Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Janie, Get Your GunFollow

#1 Jan 23 2013 at 3:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
So this is news to me that this was even being seriously discussed...
Washington Post/Associated Press wrote:
Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has decided to allow women to serve in combat roles, a watershed policy shift that follows years of calls for a fully inclusive military.

Panetta and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, are expected to formally announce the change Thursday, Pentagon officials said. The Army, Marines and other services will then develop plans to open jobs in ground combat units, such as the infantry, to women.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 Jan 23 2013 at 3:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
INB4 Almas concerns of Women checking him out.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#3 Jan 23 2013 at 3:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Does this also mean women need to sign up for the draft?
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#4 Jan 23 2013 at 3:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,884 posts
Time to push for mandatory selective service signups for women as well...
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#5 Jan 23 2013 at 3:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Quote:
“I support it,” Levin said. “It reflects the reality of 21st century military operations.”


What he said.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#6 Jan 23 2013 at 3:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
I'll echo early sentiments. I have no problem with it as long as the treatment is actually the same. So signing up for the draft, held to the same physical conditioning requirements, competing for the same advancement routes, etc. Unfortunately, for all the claims of equality and whatnot, women in the military are not held to the same standards as men, and have vastly easier advancement tracks. I've always felt that was insulting to the truly capable women who wear the uniform, and would love to see a real gender blind military.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#7 Jan 23 2013 at 3:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
http://www.army.mil/article/85606/

Because 38 years of service is fast tracking it.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#8 Jan 23 2013 at 3:50 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'll echo early sentiments. I have no problem with it as long as the treatment is actually the same. So signing up for the draft, held to the same physical conditioning requirements, competing for the same advancement routes, etc. Unfortunately, for all the claims of equality and whatnot, women in the military are not held to the same standards as men, and have vastly easier advancement tracks. I've always felt that was insulting to the truly capable women who wear the uniform, and would love to see a real gender blind military.

How are their advancement tracks easier?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#9 Jan 23 2013 at 4:03 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,550 posts
Woah, wait a minute. You guys don't allow women to fight in your military? You're joking right?
#10 Jan 23 2013 at 4:07 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 posts
Aren't you Canadian? You don't even let your men fight.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#11 Jan 23 2013 at 4:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
Woah, wait a minute. You guys don't allow women to fight in your military? You're joking right?


Define fight... Smiley: rolleyes

They've not been allowed into traditionally front line combat roles, basically everything else was open.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#12 Jan 23 2013 at 4:09 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,278 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
They've not been allowed into traditionally front line combat roles, basically everything else was open.


Especially KP Duty.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#13 Jan 23 2013 at 4:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'll echo early sentiments. I have no problem with it as long as the treatment is actually the same. So signing up for the draft, held to the same physical conditioning requirements, competing for the same advancement routes, etc. Unfortunately, for all the claims of equality and whatnot, women in the military are not held to the same standards as men, and have vastly easier advancement tracks. I've always felt that was insulting to the truly capable women who wear the uniform, and would love to see a real gender blind military.

How are their advancement tracks easier?


Because their current restrictions from direct combat roles is "balanced" (in theory) by not placing such a requirement on mid/high tier advancement. It's much easier for a female officer to obtain the rank of Major or Colonel by following a non-combat track than a male officer, for example. Obviously, part of that also comes from the fact that there are far fewer women in the military as a whole and there's a push (again mostly in non-combat, but high profile/political positions) for more visibility of female officers. If you don't think there are aspects of affirmative action going on in the military (especially at the Pentagon), you are terribly deluded.

I'm not claiming that those women who hold those ranks are not qualified for them or do not deserve them. What I am saying is that there is less direct competition for those positions and ranks if you are a woman than if you are a man. Put another way, an extremely capable female officer is likely to be one of only a few such extremely capable female officers in consideration for a given position (with presumed good advancement potential), while an equally capable male officer might be one of several hundred similarly capable male officers in consideration for an equivalent position with equivalent advancement potential.

Right now the one advantage men do have is that combat experience tends to open up tracks of advancement (and some high rank positions) that are not available via a non-combat track. This is why I applaud this idea (and have for as long as I've posted here certainly). By eliminating this restriction, then we can eliminate the current messed up imbalanced system and allow both sexes to compete and work together as equals. But at the same time, we have to eliminate even the hint or suggestion that some favoritism may go on (in either direction). I think we can all agree that we want our military personnel to be advanced based on completely equal consideration of their abilities and without any consideration of their gender. That's currently not the case.

So a step in the right direction, one can hope.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#14 Jan 23 2013 at 4:22 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 posts
gbaji wrote:
I think we can all agree that we want our military personnel to be advanced based on completely equal consideration of their abilities and without any consideration of their gender. That's currently not the case.
Promotions are based on acquiring a number of points through going to various schools, heading training exercises and classes, APFT, weapon qualification, and the other 99% is being friends with the people on your board.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#15 Jan 23 2013 at 5:39 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
'Bout time.

And I agree with gbaji that everything else needs to be the same as well, though I have no idea how much of his assessment concerning advancement is true.
#16 Jan 23 2013 at 5:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
though I have no idea how much of his assessment concerning advancement is true.


It's gbaji. I'm pretty sure you, like the rest of us, know exactly how likely it is to be accurate.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#17 Jan 23 2013 at 5:54 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 posts
Belkira wrote:
I have no idea how much of his assessment concerning advancement is true.
I'll do you one better. I'll tell you that the only difference between male and female assessments is during the yearly required Army Physical Fitness Test where females have lower requirements across the board, and I'll also tell you that the APFT means about as much to a promotion as your ability to breathe is a requirement for you to get promoted. Yes, it's necessary you can do it, but your ability to somehow do it better doesn't really matter.

And now give it a few and you'll be told how what I just said is wrong because I'm biased and just can't see it.

Edited, Jan 23rd 2013 7:06pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#18 Jan 23 2013 at 5:56 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,884 posts
I really do see Selective Service applying to women in the future. I hesitate to say near future because I'm sure neither side wants to be accused of another "war on women" by the other side in 2014... but I think it will happen. Considering both the DoD opinion and the Supreme Court decision cite women not being allowed in combat positions as a reason.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#19 Jan 23 2013 at 6:27 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I think we can all agree that we want our military personnel to be advanced based on completely equal consideration of their abilities and without any consideration of their gender. That's currently not the case.
Promotions are based on acquiring a number of points through going to various schools, heading training exercises and classes, APFT, weapon qualification, and the other 99% is being friends with the people on your board.


What's this "board" you speak of? I kid, I kid...

Belkira wrote:
'Bout time.

And I agree with gbaji that everything else needs to be the same as well, though I have no idea how much of his assessment concerning advancement is true.


I agree with the lift only IF the woman has the option to serve in the said position. The lift would cause more harm than good if women are forced into certain combat arms with no say in the factor.

lolgaxe wrote:
Belkira wrote:
I have no idea how much of his assessment concerning advancement is true.
I'll do you one better. I'll tell you that the only difference between male and female assessments is during the yearly required Army Physical Fitness Test where females have lower requirements across the board, and I'll also tell you that the APFT means about as much to a promotion as your ability to breathe is a requirement for you to get promoted. Yes, it's necessary you can do it, but your ability to somehow do it better doesn't really matter.

And now give it a few and you'll be told how what I just said is wrong because I'm biased and just can't see it.

Edited, Jan 23rd 2013 7:06pm by lolgaxe



I believe sit ups are the same. Other than that, a man's "180" is a woman's "300" on the APFT.
#20 Jan 23 2013 at 6:40 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Unfortunately, for all the claims of equality and whatnot, women in the military are not held to the same standards as men, and have vastly easier advancement tracks.

No. Combat arms is by far the fastest way to get promoted, period.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#21 Jan 23 2013 at 6:59 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Unfortunately, for all the claims of equality and whatnot, women in the military are not held to the same standards as men, and have vastly easier advancement tracks.

No. Combat arms is by far the fastest way to get promoted, period.


I would have to agree with LolGaxe with enlisted promotions, at least up to E6. If the people on the board like you, you're in. Favoritism is rapid in the Army. From what I hear, the Air Force does it right where promotions are done by their skill levels in reference to their job and not how well they can recite a creed or run 2 miles.
#22 Jan 23 2013 at 7:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Why don't we just keep a set number of each rank and if you want to become a Corporal, for instance, you have to kill one of the existing Corporals in arena combat?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#23 Jan 23 2013 at 7:06 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 posts
Then we'd be short people to clean the toilets at the end of the day.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#24 Jan 23 2013 at 7:14 PM Rating: Decent
****
6,758 posts
I don't really have a problem with women serving on Subs and the like. I also don't have any issue with them being in combat areas for certain roles. Call me chauvenistic, but I shudder at the thought of them actually doing strict combat duty. It's not that I don't think that they can do it, because some of them certainly can. I had met a few women in the course of my service that were flat out more manly than me. Where it starts to get blurry for me though is I do believe that it puts fellow combatants at risk. I think men are naturally protective of women, and might put themselves at risk to the detriment of the mission to protect them. I know that any combat soldier would go out of their way to save a fellow soldier in most cases, but I think it might go even more so in these circumstances. But maybe I'm just old fashioned and out of touch with the young people joining today.


Almalieque wrote:
From what I hear, the Air Force does it right where promotions are done by their skill levels in reference to their job and not how well they can recite a creed or run 2 miles.


This is certainly true to an extent. You get a certain amount of points for everything from medals awarded, types of service (short tours, overseas tours, etc) time in service, time in rank, etc. There are points for passing the Phys Fitness aspects, and knowledge of the UCMJ and AF history, but it's a relatively small percentage of the overall score. The largest factor in promotions is the test they have to take for their particular career field.

That's how I recall it anyway. From talking to others in the Army, Navy, and Marines it seems physical fitness scores are much more relevant to their promotions than for AF. I'm not saying that the AF "does it right" but they stress other factors. Then again physical fitness isn't generally as important as it is for the other branches either.
____________________________
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
#25 Jan 23 2013 at 7:15 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Why don't we just keep a set number of each rank and if you want to become a Corporal, for instance, you have to kill one of the existing Corporals in arena combat?


Corporals imply leadership, aka losing the "sham shield".
#26 Jan 23 2013 at 7:33 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 posts
Kakar wrote:
Where it starts to get blurry for me though is I do believe that it puts fellow combatants at risk.
Meh, it's not even the combat. I'll tell the women the same thing I tell men now when they say they want to be Infantry: "How fast do you think you can dig a hole in the desert, drop trow, and crap wearing fifteen pounds of gear (not counting weapon and rucksack) with at least thirty other people walking around? How attached to showers are you?"

Edited, Jan 23rd 2013 8:35pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 68 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (68)