This is an archive of the mabination.com forums which were active from 2010 to 2018. You can not register, post or otherwise interact with the site other than browsing the content for historical purposes. The content is provided as-is, from the moment of the last backup taken of the database in 2019. Image and video embeds are disabled on purpose and represented textually since most of those links are dead.
To view other archive projects go to
https://archives.mabination.com
-
Lie wrote on 2013-01-24 19:55
Quote from USA Today:
WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced Thursday that the military will lift its ban on women serving in combat roles, which will open about 230,000 posts, including those on the front lines.
"Women have shown great courage and sacrifice on and off the battlefield, contributed in unprecedented ways to the military's mission and proven their ability to serve in an expanding number of roles," Panetta said at a Pentagon news conference. "The department's goal in rescinding the rule is to ensure that the mission is met with the best-qualified and most capable people, regardless of gender."
Military service chiefs unanimously support the change, which reflects the realities of the modern military, said Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"The Joint Chiefs share a common cause on the need to start doing this now and to doing this right," Dempsey said. "We are committed to a purposeful and principled approach."
President Obama said Thursday he supported Panetta's decision.
"Earlier today I called Secretary of Defense Panetta to express my strong support for this decision, which will strengthen our military, enhance our readiness, and be another step toward fulfilling our nation's founding ideals of fairness and equality," Obama said in a prepared statement.
"As Commander in Chief, I am absolutely confident that—as with the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'—the professionalism of our armed forces will ensure a smooth transition and keep our military the very best in the world," Obama said.
Pentagon policy restricting women from serving in combat on the ground was modified in 1994, according to the Congressional Research Service. Women cannot be assigned below the brigade level -- a unit of about 3,500 troops -- to fight on the ground. Effectively, that has barred women from infantry, artillery, armor, combat engineers and special operations units of battalion size -- about 700 troops -- or lower.
The services will have until January 2016 to implement the changes. Last year, Panetta opened up an additional 15,000 jobs to women. He ordered the remaining exclusions lifted because he had been committed to doing so since taking office.
Panetta said he and the service chiefs have been working on the plan for more than a year.
The move comes as Panetta prepares to leave office. President Obama has nominated Republican former senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a Vietnam combat veteran, to take his place.
Source:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/24/women-combat-change-panetta/1861995/
-
Joker wrote on 2013-01-24 19:57
why hasn't this happened a long time ago... I dont understand?
-
Blassreiter wrote on 2013-01-24 20:12
Quote from Joker;1019546:
why hasn't this happened a long time ago... I dont understand?
Probably because one/some/none of the following:
*Military doesn't want a situation where a woman is stronger than the men.
*Women are
"meant" to be housewives only.
*Fighting is meant for men only.
*Women are generally physically weaker.
*PMS
*Husbands/Fathers would shoot someone if their daughter/wife got drafted to war.
*Women are
"dumb".
*Risk of hazing/rape from men.
*Etc
These are some of the thoughts that the general public would think.
-
Cynic wrote on 2013-01-24 21:47
Quote from Blassreiter;1019551:
Probably because one/some/none of the following:
*Military doesn't want a situation where a woman is stronger than the men.
*Women are "meant" to be housewives only.
*Fighting is meant for men only.
*Women are generally physically weaker.
*PMS
*Husbands/Fathers would shoot someone if their daughter/wife got drafted to war.
*Women are "dumb".
*Risk of hazing/rape from men.
*Etc
These are some of the thoughts that the general public would think.
The rape risk is actually a very legit concern, but I doubt that's one of the main reasons they didn't want more women in the service. It's most likely because of the other reasons listed above.
-
Drizzit wrote on 2013-01-24 22:06
Quote from Blassreiter;1019551:
Probably because one/some/none of the following:
*Women are generally physically weaker.
*Risk of hazing/rape from men.
From what I understood (being in the Army) it was mostly these, plus concerns that men would put themselves at risk because they'd feel a need to *protect* the women.
Anyway, it's about time this happened, but don't expect to see female infantrymen any time soon. It's a gradual process.
-
Cucurbita wrote on 2013-01-24 22:14
Honestly I have a hard time going with this one.
Women out in the battlefield can cause a lot of problems. I don't think people understand, war isn't clean at all. Bad shit happens. Soldiers aren't mechanical beings who strictly follow orders and walk in straight lines like dolls.
I can only imagine a strong prevalent sexist norm when a female soldier is joined in to a largely male majority body. Harassment, special treatment, rape, any and all of which are very legitimate and real concerns makes the idea of putting women in the field debatable.
Also, women are naturally weaker of course. I'm not trying to be sexist, and I know there are lots of women who could beat me up, but it really just comes down to the matter of body mass. The required training women are given in the military is actually far less than that of a man's. If they're serious about this, then they need to change their military program from the start to actually match both genders.
If men are required to run X distance carrying X pounds of gear before they're good to go on the field, women better be able to.
This just isn't like finding equality in the workplace. This isn't about men's pride or anything. This is for their safety. They're gonna die if we give them special treatment all in the name of equal opportunity.
-
Cynic wrote on 2013-01-24 22:31
Quote from Cucurbita;1019617:
Honestly I have a hard time going with this one.
Women out in the battlefield can cause a lot of problems. I don't think people understand, war isn't clean at all. Bad shit happens. Soldiers aren't mechanical beings who strictly follow orders and walk in straight lines like dolls.
I can only imagine a strong prevalent sexist norm when a female soldier is joined in to a largely male majority body. Harassment, special treatment, rape, any and all of which are very legitimate and real concerns makes the idea of putting women in the field debatable.
Also, women are naturally weaker of course. I'm not trying to be sexist, and I know there are lots of women who could beat me up, but it really just comes down to the matter of body mass. The required training women are given in the military is actually far less than that of a man's. If they're serious about this, then they need to change their military program from the start to actually match both genders.
If men are required to run X distance carrying X pounds of gear before they're good to go on the field, women better be able to.
This just isn't like finding equality in the workplace. This isn't about men's pride or anything. This is for their safety. They're gonna die if we give them special treatment all in the name of equal opportunity.
The problem with making it equal for both sexes is that both sexes are unequal by nature, and unless we somehow change that, making it equal (at least in the literal definition) is impossible.
You'd have to individualize it more, making it so that both sexes can achieve the same results, albeit with different methods specific to each sex.
For example; women having boobs makes it harder for them to do certain exercises, so just find a way to bind and/or protect their breasts so that they can do certain exercises normally like men. You'd have to do this for each issue that pops up, but if people want equality (in the sense that they produce equal results), then that's how it's got to be.
But people seem to have a problem with this because they deem it "unfair" even though it's really only putting women on same level as men so that they have the same chance to produce equal results. Kind of like giving a kid with no legs artificial ones so that he can run with all the other kids.
-
Lie wrote on 2013-01-24 22:53
Quote from Cucurbita;1019617:
I can only imagine a strong prevalent sexist norm when a female soldier is joined in to a largely male majority body. Harassment, special treatment, rape, any and all of which are very legitimate and real concerns makes the idea of putting women in the field debatable.
That's if they decide to intermingle both genders together indistinguishably into a unit, instead of forming units based on genders.
But that is another debate. At the moment, the news is about letting women take up combat roles that were normally reserved for men, not about mixing them together in a unit.
-
Cucurbita wrote on 2013-01-24 23:04
Quote from Lie;1019658:
That's if they decide to intermingle both genders together indistinguishably into a unit, instead of forming units based on genders.
Again, this wouldn't really prevent anything in anything wide scale.
-
Sinned wrote on 2013-01-25 00:30
I didn't even know women weren't allowed in combat positions in recent times till now @___@.
Anybody who thinks women can't should really do some research, a fine example would be the Dahomey warriors... OH WAIT THEY'RE AFRICAN, I FORGOT THAT TYPICAL EUROSHITRIC VIEW DOESN'T REALLY CARE ABOUT THIS KIND OF STUFF.
-
Natural Harmonia Gropius wrote on 2013-01-25 01:12
Quote from Sinned;1019733:
I didn't even know women weren't allowed in combat positions in recent times till now @___@.
Anybody who thinks women can't should really do some research, a fine example would be the Dahomey warriors... OH WAIT THEY'RE AFRICAN, I FORGOT THAT TYPICAL EUROSHITRIC VIEW DOESN'T REALLY CARE ABOUT THIS KIND OF STUFF.
Amazons.
-
Claudia wrote on 2013-01-25 04:10
Well, if women don't pass the physical exercise tests (which are pretty easy and usually dumbed down for women unfortunately), they'd either be rejected for service or placed somewhere off the front lines, just like if a man failed it. Not that you can fail your PT test in the Air Force at least, they work with you until you pass that shit unless you're totally incompetent.
When this all finally rolls out, we should have to register for Selective Service. If we really want equality, we don't want and shouldn't take special treatment, or be exempted from our basically defunct but still-existent draft.
I like this. Gonna miss you, Leon Panetta.
-
Cynic wrote on 2013-01-25 04:23
Quote from Claudia;1019851:
Well, if women don't pass the physical exercise tests (which are pretty easy and usually dumbed down for women unfortunately), they'd either be rejected for service or placed somewhere off the front lines, just like if a man failed it. Not that you can fail your PT test in the Air Force at least, they work with you until you pass that shit unless you're totally incompetent.
When this all finally rolls out, we should have to register for Selective Service. If we really want equality, we don't want and shouldn't take special treatment, or be exempted from our basically defunct but still-existent draft.
I like this. Gonna miss you, Leon Panetta.
Depends on what you mean by special treatment. Giving women the opportunity to produce the same results as men isn't giving them "special treatment". Special treatment implies you're giving somebody an advantage; evening the playing field is not an advantage. It's just making them both equal, therefore allowing them to produce equal results; if they don't, then obviously it's their own fault. But you can't blame women for failing when men have an advantage over women.
People who blame women for being weaker than men is not different than blaming a blind person for being unable to see as compared to normal people.
-
Claudia wrote on 2013-01-25 12:23
I agree. Women and men just have different standards on the PT test, that's all. But the standards are absurdly low, and you wouldn't want to stick a woman that's unprepared out in a combat setting.
-
Ninjam wrote on 2013-01-25 12:34
Quote from Claudia;1020008:
I agree. Women and men just have different standards on the PT test, that's all. But the standards are absurdly low, and you wouldn't want to stick a woman that's unprepared out in a combat setting.
If I was stuck in a combat setting, odds are I would promptly cry and poop myself.
I am male.
You do not want to stick anyone in a combat setting unprepared. Women or men, you need to be trained for it. And even then its probably horrible.
Wait, why do people fight again if combat sucks so much? It all seems like a lot of work, it would be so much easier if we solved all problems via logical discussion.
Yea, this does seem like something they should have done a long time ago. Also, weren't they allowing women on the field in noncombat rolls like medics and stuff?