Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday December 04 2015, @03:52PM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the anything-you-can-do... dept.

Multiple sources report that on Thursday, December 3rd, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced that the US military will open all combat jobs to women. From The Wall Street Journal:

"This means that, as long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before," Mr. Carter said.

He spelled out the implications of his decision: "They'll be allowed to drive tanks, fire mortars, and lead infantry soldiers into combat. They'll be able to serve as Army Rangers and Green Berets, Navy SEALs, Marine Corps infantry, Air Force parajumpers and everything else that was previously open only to men."

[...] The practical effect of the announcement is to open up the 10% of positions that still remain closed to women--nearly 220,000 jobs--in infantry, reconnaissance and special operations units.

[Much more after the break.]

ABC News brings us some words from combat veteran and US congresswoman Tammy Duckworth (link again):

U.S. Rep. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., one of the first Army women to fly combat missions in the 2003-2011 Iraq war, welcomed the decision.

"I didn't lose my legs in a bar fight -- of course women can serve in combat," said Duckworth, whose helicopter was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade. "This decision is long overdue."

The Kurdish militia is another option for women who want to fight. Fox News earlier this year wrote about one such woman, Gill Rosenberg:

A Canadian-born Israeli woman who joined a Kurdish militia to fight against the Islamic State group said that after a stint in prison, she felt compelled to do something positive with her life and battle against the "genocide" unfolding in Syria and Iraq.

Gill Rosenberg, 31, was among the first female volunteers to fight in the Syrian civil war.

Vice brings us a story about another woman determined to fight ISIS, model Hanna Bohman:

As thousands of Syrian refugees flee the country, escaping Bashar al-Assad's barrel bombs and the barbarism of ISIS, one woman from Canada has headed to the war zone for a second time.

Hanna Bohman, aka Tiger Sun, joined the women's militia army of the People's Defence Unit, known as the YPJ in the Kurdish region of Syria (Rojava) following a near-fatal motorbike accident last year.

Also see NPR's coverage: Pentagon Says Women Can Now Serve In Front-Line Ground Combat Positions.


Original Submission

Related Stories

U.S. Senate Passes Defense Authorization Bill With Draft for Women Provision 84 comments

The U.S. Senate has passed a provision that would require women to register for the draft, but don't expect any changes soon:

On Tuesday, the Senate passed a defense authorization bill that would require young women to register for the draft — the latest development in a long-running debate over whether women should sign up for the Selective Service. The provision would apply to women turning 18 in 2018 or later and would impose the same requirements and rules that currently apply to men.

The policy is still far from being law. The House, after considering a similar provision earlier this spring, ultimately passed an authorization bill that omitted it; the two branches of Congress now must resolve the differences between their bills. And the bill faces a veto threat from President Obama over other elements of the legislation, such as the prohibition on closing down the Guantanamo Bay military prison. But the bill's passage brings women a step closer to Selective Service registration — a historic change that has bipartisan support in Congress but is firmly opposed by some conservative lawmakers.

For decades, the U.S. policy of having a draft for men, and not women, was approved as constitutional by the Supreme Court. But as NPR's David Welna reported last year, the court's reasoning relied on the fact that women were barred from combat roles. Now that women are eligible for combat duty, "Congress seems to have lost its court-endorsed rationale for limiting Selective Service registration to males only," David wrote.

Previously: Women Warriors Coming Soon to US Forces


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 04 2015, @04:10PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 04 2015, @04:10PM (#271830) Homepage Journal

    I wonder if the Kurds would accept a 60 year old man with a pot belly as a "recruit"? Don't know how the hell I'm going to hump an 80 pound pack up and down hills with my knees. Is there room for a Hoveround, I wonder? I'll carry my dead ass around well enough, if I can plop the battle gear on the Hoveround! Hell, I'll carry the whole mortar, not just the base plate, if I can get some kind of robot thingy to do the carrying!

    --
    alles in Ordnung
    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday December 04 2015, @04:24PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 04 2015, @04:24PM (#271837) Journal

      Fly a drone.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 4, Funny) by Phoenix666 on Friday December 04 2015, @04:28PM

        by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 04 2015, @04:28PM (#271838) Journal

        I have read that women have a higher pain tolerance than men, so provided they can meet the physical requirements why couldn't they prove excellent soldiers?

        Women also have a greater eye for detail--there's an arcade game for women based on that premise--so they'd be excellent taking point on patrol, spotting ambushes and booby traps.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @04:42PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @04:42PM (#271845)

          Heh, "booby traps"..

          • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @05:12PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @05:12PM (#271859)

            Heh, "booby traps"..

            Well, that went fifth grade pretty quickly.

            • (Score: 2, Funny) by bart9h on Friday December 04 2015, @05:25PM

              by bart9h (767) on Friday December 04 2015, @05:25PM (#271864)

              ( . )( . )

              • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Friday December 04 2015, @10:53PM

                by MostCynical (2589) on Friday December 04 2015, @10:53PM (#271985) Journal

                Hold on, who tagged the boobies "redundant"?

                --
                Books are a poor substitute for female companionship, but they are easier to find. P Rothfuss “The Wise Man's Fear"
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 05 2015, @10:08PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 05 2015, @10:08PM (#272280)

                  There are two of them, but most often only one is needed.

        • (Score: 5, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday December 04 2015, @04:54PM

          I'd agree, as long as the physical requirements are the same for them as for the men. But they're not. Pretty much any male soldier could pick up a 200lb injured brother and carry him half a mile if necessary. Pretty much no female soldiers could. There are damned good reasons women have not been allowed to take certain MOSs for so long and now people who shouldn't have will die because of political correctness.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday December 04 2015, @07:11PM

            by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Friday December 04 2015, @07:11PM (#271913) Homepage

            Not to mention that it's going to be extremely demoralizing when those who are inevitably captured are raped, tortured, and horrifically murdered on video for the whole world to see.

            • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @08:46PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @08:46PM (#271943)

              You mean as opposed to being raped on base... by your fellow Americans... and with a chain of command that dismisses your claims without actually looking into it? Yeah... that'd be bad too.
              On the up-side, those videos will feature dirty "moslems" doing the deed; vile, evil creatures that are part of the axis of evil and must be destroyed by our valiant, brave, freedom-loving troops. I guess that will be good for the ministry of propaganda. Much better at least than the numerous and repeated claims of service-women and -men being raped by their colleagues.

              • (Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday December 04 2015, @09:16PM

                by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Friday December 04 2015, @09:16PM (#271952) Homepage

                Getting drunk and willingly letting your entire platoon take turns on one or more of your three holes isn't "rape." It's only "rape" if that woman gets in trouble for something and she wants to portray herself as the victim in a desperate gambit to beat her rap - for example, if she gets pregnant while forward-deployed.

                Anyway, I'm all for nuking the entire Middle-East. This is the 21st century and goddamn barbaric savages have no place in it. After we exterminate the durka-durkas we can kick out all the Jews and they can go live over there.

                Yippie-kay-yay whooptie-God-damn-doo. All the world's problems solved!

                • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @11:04PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @11:04PM (#271990)

                  what about systemd

            • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Saturday December 05 2015, @06:41AM

              by Hairyfeet (75) <reversethis-{moc ... {8691tsaebssab}> on Saturday December 05 2015, @06:41AM (#272113) Journal

              Not to mention there are already jobs in the military that women are better at so putting them on the front line is just stupid. For examples women are much better at language and make better translators, their bodies can take more g-forces so make better fighter pilots, are better at reading body language and diffusing situations and thus make better MPs, hell I could go on all day.

              But of course we know what this is REALLY about, its the same as those racists that scream "this job doesn't have enough X!" with X being the race or gender they want to push. They go by the fallacy that we are nothing but plastic dolls, that race or sex is nothing but a minor change to the plastic mold, which of course science has proven time and again is bullshit. For just a few examples just look at the above or look at how you won't be seeing any White guys winning the short distance races, that is because Black folks over time have developed muscles that do not build up lactic acid nearly as fast as a White or Asian and therefor have an advantage in that event,or how many of our skyscrapers were built by American Indians because their sense of balance is so much better.

              We should frankly go to a strictly merit based system, where everybody is judged NOT by the color of their skin or their sex but by the content of their character and their abilities...but we sadly know that isn't what is gonna happen here. Instead what we will get is a year, maybe two where the women have to compete to the same standards as men and then some group will start screaming "You don't have enough X, that means you are an 'ist!'" and they'll dumb it down so they can get the number of X they require. Won't matter that they aren't qualified, can't do as much as those that held the job before, hell it won't even matter when good soldiers die because they don't have the strength to drag them out of the line of fire, all that matters is not being perceived as an 'ist' and the only way you can do that is to "make sure you have enough X!" whether X is qualified or even wants the damned job. Coming soon huge bonuses for women to take the job because they don't have enough X coming to a war near you, I'm sure the enemy will thank us.

              --
              ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
          • (Score: 2) by darkfeline on Saturday December 05 2015, @05:03AM

            by darkfeline (1030) on Saturday December 05 2015, @05:03AM (#272087) Homepage

            Hey, gender equality. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Maybe gender equality proponents, er, I mean feminists, will learn a lesson?

            Next step, women need to sign up for the draft.

            --
            Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
            • (Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday December 05 2015, @06:34AM

              by tathra (3367) on Saturday December 05 2015, @06:34AM (#272110)

              Next step, women need to sign up for the draft.

              correct, [washingtonpost.com] the reason women are currently exempt from the draft is because they're exempt from combat MOSes, feminists are suing over that bit of sexism [courthousenews.com] and the courts are looking into fixing it. [stripes.com]

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 05 2015, @05:16PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 05 2015, @05:16PM (#272202)

                I always thought that excuse was BS. I have to sign up for the draft despite being exempt from combat MOSes. Sure, they will stick me in a hospital or give me the shit jobs no one wants (without pay, while everyone drafted getting regular pay AND combat pay) but I'm still exempt from combat.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 05 2015, @09:57AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 05 2015, @09:57AM (#272133)

            Pretty much any male soldier could pick up a 200lb injured brother and carry him half a mile if necessary. Pretty much no female soldiers could.

            I believe they have a series of "special abilities" qualifications, and women have to qualify for one. For example, CPR. Thus, while many males will qualify via the carry-injured test, females will often qualify some other way.

          • (Score: 1) by Squidious on Saturday December 05 2015, @09:42PM

            by Squidious (4327) on Saturday December 05 2015, @09:42PM (#272276)

            Audie Murphy, the most decorated US soldier in WW2 and a consummate badass, was 5' 5" and weighed 112 pounds. He was initially considered too slight for combat. Bravery and marksmanship trump brawn in any modern conflict with repeating firearms.

            --
            The terrorists have won, game, set, match. They've scared the people into electing authoritarian regimes.
          • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday December 09 2015, @04:59PM

            by Reziac (2489) on Wednesday December 09 2015, @04:59PM (#273999) Homepage

            An interesting editorial on the question:

            http://jewishworldreview.com/kathleen/parker120715.php3 [jewishworldreview.com]

            The most salient point: "...once women are assigned to combat, there will be no argument against drafting women."

            Equality, anyone??

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by tempest on Friday December 04 2015, @04:56PM

          by tempest (3050) on Friday December 04 2015, @04:56PM (#271852)

          provided they can meet the physical requirements why couldn't they prove excellent soldiers?

          In the military the physical requirements for men and women are different. Women are graded on an entirely different scale than men on a PT test. I wasn't combat arms (in training), so my unit was about half female. Of the 20ish women in my platoon, I think one may have been able to pass the male requirements. And for us it was just a test, there were no real world repercussions for the physical limitations aside from issues carting your toolbox (which some women struggled to do). I recall the quote of taking 5 people to keep 1 soldier fighting in the military - I think that's out of date and probably a lot higher now. There are plenty of opportunities to be an essential soldier which doesn't involve front line combat.

          I'm not involved any more so I really don't care, but the reality of combat is that your weakest link is the highest liability of getting you killed. Some women I wouldn't have a problem fighting beside, but most I would. I certainly wouldn't welcome a whole batch graded on a lower scale. If women want to fight, then they can pass the male PT test.

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by tibman on Friday December 04 2015, @06:16PM

            by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 04 2015, @06:16PM (#271893)

            The men also have a different scale than other men. It varies by age. So are your older soldiers (who can do less pushups) the weakest link in your platoon? Rhetorical, because they aren't. The young idiots who can max the PT test are the weakest link because they don't know jack shit about fighting (yet).

            In my experience women can be just as strong as men only it takes a lot long to build up that strength. Men you can whip into shape in the matter of months. Women seem to take quite a bit longer, like several years longer. Unfortunately, most military terms are only a few years (or fortunately if you want out) so by the time a woman is really kick-ass strong she's ending her enlistment term. Weight is also a huge issue. A 140lb soldier will probably never beat 180lb soldier in terms of strength. Women have a lot of society pressures about their weight and looks that prevents them from putting on another 30 pounds of muscle. That is a life-long thing too. Bones and tendons don't adapt quickly. People entering the US Army already at a higher weight (even if it is distributed poorly) have a leg up on someone who joins at sub-150 pounds.

            --
            SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
            • (Score: 2) by tempest on Friday December 04 2015, @06:52PM

              by tempest (3050) on Friday December 04 2015, @06:52PM (#271904)

              The men also have a different scale than other men. It varies by age. So are your older soldiers (who can do less pushups) the weakest link in your platoon? Rhetorical, because they aren't.

              Actually yes. An older guy who can't carry his shit is a liability. If that's what has to be done, that's just a simple reality. If a woman can pass by male standards, that's when the dialog should start, but that's not what's happening here today. They physical aspect was on the bottom of my list of concerns as far as the weakest link goes, but it was a concern.

              • (Score: 2) by tibman on Friday December 04 2015, @07:11PM

                by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 04 2015, @07:11PM (#271912)

                Never did i mention an older guy who can't carry his shit. I said that the physical fitness tests also vary by age for men. So a younger man has to do more to pass than an older man. Both still pass the test. I don't know where your linkest link stuff is coming from but the PT test is a shit indicator who for will get you killed in combat. It only shows a soldier's ability to do physical labor for a short period of time.

                --
                SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @08:22PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @08:22PM (#271927)

                  So given two soldiers, identical in every way except one is physically stronger, you don't think the stronger one is an asset?

                  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tibman on Friday December 04 2015, @08:31PM

                    by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 04 2015, @08:31PM (#271936)

                    Don't go all spherical cow on me. Of course the stronger one is better given everything else is equal. Is the weaker one the "weakest link" leading to the death of the stronger one? Rhetorical (again, sorry), no. The stronger soldier is made even stronger by having a weaker soldier watch his/her back. If you keep removing the weakest soldier from any group then you'll eventually end up with an army of one : P

                    --
                    SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
                  • (Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday December 05 2015, @06:37AM

                    by tathra (3367) on Saturday December 05 2015, @06:37AM (#272111)

                    no, the one with more endurance and mental fortitude is the bigger asset. brute, physical strength means little when it comes to doing military stuff.

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by bradley13 on Friday December 04 2015, @05:30PM

          by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 04 2015, @05:30PM (#271868) Homepage Journal

          provided they can meet the physical requirements why couldn't they prove excellent soldiers

          The problem is, the US military is under tremendous pressure to get more women into positions for which they are physically unsuited. Women are allowed to put their gear on trucks during long training marches, because they cannot carry it. Women are allowed to go under or around obstacles on the fitness courses. Female medics are allowed to use four people to carry a stretcher, whereas men do it with two. The military cannot require women to meet the same objective standards as men, because there would be very nearly zero women in any physically demanding position - which includes essentially all ground combat positions. This is politically unacceptable.

          The military has always had different physical requirements for women [military.com], because women are hugely weaker than men [unz.com]. That's simple biology. The problem is: your combat gear doesn't get lighter just because you are a woman. Which means: these different physical standards are going to get people killed.

          There is another aspect that too few people are willing to discuss, and that is the sexual behavior of the species. By that, I mean the way that heterosexual men and women (and that is most of the species) are genetically programmed to behave around each other. Take a bunch of fit young guys, put a couple of fit young women in their midst, put the group under pressure, and watch the mating rituals. Men have a natural instinct to want to (a) impress and (b) protect women. Women, for their part, are programmed to encourage this behavior. Neither of these reactions belongs in a combat squad.

          Are there exceptions? Of course! If the military were truly allowed to impose neutral standards, you could identify the exceptional women capable of meeting the physical requirements of ground combat positions. The problem is: this will not be allowed to happen, because the SJWs want to see average women in the same combat positions that average men can achieve.

          --
          Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday December 04 2015, @05:58PM

            by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 04 2015, @05:58PM (#271880) Journal

            The United States could always look to other countries' militaries where women have already been put into combat roles. Israel is one, so are France and Germany. There others, but of those three perhaps Israel is the best example because they're constantly fighting with everyone.

            But then, maybe it's because the US has looked at those countries' experience that it has made this decision. Toughness is often measured in terms of physical strength, but it's a quality with deeper roots than that. I have known women in my life who are tough as nails; I even had a couple in my family--my great-grandmother outlived 5 husbands and was a chemist at a time when virtually none were. That willingness to accomplish the mission no matter what, the willingness to endure, can arguably make the difference between life and death as much as being able to bench another 100 lbs can.

            I dunno. I've never been a soldier--I have always sucked at following orders. But it seems that including women in a combat unit could be made stronger through the qualities they bring to the fight rather than made weaker.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
            • (Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Friday December 04 2015, @08:50PM

              by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 04 2015, @08:50PM (#271944) Journal

              The United States could always look to other countries' militaries where women have already been put into combat roles. Israel is one, so are France and Germany. There others, but of those three perhaps Israel is the best example because they're constantly fighting with everyone.

              But even with those countries, women are not given the same size combat packs to carry, or expected to slam the same size shells into the breach of howitzers.

              Those armies take a rational approach, where women are assigned to do the jobs commensurate with their size. They might drive the tank, command the tank, service the tank, fuel the tank, fire the gun, but there is usually a pretty beefy (male) gunner's mate moving the shells from the locker to the breach.

              Go to Google Images and search for images of Israeli ground troops. You won't see many women in those shots of actual combat missions, but there are a few. They seem to train separately [jpost.com].

              There is almost no job in aviation that women can't handle. Yes, she flew it, and brought it home, mostly in one piece [tumblr.com].

              More-so shipboard in the Navy. Even on a Carrier, probably 90% of the jobs can be handled by women. Probably everything but the Red Shirt Jobs [navy.mil] because bombs and missiles weighing up to 500 pounds (or more) are manually lifted to the pylons.

              --
              No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
            • (Score: 2) by termigator on Friday December 04 2015, @10:55PM

              by termigator (4271) on Friday December 04 2015, @10:55PM (#271987)

              Women already serve in combat roles today, and with modern weaponry, it does not take a lot of brute strength to be a killing machine.

              What will be interesting is if the physical requirements for elite fighting groups will be changed. Physical requirements in those cases are based on the types of missions that are performed and how to help guarantee soldiers can complete the mission and come back alive. If a woman can meet the physical requirements as the men, more power to her. But if requirements are going to be lowered just for the purposes of allowing women in, then the new requirements should apply to men also. The new requirements must also not sacrifice the ability to complete mission objectives and come back alive.

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday December 05 2015, @02:16AM

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 05 2015, @02:16AM (#272053) Homepage Journal

              Israel has some unique experiences and views on women in the military. They don't put women in the same front line units as they put men, generally speaking. We would do well to follow their example.

              http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/25/womens-combat-roles-in-israel-defense-forces-exagg/?page=all [washingtontimes.com]

              The other examples of women in the military do not have histories of those women in intense, prolonged front line action.

              Just like men, women are going to be both assets and liabilities. Unlike men, those attributes are less understood today. Neither progressives nor traditionalists are going to understand the issues unless and until those integrated units are put to the test.

              When we see these units battle without relief for months, THEN we will be able to evaluate their performance.

              --
              alles in Ordnung
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @05:53PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @05:53PM (#271876)

          Women have a higher pain tolerance than men? I don't believe that unless it was based on women that went through childbirth. Pain tolerance is a learned condition. I've been through three major spine surgeries, my pain tolerance is way up there. I don't even flinch when experiencing pain any more.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday December 05 2015, @02:20AM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 05 2015, @02:20AM (#272056) Homepage Journal

            Actually, I have to agree - generally speaking, women deal better with pain than men do. But, of course, that isn't true of ALL men or all women.

            --
            alles in Ordnung
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @06:40PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @06:40PM (#271901)

          spotting ambushes

          It is due to sensing danger. Women not being physically strong developed their sense of danger as a defense mechanism. Men could deal with attacks, women could not. So those women survived who were able to sense danger; the others were eaten by predators.

          It is similar to the Jewish sense of survival. Somehow they always manage to survive. And not just survive, but come out on top in the face of great odds.

        • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @07:04PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @07:04PM (#271909)

          The pain tolerance thing is mostly about enduring Meg Ryan movies.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Friday December 04 2015, @08:17PM

          by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 04 2015, @08:17PM (#271925) Journal

          as long as they qualify and meet the standards

          None of the articles, nor even the Secretary of Defense have said WHAT standards will apply.

          Currently, women make up less than 10 percent of Marine Corps, 14% of the Army, 15.7% Coast Guard, 18% of the Navy, and 19.1% of the Air Force.

          Probably the effect of prior regulations, but as of today the closer the service is to any actual shooting, the lower the percentage of females. It will be interesting to see if this remains the case.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @10:43PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @10:43PM (#271979)

          > Women also have a greater eye for detail

          I guess my wife is the exception that proves the rule.

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @04:34PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @04:34PM (#271840)

    "The enemy said that uniform makes your butt look kinda big."

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @07:02PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @07:02PM (#271907)

      As she's loading a Remington Model 1859.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @04:42PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @04:42PM (#271846)

    Finally, women can get murdered fighting for Isra-- the United States!

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Friday December 04 2015, @04:55PM

    by bzipitidoo (4388) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 04 2015, @04:55PM (#271851) Journal

    Congrats to everyone for this advance in equality of the sexes. But I can't help feeling cynical about it. Near the end of the US Civil War, the Confederacy was ready to arm the slaves. The military industrial complex surely seeks more growth.

    We don't need more military. A military answer to our current top problems is real dark. One way to solve Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption is to commit genocide on a scale never before seen, if it can be done without too much collateral damage to the environment. Kill off not mere millions, but a few billion people. Hitler and the Nazis will be pansies by comparison.

    Better that women and men work on our problems in other ways. Remind our public servants that we, and not a handful of oil billionaires, are their masters.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @05:03PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @05:03PM (#271856)
      Modding -1, "conspiracy loon."
    • (Score: 2) by DECbot on Friday December 04 2015, @11:03PM

      by DECbot (832) on Friday December 04 2015, @11:03PM (#271989) Journal

      Modding +1, "conspiracy loon."

      --
      cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
  • (Score: 0, Troll) by zugedneb on Friday December 04 2015, @05:02PM

    by zugedneb (4556) on Friday December 04 2015, @05:02PM (#271855)

    I have read somehwere, that officers giving stupid orders were executed by the soldiers.
    I do not know how documented this is, and ask for someone to post a link...

    However, the man and the woman has a "strange" relationship. We have sex, we build family and we even socialize to some degree, but we do not respect, or like eachother.
    As an argument, wery few men who whould have a chance to make an AI or artificial person as a mate would implement a typical 20+ woman. Especially not a middle aged 35+ woman.

    This said, about combat i know this: there would be woman around messing up the mood and making people woried about abduction, or get abducted and scream entire night while getting raped and haven their vagina carved and burned up...
    Also theiy would not be on par with natural born male killers, and the only combat they would be sufficient for is agains teenage boys who are deployed out of mockery.

    In serious combat, I would kill them myself, before they would mess up the situation.

    If someone disagrees here is what we can do: I look like an east europen criminal, despite my whiny trollenglish, I am not enitrelly normal.
    Bring your fucking woman candidate who wants to prove shit to sweden, we sail out on international water and I will murder all of you in close combat with weapon of choice.

    --
    old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Friday December 04 2015, @05:22PM

      However, the man and the woman has a "strange" relationship. We have sex, we build family and we even socialize to some degree, but we do not respect, or like eachother.

      There are men and women who I don't like and/or don't respect. However, the type and placement of their genitals does not play any role in those types of decisions for me.

      I'm not sure if you're unbalanced, unhappy or unhinged. Regardless, I pity you for your deficiencies. That said, stay the hell away from my nieces. They deserve much better than you.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by dyingtolive on Friday December 04 2015, @05:33PM

      by dyingtolive (952) on Friday December 04 2015, @05:33PM (#271871)

      Maybe I don't represent the average person, but I generally have always found it easier to get along with women rather than men, and I'm male. Sex might be a motivator, but it's not the only one.

      I also quite like and respect my current girlfriend, at least, as much as I can like or respect any another human being.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday December 04 2015, @05:59PM

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday December 04 2015, @05:59PM (#271881) Journal

      Sounds like you're either gay or else completely maldeveloped. Stay the ever-loving hell away from women; you very obviously do not know how to handle yourself around us and we deserve better than you.

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @06:04PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @06:04PM (#271885)

      Oh wow, somebody's really scared of women. How sad. Didn't momma love you enough?

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @06:33PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @06:33PM (#271899)

      Do the human race a favor... Don't procreate.

    • (Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Friday December 04 2015, @08:33PM

      by nitehawk214 (1304) on Friday December 04 2015, @08:33PM (#271937)

      but we do not respect, or like eachother

      This isn't a male/female thing. People just don't like you.

      --
      "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
      • (Score: 2, Touché) by zugedneb on Friday December 04 2015, @09:10PM

        by zugedneb (4556) on Friday December 04 2015, @09:10PM (#271949)

        bro, do you know the old saying "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity"?

        --
        old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
        • (Score: 2, Touché) by nitehawk214 on Friday December 04 2015, @09:36PM

          by nitehawk214 (1304) on Friday December 04 2015, @09:36PM (#271958)

          Well said. But don't you know the saying that "flamebait is the something something I am too lazy to make a clever response so piss off"?

          --
          "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by hulk smash on Friday December 04 2015, @05:11PM

    by hulk smash (5976) on Friday December 04 2015, @05:11PM (#271858)

    The female culture in the military is what causes the divide. Women that aren't grossly promiscuous within and out of the unit are shunned by the other girls that reside in the unit. The socio political factors involved with women being in the service alone creates a vast divide in overall military moral. For instance, it's all too common for women that weren't deployed with the main body to receive promotions from the "rear defense" (REAR D - the pussy ass bitches that did what they could to dodge the deployment). The result is a return of wanting soldiers from a year long deployment only to find their female counterparts were given promotions and now reside over the redeployed soldiers. It's then left open to interpretation by jilted soldiers as to why they were passed up, but, they know why. In the military, just like anywhere else; sex is currency. A more direct reason women cause divide is because they divvy up the men into sexual categories; of course, as anyone would suspect; the men displaying the most physical attributes will be the most sought, and of the desirable physical traits, rank or position seems yield the greatest benefits. Again, interesting seeing as these male soldiers with more rank are the ones recommending these females for promotion. It becomes a vicious cycle in which women that were considered unattractive or noncompetitive in the civilian world can be thrusted into a position of swift upward mobility, they'll have a buffet of alpha males that are in their prime that they're expected to 'mingle'with (Ya gots to fuck em all), an unbalanced system of standards in which women receive special treatment not having to perform nearly as well as their male counterparts (female physical standards are a joke), and an environment where females are pretty much bitchy queens that are only expected to 'mingle' and never produce anything of worth. However, there are a few badass chicks out there that can run with the men. I'd say they're few and far between, like 000000.1 of the population of females, but, they're anomalous and do exist.

    It's not women that are the problem, it's the female culture in the military that is largely to blame. But, the female culture in the military is all contingent upon its male senior non commissioned officers, and commissioned officers that take advantage of these young women and create this culture. The worse part about it all is it starts in basic training; the male drill instructors offer special treatment for sex, and the women gladly accept a few more hours of sleep, a trip to the PX in civilian clothes, or a cell phone call home.
    Knowing this, it's hard for me to want women anywhere near a combat unit. Any divide created within these units will equal loss of life. These guys don't need to be worried about where they place on some female tier system, or whether or not they'll be passed up for promotion because their female counterparts are sleeping with the commanding officer. They need to be focused at getting the mission accomplished and keeping each other alive.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by zugedneb on Friday December 04 2015, @05:28PM

      by zugedneb (4556) on Friday December 04 2015, @05:28PM (#271866)

      I am in a state of disbelief and awe that there avtually exist people who explain the obvious with such kindness and patience...

      I sweden, in the early 90:ies there was a big debate about approving woman as fire fighters.
      To be a fire fighter, you have some physical tests to pass, amongs them to cary the weight of a person upp and down stairs. Imagine doing this with a mask, in full gear, and several times in row...
      The debate itself left a bit to ask for, when it comes to quality and rationality...

      Obviously, a woman can not do this.
      As a man, I would beg whatever power to actually be strong enough...
      As a man, if I would fail one victim, I would weep and blame myself for not being strong enough.

      But women happily ignore that they just don't cut it.
      They have no heart. They think they are so beautiful and precious that failure is forgiven by default.
      I wonder if they ever ponder failure and the price of it...

      --
      old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by tibman on Friday December 04 2015, @06:31PM

      by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 04 2015, @06:31PM (#271896)

      You make it sound like there aren't men who dodge deployments and fuck over their brothers. REMF and poges are everywhere and gender isn't part of that. Soldier's abusing their authority is not something you can blame on women. There are probably some male recruits giving blowjobs for a bag of skittles. So you can't just say it is female culture in the US Army. It's US Army culture and it's nine different shades of fucked up.

      --
      SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
      • (Score: 1) by hulk smash on Saturday December 05 2015, @06:10AM

        by hulk smash (5976) on Saturday December 05 2015, @06:10AM (#272103)

        When I mentioned deployment dodgers it wasn't gender specific. I actually feel that deployment dodging is largely a male problem, though, women do participate as well. IMO any woman willing to get pregnant to dodge a deployment has my blessing, may the next 18 years go smoothly. I even attributed the toxic female culture to male NCO/COs propagating their bullshit for self/sexual gain. It's a dirty game, but everyone seems to play it.

        In terms of rear defense; I have to disagree, however, I can only reference my experiences I had with XVIII ABC in that respect. With that deployment nearly all of the senior ranking persons stayed behind, as well as the great majority of our females. But, I think anyone could agree, most corps are farked to begin with. Hell, we had some CW5 that never left the palace and was awarded the bronze star; talk about a slap in the face to shitkickers. Luckily, that was my only corps deployment. Even then, I ended up going out with QRF and SEXY to see what I could "find" and bring back to the camp, really glad I left the ARMY right after that. Aside from that, I'd had a handful of six monthers prior to my corps deployment, but mostly as an augmentee, and one while I was in AIT.

        But yeah, BigBigARMY is different. Can't say I liked it much, I donno anyone that has. If you ever get a chance check out all the Craiglist adds people post while they're deployed, lots of NSA fun of all sorts. Not the NSA you might be thinking of ^^

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by jdavidb on Friday December 04 2015, @05:29PM

    by jdavidb (5690) on Friday December 04 2015, @05:29PM (#271867) Homepage Journal

    Honestly this doesn't affect me all that much. I don't support what they are doing anyway, regardless of what their gender or sexual proclivities are. (In fact the biggest problem I see is men and women sexually shaming the prisoners, although I guess that was awhile back. What we know of, at least.) IMO, Washington mostly needs to get women and men out of combat.

    I'm not opposing anybody's right to defend themselves when threatened, but obviously the biggest provoker of us being threatened is retaliation over what the U.S. military is.

    Whatever happened to that black guy who was elected to bring all the troops home? Did he ever do that?

    --
    ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @07:59PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @07:59PM (#271920)

      who was elected to bring all the troops home?

      I'm pretty sure Obama never said that. In fact, I remember Obama specifically saying that he wasn't going to bring them home. No matter what Obama said, liberals projected their wishful thinking on him and conservatives projected their nightmares on him.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @08:10PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @08:10PM (#271921)

        Yeah, because he is just a victim in all this, he never made any mistakes, or failed to follow through on campaign promises . . .

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @09:44PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @09:44PM (#271960)

          No, but as you allude to, Obama has made enough of his own mistakes and failed to keep many promises that it is unnecessary to make ones up. I did not vote for or believe any of the hype or hysteria about Obama when he was campaigning. I actually think that it is funny when people were surprised about his stances on certain things when he was very clear about the topic before he was elected. I guess they were too filled with "Hope" that things would "Change" exactly they way they wanted independently of what Obama said.

        • (Score: 1) by Eristone on Friday December 04 2015, @11:53PM

          by Eristone (4775) on Friday December 04 2015, @11:53PM (#272001)

          You mean these promises [politifact.com] that he made?

      • (Score: 2) by jdavidb on Friday December 04 2015, @11:36PM

        by jdavidb (5690) on Friday December 04 2015, @11:36PM (#271996) Homepage Journal

        No matter what Obama said, liberals projected their wishful thinking on him and conservatives projected their nightmares on him.

        I understand. I used to make the same mistake with George W. Bush when I was a conservative. Maybe eventually we can all realize we are being taken for a ride.

        --
        ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 05 2015, @03:45AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 05 2015, @03:45AM (#272075)

          I think people already know but the media and campaign marketing scare people into choosing the "side" that isn't evil. Far too many people choose a candidate because they are not-Bush/not-Obama or just because they identify as Democrat/Republican. If people actually voted for the candidates they thought were best for the country, using the facts of what they say and do, then we would probably have better choices.

          Unless it is discovered that there is a large conspiracy of Republicans and Democrats working together to eat babies, then we probably won't be able to break out of the two-party system without some serious changes to the voting process.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by drpylons on Friday December 04 2015, @05:32PM

    by drpylons (5057) on Friday December 04 2015, @05:32PM (#271870)

    ...the buzzword "progress" overshadows the actual fact that women are now allowed to order the killing of individuals and actually kill at the same rate as men.

    This is seen as "progress."

    Think about that.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @09:52PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @09:52PM (#271961)

      Moreover, they're now allowed to be killed fighting on the battlefield! PROGRESS

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @10:57PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @10:57PM (#271988)

      Well, women aren't any more important than men, so I don't see why not.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 05 2015, @03:16AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 05 2015, @03:16AM (#272067)

        Men, women: equally good at being cannon-fodder. Blammo!

  • (Score: 1, Troll) by zugedneb on Friday December 04 2015, @05:41PM

    by zugedneb (4556) on Friday December 04 2015, @05:41PM (#271873)

    ...is the value of these types of comments, like OP...
    It is the type that brings out the absolute idiot, and makes them try to argue their point.

    Take the jews as example. They ended up in a concentration camp in the most civilised and evolved country in the world, while at the same time being teachers, doctors, and other intellectuals.
    Now imagine being a guard in a concentration camp, and just listening to these idiots behind the bars pleading and trying to figure out what went wrong...
    To hear their conversations must be a universal collectors edition...

    And also this post is made to bring out the idiot amongst us =)

    Now, let me be crushed by the waves of your indignation :DDD

    --
    old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @07:06PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @07:06PM (#271910)

      Now, let me be crushed by the waves of your indignation :DDD

      Right now, it is not so much indignation as pity. You are a sad little man.

  • (Score: 2) by zugedneb on Friday December 04 2015, @05:44PM

    by zugedneb (4556) on Friday December 04 2015, @05:44PM (#271875)

    https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=10963&cid=271855 [soylentnews.org]

    god damn kswapd0 process of linux...

    My browser froze, like always when it is working, and I did not notice where i clicked...

    --
    old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
  • (Score: 1) by donkeyhotay on Friday December 04 2015, @08:17PM

    by donkeyhotay (2540) on Friday December 04 2015, @08:17PM (#271923)

    I guess how well this works will depend on the attitudes of the rank and file servicemen. In my day (it's been over 20 years since I was in the military), it would not have worked. Even in non-combat roles, women were often resented when I was in the Navy. A sailor will have many different assignments in the course of his or her career and these are split up between sea duty and shore duty. Sea duty, with its many deployments, is difficult and places a burden on people who are married and have families. For a lot of job specialties, the shore duty billets are highly prized. Unfortunately, pregnant women were given priority for shore duty, whether they were due to receive it or not. This often meant that some men had to serve yet another sea duty assignment in order to fill a billet that should have gone to a woman. It is an inequitable situation. The other problem was that women have a, shall we say, "particular" advantage when it comes to getting special treatment from their superiors.

    It's not the job performance aspect which is the issue. The dynamic of small unit combat is a tried and true method which has worked effectively for thousands of years. Tossing women into that dynamic could create social and political disruption that could undermine a system that we know works. We appear to be on the brink of world war three. Is this really a good time to experiment?

    --
    What is tat? How can I get some? Where can I exchange it for the other thing?
    • (Score: 2) by tibman on Friday December 04 2015, @08:57PM

      by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 04 2015, @08:57PM (#271945)

      Experimenting is what has made the US Army so good (historically). Not afraid to try new things, analyse those things, and then make a correction. When you were in the army 20 years ago, racism was probably a hot topic thing. In my time it was mostly about homo/heterosexuality. Now it will be about genders.

      Doing nothing because change could yield uncertain outcomes is something foreign armies do. There have already been a lot of pilot programs that show mixed units under-perform male units by a decent amount in most areas. That women in combat roles are more likely to receive injuries during training than their male counterparts. I could go on but the end result is women can do the job. Now they just have to figure out how to improve the numbers. May take decades to improve the culture (like racism and homophobia).

      --
      SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Username on Friday December 04 2015, @09:24PM

    by Username (4557) on Friday December 04 2015, @09:24PM (#271954)

    I hope this means women now have to register for the selective service.

  • (Score: 2) by shortscreen on Saturday December 05 2015, @12:17AM

    by shortscreen (2252) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 05 2015, @12:17AM (#272018) Journal

    There is another group that is woefully under-represented in the trenches: warmongering politicians and profiteers. When do we get to see their asses out on the battlefield "spreading democracy?" I'd sign up for cable TV again to see that.

  • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday December 05 2015, @03:40AM

    by jmorris (4844) on Saturday December 05 2015, @03:40AM (#272073)

    This is a stupid notion, but not for any of the typical reasons. Many of those reasons are also valid but I want to raise an objections that should be argument enders but won't be.

    Let us assume for the sake of argument that women (some almost certainly exist... not in the numbers diversity mandates will require) can pass the same tests and when the coming world war gets underway all the doubters are forced to admit women perform in actual combat equal to men. The absolute best case scenario, right? Nope.

    Consider this problem. Men are programmed to defend and protect women. It is in the firmware. The purpose of a military is to kill people and break things until the enemy apologizes for the offense that lead to war and pursues terms for peace. While we all hope and pray it is the American soldier doing the killing and breaking, the reality is the enemy usually manages a bit in return. While our forces have a tradition of never leaving a man behind we must face the reality that it won't be the same when it is a female soldier down behind enemy lines. Because it won't BE the same, female soldiers must face horrors most male captives won't, especially considering our most likely opponents will be followers of the perverted prophet. So two scenarios, either men get needlessly killed in daring rescues or the Army does manage to develop a training regime which manages to reprogram human nature. Either one is a disaster. Option one causes extra wartime losses and could cost battles or even the whole war. The other is even worse, it implies the Army has created monsters who must never be returned to civilian life but the nature of the U.S. armed forces implies that the vast majority will be.

    Or another problem. So long as we only suffer token losses in limited wars mostly fought by special forces there is no real problem. But in a real war, an existential struggle for survival where half the generation can be lost like WWI was for Europe say, losing large numbers of your male population is survivable but losing a large portion of your women of child bearing age brings the very survival of your civilization into question. Bluntly, we males are expendable.

  • (Score: 2) by TheLink on Saturday December 05 2015, @06:09AM

    by TheLink (332) on Saturday December 05 2015, @06:09AM (#272102) Journal

    How many of you want your airline pilots or brain surgeons to pass lower standards merely because they are women?

    If you want more women don't lower standards. Increase the training if necessary (e.g. they can sign up for extra PT etc) and if they still don't make the grade, they're not fit for that position (maybe try pilot or something else more suitable). If they make the grade after all the extra work, they also prove they have determination and grit.

    Of course as a war gets shittier you take whoever can hold the gun and isn't likely to kill their own team.

    But if you think physical fitness is overrated in modern warfare, perhaps you should send all those congressmen who wanted a war into battle first. That might help reduce the number of wars (but see also: https://soylentnews.org/~TheLink/journal/1632 [soylentnews.org] ). ;)
     

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 05 2015, @03:28PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 05 2015, @03:28PM (#272179)

    This will put the wind up Jihad Joe. If he gets killed in battle by a woman, he doesn't go to Heaven (do not collect 72 virgins^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hfresh grapes). Let's see just how willing to die these would-be "martyrs" are now, knowing that they could be killed by a woman!