800 service members kicked out under [Don't Ask Don't Tell] just got discharges upgraded to honorable
800 service members kicked out under [Don't Ask Don't Tell] just got discharges upgraded to honorable
The gay and bi former service members will now have access to more benefits for veterans.
You're viewing a single thread.
Can you shoot? Can you move? Can you communicate?
Then who the fuck cares who you prefer to be involved with!? Especially when a lot of soldiers/officers seem to like to be with other people's wives/husbands!
This is the same reason why women should be allowed the same combat positions as men. They still aren't and it's stupid.
If I remember correctly, the US started rolling back restrictions in 2013. Progress has definitely been slow, and we aren't where we should be yet, but things are moving in the right direction.
We still have a ways to go with psychologist research, to be fair. My dad served two tours between 2003-2006 and only more recently came to understand PTSD isn't something you just "get over."
Same for sexism. It's not easy for service members to get over that engrained idea of protecting women at the cost of the team. There's a lot of promising research in resilience studies preparing military members prior to entering combat that I think could apply. As long as researchers and artists involved in VR type training are careful to include particular elements like more femme voices and such, it can be overcome before it's an issue in active combat
And to be clear, I'm not familiar with the research veterans have cited to me that it is an issue to begin with. I've only really looked at PTSD and the use of VR for exposure therapy and CBT. I'm inclined to believe it would be an issue for at least some men. I'd like to look at Israel as a case study example when I get some time since they've had compulsory service for men and women for a while now
Is it because things are moving slow, or because there just isn't as many women as men signing up?
I imagine there's a natural imbalance between who wants to sign up. I'm just spitballing though, happy to be wrong.
There are definitely fewer women In the military in general. And many fewer women pursuing certain positions, like Rangers or SEALs.
The institutions moved slowly, too. Some groups within the military were hesitant to open up fully to women. And there are the usual systemic hurdles, like physical fitness tests that favored male physiques, which put women at a disadvantage until they were changed.
I think women's participation in the military will mirror what we have seen in women's athletics: as it becomes more common we will see closer parity between women and men. I also suspect the services will find that women tend to perform certain skills better than men.
Progress would be abolishing the military not dooming more people to be killed for imperialism
Name one combat position women aren't allowed in (US).
Navy SEAL when I was in. That may have changed since then, I've been out for well over a decade.
"Well over a decade" ago is very different than today.
In 2013, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta removed the military's ban on women serving in combat, overturning the 1994 rule. Panetta's decision gave the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believed any positions must remain closed to women. The services had until May 2013 to draw up a plan for opening all units to women and until the end of 2015 to actually implement it.
In December 2015, Defense Secretary Ash Carter stated that starting in 2016 all combat jobs would open to women.
You're giving squids a bad name. Surely you understood the question refers to present, not the past, right?
I would argue that half the army recruits can only do two out of the three of those, and half them only one at a time.