Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

WP: In historic decision, Pentagon chief opens all jobs in combat units to women

visionary

By visionary
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

visionary

visionary

Posted
Posted

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/12/03/pentagon-chief-to-announce-how-womens-roles-in-the-military-will-expand/

In historic decision, Pentagon chief opens all jobs in combat units to women

 

Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter said Thursday that he is opening all jobs in combat units to women, a landmark decision that ends a three-year period of research with a number of firsts for female service members and bitter debate at times about how women should be integrated.

 

The decision opens the military’s most elite units to women who can meet the rigorous requirements for the positions for the first time, including in the Navy SEALs, Army Special Forces and other Special Operations Units. It also opens the Marine Corps infantry, a battle-hardened force that many service officials had openly advocated keeping closed to female service members.

 

“There will be no exceptions,” Carter said. “This means that, as long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before.”

 

Carter said that top leaders in the Army, Navy, Air Force and U.S. Special Operations Command all recommended that all jobs be opened to women. The Marine Corps recommended that certain jobs such as machine gunner be kept closed, but the secretary said that the military is a joint force, and his decision will apply to everyone. The top Marine officer who made that recommendation, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford, became chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in September, and did not appear alongside Carter on Thursday.

 

The services will have 30 days to provide plans to Carter on how they will implement the policy change, he said. By law, the military also must notify Congress formally and wait that long before making any changes.

 

The secretary’s decision is nearly three years in the making. In January 2013, the defense secretary at the time, Leon Panetta, announced that he was rescinding a longtime ban on women serving directly in ground combat units, but gave the services until this fall to research the issue.

 

About 220,000 jobs and 10 percent of the military remained closed to women before Tuesday’s announcement, Carter said. Another 110,000 jobs in careers like artillery officer were opened in a series of decisions since 2013.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dont Taze Me Bro

Dont Taze Me Bro

Posted
Posted

From the limited briefings I've seen so far, no the physical standards will remain different for men and women. But who knows what final policy will be.

 

They shouldn't lower the physical standards for any elite unit.  They should remain the same and be open to both genders.  Plenty of males don't make the SEALs, so let everyone try if they want to, but don't make the requirements gender specific.  

 

If that is indeed what happens, when the final policy becomes known.  If you are going to make separate physical standards, then you might as well just lower the standards all together, not just for separate genders.  

 

It's extreme and elite for a reason, and by all means if anyone, regardless of their gender can make it, I'm all for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted

From the limited briefings I've seen so far, no the physical standards will remain different for men and women. But who knows what final policy will be.

 

The women are struggling at the Marine infantry officer course.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/04/08/women-now-0-for-29-in-attempting-marine-infantry-officer-course/

 

some standards remain so far

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted

Unequal standards already exists in those units. Just by age instead of sex

That seems equally silly.

It would seem to me the job would have requirements, and you can either meet them or you can't.

I don't belive there's a battlefield setting for 'woman' or 'old'...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Event_Horizon

Event_Horizon

Posted
Posted

Remember that film with Meg Ryan as a Helo Pilot that was shot down and all Hell broke loose?  Nuff said.  Women should not be in forward combat positions.  It is too dangerous and too emotional.  It is how the sexes are biologically wired.  Not to mention the physical differences, but the emotional fortitude of men is why we become the warriors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dont Taze Me Bro

Dont Taze Me Bro

Posted
Posted

Why for elite units?

Why have unequal standards at all in combat related positions?

That's silliness.

 

Considering the article is about allowing women to apply for elite military positions, I responded directly to the topic on hand.  They already have separate physical requirements based on gender for other positions.  

 

Opening up elite positions to females like SEAL training but having separate physical requirements doesn't make sense to me.  It is an elite position for a reason.  One of which physical standards should be the same across the board.  

 

If you want to argue that it should be the same across the board for every position in the military then fine, but that's not what the article was about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
btfoom

btfoom

Posted
Posted

I have to agree with most here.

 

Don't care if it is man or woman, have a set of regulations that make sense and let anyone who can meet that criteria in.

 

If you can't too bad.

 

Nobody cares if you are wounded and a man or woman carries you out, just like no one cares if you are hurt and a man or woman who can't deal with you arrives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted

Equal positions? Equal standards.

You can't make it? You're cut just like everyone else. We aren't talking about a programming job or a VP slot. Lives are on the line here.

Fair is fair

I agree with this. I believe in equal opportunity, but equal opportunity only means a chance. If you can't earn it you shouldn't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinsmarydu

skinsmarydu

Posted
Posted

I agree with this. I believe in equal opportunity, but equal opportunity only means a chance. If you can't earn it you shouldn't get it.

I tend to agree.  I was in when women weren't even on combatant ships.

GitRDone, girls!  Go prove that you're in it to win it.  Don't feel bad if you can't...just that you volunteered is very important, and we love you for it...plenty of dudes don't even try.

 

GO NAVY!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DC9

DC9

Posted
Posted

Unequal standards already exists in those units. Just by age instead of sex

 

Not true.

 

The 75th Ranger Regiment uses the 17-21 age group standards regardless of age.

 

My take on this has always been the same, if a woman WANTS to do this job and a woman CAN meet the standard and do this job, she should be able to.

That seems equally silly.

It would seem to me the job would have requirements, and you can either meet them or you can't.

I don't belive there's a battlefield setting for 'woman' or 'old'...

 

He's referring to the PT standards.  There are different age groups when it comes to your score.  17-21, 22-26, 27-31, 32-28 (I believe) and so on.  About the only thing that changes is the run time max and minimum goes down gradually, but push up and sit up maxes go up.

 

That's by design.  I mean... I'm 32, but after 12 years in the Army my knees are in their 40's :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DC9

DC9

Posted
Posted

Why for elite units?

Why have unequal standards at all in combat related positions?

That's silliness.

 

Different units do different things.  Part of what the civilian world, and even Soldiers who aren't or have never been in special ops, do not understand.

 

It's not just "Special Forces" or "Special Ops".  Each unit has a unique job they're supposed to do.  Nothing pisses me off more than when I know a certain element did a job overseas and I watch the news and they say "US Special Forces did_____".  That's why I can't watch the news.  But I get OPSEC, and it still annoys me :lol: .

 

Anywho... that's why there are different standards for each group of the elite.  Different mission requirements bring different training requirements bring different physical and mental standards for entry, selection, and the ability to stay in those units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nonniey

nonniey

Posted
Posted

Why for elite units?

Why have unequal standards at all in combat related positions?

That's silliness.

As much as the more radical feminists like to deny it, the reality is that men and women different and provide different advantages. If the standards were changed where women had to meet the same physical standards as men we'd lose a large percentage of good Soldiers and Marines leading to serious degradation of Army and Marine capabilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...