Women allowed to serve in front line combat positions.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Surprised nobody mentioned this yet. What say you GCers?
http://nation.time.com/2013/01/25/wo...-a-difference/

The part that concerned me however is this.

Integrating women into the combat arms – primarily infantry, armor and artillery – is going to be a balancing act. Standards must be met, but there will be pressure to ensure enough women qualify so there’s not only one or two in a 150-troop company.

Read more: http://nation.time.com/2013/01/25/wo...#ixzz2J1EiwNVK

They do make a legitimate concern about artificially inflating the standards to eclude women, but as long as it results in us having a high enough number of personal to do the jobs, I have absolutely no problem with a higher physical standard. I also have issues with double standards in the military in general. Otherwise I think this is great, especially since this is acknowledging something that is already the case.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Surprised nobody mentioned this yet. What say you GCers?
http://nation.time.com/2013/01/25/wo...-a-difference/

The part that concerned me however is this.

They do make a legitimate concern about artificially inflating the standards to eclude women, but as long as it results in us having a high enough number of personal to do the jobs, I have absolutely no problem with a higher physical standard. I also have issues with double standards in the military in general. Otherwise I think this is great, especially since this is acknowledging something that is already the case.
[/COLOR][/LEFT]

The thing I always wonder is if the "standards" are current enough to reflect the realities of modern warfare. I know that it seems like you want people who are strong, big, etc., but aren't there also a lot of situations when you actually want someone who is smaller and lighter? There was a recent situation where a small female firefighter was able to do a rescue that her male colleagues could not, and I am reminded of the VC tunnels in Vietnam.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Yeah it is iffy to define standards. A lot of soldiering though does require a could amount of physical strength, but like you said, the tunnel rates of the wars in the pass are a good example of small sometimes being what you need.

[IrishLake]

Just like firefighting, I'm fine with this as long as a woman can prove she can do the job. My husband is a 6'4" 220 lbs firefighter, and I don't want some chick responsible for pulling him out of a fire if she is only there "filling a quota."

[justgo_withit]

Originally Posted by IrishLake

Just like firefighting, I'm fine with this as long as a woman can prove she can do the job. My husband is a 6'4" 220 lbs firefighter, and I don't want some chick responsible for pulling him out of a fire if she is only there "filling a quota."

I would hope this is true regardless of gender. An unqualified man would be just as little help to your husband in that situation. That's my big thing with all this- there are tons of men who are unqualified for these front line positions as well. If you meet the standards (whatever they may be, that's a whole 'nother thing) and have the drive, then you should be allowed to perform the job.

Thinking about this still puts a smile on my face, it's so exciting! Girl power snaps all around.

[DubaiSis]

With the way modern warfare is conducted today, specifying a difference between front line and anywhere else in theatre is kind of ridiculous. We no longer line them up and blow them down, thank dog. This way at least the women put in harm's way will get paid and acknowledged as such.

Do I want ME doing this? Certainly not, and neither do you (the gun would be too heavy, to say nothing of all the other tremendous strength they need). But women who volunteer and complete the training should be allowed to do the work.

[DGTess]

I spent over 22 years in the military. I was the first woman assigned to my career field (not because of strength/standards, but because the military used the "we don't have appropriate housing available for women" lines for many years).

I applaud the decision; it acknowledges the fact that women have been in combat for years and years.

Strength, agility, mental preparation, and training standards vary by career field, and it takes dozens of career fields to present a strong fighting force. Some require more or less of these factors.

The standards MUST be set realistically. Not realistically for men, or for women, but for the minimum required to do the job. Minimum because there must be no question - if you can't meet the standard, you can't do the job. Maybe you can work on it and try again later, but you can't do the job.

There is nothing some women cannot do.

[carnation]

I can think of some women who would be great on the front lines, lol. And one is a little bitty 13-year-old I'm teaching.

[honeychile]

I'm fine with it, as long as quotas aren't set. What we need are people who can do the job properly, not fill an artificial quota.

[AnotherKD]

Originally Posted by justgo_withit

I would hope this is true regardless of gender. An unqualified man would be just as little help to your husband in that situation. That's my big thing with all this- there are tons of men who are unqualified for these front line positions as well. If you meet the standards (whatever they may be, that's a whole 'nother thing) and have the drive, then you should be allowed to perform the job.

This. I work in an agency where there are a lot of military around, and I often travel to sites around the DC area to work for the day where they are either military bases or there is a large amount of military around. And I see some overweight, slow-moving, how-the-hell-do-you-pass-your-PTs guys in uniform. So, it doesn't matter if they are men or women- they're all out there.

Quotas scare me. There should be no lowering of standards in order to just fill a quota. That's no good for anyone. And, if everyone is for equality, why not sign the women up for the draft? Equality can't come half-assedly.

[justgo_withit]

Originally Posted by AnotherKD

This. I work in an agency where there are a lot of military around, and I often travel to sites around the DC area to work for the day where they are either military bases or there is a large amount of military around. And I see some overweight, slow-moving, how-the-hell-do-you-pass-your-PTs guys in uniform. So, it doesn't matter if they are men or women- they're all out there.

I was thinking more along the lines of that there are plenty of men who don't meet the selection standards and are not placed in those jobs in the first place, but you definitely raised a good point! one of those fun ways the military and Greek life overlap.

[ASUADPi]

4 words.......


It's about damn time!

[AnchorAlum]

I am hopeful that this will be a positive thing as much for our military as for women.

Now, I have to ask - isn't it about time that 18 year old females register with the Selective Service just as their brothers do?

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by AnchorAlum

I am hopeful that this will be a positive thing as much for our military as for women.

Now, I have to ask - isn't it about time that 18 year old females register with the Selective Service just as their brothers do?

I think that they should or Selective Services should be abolished altogether.

[squirrely girl]

I don't think all women in the armed forces will be willing or able to perform in these roles... but then again, neither area all men. Those women who are able and willing shouldn't be denied solely on their genitals.

Given the increased use of women in front line situations over the last decade I'd say it's about time they get the actual credit and benefits.