Panetta To Allow Women in Combat

[Zwinmar]

Just to point out the mechanical MOUT perspective seen is not really typical try carrying that crap out in the field for three weeks with one week off a month on average and it is not surprising that many grunts actually get shorter. If anything being aboard vehicles gives them an excuse to pack more crap on the infantry.

[Dominarch's Hope]

It was marching with heavyweight, sometimes days at a time, for months at a go on a tour of duty. As in, patrols with full gear that last for 24 hours up to 72 hours gone from base.


That was the goalpost from the very beginning. YOU are the one who ignored it by comparing doing daily runs in normal clothes and isolated incidents of working with heavy gear with constantly marching with heavy gear with often times less than 48 hours inbetween said marchings.

You wanted to know about endurance. Wildland firefighters have it. They dont do long runs in heavy gear, but they DO fight forest fires and do heavy labor in gear for days on end. 13 days on, 1 day off for several months. The gear for the average smokejumper weights about the same as heavy gear for the average infantryman. The terrain is also much rougher than urban or desert fighting, often a lot warmer on its own... and they are wearing gear that itself acts like an oven (insulation goes both ways you see). That they dont run in that just means they are human beings who dont want to drop from heat exhaustion inside 15 minutes.

You then proceded to counter this by asking if they do their 8 mile run in full gear, thus appearing to shift your goal posts. So either you did shift your goal posts and are now lying about doing so, or you cannot articulate an argument clearly.

Oh and...to the bolded specifically...i said marched dumbassed. Not run. Marched. As in basically walk. You are the one who brought up fucking running. Also, about those injuries. You wouldnt happen to mean...bodily joint stress injuries and such hmm?

What do you think they DO when they are out on a wildfire? They get inserted via plane in full gear, set up a cam, and then hike through a burning forest--not just in full gear, but smothering full gear--and do hard labor on terrain that heavy landmovers cannot access.

Oh my god. You are STILL acting like it is the same thing. Not even close.

How many days inbetween these fire deployments? How many days inbetween having to walk around in 100lbs of gear?


How often a week do they travel in it? Every other day?




THERE IS A DIFFERENCE YOU GODDAMN STUPID SON OF A BITCH. MARCHING AROUND FOR HOURS UPON HOURS AT A TIME, MULTIPLE DAYS IN A ROW, WITH LESS TIME OFF THAN ON, WITH 100LBS OF GEAR IS NOT THE SAME THING AS EVEN TAKING DAILY RUNS IN BASIC CLOTHES AND THE OCCASIONAL DEPLOYMENT TO A HOTZONE.


HOW LONG DO THESE MISSIONS USUALLY TAKE? HOW OFTEN DO THEY OCCUR IN FREQUENCY?



You have proven nothing you retarded piece of boot slime, you havent proven that Infantry and Dismount is even remotely the same thing as your fucking Firemen.


And even about the Firemen, what is the rate of women siging up to men? What is the rate of women not being able to meet those standards? ARE THEY STILL OUTNUMBERED TEN TO GODDAMN ONE JUST IN VOLUNTEERS ALONE?


You have proven and asserted nothing save for your own fucktarded debate tactics.


YOU made the assertion that your particular Firemen face the same types of rigors, the same types of bodily stress, the same lack of a bed to sleep in while on patrol, or even the same tempo of duty.

Prove your assertions shithead. Or it isnt even worth responding to any further. And unless the thread gets some special attention, then anyone with reading comprehension can tell that YOU most certainly have failed to prove or support you assertions.


Now fuck off. I have a bit of research to do. And only a few hours left. But its really just basic physics. Smaller people with slighter frames have a rougher time with it than people who are six foot plus and built like shit brick houses.


And even those people are flat fucking overloaded today.

[D.Turtle]

Dominarch's Hope: What is the proportion of soldiers in Afghanistan required to do what you are declaring as the standard?

[PeZook]

Oh my god. You are STILL acting like it is the same thing. Not even close.

How many days inbetween these fire deployments? How many days inbetween having to walk around in 100lbs of gear?


How often a week do they travel in it? Every other day?

The point is that a woman who manages to get qualified as a firejumper would be perfectly capable of acing the APFT, which does not require any of your stringent tests to get a perfect score, and thus she'd be (physically) qualified to stay in the infantry.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE YOU GODDAMN STUPID SON OF A BITCH. MARCHING AROUND FOR HOURS UPON HOURS AT A TIME, MULTIPLE DAYS IN A ROW, WITH LESS TIME OFF THAN ON, WITH 100LBS OF GEAR IS NOT THE SAME THING AS EVEN TAKING DAILY RUNS IN BASIC CLOTHES AND THE OCCASIONAL DEPLOYMENT TO A HOTZONE.

You know, the funny things is that women are going out on patrols in Afghanistan RIGHT NOW and have been for some time. They're just not officially called infantry.

All these examples people brought up were supposed to show that women exist who can do it, even if not in great numbers, which is a position you have agreed with twice already, yet you keep exploding when people dare say this, for no good reason whatsoever.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Dominarch, what's the point? You've already said that you agree there are women who can make it. Either concede that women should be free to serve as grunts, or say "I don't want them serving because of my sexism". In any rate, stop that stupid shit.

[Raj Ahten]

@ Dominarch's Hope:
So what is your basic arguement here? That Combat Infantry ard tougher than anyone else? That anyone who doesn't do what they do are chicken shits? That seems to be what this is boiling down to. I guess mutual respect for other people with tough jobs is a foreign concept to you.

As to your question about fire deployments they can last a long damn time, especially on campaign fires. One like the Mustang complex burned for over four months, which isn't uncommon for huge incidents. Jumpers and hotshots are national resources so they go from fire to fire as needed so in a busy season there is very little downtime. Your typical accomadation is a tent set up in a giant field or spiked out, basically sleeping in the woods, if the area you are working on is too remote to go back to the firecamp at the end of the day. As to how often you are carrying heavy loads or marching its every day.

Also who gives a fuck if females are a minority of the force or if smaller body frames make it harder for them? If they have the will and ability to actually do the job its irrelevant if they have to work harder. Just because only a minority of woman might be cut out for a role doesn't mean they should be excluded. By your logic Americans as a whole shouldn't be soldiers because only a minority could meet the requirements. Just look at the percentage of overweight and obese Americans! Clearly US citizens are wholly unfit for war and all should be barred from the armed forces!

[Lagmonster]

In the interest of discussing something really freaking abstract, should society give a shit if more than a certain percentage of its women decide to volunteer for jobs with higher-than-average fatalities? What percentage enlist voluntary as soldiers/police/miners/firefighters anyway?

I'm just musing about what an army is to society in terms of risk analysis; a gamble of a percentage of your able-bodied population because of the need for defence and/or expansion. Success in these terms doesn't seem to imply risking more than you can afford in order to lose, but there's a big difference between loss/recovery for, say, a bronze-age city-state versus an information-age continental empire. And it's an inarguable point that progressive civilizations don't treat women as nothing more than baby-making machines.

[Dominarch's Hope]

@ Dominarch's Hope:
So what is your basic arguement here? That Combat Infantry ard tougher than anyone else? That anyone who doesn't do what they do are chicken shits? That seems to be what this is boiling down to. I guess mutual respect for other people with tough jobs is a foreign concept to you.

As to your question about fire deployments they can last a long damn time, especially on campaign fires. One like the Mustang complex burned for over four months, which isn't uncommon for huge incidents. Jumpers and hotshots are national resources so they go from fire to fire as needed so in a busy season there is very little downtime. Your typical accomadation is a tent set up in a giant field or spiked out, basically sleeping in the woods, if the area you are working on is too remote to go back to the firecamp at the end of the day. As to how often you are carrying heavy loads or marching its every day.

Also who gives a fuck if females are a minority of the force or if smaller body frames make it harder for them? If they have the will and ability to actually do the job its irrelevant if they have to work harder. Just because only a minority of woman might be cut out for a role doesn't mean they should be excluded. By your logic Americans as a whole shouldn't be soldiers because only a minority could meet the requirements. Just look at the percentage of overweight and obese Americans! Clearly US citizens are wholly unfit for war and all should be barred from the armed forces!

Uh no. To the bolded. Just no.


To the italisized, where have I stated that women should be excluded entirely?

Stop putting words in my post. Its horrendously dishonest.

And thanks for the information. I would almost concede on that point, but...when you are building fake strawmen of me, Im not going to give that to certain members.

[Sea Skimmer]

I don't feel like reading this retarded thread to figure it out, but has it been pointed out that US military fitness standards for women are in fact lower for all tests? As well as physical obstacles being cut down in some cases? That is the way things are right now and nothing has yet indicated the US military intends to change this.

Also well worth pointing out that two thousand years of history have consistently demonstrated that actually nobody can train to carry more then 60-70lb of gear for protracted periods without serious health problems and progressive exhaustion, yet the US Army considers 84lb to be 'optimal max' and intends 120lb to be the normal max, but in fact has manpack loads in the 160lb class for a few horrendous mortar jobs. Simply nobody remotely approaching normal can do this without ruining themselves. Low and behold we have hundreds of thousands of soldiers with crippling back and leg problems.

[Grumman]

In the interest of discussing something really freaking abstract, should society give a shit if more than a certain percentage of its women decide to volunteer for jobs with higher-than-average fatalities? What percentage enlist voluntary as soldiers/police/miners/firefighters anyway?

Unless you're going to start encouraging women to become single mothers, it's worth worrying about unless women make up more than 50% of the workforce in these jobs. It's only once you start seeing disproportionate deaths among women that you'd start seeing a greater effect on birth rates.

[Block]

I don't feel like reading this retarded thread to figure it out, but has it been pointed out that US military fitness standards for women are in fact lower for all tests? As well as physical obstacles being cut down in some cases? That is the way things are right now and nothing has yet indicated the US military intends to change this.

Also well worth pointing out that two thousand years of history have consistently demonstrated that actually nobody can train to carry more then 60-70lb of gear for protracted periods without serious health problems and progressive exhaustion, yet the US Army considers 84lb to be 'optimal max' and intends 120lb to be the normal max, but in fact has manpack loads in the 160lb class for a few horrendous mortar jobs. Simply nobody remotely approaching normal can do this without ruining themselves. Low and behold we have hundreds of thousands of soldiers with crippling back and leg problems.

yeah I mentioned that within the first 2 pages but no one seemed to acknowledge it.as I said and this is speaking as someone who was in infantry MOS in the Marines if women can handle the exact same standards they should be free to be in the infantry however I don't think that standard should be lowered at all from current male standard.

[Losonti Tokash]

That'd probably be more relevant if the tests were actually measuring physical capabilities and not physical health like they really are. I've certainly never seen anyone complain that PFT standards drop as you get older.

[Block]

That'd probably be more relevant if the tests were actually measuring physical capabilities and not physical health like they really are. I've certainly never seen anyone complain that PFT standards drop as you get older.

You know why that isn't a good argument? Because people get shifted out of combat roles as they age.

[Stark]

That's right, because they are replaced by younger meat for the grinder. They're still just selecting the 'most fit' out of a selection pool rather than saying 'this is what you need to do to be a soldier'. Unless women who meet lower standards somehow prevent men who meet their standards from being accepted, I'm not sure how this is anything but saying 'this woman is fit' and 'this man is fit also'.

I wonder if women have different or lower standards on the actual skill tests, regarding technical skills, marksmanship, leadership, etc. That might actually be a concern.

[Sea Skimmer]

yeah I mentioned that within the first 2 pages but no one seemed to acknowledge it.

Okay good, because skimming this sure made it seem like everyone was treating the idea as theoretical only.

[Dominarch's Hope]

I don't feel like reading this retarded thread to figure it out, but has it been pointed out that US military fitness standards for women are in fact lower for all tests? As well as physical obstacles being cut down in some cases? That is the way things are right now and nothing has yet indicated the US military intends to change this.

Also well worth pointing out that two thousand years of history have consistently demonstrated that actually nobody can train to carry more then 60-70lb of gear for protracted periods without serious health problems and progressive exhaustion, yet the US Army considers 84lb to be 'optimal max' and intends 120lb to be the normal max, but in fact has manpack loads in the 160lb class for a few horrendous mortar jobs. Simply nobody remotely approaching normal can do this without ruining themselves. Low and behold we have hundreds of thousands of soldiers with crippling back and leg problems.

Yes. Yes exactly.

A grwon young man, 18 years old, who is 6'2 220lbs of mostly lean muscle is a bit above even the male average. This guy had a breezy time during Basic/Boot and was athletic in High School. Again, not the average soldier a bit above in fact.



This stout and healthy young man, will have SERIOUS hardcore trouble and brutal wear and tear on his body, sometimes debilitating, carrying this shit all that time.



And people say that the average woman will be just dandy? Thats like saying the loads that wear down a 2500 Diesel Duly could be handled perfectly fine by a Ford Ranger.

However, most of the military is F-150/Chevy 1500. They serve well enough. Even though a 350/3500 is whats really required, the basic serves well enough.


And there are in fact women who are basically F150/1500s. You get it?


Let women have their chance but do not lower standards for Infantry/directly related MOS's. And for goodness sake, get some pack mules or some miniature motorized support the size of an ATV meant to haul 1000lbs at walking /running pace.


Or something. Because holy fuck.

[Serafina]

Aren't there separate standards to determine what service you qualify for, separate from the physical fitness requirements? PULES factor or somesuch.
As far as i can recall, that standard doesn't differentiate between sexes or even age at all - if it says you need to be at least this fit to do X, then thats how fit you have to be.


Also, another reason this is important:
There are currently female US soldiers who have been injured or crippled in combat - but they do not count as combat veterans, because after all women can't officially serve in combat. Which does come with a loss of prestige and financial benefits.
(as far as i can recall, if this is wrong i'd actually be glad since it means less blatant sexism).
One example would be Tammy Duckworth, who lost both her legs in Iraq and is now head of the Department of Veteran Affairs of some US-state.

[Block]

Aren't there separate standards to determine what service you qualify for, separate from the physical fitness requirements? PULES factor or somesuch.
As far as i can recall, that standard doesn't differentiate between sexes or even age at all - if it says you need to be at least this fit to do X, then thats how fit you have to be.


Also, another reason this is important:
There are currently female US soldiers who have been injured or crippled in combat - but they do not count as combat veterans, because after all women can't officially serve in combat. Which does come with a loss of prestige and financial benefits.
(as far as i can recall, if this is wrong i'd actually be glad since it means less blatant sexism).
One example would be Tammy Duckworth, who lost both her legs in Iraq and is now head of the Department of Veteran Affairs of some US-state.

The puhles stuff just indicates the status of various body parts. Normal function is a 1. Anything less is rated 2-4 based on how bad it is. Disability suffered in the line of duty is treated the same as far as I know the only difference between the two that I can think of is the purple heart is not awarded for non combat injuries.

[Dominarch's Hope]

MOS and age determine standards, but there are general basic requirements.


Diesel Mechanics arent the same as Intel Techs and stuff. Diesel Mechanics is also a MOS with women allowed and serving fine.


Although there might be a health issue that causes hands to break out in bumps/rashes when in contact with dishwater liquid and such. Happened to my sister.

[RogueIce]

So General Amos says that it is not a "forgone conclusion" at least so far as the USMC is concerned.

But then he thought DADT repeal would be a Bad Thing and later admitted that it was in fact a nonissue, so y'know.

[PeZook]

Didn't Panetta say himself that to get into the infantry, men and women would have to adhere to the same standard?

[Dominarch's Hope]

The USMC has a history of being stubborn. The homosexual is entirely different though, and the older guys who dont live in barracks anymore wouldnt know what any issues were in regards to that. Not to mention that you wont exactly get fashion designers joining the military anyways. The only possible problem would be homosexual male officers abusing their male underlings in the way that some abuse their female underlings, but that isnt something you could prevent with DADT anyways. And homosexuals are a small minority anyways, so its doubtful whether any specific issues related to them would have been that present to begin with.

The next possible fight might be transexuals. That will be much nastier, since they will be getting attacked from basically everybody and will have fewer advocates and representatives among the Armed Forces than Gays and Women.

[xt828]

Not to mention that you wont exactly get fashion designers joining the military anyways.

What precisely do you mean by this?

[spaceviking]

He means that most gay servicemen are no different then the average soldier, aside from where they like to cum.

[Dominarch's Hope]

Exactly. You arent going to get certain types of people in the military, except for rare cases, regardless of sexual orientation.

Its kind of one of those jobs that selects for a certain mindset that is unpalatable to certain people. Some of which is anathema to many. People who strongly desire to be Social Workers or be artist arent usually the type that would like to rearrange your face because it speaks the wrong language.


Artist and soldiers have generally been antithesis to each other, especially in volunteer forces.