day trudgery.[/QUOTE] This is something I'd like to answer too. I wouldn't give a god damn if it was a female or a male because if I was in that situation I would know for a fact that whichever Corpsman or Marine that is coming to get me will get my ass out of there, because if they couldn't, they wouldn't be there in the first place.

[QUOTE=Cocacoladude;49243088]Ehh, i've talked to a few guys that have went overseas. [img]http://i.imgur.com/QNpyyDL.jpg[/img] Body armor is fucking heavy, ammo is heavy, everything on them is heavy as fuck, and it is hotter than hell in a lot of areas we go to. Physical fitness is a big deal for these types.[/QUOTE] In the future hopefully the army will release some leg exoskeleton suit that will help soldiers carry most of the weight of combat gear.

[QUOTE=The golden;49243126] If no: Then adjust the standards and training accordingly. Duh.[/QUOTE] Not duh, wrong. Why would you want a lower standard for something like this. Political correctness has no place in dealings like this. Its either you make the standard or not. And like BDA stated. The majority of physical fitness standards are not that bad. I sit on my ass all day playing videogames and shit. I can still do the PFAs no problem. The thing is, if women wanna work with men in these fields, then they have to be just as capable. If they are willing to put in the effort required to attain such levels of fitness and keep it up, then I see no reason they should be denied the opportunity. [editline]4th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=ultra_bright;49243237]It would be really fucked up seeing women getting shot at in combat videos though. There are live leak videos of US soldiers getting their legs blown off by landmines out there.[/QUOTE] Fuck man, just saw the video of that. War is fucking terrifying.

I've heard women make great snipers but does that mean they will be given same training and standards

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;49243247]In the future hopefully the army will release some leg exoskeleton suit that will help soldiers carry most of the weight of combat gear.[/QUOTE] Well it's not the future, and even though the tech to make that stuff is here and will be small enough in the next decade or so it'll be years before it actually gets put into the hands of your rank and file grunt.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;49243309]Well it's not the future, and even though the tech to make that stuff is here and will be small enough in the next decade or so it'll be years before it actually gets put into the hands of your rank and file grunt.[/QUOTE] Grunts will get the release models once the Army beats them to shit.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;49243309]Well it's not the future, and even though the tech to make that stuff is here and will be small enough in the next decade or so it'll be years before it actually gets put into the hands of your rank and file grunt.[/QUOTE] I guess the women are going to have to suck it up then.

To be honest, no one expects 50/50% breakdown for gender in the army. Existing standards are a sufficient goalpost to compare the candidates to, no matter what their gender is, since it's based around the ability to achieve specific objectives through pure physical actions. In summary, the answer is the same as it was (although unmade, sorry for that) to sgman's disagreement with me about the importance of genders for identification, wherein he said that combination of both genders in a number of sports would put most women athletes at a disadvantage. While correct, the point of sports is to find the best of the best, and all the gender division does is create more groups within which to have competition within, without having to set competition between those groups. Thus, even if the female make up of the army is going to be as minor as 5% to 10%, those individuals would be capable soldiers because they can achieve the goals through their own physical means. Also, I am not sure why that Swede is being so scared of women, there. Your entire army could consist of Barbie-type supermodels, for all good it could do against an actual aggression from expected sources.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;49243400]I guess the women are going to have to suck it up then.[/QUOTE] Women wearing flak jackets, kevlar, medbags, SAPI, or combat loads isn't something new.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49243229]Honestly, if you were injured on the battlefield, unable to move on your own and you heard a fellow soldier running around the corner to carry you would you not care at all whether it was a woman or a man, assuming you knew nothing else about them? Physical strength becomes important in the worst of times, not the average every day trudgery.[/QUOTE] Regardless of gender, pulling out 250+ pounds of injured soldier is going to suck. Personally I'd just feel relieved someone is coming at all. So honestly, no, I wouldn't care.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49243509]Regardless of gender, pulling out 250+ pounds of injured soldier is going to suck. Personally I'd just feel relieved someone is coming at all. So honestly, no, I wouldn't care.[/QUOTE] It's hard for me to believe that. You're going to die unless your squadmate is able to effectively pull or carry you to safety and you don't care whether a person who, on average, is required to preform at a higher physical standard is coming for you. That's just nonsensical.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49243628]It's hard for me to believe that. You're going to die unless your squadmate is able to effectively pull or carry you to safety and you don't care whether a person who, on average, is required to preform at a higher physical standard is coming for you. That's just nonsensical.[/QUOTE] Yeah when someone is dragging me to safety my number one concern is how many situps they can do in 2 minutes. You're the one being nonsensical.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49243647]Yeah when someone is dragging me to safety my number one concern is how many situps they can do in 2 minutes. You're the one being nonsensical.[/QUOTE] Are you trying to say that women aren't held to a lower standard or that being at a lower level of physical ability doesn't matter when performing strenuous physical tasks? I know you're trying to be witty, but it kind of seems like a non-sequitur.