text:
By Chris Lawrence, with reporting from Barbara Starr
[Updated at 9:30 p.m. ET] The U.S. military is ending its policy of excluding women from combat and will open combat jobs and direct combat units to female troops, multiple officials told CNN on Wednesday.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will make the announcement Thursday and notify Congress of the planned change in policy, the officials said.
"We will eliminate the policy of 'no women in units that are tasked with direct combat,'" a senior defense official said.
The officials cautioned, however, that "not every position will open all at once on Thursday." Once the policy is changed, the Department of Defense will enter what is being called an "assessment phase," in which each branch of service will examine all its jobs and units not currently integrated and then produce a timetable for integrating them.
Go to CNN's iReport to share your thoughts on women in combat
The Army and Marine Corps, especially, will be examining physical standards and gender-neutral accommodations within combat units. Every 90 days, the service chiefs will have to report on their progress.
The move will be one of the last significant policy decisions made by Panetta, who is expected to leave in mid-February. It is not clear where former Sen. Chuck Hagel, the nominated replacement, stands, but officials say he has been apprised of Panetta's coming announcement.
"It will take a while to work out the mechanics in some cases. We expect some jobs to open quickly, by the end of this year. Others, like special operations forces and infantry, may take longer," a senior defense official explained. Panetta is setting the goal of January 2016 for all assessments to be complete and women to be integrated as much as possible.
The Pentagon has left itself some wiggle room, however, which may ultimately lead to some jobs being designated as closed to women. A senior defense official said if, after the assessment, a branch finds that "a specific job or unit should not be open, they can go back to the secretary and ask for an exemption to the policy, to designate the job or unit as closed."
The official said the goal remains to open as many jobs as possible. "We should open all specialties to the maximum extent possible to women. We know they can do it."
CNN readers skirmish over women in battle
Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican who spent six years as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War, said he supports lifting the ban on women serving in combat, pointing out women are already serving in harm's way. But he said the move should not fundamentally change the military.
"As this new rule is implemented, it is critical that we maintain the same high standards that have made the American military the most feared and admired fighting force in the world - particularly the rigorous physical standards for our elite special forces units," McCain said in a statement.
By the numbers: Women in the U.S. military
Thousands of women in the military have already found themselves in combat situations, said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington. Recent wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan have lacked a real front line, and women serving there have come under fire and had to fight back alongside male counterparts, she said.
Murray, who leads the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee and is a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, called Panetta's decision a "historic step for equality" that recognizes the role women play in the military.
The Pentagon must notify Congress of each job or unit as it is sent up to the secretary to be opened to women. Then the Defense Department must wait 30 days while Congress is in session before implementing the change.
It is a marked difference from the way the military ended the exclusion of gays serving openly, or the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. In that case, there were no stipulations attached to openly gay service members. There was no staggered approach that integrated openly gay troops into units. It was instead done all at once, across the board.
A senior defense official explained the Pentagon's reasoning behind the different approach: "You're talking about personal choice of behavior versus physical capability. And they were already in the units. If you take a unit that's never had women before, that's quite a culture change."
Another senior defense official said the goal is "to provide a level, gender-neutral playing field."
The American Civil Liberties Union recently filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Defense, charging that combat exclusion is unfair and outdated, harms America's safety and prevents women from receiving training and recognition for their work. The plaintiffs, who include women awarded Purple Hearts, say the exclusion places them at a disadvantage for promotion.
Former troops say time has come for women in combat units
The ACLU said it is thrilled about Panetta's planned announcement.
"But we welcome this statement with cautious optimism, as we hope that it will be implemented fairly and quickly so that servicewomen can receive the same recognition for their service as their male counterparts," Ariela Migdal, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Women's Rights Project, said in the statement.
Earlier this month, the Army opened the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment to women, and it has begun recruiting female pilots and crew chiefs. The Navy has put its first female officers on submarines in the past year, and certain female ground troops have been attached to combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than 800 women were wounded in those wars, and at least 130 have died.
................OK OK.......women can go into combat. Just start with Rand Paul............
Things are heating up in NK. Perhaps the female recruits will get their wish . . .
Soon there will be a quota. Standards lowered to meet the quota. Then someone is gonna die.
So sad for our country (the USA). So sad for men who reject their God-given role as leaders and protectors of women and children. So sad that women feel they need to be the head of men, because men are so apathetic and lazy. The world is so very much in rebellion to God.
You don't speak for God sugar pie. Face it, you old white people are dying off and you don't control America anymore.
I can tell you women do not NEED men to protect them or take care of them in everyday life. Your antiquated views have no place in modern society. I thank the brave men AND women who serve in our military to keep us safe.
The only reason they did this is that politicians need more cannon fodder. There are less people fooled into joining the current blood for oil program. Politicians abuse the use of the military to no end. Politiians have no respect for life, just money.
Ill bet our enemies are shaking in their boots... Probably thinking now they can tap some ash.
define women? most of these are sleeping with one.
nice real nice, I am sure your parents and/or children as so proud of you.
Panetta should also announce that all women between the ages of 18 and 25 must register with the selective service.
Women do not belong in combat. What the hell is wrong with people how can anyone believe this is a good idea.
Maybe women can actually win a war for America. Our men can't seem to get the job done.
Congratulations on another asinine move by this administration.
No one belongs in combat.
What do you care if women choose to fight? They're doing it for you and me so we don't lose the right to sit on our azz and watch Jersey Shore while scarfing Mcdonalds. Women know their limits, if their willing to take that chance I say go for it..
@Floyd-dont count your chickens just yet.
Right, because losing Korea, Vietnam, Iraq twice, and now Afghanistan isn't a trend.
Who lost Iraq twice, and how can you say Afghan is lost? Know your history Floyd, and your present. The Afghan people are set up by those lost lives you just tried to cheapen. They have been given the resources and the training to maintain a free and prosperous country, now it is up to them to maintain it. Iraq was given the same thing, what do you think a victory really looked like?
Yeah Dnal, Afghanistan, and Iraq are shining Democracies like Bush said they'd be. Vietnam, isn't still communist and we don't have to worry about North Korea and nukes. LOL. What a great set of victories for our Male Military. Maybe we should hold a parade.
You sound like a member of west borough Baptist church
U.S.M.C 1371, quit losing and I won't complain. Why am I paying you with my tax dollars? Would you like a parade too? Maybe a plane full of clapping people lauding your "service"?
We lost in Iraq? We were sent to remove Saddam and set up a democracy done and done. Just because you don't like what those people voted for does not mean we lost.
Right Chris, just because they have car bombs going off there everyday still and you can't walk down the streets of Iraq without being afraid must mean there is a shining democracy there. Its called American Failure – again.
FloydZepp, why do you hate America? If you hate our government so much you can git out.
Don't let Floyd get you down. He's obviously been drinking ... AGAIN. He'll wake up in 2-3 days feeling like a whole new fool.
Don't let Floyd get you down. He's obviously been drinking ... AGAIN. He'll sober up in a few days feeling like a whole new fool.
Women can't do any worse that the men. The men in the military lost Vietnam and came home weeping, they lost Iraq and now they are losing in Afghanistan. And they come home weeping wanting special privilege.
Nam was lost due to politics, not fighting. how uninformed can you be?
Yeah, its everybody's fault but yours.
just what we need,pms women with automatic rifles
The only people pushing for this are career officers who want to make General and know they can't do it without commanding a combat unit. Does anybody REALLY think the vast majority of female soldiers and Marines want anything to do with front line combat? This is being rammed down their throats and we'll see what effect it has on female recruiting and retention.
A real good way to get a promotion would be to expose how many "illegal aliens"have infested our military.The "illegal alien "is allowed in the military(for the life of me,I'll never understand this)so why not let women do your fighting for ya?
No. It's because enough women want to get killed that they changed the rule to make them stop whining.
Is this because not enough men are joining at this time?
We need the draft back. Why does 5% of the population take care of the rest of the people? I think all should give 2-4 years for their country. Go in at an early age, save for college, serve your country. Why Not?
5% takes care of the rest of us? They can't even defeat a few thousand tribal goat herders in over ten years now. That's not being, "taken care of".
Why don't YOU join and make it happen then
I serve my country by working and paying taxes... I shouldn't have to be a darn man. Also all men are not for the military because they aren't all men... Oh I am a tax payer who really pays taxes. Got a big 70.00 refund coming back from the wonderful obama... Only getting that because they gave me credit for paying for one of my kids college loan..
Quit blaming everybody but yourself.
I have no problem with this but these women must be fully made aware of what will likely happen to them in the case of being captured by the enemy. For men, capture can lead to physical brutality but for women, it can lead to repeated and violent rape.
Men can be raped too.
True, but it rarely happens in enemy capture situations. We have, however, seen it happen regularly in situations when women are captured.
LAPD did not allow female officers to work patrol due to being too dangerous. Courts forced LAPD to allow females to work patrol as long as they could pass the very tough LAPD academy. Over 300 women entered the police academy. None passed. (The courts forced LAPD to lower the physical stands claiming they were discriminatory.)
I would suspect that women are already aware of that. Combat zones aren't the only places women might worry about rape.
Does this mean they'll have to meet the same physical training standards as men in boot camp and beyond?
Of course not, they're women. They want all the benefits of being being a man "WITHOUT" the responsibility that comes with being a man. Im sure they still have the "OPTION" of combat or not. Do men have that option?
Give me all the benefits men get but don't expect me to be able to what they can do... After all, Im just a girl.
What kind of man,let alone country,let's women do their fighting for them ??? Well,we've just become the laughing stock of the world.
Maybe women can actually defeat the few thousand goat herders in the Middle East. The men i n the military obviously can't.
As an American,We were raised to believe that men who let their women do their fighting weren't real men and that still goes today.
You must be an old white man. Your time is over.
Go ahead and negate the sacrifice of so many....some paid all, while some just paid with their limbs....if the military wasn't restricted by politicians, they would have beat the well trained militants
Do you read what you type before you press enter?
Kind of sick to listen people say it is a woman's "right" to go and get shot up. The Isreali's learned the hard way in their war for Independence when integrated units suffered the highest casualties. Thats when they pulled women from combat. Learn from others, don't repeat their mistakes. Anyone remember how the amount of pregnancies of non-combat women spiked at the outset of Afghanistan and Iraq. Yeah, great idea in peace time. Wait until 10% of your unit gets preggers when called to deploy.
Women couldn't do any worse that the male TeaDummies that infest the military that can't even defeat a few thousand tribal goat herders armed with only AK-47s in over 10 years now.
Make that "a few thousand tribal goat herders" who really hate Americans and the Afghan government, believe in their cause, are ready to die for it, don't mind noncombatant casualties (and hide in villages full of noncombatants), believe they have Allah/God on their side, and will be sent to Paradise if they kill their enemies while fighting. All while fighting in some of the most rugged terrain on Earth, which they know like the back of their hand.
Who needs to kill pedophile worshiping goat herders when we can eliminatr a whole family by dropping a hellfire on their mud hut.
I am all for women in combat units, however, my belief is that equality means equal standards. The women should be able to pass the same standards as the men. The standard should not be lowered because women are now in the combat units. Discipline should be strictly enforced and it should be a crime to sleep around in the unit. Remember folks. These are units in which life and death decisions are made. This isnt your regular work place where widgets are sold. Go to the Icasualties dot org website and you will find a list of soldiers who died. Thats what its about.
Equality means equal standards and I dont mean lowering the existing standards. If at all anything, the today's standards should be raised. You should be kicked out of the military if you cant reach the standards of fitness.
If you are capable of meeting the physical demands of combat duty, you should be allowed to participate if you want. Many men are NOT up to the challenge. Many women ARE. Enough of the chauvinism already.
Why not? It works in the movies. Everything in the movies is true. Didn't I just see Milica Jovović kill hundreds of zombies?
Destruction of the American family , suicide among male soldiers returning from these atrocities called wars has spiked , now begins a new chapter on suicide spikes on women returning from these wars ..
I'd rather have these "birthers" in the military than the crayzee kind...! :)
I say :"yes" as long as they meet the same rigorous physical requirements the men do.
They should be treated EXACTLY the same as men, shaved heads and all...
I guess you have never served before because if you had then you realize that having a "shaved" head is not required.....Most male soldiers choose to get the "high and tight" style cut during basic training and AIT but once you finish training then many male soldiers go back to having a semi "normal" hairstyle.....
This is great news, now , when they say number 123 run up the hill, man or women, they run up the hill, if they get killed , number 124 goes, Treat them all the same!
I've been saying that same thing since my Navy days during Vietnam, a chick can step on a land mine just as well as a dude can! Problem back then was that you couldn't make them work at all and they got $84 per month more than we did because they couldn't go to sea and get free (lovely) meals...
I am all for everyone having the right to fight for their country.
I just feel sorry for the first woman to be taken prisoner–rape and war have gone hand and hand throughout history.
Women prisoners will likely be subjected to barbarous treatment the likes of which I would hate to think about.
You've obviously never heard of Jessica Lynch.
I am all for everyone having the right to fight for their country.
I just feel sorry for the first woman to be taken prisoner–r@pe and war have gone hand and hand throughout history.
Women prisoners will likely be subjected to barbarous treatment the likes of which I would hate to think about.
I don't think this will really pose that much of an issue. There is an overlap in physical abilities between the two genders. I mean, sure, in the olympics, the male runners might outrun the females, but in your highschool gymclass, didn't a few of the athletic chicks outperform the less athletic guys? Let's be honest. I have seen men on the lower end of the physical spectrum go into the army and do just fine. Therefore, a typicalwoman can do the daily grunt's work, it just might take a little time in boot camp, as more physical might be needed. A few countries have implemented female soldiers in the past with good results. Russia had women fighting on the front lines in WWII, and featured a prominent pilot group called the "Night Witches" who were notorious among German troops. There are various stories of fearless Viking "Shield Maidens" who would go off into battle and kick serious butt. So what if women are in the military. They are perfectly capable of pulling their own weight. Besides, I can some military occupations women might be better at, such as sniping or scouting, which is very prominent in warfare nowadays.
Men and women in a foxhole together, at night, on the front lines? Sounds like a party to me.
Obviously you have never been in the military nor in combat. No one in the midst of a fire fight is thinking of anything other than staying alive. Either grow up or think before you say or write anything.
Yes because there are not military women getting pregnant while in a combat zone is there? (Sarcasm) My problem with this is and I am a Veteran of the United States Marine Corps and I mean no offense to the women but when I was in 2004-2012 the WM's that I saw and I saw quite a few could not drag a 180 to 210 pound man all the way to safety, now that is not saying that there are not women out there who could do it. My thought is, put them as snipers. A womans attention to the small details is what can make them an outstanding sniper, but on the frontlines with the males I dont agree with it at all.
@TampaMel, I agree with your comment. I don't understand why everything seems to be a joke with people. People should learn to think first before they speak...... enough said!
I don't agree with this decision because it has the potential to tactically compromise our forces. Psychologically, men are raised up to protect because we have more of an aggressive nature. It's harder on a man's contentious to see women and children as casualties in the field of battle, than to see another man wounded or killed. They will be targeted as potential hostages, pure and simple! If caught, they will likely be repeatedly raped and tortured in grotesque fashion. Is this country really ready for that? I think not.
Personally I think that the service of women in all kind of units, functions, ranks already shows that it indeed is working. Besides the emotional side of the discussion there is the political and operational.
the political pretty much focuses on the question of "are female bodybags worse (for a politician) than male ones?" and here the reality of Afghanistan, Iraq and loads of other places already gave the answer. 190 KIA 100s WIA. No they are not. they are as bad as male ones.
the operational is that maybe some of these 190 would still be alive if they had combat training and not just some power point on "take care its dangerous there, but we will keep you in the back anyway". Sure there would be others who would have been KIA but (and I think most people who actually are seriously thinking about heading into combat service will agree) IF they meet the same standards physically and mentally as everybody else they have every right and reason to do so.
I do even believe that you get some pretty good soldiers of those who make it. Because it will be the upper 10% who make it not the upper 30 to 40% of the male candidates (Special Forces excluded). Especially mentally you will get the ones who train relentlessly, are fighters and pain resistant cause they worked their butts off to make it.
two more points:
I also dont think that soldiers and marines will sacrifice themselves to safe a women comrade. They already do that every day for their male comrades. Its the basic qualification you have to bring as a combat soldier. To be willing to run into fire for your friend. If we question the first casualty who died or got wounded because he helped a female soldier we have to revoke pretty many medals because it was sometimes awarded for throwing yourself on a grenade, recover a fallen comrade, holding a position to cover an evacuation. I mean where is the point in that.
Rape concerns? Show me the one squad, platoon, company that is just waiting for a women to show up to rape it, most of them are husbands, fathers, boyfriends themselves. they dont rape at home they dont . Female corpsmen and soldiers throughout the service already proof otherwise.
@ Peter Rarckep. You made valid points, however the fact still remains women in "front line combat" is largely untested and still present a high risk factor. Lastly, the comment I made regards to women potentially being raped had to do with being targeted and then caught by by enemy forces and then brutalized. Thats not to be confused with US troops being the would be culprit. I salute all (men & women) US troops and I pray we never have to deal with even greater demoralizing events of war that may compromise our judgment.
are u serious....ever try to come between a mother and her child??
Women actually are notorious for becoming pregnant upon deployment, rotations, the threat of deployment... A year or 2 back an Army Gen. got in hot water for giving a female soldier an Article 15 for getting pregnant while on deployment. (They get pregnant? It's a ticket home early!)
They made him back off of her. They guy? He was still nailed for adultery...
Women "get pregnant"? Really? No man involved? and oh, the poor man you know about, he got nailed for adultery? Oh poor, poor guy! Oh the sad reality of a man having to face up to his own behavior!!! I know many women in the military, one of them my own sister, who became pregnant. NONE of them wanted to get pregnant. Four of them, including my sister, were assaulted by a superior officer. Guess how many of those guys got nailed? ZERO.
Right on Craig!
And shave their heads upon entering Basic Training too! (You know, strip away any sense of individuality–like they do SOLDIERS!)
Women in comat is fine in an urban comat setting (they were there anyway in Iraq.)
Let a jungle combat scenario like Vietnam happen again (or mountainous like Korea,) and women will find they simply can't do it (actually, they'll have them carry lighter loads... The male soldiers will pick up the slack...)
10 mile road march with an 80 pound ruck? Not happening.
I'll never forget the faces of the field artillery unit I saw road marching in full gear (as I was leaving Camp Casey, Korea.) Every one of those men had their faces down, just "broke off"... The look on thier faces was as if there was no hope in the universe. Got that base plate slappin' em in the hamstrings with every step.
Urban areas, I think it'd be ok. But that's about it.
So all 18 year and up women have to register with Selective Service?
So let me get this straight. I Democrat.Liberal thought process.
My daughter serving in the armed forces and in combat dies in action.
I get a form letter from Hillary and the Obama administration that says " What difference does it make at this point?"
Ya right! You democrats are colon babies and my daughter will not be fighting for you any time soon.
We really didn't think you would man up and serve yourself, but maybe your kids will do so if they decide to actually do something for thier country, rather than complain about everything.
Then keep her home in the kitchen raising babies where she belongs
Yea, I know, women can pull a trigger just like a man. Put a 60 pound pack on her back and keep up with the boys in the field and lets see what happens! i DO NOT WANT TO SEE PHYSICAL FITNESS STANDARDS LOWERED EITHER!
True, but it's about much more than that. It's about the feminization of our society. Should men stay home and send their wives and daughters to fight and die for their safety and freedom? Even pagan societies know better than that. We are a completely confused and lost society. When I was a child I was proud to be an American, but now I'm embarrassed and ashamed because of what the damn Democrats have done to destroy us. They are evil, vile criminals. The Founding Fathers started the American revolution over a vastly lesser infringement by the English crown on freedom and right than what the Democrats are doing today.
i think
i just
my pants
Women have been flying combat aircraft "in units that are tasked with direct combat" for years. Martha McSally is a retired United States Air Force colonel. She was the first American woman to fly in combat since the 1991 lifting of the prohibition of women in combat, flying the A-10 over Iraq and Kuwait. Major Kim Reed-Campbell is an officer and Senior Pilot in the U.S. Air Force. She was decorated for piloting her A-10 Thunderbolt II back to base in southern Iraq after taking heavy anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) damage in aerial combat over Baghdad during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. Those are 2 examples of women in units with direct combat rolls. Woman dropping bombs and pulling triggers. This story is behind the times.
it is a very Good JOKE
can t stop laughing
w0men are ........... stoopid
Yet, history provides us with examples of warrior women far superior and capable than any male.
I highly doubt this will include integration into infantry or special operations roles, but I'm glad to see they have broadened the lines none the less. Now they need to make their physical standards the same as men, it's only fair.
Um, it sure seems that way to me. I think we all need to stop our wishful thinking and be honest about ourselves about who Obama really is... and it sure doesn't look like an American.
Oh MY G0D , my hair got ruined
my nails are broken
i wanna wear HEELS not BOYISH B00TS
MWa hahahahahahahaha
she pulled my hair first
I don't want my daughter in combat–they act like it is a privilege–too many children have already died for these wars based on lies. Definitely do NOT think girls should be in combat–but since they want to be "equal" (physically women will NEVER be equal to a man) I guess this is part of it. How tragic.
If the only excuse you can come up with is that women are physically weaker than men you dont have a leg to stand on to keep them from the front line.
Do you even know anything about combat? Obviously not. Physical strength and endurance is extraordinarily important in combat. What is the average woman going to do when the 200lb guy next to her takes a bullet in the chest and needs to be dragged 200m to shelter? Stop posting such uninformed and biased garbage.
@vet Im posting biased garbage while you are thinking women are weak and while under stress cant perform the same a man can wow hello pot meet kettle.
No, Krisagi does not know anything about combat. She (or he) probably only knows about how to acquire and illegal drugs and get stoned out of her (or his) mind.
Make no mistake. This came from the top (i.e., Obama). Obama is either intentionally trying to destroy this country or he is a complete and total imbecile who is merely good at parroting the words given to him by those who control Hollywood (i.e., intelligence on the level of Susan Sarandon, whose mother even thinks she's a liberal idiot). And if you notice, this came AFTER the election and inauguration, and THAT was NO accident. I really think we should impeach Obama immediately, remove him from office, subpoena his true birth records and college transcripts and find out where he's really from because he CAN'T be a true American citizen. And don't anyone DARE call me a birther. I'm an American and Obama's citizenship is what's really questionable here... actually, I think it's doubtful.
Krisagi, you need to SHUT UP NOW because you know absolutely NOTHING... you're an idiot. You got that?!?!
You are very correct. Women are no less apt to believe the lies that lead up to a war than men are. They might be even more gullible in that regard. Need more "men" in time of war? Hey, problem solved.
Sorry Krisagi but until the physical fitness tests and the standards for success are the same as the men's, women will never be successful in a combat role. I agree that combat jobs should be open to women but if the standard is 77 push ups, 85 sit ups, 10 pull ups, 2 mile run in 13:00 minutes, 5 mile run in 40 minutes and a 12 mile ruck march with a 55lb pack in under 3 hours for the men, then it needs to be the same for the females. Right now a woman is only required to do 42 push ups, 82 sit ups, 1 pull up, a 15:16 2 mile run, and a 12 mile ruck march with 35lb pack in under 3 hours in order to max out her physical standards. No woman will never earn the respect of the men if she's not required to go through the same gauntlet. When it comes to the front line jobs you either carry your weight or you don't and if you can't then you need to go somewhere else. My major worry is that the commanders will see that and in their effort to make it fair they just end up lowering the men's standards and that is the wrong answer
@JustaGuy, define "success"? I knew a female E4 mechanic that stayed under the First Sergeant's boots all day long. She never had to turn a wrench, got promoted quickly and the 1SGT always had a big smile on his face.
A 60 lbl ruck is a training ruck; 80-115 lbl is reality. I don't have an issue with women in a combat role if they can perform, but the physical standard must not change just so someone can feel good about receiving a badge/designation. I spent 6 years as an infantry scout, and I believe a women could easily handle the mental side of that job; I have never met one that could perform the physical side of the job. I'm not saying 'Rudy' doesn't exist; just that the standard should not change.
Ann and Lou. YOU are a birther.
JustAguy, did you pull those numbers out of your ass? I believe so.
RobertUSMC, there's a shock, a Jarhead that can't use a simple google search to do a minor research. The numbers I put up for men are the Ranger School standards. Now the standards posted by the US Army for that school are the minimum to be allowed entrance but to anyone that has been to that school you know that if you don't get anything less than a 300 you're getting dropped. Since the claim is that women can't be promoted because they can't fill combat roles, then I assume it is Ranger school that they want since every combat officer in the Army is required to be a grad. The numbers I pulled for the women are from the Air Assault School standards and the Army PFT Max scores for the hardest age group. Air Assault school is the closest thing to a combat line school that women currently go to.
This whole internet thing isn't hare dude...
the TAL IBAN are laughing
You do realize we have a volunteer army right? If you do not wish to join, don't. If your kid, daughter or son, wishes to actually contribute to thier country rather than only complain, be glad that they have the equality of choice in where they serve.
Now they had better start drafting women in to war to get torn in to bits, along with the men, when the next draft occurs.
Which will be never.
In WWII they were very close to drafting women, and the general public was in support of it.
It depends on the position, I don't know any female who isn't nuts who'd want to be in a tank crew, but that was traditionally a male-only MOS, due to the fact that one is in close, confined quarters with each other for a long period of time. Everyone is trained to be a soldier with the basics of ground combat in the same way, at least in the Army which I am most familiar with.
"In WWII they were very close to drafting women" Not true. US has never planned to draft women because someone had to work in factories. USSR drafted some women because they were running out of cannon fodder.
As a woman, I can say that I don't like this idea. first of all, I work what is considered a "man's job." I do heavy lifting, heavy labor and have found myself in an industry dominated by men. I am the only female on my shift. I am able to do my job, but I would be lying if I said that I didn't have limitations. I have days when I have to work a lot harder, and sometimes, I even have to call my male coworkers for help. For some women, this may not be a problem. Kudos to you. All I can say, is realize that your body is made differently. You will have to work harder at some things. But is it impossible? Of course not. I am all about equality, but when human lives are at stake..you are playing in a new kind of ball game.. you are in a game where the balls explode.. On another note, I could never do it simply because I hate violence and guns. I disagree with unneccessary wars..(which seem to be most of them these days) ..Well, those are my thoughts ..
Then dont volunteer to join the military and pick a combat arms MOS. Stay in the kitchen baking cookies where your self imposed 2nd class citizenship can be protected by people who actually give a crap about the country.
BUSTED. You're not a woman, you're a TROLL of a man. Dude,you're arguement is tailor-made for the anti-woman in combat crowd. So you really have to stop and ask for "help" on your "heavy lifting" job??? I'd say be a man, but you're clearly ok being a female "impersonator". YA BEEN BUSTED, DUDE!!!!!!!!!!
You utter fo o l !! I reread your post. You said "You will have to work harder at things." Who is the "you" in your statement. You tard, you forgot you were impersonating a woman halfway through your piggish little post. Anything else you'd like to share with the class, may we call you "Mary?"
I thought women were already being used in combat. I guess I've been on Mars for the past 30 years.
Only in Canada, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, China, Thailand, Denmark, Germany, Ireland...you know, countries that believe in equality. Not some antiquated concept of chivalry.
Most of the comments left on this article are retarded and clearly not written by any one that has served in the last two decades. There are no front lines. We fight asymmetrical wars now. Chicks were in combat as military police, transportation, ordnance, medics etc during both Iraq and Afghanistan. Military police for instance serve much the same role as Infantry but are considered combat support and not combat arms so women have been allowed to serve in that role for years. This might open up a couple of MOSes but don't act like women in combat is anything new!
The key issues of this being a negative is the social issues, the fraternization which always happens no matter what rules are in place. This is not the one night stand but the long term relationships which do impact on the moral and spirit of the unit.
Fraternization being one of the major issues in non combat units as it fuels jealousy, anger, nepotism and other social ills.
The other major issue that the military does not deal with properly is the children of husband and wife military teams. Not only do the military members both leave their family responsibility while overseas but the effects of combat on a mother and father are far worse to a family if both are serving in front line duties.
Finally having been in the military ( a combat unit ) and knowing that the physical requirements are a challenge it always makes me wonder about the social impacts on women being in a team that is predominantly male. That has its challenges, and seeing these obvious challenges in non combat units I can say more work needs to be done to make this work.
Support for families, education within the military, both for women and men and stricter regulations on etiquette and fraternization. It alway fascinates me when some military members have no problem with integration from a progressive side but seem to act like children once women are assigned to a unit. You want progression, equal opportunity then stop treating women in the army like girls and treat them like professionals and it goes both ways, women have to be a part of the unit and not look at the men as opportunity.
Here lies the problem though, the above is impossible, we know it.
At the end the issues is far more a social one than a physical one.
"Panetta is setting the goal of January 2016 for all assessments to be complete and women to be integrated as much as possible."
I think they are aware of what you are saying. This is going to take years and different situations will call for different solutions. One solution may well be that certain jobs stay closed. At least for now, until we can figure out a way to resolve the hormone issues. Perhaps its time to go back to Saltpeter in the rations? Anyway, families have been destroyed at an amazing pace for generations and we are already dealing with two parent deployments now. A lot of this stuff is already going on in ways that are indistinguishable from a lot of the future integration.
Why not?... our shooting wars are over... for the time being.
Put Hillary Clinton on the group troops since she is one of the nasty bull dvkes of all time.
Im all for equal rights, but this im on the fence about. I have 6 combat deployements under me within the USMC infantry and I'll tell you this, if a young 20 year old is having a hard time running from building to building carring a full combat load in a 120 degree weather then how is a woman of lower body weight and strength going to do it? Honestly..how? The middle of a firefight that could get some ppl killed. Women are just as smart as men (smarter then alot too), just as brave and deticated. But the the fact is that a majority of women can do the same exact things as the male counterparts with all the same rules applying. Why do you think that there is a diffrence in a PFT between men and women. Our bodys are built diffrently. You have to honor that. Now should a woman be able to do those very same things..she honestly should be givin the chance. At that point shes already proven herself and im up for it. Bring on GI Jane
She won't be able to and she won't qualify to perform the duties of Marine infantrymen. Just like a weak guy has no business there either. The criteria will be (should be, anyway) gender neutral–based on capabilities. Women typically won't qualify, but some will, and they'll be exceptions for sure. I agree–if you have to carry their load, they have no business doing the job, be they men or women.
The army is in the planning phase for MOS specific PT tests. I'm curious if that is in response to this.
Congrats to all the lezbos out there, now they can be more macho, their fantasies have just come true.
Now they can be like the close gays who need shoot guns to hide the fact that they are gay.
that was a step backwards. we need to get men out, not women in. sheesh you guys...you are so brainwashed in patriarchy its crazy stupid.
So now we have to wonder how many chicks will get knocked up to avoid deployment. This medic I deoloyed with..twice had to do back to back deployments..because his replacement magically got pregnant..just before deployment. He lost his wife and ate a bullet. But hey were all equal!!
You've got a point...sadly. I certainly don't think ALL females do that, but I know there are definitely plenty who do.
Steve I think that is the most, truthful statement. I know a female now who planned on getting pregnant to avoid deploying. With change in policy should come new standards and expectations.
My daughter was placed on mandatory birth control for a duty assignment–if she wanted that job, she had to be on long term bc. She wanted the assignment.
How many wome does it take to kill a Taliban? Zero, they cant make the ruck march into combat
Most of the comments left on this article are retarded and clearly not written by any one that has served in the last two decades. There are no front lines. We fight asymmetrical wars now. Chicks were in combat as military police, transportation, ordnance, medics etc during both Iraq and Afghanistan. Military police for instance serve much the same role as Infantry but are considered combat support and not combat arms so women have been allowed to serve in that role for years. This might open up a couple of MOSes but don't act like women in combat is anything new!
cool for them now let them register for the draft just like us men only fare
Well, as long as it's "fare" and not "fair," Larry– I'm thinking you're talking about food here– I'll allow it.
How does some women volunteering for combat have ANYTHING to do with forcing all girls to register for a draft? You are just eating too many sour grapes. Its addled your brain.
[Updated at 9:30 p.m. ET] The U.S. military is ending its policy of excluding toddlers from combat and will open combat jobs and direct combat units to children under 4, multiple officials told CNN on Wednesday.
It would be nice to have a female armor crewman in my Abrams ;)
Stupid idea period...maybe it's nice to look at on paper, but it will simply not work. I am in an active duty combat unit (Army) and have deployed with women attached in the past and unfortunately they proved to be a huge distraction and as cliche as it sounds, they ended up getting pregnant, sleeping around, and affecting morale. I'm not saying at all that it was the women's fault (or sole fault), but they create temptation in an arena that requires 100% focus at the tasks at hand. The consequences in combat roles often lead to dire results.
So, what you're saying is that men should be removed from combat? If men get distracted so easily and their morale can't handle having women around, they are simply too weak for combat. It's surprising to hear this from a man like you, but I guess since you;re in combat, you know better than a lot of people. Do you think they will phase men out or just remove all of them at once?
I think women have the power to give life, we men don't. They should remain the side that is reluctant to battle, to take life. Not everything in modern times has to change, not every tradition, every gender role is borne of discrimination or devoid reason and purpose. This is sad development.
I concur with Steven. If they are segregated it may be okay but putting them together is bad mojo. Think of it – eve of a patrol and the chick or two sleep with some of the guys but not you. Now you are on patrol, thinking about that and not the job. Anything less than 100% focus can get a lot of people killed. Sorry but distraction is a fact and needs to be addressed before politicians tell the brass that they know best.
Hey Feminists! How about registering for Selective Service?..... (I hear crickets).....
TONS of women register. It's a point of pride to do so. Where on Earth have you been? The crickets must be in your brain.
You have to be kidding. You seriously don't know any women who have registered for Selective Service? It's extremely common. You don't *have* to register if you're a girl, but you have never been banned from doing so. There are a lot of girls who register when they turn 18 because the boys they know register and they want to be equal. Maybe you should pick up a book or go outside and talk to people?
AAAAAAAAAAA your mother wears combat boots!
When joining a combat related MOS it is mostly about strength and endurance. So women should have to register for
all male standards including body fat percentage, shave their heads in boot camp, no maternity leave, no special accommodations including rooms, hygiene, equipment load outs, ect. Look we already know how it will play out. Jessica Lynch saw combat and milked the media. She has a book and a lifetime movie. But what about the other men and women that fought by her side and lived or died? Those are true soldiers. They did their job and didn't seek out fame and fortune. Matter of fact I don't know of a single person besides her that got a movie and book deal from their time in the war.When joining a combat related MOS it is mostly about strength and endurance. So women should have to register for
all male standards including body fat percentage, shave their heads in boot camp, no maternity leave, no special accommodations including rooms, hygiene, equipment load outs, ect. Look we already know how it will play out. Jessica Lynch saw combat and milked the media. She has a book and a lifetime movie. But what about the other men and women that fought by her side and lived or died? Those are true soldiers. They did their job and didn't seek out fame and fortune. Matter of fact I don't know of a single person besides her that got a movie and book deal from their time in the war.
Expect standards to be lowered. There will be quotas to fill because once it gets in writing, the Defense department will have to show they are making progress.
It will be hard to fathomed a female in the infantry units I think they could make it initially but in units dealing with 25 mile road marches, 3 weeks in the field and a week in garrison seems it will break a girl down. This sounds good but there should be no special accomodations for them. These units do these things for morale, discipline, and esprit de corps and these elements should not change for no one. I served with an infantry unit for six and transportation for eight and there is a big difference in men excluding women in these jobs, so I know it will be too much for someone who would need to shower at least once a week. We had to make our own arrangement for cleanliness and they would to in the same time given....
Awww, the men are all scawed. It's ok, the ladies won't be too hard on you. You can keep your little standards for now. Eventually the women will likely push the standards up, though. Women tend to be in better health, are more flexible and exercise more. Maybe you should start preparing for higher standards now before you find yourself phased out.
Women have fought for many countries, in many wars. 10-20% of Soviet forces in WW2, for example, were women. They drove T-34s, manned artillery and anti-aircraft guns, acted as snipers, machine gunners, and pilots. About 25% of the women who served ended up being decorated. War is a horrible thing, and horrible things happen to participants on all sides, regardless of gender. If you believe in the cause you are fighting for, and are capable of performing the duty, gender should not matter, and has proven to not matter many times and many places throughout history.
True, but if you did your homework you would find that many women in the soviet army were treated like second class citizens. They were there to fill a role, it was not equality.
In africa eritrea fought with a nearly 50% female army against ethiopa and the usa and won their independance. So it is possible. I just don't feel that every woman would be ok for war fare uless there is no other option. Like myself for instance i know it would seriously mess me up. I cannot even sit through some fictional horror films or some shows about crime on discovery channels. But i guess the same can be said for men.... I just hope we don't have to go through a draft again.. Knocks on wood
No doubt women can fight in wars and the reason behind this move is for officer rank. But the soviet ww2 example depicts an invasion, the others are also serious need situations. The US has for many decades sent soldiers abroad to fight "in defense" of our way of life. This is why the citizens tend to get upset with these wars. It will now be faster as the citizens watch young women as well as men come home in body bags, with 1/2 their faces blown apart, missing arms and legs. Although I know many women are capable of doing the job, I suspect its the officers who are looking for combat experience that will get the greatest benefit while the majority of the less fortunate enlisted pay the price.
New MOS: Combat Blo wJob Specialist.
LMAO! Sign me up for that combat any day..... With a hottie of course
Okay -another try at ANYTHING other than concentrating on fixing this economy. Taxing the "rich" isn't going to do it, even at a 200% tax. This topic is just another DIVERSION to get america divided and not watching the next $35Billion increase in China trade deficit this next month or the several thousand more jobs being outsourced, or gathering information on the hundreds of thousands of jobs outsourced that our graduating college seniors should be taking, as the IRS continues to allow those expenses for outsourcing to be tax deductible, shirking US payroll taxes, local, state, and federal income tax as well.
Its also really interesting how this hits the media, just as the gun ban talks run out of gasoline. Why are we wasting our time on any of these laws that are trying to "fix" something that isn't broken. It's our ECONOMY that is broken, largely due to corporations given tax breaks and being allowed to deduct expenses of outsourcing jobs. It's our ECONOMY that is broken, largely due to corporations given billions of tax dollars in federal contracts and being allowed to deduct expenses of outsourcing jobs. Its about having unfair trade policies with China and no protection to the US economy, while the US treasury prints another wheelbarrow of money to buy bread with. Good diversion folks !!!!
No wonder they call ours a sick society with all these ignoramuses here praising these trigger-happy, blood thirsty broads. This is truly disgusting!
How many blonds does it take to change a light bulb? In combat?
What a sickening scenario this is! These blood thirsty broads must really be happy now that they have an opportunity to prove that they can slaughter as many people as men can! Nobody should put killing people on their priority list. There is neither glory nor honor in it!
Right.. Because we're just slaughtering people like Stalin's Russia or something. You obviously have no idea how the military or the world works. There are people out there who would not hesitate to put a bullet through your head if given the chance, the least you could do is show these men and women some respect because they volunteer to put themselves between you and those bad guys. Don't feel special though because they ain't doing it for you, they're doing it because 1.) Who will step up if they don't? People like John Geheran? (That's rhetorical) and 2.) They're doing it for their battle-buddies, friends, family, etc.. i.e. People who care.
Wow. Our country is going to let women in the infantry JUST SO they can have the same opportunity for promotions!? I would think the only reason for wanting to go to war would be to defend our country the best we can, not so a handful of military career females can get promotions. Sad reading through all these comments & so many think this is a good idea. Attempting to exclude women from combat & keeping them out of the infantry was a privilege. So sad so many women can't see this. What's next?! Requiring 18 yr old girls to sign up for selective service?! Why don't we get rid of domestic violence laws that cater to women next? When will you feminists realize that you are not creating "equality," you are just destroying femininity and creating a bunch of men who are going to see nothing wrong with beating up women & expecting them to perform jobs most of us are physically incapable of doing.
You are more than your v agina. Step away from the kool aid.
Why is it that the same feminists that want to send women to war with an AR-15 are completely against the same woman returning home to have an AR-15 to protect her home and family ?
The US Military does not use AR-15s. They use M-4 Carbines, M16A2s, M-249s, and M-40s.
Giving women more choice over their own destinies is kind of the definition of feminism. Not all women are going to jump into combat. I won't be there. I have no in interest in the military and never have. But, someone who loves it and wants to do her best in the military and progress as far as she can should have the choice of being in a combat role. Otherwise, what is the U.S. even fighting for? For people to be subjugated and defined by their genders? Or, for a free society in which anyone can try their best and succeed at what they love due to their own hard work?
Great, a whole new demographic can now kill and be killed while protecting our strategic interests overseas. Yay progress!
Ok, I'm artillery, and my job requires me to move 100 pound rounds very quickly. Im not sayin females can't keep up, but im sure that 90% would be struggling. On the other hand, that 5 or 10 percent would prolly whoop my a$s
I play pick up basketball and do a basic amount of physical exercise. I'm 165 pounds, less than 1% of women can lift what I can.
I agree there's a lot of other issues at stake, but if it's purely one of physical fitness, I have passed men on their PT test (while 5 months pregnant), worked 30 hour shifts until the day I gave birth, then went back to work a week later (voluntarily, to finish my training). Just because you have balls, doesn't automatically make you more physically fit. Don't lower the expectations and those that can rise to meet it, will.
5 months pregnant and doing a PFT? Ya right docs would not let you. Does it matter if you run faster? No it doesn't. Can you throw a 200 lbs male on your back firemans carry for 60+ yards without stopping or dropping him? I bet not. The fact is that your not naturally as strong. I worked out 4 hours a day 7 days a week in the Marines just to stay in shape and keep battle readiness. How long will it take a female just to reach my strength BEFORE boot camp?
Didn't say I was doing a PFT. I was doing a practice PT test while the rest of the group was doing a real PT test and I passed them during the run. And as a doc, I have had quite a few patients run full marathons at 8 months plus pregnant. Didn't say I was personally a body builder, but I have seen plenty of women who could do what you suggest. I have also seen plenty of men who can't and come running for a profile before every PT test. Not saying there are a lot of women out there who can do it, but if there are those that can do it and you are basing your argument purely on the physically able aspect, then your argument is moot. As I said before, there a lot of other social issues obviously that aren't as straight forward as whether a female can meet -the standards or not, which I agree with you, should not be lowered to accomodate.
I know for a fact you didnt out PT men in a combat unit, most likely you pass men in your own POG unit.
Air Force (AFDoc) I am assuming, which means different standards.
I've seen some PT studs in the Air Force, but I've seen some weak sauce just the same.
Done plenty of sick call to know there is enough weak sauce in all the branches to go around. :P You all have a good night and keep fighting the good fight no matter if on the front lines or in a support role.
For the combat positions they need to keep the standards equal. As AFdoc says, there will be a few women that can and will rise to the standard. As for the women who don't physically qualify, there's other jobs, just like for the men who don't physically qualify for these positions either (because there are lot who do not).
Women have been in combat roles throughout history. Boudica Burnt Roman London and backed a battle hardened Legion into a corner. The Romans due to better equipment was able to pull off a long hold battle against many times their numbers. Even into the founding of this country Women in Limited known and many more unsung roles through into civil war and even our modern wars have been part of them. A Enemy does not care what gender you are nor does the weapon they come to kill you with. If they choose to fight I say I let them as long as the standards are equally met. I know many women who can keep up or out do many well fit male counterparts. Bravo to Women to an end to the last tatters of dark ages mentalities
Funny in all the war footage of us soldiers Veitnam Korea WWll I only have ever seen men fighting didnt see any fighting women in the war footage.
You really think a front nurse did not fire a gun? Or use a knife on a enemy if attacked. Threw a grenade? How about the other side? Women did fight. Lastly it was not as "pc" to show this type of footage just as in earlier wars non-white ethnic groups received limited attention. We are ONE PLANET! ONE PEOPLE! ONE PROBLEM!
My point is there no women on the front lines any any of the wars (seems like a dangerous experiment) I mean could you imagine General Patton with a bunch of women Im sure man is rolling over in his grave with this news.
The Vietcong used women in infantry all the time. And if I recall correctly, they won.
My Aunt was a nurse in Viet Nam. She never fired a weapon, threw a grenade, or saw the frontline. Male docs were on the front line and brought patients back. She wasn't even issued a weapon. Research before you talk on subjects that require knowledge.
Using the small amount of heroic women from tales from the Roman and Medival times is no way to argue a point as 1. They are the exception not the rule and 2 often these stories have been manipulated through time to fit a fictional character. The reality was often very diffrenent
When asked why she didn't provide immediate supporting fire for her platoon mates, Crp. Leslie reported that her nail polish had yet to dry...
I feel sorry for these women if they ever become a prisoner of war they will be treated differently then men.(not in a good way) No ACLU over there to protect your rights
i have an opinion about women in combat roles but it doesn't really matter. Neither should the Presidents or his secretaries opinions matter,not even the genreals or admirals opinions. The only peoples opinions who do matter are the current combat troops. If they don't want them-think it will be detremental then they (women) shouldn't be allowed in.
Sorry the military isn't a democracy and it isn't likely that it ever will be one. The generals and admirals will always be the ones who make the call.
IT will be hard to kill the enemy if your trying to protect your sisters on the front line .
Then you do not belong in the armed forces. Your sister probably shoots better anyway.
So we're supposed to leave our brothers behind in battle and have him shot to pieces?
This is my point exactly. Look women are complaining about not being in combat. They always find something to complain about. Why aren't women fighting to work in the oil field as a rough neck? Oh that's right because they physically can't do the work. So they think being on the front line is easier? Just create a new armed forces for just the gays and women infantry. Their flg can be rainbow colored with a unicorn as their mascot.
Please tell me this is an early April Fools.
Your post is an early April Fools.
Feel better?
this is a bad idea not jut for the fact of what can or could happen to them but the Divorce rate will deffently go up higher then is already is in the military .....
Women can be just as brutal as men, often more so. If guys can risk being permanently injured, why can't the women?
Some of these crybabies complaining about women fighters should google Boudica and see just how bad@ss we can be when provoked or have cause to fight for our freedom & country. They would do well to remember that those who bring forth life also have the same capacity to take it if need be.
You can not use historical figures from Roman times to promote this. They were the exception not the rule and many stories have been manipulated.
Women soldiers should be forced to fill in the front lines, and bare their breasts when they advance on enemy troops. They would provide an excellent distraction prior to being gunned down, and their bullet-riddled, semi-nude bodies would continue to be a distraction if used as a shield by the male soldiers behind them. Amen.
Funny : )
If there is one thing I know, it's that women are a distraction : ) my grades are a good example of my need to constantly indulge into passionate love making. I also am a slave to confectionaries too. Ahhh it feels good to finally tell the truth!
I see a lot of comments suggesting that women should – or will – be required to register for Selective Service eventually. I don't see that happening simply because it would be too expensive to draft and then SCREEN the women (since the vast majority of women wouldn't have the physical strength). Why draft and then have to reject maybe 95% of those drafted? It's simple statistics. Actuallly... nevermind. I lost my head for a second there... since when does the government care about wasting money? My bad.
The answer to your first question is t its. And in response to your closing assertion, you're right. Your bad.
I'm in the Air Force and it didn't take a lot of 'physical strength' to get through OTS or pilot training... I am totally classify myself as a girly-girl, and am by no means a workout fiend, and the first time I had ever gone camping was courtesy of Uncle Sam when the USAF sent me to SERE school (which was by far the toughest thing I ever had to do, and it only lasted a few weeks).
Virtually any woman that doesn't have an injury or disqualifying condition can easily be fit enough to run 1.5 miles in 16.5 minutes, do 18 push ups and 38 situps – the minimum standards for the USAF physical fitness test.
We aren't talking Navy Seal or Army Ranger standards here...
most combat jobs are in the army. Run standards for my age group(21 yo male) is 15:54 for 2 miles. keep up with that.....
Minimum Standards for a Male in the Military (Age 17-21) is 42 Push-Ups in 2 minutes, 53 Sit-ups in 2 minutes, and a 2-mile run in 15:54; (Age 22-26) 40; 50; 1636 – But it is harder to max as well) That Minimum will earn you a score of 180 out of a possible 300.
You ask leaders (NCO's and Officers) in Combat Units such as Infantry or Cavalry, this score is completely unacceptable and will cause you to be in a remedial PT program. Most Expect a Score of at least 250 (And that is being generously low).
I am not saying that women can't do it. I've seen women who can. What I am saying is there needs to be an equal standard that doesn't involve lowering current standards. This doesn't take into account other factors such as kit, pack, or wounded comrades.
Current Females Minimum Score:
(17-21) 19/53/18:54
(22-26) 17/50/19:36
Apologies, those are the Army Standards. Should have clarified that.
I realize that the minimum PFT standards are going to be a lot lower than the minimum standard for a lot of the combat roles. Just replying to a post that said 95% of women wouldn't be able to qualify for military service. Probably the same percentage of women qualify for military service as men do, now to qualify for infantry or special forces is a whole different deal. I would suspect, barring injury or illness (that would be disqualifying in and of itself), the majority of women in the 18-25 age group should be able to get into the shape required to pass an Air Force or Army physical fitness test.
Also, while I speak as a female in the military, I do realize I have one of the more cush jobs in the military. Unlike infantry, it doesn't take a whole lot of physical strength to fly a plane. I personally wouldn't be able to make the cut for many of those jobs. However, women aren't too weak for military service (as been proven by many females currently serving), and some can and will rise to the standards for the combat roles, if given the chance.
Being an F-16 pilot, I have to deal with quite a bit of people who do not think I belong in that role, so I'm sensitive to the argument here. Many men and women aren't cut out to be fighter pilots, as is the fact that many men and women aren't cut out for front line combat (albeit, usually for different reasons).
As a pilot in the AF you must also be aware then that your physical size and weight play a role in even what aircraft you are even allowed to fly. I'd bet you are a cargo or tanker pilot? There are also height and weight minimums and maximums for the various combat jets. Many women and even some men don't even meet the physical requirements of the ejection seats. That requirement alone would eliminate many women from being combat pilots.
dang thats it for the standard in AF?? i can do that in my sleep....zzzzzzz
If you are a female veteran, female wife of a veteran, the best reintegration program is run by Sunergos, go to Sunergosllc.com and look up Leading with Resilincy and Grace. It fills what is missing in post service offerings which are usually mental health or job fairs. This deals with the real life issues of coming back to a new world and the emotional transition necessary to be a complete and whole new woman in a changed environament and then to lead and integrate. You can speak to women who have gone through the program, breakthrough for them....
Lenin was trying to create an orangutan-human soldier. I think we are making progress!
what are you talking about? We've already got colored regiments.
After reading through these comments I'm left scratching my head. I can't understand how blind we are to history. One hundred years ago women couldn't vote. Why? Because women can't make decisions, they're too inferior to make the right call. Too emotional. Look at us today, with all these congresswomen and female senators who we've voted into decision making positions. Sixty years ago African American men couldn't serve along side their Caucasian counterparts because somehow the color of their skin made them inferior. We look back on this and think, "well it was different back then, they didn't think like us." Somehow being a woman makes them less physically able to carry an 80 lb ruck sack. If someone goes through combat training and comes out on the other side a "soldier" we shouldn't care who they are, where they come from, what color skin they have, who they love, or what's between their legs. We should trust the training and the person to our left and the person to our right. I fear that a hundred years from now people look back on us as a culture and are disappointed because after 237 years of being "free," after the likes of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, we still can't grasp the idea of Equality.
Downs syndrome soldiers are next. They are people too!
at least they'll go down smilin'!
Are you seriously saying that lacking a Y chromosome is the same as being mentally retarded? If so them please do us a favor and go get a Darwin Award.
We do care because they do not get the same level of training as men.
I would expect they did now that they're expected to do the same job.
That's true so the next step should be to make them go through the same training as the regular male soldiers. Yeah, a lot of women would probably get weeded out but they'll be glad they went through it once they end up in a firefight.
As a general rule, being a female *does* make you physically less capable of carrying an 80-pound ruck sack. You can't ignore basic physiology just because it doesn't give you the answer you want. This is like men demanding equal paternity and maternity leave- even though they don't give birth and don't breast feed. Having equal rights doesn't mean ignoring that there are still some fundamental differences present.
You are right!!! We are different and we have to understand some limits. If you a female, and we are in the field on an exercise we can't just stop the training because your period came on!!!
What is it that you people think a period does? You think it would keep you from combat? Um, I hate to tell you little boys this, but during my period I'm pretty much 500% more likely to go into combat, and I'm not even in the military.
Well, if the front line doesn't work, they can always go for the rear line. Most guys don't care.
Or they can go back to the Front Desk, for all we care.
Be careful, you might just get what you wished for.
huge step backwards. we don't need more women in, we need more men out.
Our armed forces are turning gay and female. That's a fomidable fighting force! I can hear Taliban laughing already!
Good. It works in our favor to be underestimated.
Ha! Well said!
Lol I think most women would love a shot at the Taliban. You've heard of a mother gaining superhuman strength to save her child? Oh, I think we could somehow muster the strength and determination to kill those woman-hating SOBs ;)
Yes, because when I'm tearing through the sky in an F-16 firing on the enemy, I'm sure the first thing they are thinking "Oh, S*!t it is a woman shooting at me!"
I'm sure when they are looking down the barrel of an M-16 being held by a female soldier they'll just laugh... as they get blown to bits...
Bet you said the same thing when they desegregated the military you chauvinistic swine.
Two women that went through Marine Combat Infantry training washed out
maybe its easier in the army
Well, I'm sure the Taliban are picking out new drapes for the rape rooms as we speak.
I agree with Peters comment about special treatment and I am a young female Marine. I cringe at the thought of the day when I have to read the headlines about a female being raped and God knows what else when she has captured. It breaks my heart when any of our service members are captured and tortured, but to think of the unspeakable horrid that can and will be done to a female saddens me greatly. Females have a great role in the military but combat is best left to males only. It's not even a matter of quality, rather a matter of utmost respect for our women service members and their protection from horrors so great their family members will never be at peace if they are a casualty of war. Regardless of their desire to serve being widely known.
Why would getting raped be worse than getting your legs blown off?
Your post got the most stupid post of the day.
Well, if the front line doesn't work, they can always go for the rear line. Most guys don't care.
Interesting perspective. My sister joined the Marines when she graduated from USNA 30 years ago, specifically because she had been told by an Admiral that with her excellent performance at the Naval Academy she was almost assured an excellent liaison type position at an embassy. She almost immediately began the process of going into the USMC at graduation in order to have a better potential for deployment. She did serve in Desert Storm but decided to retire before the Iraq war. The idea of coddling woman soldiers makes her cringe and ultimately led to her leaving the service sooner than she ever intended. I'll have to call her tomorrow to find out what she thinks of this....
'Amy E' wrote:
' It breaks my heart when any of our service members are captured and tortured, but to think of the unspeakable horrid that can and will be done to a female saddens me greatly.'
Does it also break your heart when our service members torture and rape non-Americans?
With all due respect, females in the military (actually everyone) should know the risks and make decisions accordingly. If a women is willing to accept these risks, and capable of qualifying for one of these combat roles, there should be nothing to keep her from going.
There's a lot of women currently serving in roles where they could get captured. A lot of people end up on the front line by accident, even though it isn't part of their job.
I for one know that if I have to eject from my jet over enemy territory, my life is going to suck a lot. If captured I'm going to be treated different than my male counterparts. I can't say that it does not scare me, however, it is a risk I'm willing to take to serve my country and do a job I absolutely love doing. These women are smart enough to know that the stakes are higher in combat roles, but if this is what they are passionate about, then why bar them from it (if they qualify otherwise).
This is the most stupid idea. It will promote capture/rape were and women will be begging to die. Protect our women and give them jobs behind enemy lines.
In the mess hall, barefoot and pregnant?
They know the risks, it's their choice to serve. Besides, you say that as if men can't be raped. They can. With plungers. So let's not pretend that rape is something that never happens to male soldiers.
Come on fools. So you're saying you would be more interested in anal plunegering men then hooking up with chicks? lol
Surely there are some psychos out there but as history has shown, women get raped regardless in those situations.
If the politicians are *truly* after equality, then 18 year old girls will also have to register with selective service, and get buzz cuts in basic training (the purpose of which is hygiene in a combat environment). Or they can lower the standards, which is what will happen, because of the political implications of shaving their heads and making them register with the selective service. Equality my a$$.
One step at a time.
We can't even get past the stigma of a man fighting a women yet somehow we're okay with a women getting killed?
im a feminist and i agree with your stance on equality. all or nothing. can't have it both ways.
I hope the lawyers and their daughters are enlisting and signing up for combat units (i.e. infantry). I guess tha also means women will be required to register for Selective Service soon also.
You are commenting on an issue of which you clearly have no knowledge. Including the little bit that can be obtained by actually reading the article.
Any woman serving in the military will have a good idea of what combat role entails, and if they so choose or wish to serve in the capacity, why should they not be permitted? Especially, if they can withstand the physical and emotional standards of the combat role. http://www.thecollinscrimewave.com
Because they can not handle the physical portion. If they could then there physical fitness test would have been the same as a mans throughout history. Even their boot camp is easier. If they want to be like a man then they should have to forfeit maternity leave since we don't get it.
I agree the physical fitness test should be the same. Especially for combat troops.
And if guys want paternity leave, they should have that choice. But please, maternity leave should not be a question. Anyone's body would need time to recover after they carried another human being for 9 months and gave birth.
First of all, why don't you show some respect. Men cry passing a damn kidney stone through their penis. So when you can carry another human inside you for nine months and then push that basketball out of you through a hole that's not that big to start off with for several hours then you can ask for maternity leave. Second, men can get paternity leave now, for essentially doing nothing. So you if you want to go down that road, really think about it. Third, IF there are women who CAN physically meet the requirements and WANT to then why the hell not? If men are so worried about it, then make the requirements more difficult so it's more of an elite group. And if you read the article, they still are not allowing certain MOS's to be included in this.
Says who? If there are women who can be just as physically fit as most men and who can shoot just as well as most men then why can't there be women who can be as good of a soldier as a man?
By that logic we should kick out a doctor, computer programmer, pilot, etc, out of the USAF, because they only meet the minimum standard and not the special forces standard???
As for female PFTs being different than males, for non-combat roles (especially the aforementioned jobs) there is no real physical stregth required, so a basic test of fitness is all that is necessary to insure that they are not completely out of shape, and thus it is fair for those standards to be different, since a female with a basic level of overall fitness is going to run slower, do fewer pushups, etc, than a man of the same level of health and fitness.
Now with combat roles, I hope the standards are the same. Some women, but very few overall, will qualify and they should be allowed to serve in these roles. This isn't a desk job where only a basic level of physical fitness needs to be established, they need a level of fitness to keep up with the group as a whole, and to insure that their presence in the group is not a detriment to the group as a whole. (Hence why the basic physical standards for these jobs is a lot tougher for men than the basic level needed to do a desk job in the military.)
The problem isn't being "permitted" – something with which I have no issue. The problem is "permitting" now, but not "requiring" when all hell breaks loose. Are we ready to have our daughters register for selective service? I'm not sure. But you cannot ethically pick and choose when you want equality. Supreme Court will be forced to act – and I don't see how they can get around that one.
You want to treat "women" as if they all want the same thing and are equally represented by the women asking for equal treatment. You seem to resent women being your equal. That is a personal problem.
However, access to combat jobs by qualified women has nothing to do with the draft or selective service. There hasn't even been a draft for about 40 years. Personally, I think older men should be equally subject to a draft if they want to be equal to younger men. Especially since it is generally older men that decide to send soldiers to die.
You have got to be kidding me.. You're arguing semantics of the word "permitting"? This shouldn't be a big deal, and neither should having them sign up for the Selective Service, it's only fair. I thought all "men" were created equal?
Now it's fair. Females will fell how do men feel like in the combat. And Females will learn self-defense and then there would law crimes. But still, no one knows if it will become true.
Grammar, much??
I'm sure the lowered PT standards for women will be "fair."
I guess the average 18 year female betta be running at the same time and doing the same pushups!!! (Equality to everyone I guess)
Another terrible idea. The first thing that will happen to women in combat, when captured, is merciless and non stop Gang rape! Does the US military not know that? This is not about discrimination, equal rights.. This is about BIOLOGY! There's a reason why the old adage 'Women and children first'.. And its not because people thought women and children were just as capable to handling harsh situations. How much will male soldiers now try to protect the female soldiers and in the process make rash decisions driven by chivalry, which in turn could jeopardize entire operations??,
Nice job of weakening the military further
Where have you been for the last 250 or so years?
rich, you're an idiot. what she said is true. we aren't ready to see our women die, or get brutally gang raped in captivity.
Most of us are not ready to see our sons, brothers and fathers brutalized and killed either. Doesn't seem to stop us from sending them to war though.
There is no draft and I can assure you that it is extremely unlikely that we would ever see the day women are drafted into combat roles. However, it should make you stop and think why we recoil in repugnance at the idea of drafting girls to go fight but are so willing to accept the necessity to send boys to die.
After reading through these comments I'm left scratching my head. I can't understand how blind we are to history. One hundred years ago women couldn't vote. Why? Because women can't make decisions, they're too inferior to make the right call. Too emotional. Look at us today, with all these congresswomen and female senators who we've voted into decision making positions. Sixty years ago African American men couldn't serve along side their Caucasian counterparts because somehow the color of their skin made them inferior. We look back on this and think, "well it was different back then, they didn't think like us." Somehow being a woman makes them less physically able to carry an 80 lb ruck sack. If someone goes through combat training and comes out on the other side a "soldier" we shouldn't care who they are, where they come from, what color skin they have, who they love, or what's between their legs. We should trust the training and the person to our left and the person to our right. I fear that a hundred years from now people look back on us as a culture and are disappointed because after 237 years of being "free," after the likes of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, we still can't grasp the idea of Equality.
Exactly. Who's the idiot that came up with this idea?
Men can be raped too. Soldiers are trained to do things that go against their biology all the time. What is your natural response when someone shoots at you? They train you to go against your fear and to do your job. Of course, soldiers who protect other soldiers are often called heros when they do it for their male compatriots, why would that be any different for a female one?
Prejudice, mysogony, mindless fear of change. Those come to mind.
Everyone should have the right to fight but will this make the mission combat effective. When dealing with women in the Army we had to have port-a-johns and different kind of sanitation neccessities around but when you are in a long firefight there will be no time for stuff like that. The participants will have to be pre-screened to make sure they are capable of not taking showers or other givens while in those exercises.
That's right we must protect our women only because its obvious that they're the only ones that will be tortured if they get captured. I mean, its not like that men won't be subject to beatings, electrical shocks, and maybe something worse like a little bit of castration if we get captured.
I think females could have their own infantry/sniper units. I do not condone segregation but in this topic it will be effective at the task at hand. This will rise the rape in the Armed Forces because a lot of guys in the infantry were disturbed. They should have a special elite force for them that is an equivalent to Special Forces/Navy Seals/Infantry. Men and women are different but women actually have good shooting skills because they are easy to learn. The lifestyles are different and this will be a barrier for our national defense in the end.
I've heard this argument a lot- women shouldn't be allowed because men would try to protect them. Men would be chivalrous. Men would be distracted. What you and those like you are really saying is that men aren't cut out for combat. I don't know why you guys think that describing all the ways that men misbehave means that women shouldn't be in combat. Obviously men shouldn't be there if they don't know how to act. They're too weak and distracted. Well, luckily for yo women are coming to save the poor men.
I've never heard that chivalry stuff when I was over there. But the only thing you can't be the weak link in the squad or you may get everyone killed!!! Some will do just fine but many will be detrimental to the combat effectiveness of a team. Most combat units travel in teams and you have to hold your own.
We will see how far they want to take this. Pregnancy, Menstrual Cycles, will be deterrents in a team's success.
Are d ild os allowed on the front lines, or will men do?
Well, if they don't them on the front line, they can certainly come here for a near infinite supply.
If you're actually stupid enough to be thinking about your libido in a firefight, then you really deserve to get shot.


text:
Leave a Review
Excellent zuppa! Used pre-washed/cut kale, an extra sausage and a handful of sliced portabella mushrooms with the sautéed onions. Also used 2 cans of the cannellini beans which I did not find being too much. I added 2 extra cups of chicken stock mixed with about 2 tablespoons of blonde roux. Hearty and great for a cold winter day (or night!).flag if inappropriate
FYI - 4 cups cooked is about 1 cup dry or 2 -15 ounce cansflag if inappropriate
I agree that the amount of beans is too much. I halved the beans and increased the kale. Still this recipe doesn't come close to serving the amount listed unless it was intended as a starter. I made it for dinner and it served 4. Another way to give it a bit more flavor would be to add a parmesan rind when you add the broth/stock. It gives it a little more dimension.flag if inappropriate
I agree that this recipe is very confusingly written. I have no idea if I did this right, but it smells great on the stove!flag if inappropriate
Delicious and easy. Big hit with the in-laws!flag if inappropriate
Nice and easy. Very tastyflag if inappropriate
This soup could be a lot better with some modifications. I thought it was thin and kind of blah. Normally I add butternut squash which adds a nice texture and flavor. I had to add rice to this just to give it some body.flag if inappropriate
I made this soup tonight, its very easy but just a couple of tips, unless you really really like beans I would halve the amount suggested. I would also advise you to put the whole bunch of kale, I added about two thirds as the pan was full and the kale was covering the water, but it really does reduce and the soup is much better with the right amount of kale to balance it out.flag if inappropriate
Fabulous soup. Added some diced fire roasted tomatoes, and toasted orzo- just for a bit more body. The longer this sits, the better it is.flag if inappropriate
I recently made this recipe with a few alterations. I used 2 Italian pork sausages and 2 chicken herbed sausages, and only 1 can of navy beans. I also started out using a mire poix instead of just onions. I think soup tastes best when eaten at least a day after it is made so the flavors can meld. I also like to squeeze some lemon in as well. I think the acidity helps balance out the richness from the sausages and chicken broth. It turned out great and was super easy to make. I just made it last week and will probably make it again next week!flag if inappropriate

subset: commoncrawl


text:
psyche101, on 18 January 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:
A server might be donated by a keshe member, in any case, it is a small investment for what can be gained.
You have to wonder, if he is getting these donations, why are the team working with second hand house bricks for insulation.
Edited by kumaran, 18 January 2013 - 08:41 AM.


text:
Google Analytics, like any enterprise class tool, is powerful and complex, requiring extensive planning and preparation to execute effectively. When you begin the process of website measurement and optimization with us, you can be sure that we will build your platform right, from the ground up, with your company's precise needs in mind.
In order to ensure proper planning and effective outcomes, Analytics Pros has developed a proprietary model for building a strategically driven web analytics program aligned with your business objectives. It's tailored for each client to drive increased revenues and profits and contains six components across three major phases.
We begin with your business objectives and end with the insights and answers you need to help you achieve your goals. The following is a breakdown of our unique Analytics Planning Lifecycle.
The Three Phases
Our engagement with you will begin with a Strategy & Planning phase that focuses on asking the right questions about how people interact with your digital properties. Then, as we move into the Implementation phase, we'll build a custom configuration plan to help you deploy a tracking solution that provides you with actionable insights. Finally, we'll enter the Analysis & Optimization phase in which we'll start gathering all of the insights you need to answer your business questions and optimize your properties.
The Analytics Pros approach to web analytics is designed to ensure you will receive data that is actionable, interesting and accurate.


text:
The Wisconsin mens soccer team handed out its team awards Monday night at its annual end-of-season banquet held at the Kohl Center. The Badgers finished their season with an 11-10-1 record, including a 2-0 win over Ohio State in the first round of the 2003 Big Ten Conference Mens Soccer Championship. The win was Wisconsins first tournament victory since 1998.
Offensive Most Valuable Player: Nick Van Sicklen
Junior forward Van Sicklen was second offensively for Wisconsin with six goals and three assists, totaling 15 points. Van Sicklens assists set up game-winning scores against UW-Milwaukee, Marquette and Ohio State in the Big Ten Championship. Van Sicklen had two multi-goal games this season, netting two in Wisconsins 3-2 win over UNLV on Sept. 5 in the UNLV Tournament, and again scored twice in the Badgers 5-0 rout of IUPUI on Sept. 19 in the Dayton tournament. This season, Van Sicklen was named to the All-Big Ten Second Team and to the All-Dayton Tournament team.
Co-Defensive Most Valuable Players: Noah Goerlitz and Eric Hanson
Junior goalkeeper Eric Hanson blanked opponents six times this season and combined with teammate Jake Settle for a team shutout of IUPUI in the Dayton tournament. Hanson collected 88 saves for Wisconsin this year and now has 165 for his career, ranking him seventh all-time among Badger goalkeepers. Hanson was twice recognized by the Big Ten during the regular season, earning Defensive Player of the Week honors for the week of Oct. 6 and sharing the award for the week of Nov. 3. Hanson is also a member of the All-Big Ten Second Team as well as the 2003 Academic All-Big Ten team.
For the second consecutive year junior midfielder Noah Goerlitz ranked among Wisconsins top three in minutes played this season. Goerlitz also dished out two assists, helping Jed Hohlbein in his hat-trick against Brown, and Nick Van Sicklen in his two-goal game versus IUPUI. Goerlitz was honored earlier this season as a member of the All-Big Ten Ssecond Team, the 2003 Academic All-Big Ten team, and was named the Defensive MVP of the adidas Brown Classic, held Sept. 12-14.
Co-Most Improved Players: Hamid Afsari and William Bagayoko
Playing mostly as a substitute at the beginning of the year, freshman Hamid Afsari earned a regular starting role in Wisconsins backline by mid-October. Afsari started eight matches this season and played in 21 of Wisconsins 22 contests. Afsari scored his first collegiate goal in Wisconsins final regular season game a 3-2 victory over Valparaiso on Nov. 8. Afsari also served up the game-winning assist to teammate Jed Hohlbein in the Badgers 2-1 win over DePaul on Oct. 22.
After seeing some playing time early in the season, freshman midfielder William Bagayoko became a fixture in Wisconsins rotation by mid-September, playing in 15 games wearing the Cardinal and White. Bagayoko made the best of an early opportunity with the Badgers, notching his first assist against UNLV on Sept. 5. Bagayoko tallied his second in Wisconsins last regular season game, setting up fellow freshman Hamid Afsari for the goal.
Outstanding Freshman: Aaron Hohlbein
One of Wisconsins top three in minutes played, freshman Aaron Hohlbein started and played in 21 of the Badgers 22 games this year. A member of the Wisconsin defense that blanked opponents eight times, Hohlbein also contributed offensively by scoring two goals and notching one assist. Hohlbeins first goal came unassisted to give Wisconsin the 1-0 win over regionally-ranked Penn State on Oct. 5. Hohlbein was named to the All-Big Ten Second Team as well as the inaugural 2003 All-Big Ten Freshman Team this season. Hohlbein was also named to the 2003 Big Ten all-tournament team as well as the 2003 Rocky Rococo Wisconsin Soccer Classic all-tournament team.
William G. Reddan Spirit of Soccer Award: Erol Goknur and Watson Vaughan Prather
For their leadership on and off the field, Wisconsins two departing seniors, Erol Goknur and Watson Vaughan Prather, were honored with the 25th-annual William G. Reddan Spirit of Soccer Award.
In his four years as a Badger, Goknur compiled two goals and 12 assists for 16 points. This year against Illinois-Chicago, Goknur netted the game-winner before setting up teammate Nick Van Sicklen for Wisconsins second score of the night. Goknurs three assists put him in a tie for second on the team this year. Previously in his career, Goknur was named the teams Outstanding Freshman in 2000.
In his career, Prather has tallied three goals and six assists, equaling 12 points. This year Prather set up two goals with assists in wins over Yale on Sept. 12 in the adidas Brown Classic, and IUPUI on Sept. 19 in the Dayton Tournament. This season, Prather was honored with a spot on the Rocky Rococo Wisconsin Soccer Classic all-tournament team, as well as the All-Dayton Tournament team.
Badgers Announce 2004-05 Team Captains
Following the awards ceremony, departing seniors and two of Wisconsins three captains, Erol Goknur and Watson Vaughan Prather, announced the captains for next season.
Goalkeeper Eric Hanson will continue in the role for the second consecutive year, sharing duties with classmates Noah Goerlitz and Nick Van Sicklen.
2015 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. All rights reserved worldwide.
Contact Us | Problems or accessibility issues: email@example.com


text:
More than 16,000 Americans with liver diseases are waiting for a transplant, but only 6,000 will receive one this year, according to the American Liver Foundation.
Donna Cryer, J.D., understands the importance of Liver Awareness Month (October). After a decade of ulcerative colitis ravaging her liver, Cryer underwent a liver transplant when she was just 23. Now in her 19th year post-liver transplant, she is the American Liver Foundation's president and CEO. We asked her to dispel some myths about this vital organ.
The liver just deals with waste production: "It screens out toxins, yes, but from enzyme reactions for digestion to cholesterol synthesis, it's a way station for so many important functions."
More myths....