If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Jezebel)   The truth is that women have been in combat situations all along, except without the pay, benefits, or career mobility of their male counterparts   (jezebel.com) divider line 242
    More: Interesting, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, American Girl, truth, fights, males  
•       •       •

1531 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jan 2013 at 2:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



242 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-24 12:34:16 PM  
Have to say it's about time.
 
2013-01-24 01:06:56 PM  
Set the standards, and if they can hit them, then drive on.
 
2013-01-24 01:32:19 PM  

hubiestubert: Set the standards, and if they can hit them, then drive on.


This.  I love the comment in TFA that women's fight-or-flight instinct is locked on flight.  They've never seen  momma defend her young.  Or a shoe sale.
 
2013-01-24 01:34:48 PM  
WHAT impossible, sexism is over

let me tell you about men's rights,
 
2013-01-24 01:35:17 PM  
FTA: Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-Illinois), who lost both legs flying helicopters in Iraq, quipped yesterday that she "didn't lose my legs in a bar fight."

Zing!
 
2013-01-24 01:36:01 PM  
Disclaimer: I am fully supportive of women in combat roles as long as they are otherwise qualified.

That being said, the narrative of "women already have been in combat roles" is not really accurate. The fact that women in non-combat roles have been in combat situations is slightly disingenuous. It's like saying that embassy staff that have been attacked have served in combat roles. The only thing that I disapprove of is the lack of mobility, if you were shot at, you have the experience of being shot at, your nominal role makes not difference to that. But the claim that the non-combat roles are no less dangerous than combat roles is not borne out by the numbers:

2.4% (113) of the total fatalities were women, who make up 16% of the total DOD force. Men, who make up 84% of the total force experienced 97.6% (4,570) of the deaths in the two theaters of operation.

combat roles are more dangerous, and bring with them commensurate differences in benefits and pay. Men in non-combat roles I'm sure were also given the same lack of pay, benefits, and career mobility as their female non-combatant role cohort.

Bottom line: let women fight if they want and are capable.
 
2013-01-24 01:40:32 PM  
And without having the draft.
 
2013-01-24 01:43:48 PM  

Jackson Herring: WHAT impossible, sexism is over

let me tell you about men's rights,


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-24 01:46:57 PM  
 
2013-01-24 02:12:59 PM  
Someone posted this yesterday, but it's worth reposting:

"If they wanna fight, let 'em fight. Cause I ain't fightin'! I don't give a fark if there's a Russian tank rollin' down Flatbush Avenue ..." -- Chris Rock
 
2013-01-24 02:26:57 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: And without having the draft.


That's the only thing needing changed now.  Make them sign up for selective service, or lose their right to student loans, etc... now.
 
2013-01-24 02:29:21 PM  
...or the death rate.
 
2013-01-24 02:29:42 PM  

unyon: hubiestubert: Set the standards, and if they can hit them, then drive on.

This.  I love the comment in TFA that women's fight-or-flight instinct is locked on flight.  They've never seen  momma defend her young.  Or a shoe sale.


Or this: Link

Lightly armored 4-5 women squadrons hunting in an urban environment. Tactical planning, uniforms, meaningless goals. Sounds like frontline infantry to me.
 
2013-01-24 02:30:05 PM  

nmrsnr: Disclaimer: I am fully supportive of women in combat roles as long as they are otherwise qualified.


As long as the definition of qualified isn't controlled with by a bunch of good ol boys with turf to protect. Which is what the rest of your post seems to suggest is going on.
 
2013-01-24 02:31:49 PM  

AntiNerd: nmrsnr: Disclaimer: I am fully supportive of women in combat roles as long as they are otherwise qualified.

As long as the definition of qualified isn't controlled with by a bunch of good ol boys with turf to protect. Which is what the rest of your post seems to suggest is going on.


I'd say that the standards in place now. should be maintained.  No idea what they are though.  X amount of situps, pushups, running?
 
2013-01-24 02:31:57 PM  

I_C_Weener: Because People in power are Stupid: And without having the draft.

That's the only thing needing changed now.  Make them sign up for selective service, or lose their right to student loans, etc... now.


I agree, or get rid of it all together. Obama has said that if there is ever a draft, it will be unisex, which presumably extends to selective service. Though I can't wait to see what Fox News will think of that...
 
2013-01-24 02:32:08 PM  
Next you'll be telling me there were gays in the military all along, too.
 
2013-01-24 02:34:07 PM  

hubiestubert: Set the standards, and if they can hit them, then drive on.


And if they can't, lower the standards.
 
2013-01-24 02:35:26 PM  
Jezebel: The PETA of Women.
 
2013-01-24 02:36:45 PM  

AiryAnne: hubiestubert: Set the standards, and if they can hit them, then drive on.

And if they can't, lower the standards.


And if they still can't meet them, pencil whip them until the sexual diversity quotas are met.
 
2013-01-24 02:37:10 PM  
Subby obviously has never been in the military.

Women get the same pay and benefits. Also, contrary to popular belief, they share the same career mobility as their male counterparts. Promotions are MOS based, using a point scale. There is no point difference between women and men. Required points to be promoted is based on the army's needs for a certain rank in that MOS.
 
2013-01-24 02:38:09 PM  

Superjew: Jezebel: The PETA of Women.


Site kinda gives feminists a bad name. I'm not sure how you can want to smash the patriarchy on one hand, and love the fashion industry on the other.
 
2013-01-24 02:39:03 PM  

I_C_Weener: AntiNerd: nmrsnr: Disclaimer: I am fully supportive of women in combat roles as long as they are otherwise qualified.

As long as the definition of qualified isn't controlled with by a bunch of good ol boys with turf to protect. Which is what the rest of your post seems to suggest is going on.

I'd say that the standards in place now. should be maintained.  No idea what they are though.  X amount of situps, pushups, running?


Someone above linked to an Atlantic article that touches on it; it's an overall score that can be bumped by being really good at something (running) even if you don't do as many pushups, say.
 
2013-01-24 02:39:42 PM  

AiryAnne: And if they can't, lower the standards.


[REALLY?.jpg]
 
2013-01-24 02:40:09 PM  

hubiestubert: Set the standards, and if they can hit them, then drive on.


We need standards that are realistic for combat. Women, in general, don't have the upper body strength of men, but how much upper body strength is needed for a combat job? Obviously, no one can outrun a bullet, but how fast and how far should someone be able to run to function effectively in combat?

What we don't need are arbitrary standards that just happen to include most men and exclude most women.
 
sp
2013-01-24 02:41:19 PM  
Time for women to register with the selective service.
 
2013-01-24 02:42:09 PM  

Jegred2: Subby obviously has never been in the military.

Women get the same pay and benefits. Also, contrary to popular belief, they share the same career mobility as their male counterparts. Promotions are MOS based, using a point scale. There is no point difference between women and men. Required points to be promoted is based on the army's needs for a certain rank in that MOS.


That's not what Rachel Maddow said last night. And she's a military expert.

If anything women get preferrentially promoted and assigned to cushy jobs at Battallion or Brigade HQs in most MOS's because even outside of combat arms, they're still not a lot of them.
 
2013-01-24 02:44:20 PM  

AiryAnne: And if they can't, lower the standards.


They've already done that for a generation of fat kids, haven't they?
 
2013-01-24 02:44:43 PM  

Jegred2: Subby obviously has never been in the military.

Women get the same pay and benefits. Also, contrary to popular belief, they share the same career mobility as their male counterparts. Promotions are MOS based, using a point scale. There is no point difference between women and men. Required points to be promoted is based on the army's needs for a certain rank in that MOS.


And you've either never been or are willfully ignorant of how the system works.  Combat billets are always most desired, especially by officers, because they are the key to rapid promotion.  Your reviews are better, and you are seen as "command material"  for flag ranks much quicker if you have a combat tour under your belt.  Hell even David Petraeus, despite being seriously injured in airborne training accident, felt the need to have a combat tour in Iraq with the 82nd before he'd have a shot at the top job
 
2013-01-24 02:45:20 PM  
www.slate.com

Why, just yesterday this photo was taken of a woman in D.C. having to singlehandedly fight off a small band of desperate terrorists bent on destroying the nation.
 
2013-01-24 02:46:26 PM  
Eh, all wars are started by men, therefore only men should fight them. We shouldn't be putting our women in harms way. Sometimes I wish women were in control of things, the world wouldn't be as farked up as it is. whatever.
 
2013-01-24 02:46:32 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Have to say it's about time.


This.

// the change about allowing women to serve in combat ROLES, not "in combat"
// a chef can see combat if an enemy plane bombs the food convoy, but a chef is not in a "combat role"
// it's a small, but important distinction, but nice to know you can still make a mountain DD-cup out of a molehill A-cup, Jez
 
2013-01-24 02:47:36 PM  

EyeballKid: [www.slate.com image 568x379]

Why, just yesterday this photo was taken of a womanwithered husk in D.C. having to singlehandedly fight off a small band of desperate terrorists bent on destroying the nation.


FTFY
 
2013-01-24 02:47:40 PM  
As a Veteran, I agree, lets let women into combat arms. Lets also go to a single standard for male and female soldiers in height/weight and physical training requirements, and either require women to register for selective service or eliminate selective service altogether. Equality is either universal or nonexistent.
 
2013-01-24 02:47:44 PM  

you have pee hands: AiryAnne: And if they can't, lower the standards.

They've already done that for a generation of fat kids, haven't they?


But that was back for WW2 where those lazy slobs were a disgrace for their parents and clearly couldn't stand and fight because they were too soft.
 
2013-01-24 02:48:07 PM  

AntiNerd: nmrsnr: Disclaimer: I am fully supportive of women in combat roles as long as they are otherwise qualified.

As long as the definition of qualified isn't controlled with by a bunch of good ol boys with turf to protect. Which is what the rest of your post seems to suggest is going on.


How is that my implication? Are non-combat women being treated any different than non-combat men? If yes, there's a problem, if not, then don't try and argue that women have been in combat roles all along, but have been discriminated against. Just allow women to fill the same roles with the same expectations as men in all aspects of the military.
 
2013-01-24 02:48:20 PM  
You know how she got these gams?:


www.asianweek.com

"Duckworth lost her right leg near the hip and her left leg below the knee from injuries sustained on November 12, 2004, when the UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter she was co-piloting was hit by a rocket propelled grenade fired by Iraqi insurgents. The explosion "almost completely destroyed her right arm, breaking it in three places and tearing tissue from the back side of it." She is the first female double amputee from the Iraq war.

sounds like "combat" to me
 
2013-01-24 02:49:19 PM  

KhamanV: I_C_Weener: AntiNerd: nmrsnr: Disclaimer: I am fully supportive of women in combat roles as long as they are otherwise qualified.

As long as the definition of qualified isn't controlled with by a bunch of good ol boys with turf to protect. Which is what the rest of your post seems to suggest is going on.

I'd say that the standards in place now. should be maintained.  No idea what they are though.  X amount of situps, pushups, running?

Someone above linked to an Atlantic article that touches on it; it's an overall score that can be bumped by being really good at something (running) even if you don't do as many pushups, say.


Ya, no.
1. There are still minimum scores for each.
2. Each MOS has listed strength requirements.
(Infantry and Artillery, for example, are rated Very Heavy.)

LIGHT -- Lift on an occasional basis a maximum of 20 pounds with frequent or constant lifting of 10 pounds.
MEDIUM -- Lift on an occasional basis a maximum of 50 pounds with frequent or constant lifting of 25 pounds.
MODERATELY HEAVY -- Lift on an occasional basis a maximum of 80 pounds with frequent or constant lifting of 40 pounds.
HEAVY -- Lift on an occasional basis a maximum of 100 pounds with frequent or constant lifting of 50 pounds.
VERY HEAVY -- Lift on an occasional basic over 100 pounds with frequent or constant lifting in excess of 50 pounds.
 
2013-01-24 02:50:28 PM  

Elvis Presleys Death Throne: As a Veteran, I agree, lets let women into combat arms. Lets also go to a single standard for male and female soldiers in height/weight and physical training requirements, and either require women to register for selective service or eliminate selective service altogether. Equality is either universal or nonexistent.


Agreed. That's not what's going to happen though.
 
2013-01-24 02:50:50 PM  

Dr Dreidel: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Have to say it's about time.

This.

// the change about allowing women to serve in combat ROLES, not "in combat"
// a chef can see combat if an enemy plane bombs the food convoy, but a chef is not in a "combat role"
// it's a small, but important distinction, but nice to know you can still make a mountain DD-cup out of a molehill A-cup, Jez




Well it's the deference between could see action and will see action.
 
2013-01-24 02:50:54 PM  
While the headline isn't really true (being exposed to combat in a non-combat role happens, because war isn't pretty, that doesn't make it a combat role), that is indeed one of the arguments actually considered. Non-combat units have gotten exposed to significant combat-related hazards in our current actions, on account of, y'know, war against insurgents and terrorist cells being disorganized, and the female soldiers have had no more trouble with it than the males.
 
2013-01-24 02:54:04 PM  

limeyfellow: you have pee hands: AiryAnne: And if they can't, lower the standards.

They've already done that for a generation of fat kids, haven't they?

But that was back for WW2 where those lazy slobs were a disgrace for their parents and clearly couldn't stand and fight because they were too soft.


What a fat Slob who was too soft to fight may look like:
www.americaslibrary.gov

Seriously what a porker. Look at that double chin.  A complete disgrace

Or look at this Wideload, obviously unfit to serve:
davidlivshin.com
 
2013-01-24 02:54:14 PM  
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/a/afpt.htm
Notice on this link that there are PT matrices for MALE AND FEMALE soldiers. Create ONE matrix that applies to EVERYBODY and I'll be down with assigning women to combat.
 
2013-01-24 02:57:14 PM  

Cream of Meat: Eh, all wars are started by men, therefore only men should fight them. We shouldn't be putting our women in harms way. Sometimes I wish women were in control of things, the world wouldn't be as farked up as it is. whatever.


Helen of Sparta Troy?
Cleopatra?
Boadicea?
Zenobia?
Lakshmi Bai?
 
2013-01-24 02:58:07 PM  

Graffito: hubiestubert: Set the standards, and if they can hit them, then drive on.

We need standards that are realistic for combat. Women, in general, don't have the upper body strength of men, but how much upper body strength is needed for a combat job? Obviously, no one can outrun a bullet, but how fast and how far should someone be able to run to function effectively in combat?

What we don't need are arbitrary standards that just happen to include most men and exclude most women.


The fitness standards should largely revolve around being functionally mobile for combat situations while wearing body armor and carrying weapons and supplies, possibly with a requirement to be able to drag a slightly above average weight soldier a specified distance in a specified time.

I'm sure there are some other requirements but that would cover a lot of it. We're past the era of soldiers having to ram sharpened pieces of metal through
 
2013-01-24 02:58:29 PM  

Magorn: Jegred2: Subby obviously has never been in the military.

Women get the same pay and benefits. Also, contrary to popular belief, they share the same career mobility as their male counterparts. Promotions are MOS based, using a point scale. There is no point difference between women and men. Required points to be promoted is based on the army's needs for a certain rank in that MOS.

And you've either never been or are willfully ignorant of how the system works.  Combat billets are always most desired, especially by officers, because they are the key to rapid promotion.  Your reviews are better, and you are seen as "command material"  for flag ranks much quicker if you have a combat tour under your belt.  Hell even David Petraeus, despite being seriously injured in airborne training accident, felt the need to have a combat tour in Iraq with the 82nd before he'd have a shot at the top job


Ok, but you're talking deployments, not combat billets. Billeting is mostly for your job (MOS, Branch, ETC), a deployment is going overseas and doing the job you signed up to do. While yes, it is true to some extent that a combat tour yields some extra benefits (tax-free pay while over seas, awards, recognition ETC), there's no requirement to deploy as part of joining up and it doesn't officially hurt your career prospects. I might just make you look like a shammer in your peers eyes.
 
2013-01-24 03:01:35 PM  

AntiNerd: nmrsnr: Disclaimer: I am fully supportive of women in combat roles as long as they are otherwise qualified.

As long as the definition of qualified isn't controlled with by a bunch of good ol boys with turf to protect. Which is what the rest of your post seems to suggest is going on.


No, the rest of his post suggests that there is a very real difference in risk between combat and support jobs in the military. As an ex-infantryman, I can most certainly confirm this. Very rarely did I see women outside the wire, not because women are cowardly and not because there was a special effort made to keep women in support battalions out of combat; it was simply because support troops in general spend most of their time on bases, where the risk is low. Combat isn't really their job, after all. There are exceptions here and there- my company had a female military intelligence sergeant attached who probably spent more time out on patrol than I did. Of course, that's one woman in a company of about 130 people.

As for me, I have no fundamental objections to the change in policy, but I wonder if women in combat MOSs will be required to meet the same physical standards as men. For reference, a man aged 17-21 scores a 100 on the pushup portion of the PT test with 71 pushups in 2 minutes; a woman in the same age group gets the same score with only 42 pushups. I'm guessing they won't hold women in combat jobs to the same standard as men, and that could be a problem. It might not matter much for a cook or a paralegal, but in the infantry this sort of thing still makes a real difference. Then again, perhaps I'm wrong, and if a woman can meet the same standards as men there's no reason not to let them do the same jobs.
 
2013-01-24 03:02:47 PM  
Women in combat zones get the exact same pay as men.

That argument is B.S.
 
2013-01-24 03:02:58 PM  

toomuchwhargarbl: Jegred2: Subby obviously has never been in the military.

Women get the same pay and benefits. Also, contrary to popular belief, they share the same career mobility as their male counterparts. Promotions are MOS based, using a point scale. There is no point difference between women and men. Required points to be promoted is based on the army's needs for a certain rank in that MOS.

That's not what Rachel Maddow said last night. And she's a military expert.

If anything women get preferrentially promoted and assigned to cushy jobs at Battallion or Brigade HQs in most MOS's because even outside of combat arms, they're still not a lot of them.


I haven't seen any of the preferential promotions myself, but they do tend to get the cushy jobs.

Also, don't assault any leftists with logic, the fact that most women wouldn't be able to drag the average guy in full kit effectively is very sexist and wrong.

Honestly though, I have no problem with women being in combat MOS's. Its just that the way I would see the army implementing it would cost a ton of money just from all of the women that don't make it through the training.
 
2013-01-24 03:03:33 PM  
Posting in thread to remind Farkers to check their privilege.

Gawker is pure trash, but Jebezel takes the cake*.


*TRIGGER WARNING
 
Displayed 50 of 242 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report