Shell, yes, you're absolutely right on two counts. First, yes, women do still have to physically qualify for combat positions. And while there will still be fewer women in combat because it is a more physical position, that doesn't mean the military can't actively try to recruit women for infantry.

Also, as you said it's a very good thing that people are at least talking about a real problem. However, my worry is that there will be a big gap between talking about a problem and actually doing something that solves it. I mean, we've been talking about gun violence for a long time and we still haven't passed any laws that have had a significant impact on it. I worry that if we don't do something, we'll have a bunch of suits in Washington talking while real women are being raped in the military. In fact, that and a little math are why I want to see this problem fixed fast.

Let's look at Moro's "flood the ranks" plan. Let's also say that before we use it, we have an average of 100 rapes per year (no, I don't know the exact number, but I'm using nice, round numbers to make the math easier). Then we enact the plan and flood the military with women. For three years, the number of rapes goes up to 300 a year, but, then, after those three years, we get our shit together and it drops to let's say 5 a year. So, over the course of 10 years, we have 935 rapes. Not a good number, but let's look at another plan. This one, we try to make subtle, slow moving changes to the culture of the military. It takes longer, though, and doesn't get fully enacted until 10 years is up. During those 10 years, we maintain 100 rapes per year and at the end of that time period, we have 1000 people raped; that's already more that if we with with Moro's idea; if it takes longer to enact the slow moving idea, even more people get raped while we wait for the problem to get fixed.

Yeah, I'd like to fix the problem without anyone getting raped. I'd also like to win a the lottery. Unfortunately, neither one is realistic. I think the goal should be to fix the problem while minimizing rapes and provide the best support we can to rape victims.

How about we don't make slow change? I never said the change should be slow. There is no playing up a "lesser of two evils by making rape more prominent" argument to me. If those are the only two options, then we are failing miserably to be creative human beings. No point in even arguing it if we are going to be that dense.

Quote:Es werde aber auch künftig noch Ausnahmen geben, hieß es laut Presseberichten. Das Militär habe laut der Quelle aus dem Verteidigungsministerium bis Januar 2016 Zeit, nach Ausnahmen zu suchen, in denen weiter keine Frauen eingesetzt werden sollten. Manche Positionen sollen aber sogar dieses Jahr noch für Soldatinnen möglich werden.

"There will still be "exceptions" in the future."

Meaning not every job will be accessable for women and the Pentagon has until 2016, where those exceptions will be made.
So in the end, it does still mean that certain positions will not be reached by women.
I am courious to see which posts these will be.

Quote:Bereits vor knapp einem Jahr hatte das Pentagon schon eine Richtlinie zu dem Thema erlassen: Insgesamt konnten Frauen sich dadurch auf 14.000 neue Stellen bei den amerikanischen Streitkräften bewerben. Mehr als 230.000 Posten in der US-Armee blieben ihnen aber weiter verschlossen - diese könnten ihnen jetzt aber durch Panettas neuen Vorstoß auch offen stehen.

Already last year, the pentagon lessoned restrictions on army jobs available for women, 14 000 posts where thereby made possible for women in the US army, which still left 230 000 posts which were not available for women.

Quote:Im amerikanischen Militär dienen gegenwärtig 200.000 Frauen, was etwa der Gesamtstärke der Bundeswehr entspricht.

lol
there are a total of 200 000 female soldiers in the US army, which is about the size of the German army XD.


source:

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/us...79346.html

During the second World War the Soviet Army employed thousands of women in frontline combat roles. Including tank crews and flight crews.

Quote:For Soviet women aviators, instrumental to this change was Marina Raskova, a famous Russian aviatrix, often referred to as the "Russian Amelia Earhart". Raskova became famous as both a pilot and a navigator in the 1930s. She was the first woman to become a navigator in the Soviet Air Force in 1933. A year later she started teaching at the Zhukovskii Air Academy, also a first for a woman. When World War II broke out, there were numerous women who had training as pilots and many immediately volunteered. While there were no formal restrictions on women serving in combat roles, their applications tended to be blocked, run through red tape, etc. for as long as possible in order to discourage them from seeing combat. Raskova is credited with using her personal connections with Joseph Stalin to convince the military to form three combat regiments for women. Not only would the women be pilots, but the support staff and engineers for these regiments were women. The Soviet Union was the first nation to allow women pilots to fly combat missions. These regiments flew a combined total of more than 30,000 combat sorties, produced at least thirty Heroes of the Soviet Union, and included at least two fighter aces. This military unit was initially called Aviation Group 122 while the three regiments received training. After their training, the three regiments received their formal designations as follows:

(January 24, 2013 at 5:24 am)Zen Badger Wrote: During the second World War the Soviet Army employed thousands of women in frontline combat roles. Including tank crews and flight crews.

Not a suprise

I want to say, first off, I have no hostility when I'm in this discussion. I think we both sincerely want the same thing: for these attacks to stop happening. We disagree on how to bring it about, though.

(January 24, 2013 at 1:13 am)Shell B Wrote: How about we don't make slow change? I never said the change should be slow.

No, I don't think it should be slow, either, but, in when you said...

(January 23, 2013 at 9:40 pm)Shell B Wrote: The onus is not on me to come up with a solution. However, I would say the steps are beginning and the subject is gaining a lot of attention lately. This is all good.

My worry is that 'thinking about the problem' and 'concern for it' will replace action. I don't want procrastination on this one, I want action. As I also mentioned, if we hesitate too much, I worry that more people will be hurt long term than if we take action now. But I've always been a bit impatient, so maybe that's just my personality.

Quote:There is no playing up a "lesser of two evils by making rape more prominent" argument to me.

I don't like it either, but it does work. The reason the Civil Rights bill got through was because the public wached video of black people having fire hoses turned on them and having police dogs attack them. If we can get people to pay attention to rapes in the military in the same way, it would fix things a lot faster.

Quote: If those are the only two options, then we are failing miserably to be creative human beings. No point in even arguing it if we are going to be that dense.

No, you're right, there are lots of options out there. I just want us to find one that will work and I want it to be put in enacted quickly to prevent as many of these attacks as possible. And with the human imagination as expansive as it is, it could easily be argued that we have infinate options. However, for each of those options, it does kinda come down to two options: 1) Do it or 2) Don't do it.