Col. Jeannie Leavitt speaks to the crowd during the wing change of command ceremony on Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, N.C., June 1, 2012. Leavitt is the first female to command an Air Force fighter wing. Since becoming the first mission-qualified female fighter pilot, she has logged more than 2,500 hours in the F-15E Strike Eagle. Leavitt is the 4th Fighter Wing commander. (U.S. Air Force photo/Tech. Sgt. Colette Graham)
1/24/2013 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey announced today the rescission the 1994 Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule for women and that the Department of Defense plans to remove gender-based barriers to service.
"Women have shown great courage and sacrifice on and off the battlefield, contributed in unprecedented ways to the military's mission and proven their ability to serve in an expanding number of roles," Panetta said. "The Department's goal in rescinding the rule is to ensure that the mission is met with the best-qualified and most capable people, regardless of gender."
While 99 percent of Air Force positions are currently open to women, Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III said the service will now pursue opening the final 1 percent.
"2013 marks the twentieth anniversary of the Department of Defense allowing women to serve as combat pilots," Welsh said. "By rescinding the 1994 Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule, we can pursue integrating women into the seven remaining Air Force career fields still closed, all associated with special operations. We're focused on ensuring America's Air Force remains capable and ready with the best-qualified people serving where we need them."
The Air Force will partner with U.S. Special Operations Command and the other services to review opening these positions in a deliberate, measured, and responsible way, officials said. Those positions are:
Officer / Enlisted Air Force Specialty Codes closed to women:
- 13DXA (Combat Control Officer - special operations forces / direct ground combat)
- 13DXB (Combat Rescue/Special Tactics Officer - special operations forces / direct ground combat)
- 15WXC (Special Operations Weather Officer - special operations forces / direct ground combat)
- 1C2XX (Enlisted Combat Controller - special operations forces /direct ground combat)
- 1C4XX (Enlisted Tactical Air Command and Control - some special operations forces /direct ground combat)
- 1T2XX (Enlisted Pararescue - special operations forces /direct ground combat)
- 1W0X2 (Enlisted Special Operations Weather - special operations forces /direct ground combat)
These career fields comprise approximately 3,235 positions.
Today, women make up approximately 15 percent, or nearly 202,400, of the U.S. military's 1.4 million active personnel. Over the course of the past decade, more than 280,000 women have deployed in support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Today's announcement follows an extensive review by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who unanimously concluded that now is the time to move forward with the full intent to integrate women into occupational fields to the maximum extent possible.
It builds on a February 2012 decision to open more than 14,000 additional positions to women by rescinding the co-location restriction and allowing women to be assigned to select positions in ground combat units at the battalion level.
"The Joint Chiefs share common cause on the need to start doing this now and to doing this right. We are committed to a purposeful and principled approach," said Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey.
The DoD is determined to successfully integrate women into the remaining restricted occupational fields within our military, while adhering to the following guiding principles developed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
- Ensuring the success of our nation's warfighting forces by preserving unit readiness, cohesion, and morale.
- Ensuring all service men and women are given the opportunity to succeed and are set up for success with viable career paths.
- Retaining the trust and confidence of the American people to defend this nation by promoting policies that maintain the best quality and most qualified people.
- Validating occupational performance standards, both physical and mental, for all military occupational specialties (MOS), specifically those that remain closed to women. Eligibility for training and development within designated occupational fields should consist of qualitative and quantifiable standards reflecting the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary for each occupation. For occupational specialties open to women, the occupational performance standards must be gender-neutral as required by Public Law 103-160, Section 542 (1993).
- Ensuring that a sufficient cadre of midgrade/senior women enlisted and officers are assigned to commands at the point of introduction to ensure success in the long run. This may require an adjustment to recruiting efforts, assignment processes, and personnel policies. Assimilation of women into heretofore "closed units" will be informed by continual in-stride assessments and pilot efforts.
Using these guiding principles, positions will be opened to women following service reviews and the congressional notification procedures established by law. Panetta directed the military departments to submit detailed plans by May 15, 2013, for the implementation of this change, and to move ahead expeditiously to integrate women into previously closed positions. The secretary's direction is for this process to be complete by Jan. 1, 2016.
3/26/2013 1:59:06 PM ET Not every woman will want a combat job just as every male does not want one. If those seeking combat rolls can do the job then let them.
Jeff, Battle Creek
2/5/2013 4:17:42 PM ET @TSgt AOR I take it that since I mentioned strapping weight on your chest that it equates to playing the I'm a girl card. I can only disagree because unlike some of the women in my peer group who are smaller CHESTLESS and fit I am passing my tests and have never been on a waiver. UNLIKE a lot of MEN and WOMEN who get on these profiles and exempt themselves from the components of the test that they know they can't pass. Let's talk about THEM. I will NEVER use being a woman as an EXCUSE. I have no excuses because I am actually out there doing what I am asked of when it comes to PT Testing. What I am saying is that with my stature 5'9 G chest 31 waist and long arms and legs it may be a bit different doing a PT test versus Airman so-and-so who is 5'5 30-28-30. And before you start with your judging no I do not overeat. I have been the same weight for YEARS my body is like this because it just IS. Thank you very much.
Setsunna, somewhere
2/5/2013 3:58:05 PM ET @BAMF EOD Tech Alaska Well you must be very proud of yourself. And to come on here and say what you can do must have made your head that much bigger. Yet you fail to realize that you do not have to wear all of that MESS during your PT test. Yes you may be able to pass it if you did BUT you do not. You are RUCK and WEIGHT free. You throw those weights around as an OPTION not a requirement. So before you go around belching what you are able to do think about what you are saying and who you are saying it to. The standards were not made for YOU. And when you are make 100 percent on ALL of your PT TESTS THROUGHOUT YOUR MILITARY CAREER...we'll talk. Until then sit down.
Setsunna is Pissed, somewhere
2/5/2013 11:08:39 AM ET If this article is supposed to lend credibility to women in combat the editor should have found a woman who knows which eye to close when firing a weapon. Perhaps this is strategic messaging at it's finest
Cale, AK
2/5/2013 10:09:50 AM ET Not sure if no one read the additional articles. But it does state that they will have gender neutral requirements. It even says that if women are able to make the standards then they will put in for an exception to this policy.
James, ND
2/5/2013 4:21:09 AM ET To all the ones making references to G.I. Jane...you all do realize it is a movie and its a work of FICTION
MHairman, Mountain Home
2/4/2013 9:24:39 AM ET Assuming that females line up for the opportunity to become part of these career fields assuming they make the cut on an equal standards system they are more than capable. I am all for it as long as they make the cut. The problem is not the women. Does anyone recall watching G.I. Jane We men are the problem. When it comes down to it we become weak around women. It is psychologically proven that men have a harder time dealing with a woman being injured or even killed. This is were we fail. The mindset will have to change. If a woman makes the cut...it's fair game on all circumstances...see her as your equal...be her wingman.
RAB Airman, RAB
2/3/2013 9:04:03 AM ET It's been said physiologically women are not as strong as men. This along with any general statement is not a true statement for every single individual. However allowing women into combat WILL weaken our military. They may have no plans on lowering the standards now but in time it will happen When they decided to let woman into the military they also decided to change the standards for women. That's because we are different by nature. I'm all for giving people equal opportunity and who says I don't want to be in combat sure I would. But sometimes we need to give up our personal wants to better the whole. I am a woman and I am a very fit woman. I may WANT to be in combat but even if I had the opportunity I would give up my right to do so to better our military. Men naturally protect woman thats the way its supposed to be. If they do that they compromise the mission. Yet if they don't you are changing our instinct. Neither is acceptable. Period. SERVICE BEFORE SELF This means
SSgt Kayla, Pittsburgh
2/3/2013 4:16:54 AM ET I agree with ItsAchorman the Air Force will have to lower standards to allow women into pararescue just to stop the whining. What I want to know is whether men will be allowed to enter these AFSCs using those lower standards. Fair is fair. While we're at it lets do away with male and female latrines showers barracks and so forth. After all isn't the ultimate goal gender-neutrality And if they go that route I don't want to hear even one woman complain that she was sexually harassed since they are insisting on this nonsense. Men and women simply are not wired the same. 'Nuff said.
jp former AF, Africa
2/2/2013 11:54:29 PM ET Females keep going to the waist measurement when the PT difference is brought up I can pass a PT test using your score for waist and mine for everything else. Can you say the same Strap 8 pounds to my chest Can you execute a firemans carry on me at 200 pounds plus body armor and gear I think all the women who are going to take advantage of this are too busy training to comment on this article. If they are willing and able to meet the standards and do the job more power to them I have worked with some females who can and will work circles around half the men in the Air Force. The reason why there is such a negative response to this is simple. There are woman who use being a female to get out of lifting heavy items doing manual labor etc. The females who milk the system play the Im just a girl card and cry during counseling sessions are to blame for the negative views expressed here. Good luck to all the real Women out there.
TSgt, AOR
2/2/2013 12:33:28 PM ET I hope the comments about waist measurements aren't serious... The PT standards need to remain the same because of the amount of gear you will be carrying the 250 lb pilot you need to fireman carry the mountains you need to hike up with gear...and the list goes on. The AFPT is so the AF looks semi decent in a uniform not to test physical fitness. The operator PT test is used to judge whether or not you are going to get people killed because you are weak.
Seriously, NV
2/1/2013 7:30:09 PM ET I personally think it is amazing that women now have the oppourtunity to become special forces. Physically speaking I say the Air Force comes up with a better way to determine physical fitness BMI is absoulutely innacurate. And while I do think standards are standardsn who said anything about LOWERING standards for women do y9ou really think they are going to go easy on the women in these career fields All that does is put their lives in danger. that won't happen.It seems to me that all of the people that have a problem with women in these career fields are probably the same ones that had a problem with the Repeal on DADT. Did your life really change with gay people being allowed to serve openly NO. it didn't. I would put 1000 on any women that makes it through tech school for special forces vs any man currently in the career field. these women will be stron confident and twice the Airman because they have something to prove. The want to prove that they desearve to be
HAPPY, gsc
2/1/2013 4:58:09 PM ET It is good to see women getting the opportunity to get into these career fields however I do believe they should meet the standards in place...not that some will have a problem with that...I would like to see the same standards for PT as well...same pushups situps and run. The waist measurement in my opinion should be based on HEIGHT...not gender
MHairmen, Mountain Home
2/1/2013 12:06:37 PM ET Read back on the rape case scenario of what if a woman is captured and raped then rescued while pregnant past the point of being able to do anything about it an easy solution is contraseptives implants possibly if it becomes necessary or if the women in the career field of risk so fear such a thing then give THEM the option for a contraseptive implant. Men get the same offer for free.
Really, AFSOC
2/1/2013 10:49:26 AM ET Yes it's time folks. Women can be capable too. Let's combine the pt standards But make sure you men follow our waist-guidelines. Fair is fair.
it's time Louisville, Louisville
2/1/2013 10:33:47 AM ET Well we all know that there are many women that are quite capable of the physical and mental aspects of war regardless if they have a menstrual cycle. In fact we can shoot as well. If a woman wants to be on the frontline and proves herself let it be. Don't judge all women because your mom stayed home and cookedcleaned. We are capable and all of the negative comments are disturbing.
Holly Newman, KYANG
2/1/2013 10:11:20 AM ET The real issue here is that in America the average 17 year old male is just not fit to fight. Teenagers today are too chubby. And to all you naysayers out there you know you have met a few women in your lifetime that can do this job. You know the type -- 6' tall 250 built like a brickS.H. They are out there. Maybe 1 in a million but they exist.
formerAF, Florida
1/31/2013 6:47:04 PM ET So much for women and children first on the life boats. Its pretty simple. You lower the standards for women or you become the only branch to allow women in SpecOps you lose most of us able bodied men who are already here and you repel the ones who have 3 other options for SpecOps.
PJ, North
1/31/2013 6:32:25 PM ET @Setsunna Somewhere USA. Your remark about strapping 6-8lbs to my chest is ridiculous. I can score a 90 with a 40lb ruck and full body armor. The military's job is to kill the enemy not coddle people. The AF has become very good at coddling. Meet the current spec ops standard and we will talk. As far as PT run times should be the same. Being a man doesn't make me a faster runner.
BAMF EOD Tech, Alaska
1/31/2013 3:36:01 PM ET The picture for this article is why women shouldn't be in combat. Elbow out making herself larger target lowering head to rifle instead of raising your rifle to you head and exposing side of your body i.e. non protected part of your body while in body armour.
Phil, PA
1/31/2013 1:19:10 PM ET Same waist measurements Let's be realistic physiologically men and women are different. If a woman could carry me out of harm's way if I was shot I would welcome her. 200 lbs body weight 200 lbs ruck body armor etc Most men can't do that hence the min requirements for these career fields. There is also the issue with local environment. If you are out two weeks a monthly visit comes along and there is a new smell the enemy will be able to track it.
G, Hickam
1/31/2013 12:32:29 PM ET My daughter is not a woman who wants to act like a man.So I am hoping she does not have to register for the draft ever. She is soon to be Pharmcist and has no desire to ever be in the military. Again she is happy being a woman.
Joyce Darrigo, Latrobe PA
1/31/2013 11:03:06 AM ET I assume all the men who want equality on the PT standards would be OK with meeting the minimum waist measurement standards for females...throughout their career.
Db, Texas
1/31/2013 7:35:52 AM ET I take it this means Selective Serice is opening up for women at the age of 18 too. It seems only fair.
Nick, Andersen AFB Guam
1/31/2013 7:11:20 AM ET Wx @ Charleston menitoned that they know of several gals who have went through Airborne School. Is that supposed to make them tough Is that a good pre-req for physically demanding training Please Airborne school is pretty damn easy these days. Nothing like what it was 25 years ago.....they lowered the standards
OleTimer, CONUS
1/31/2013 2:12:11 AM ET Dear Ashley from Grand Forks...Drop.
Cody, Anchorage AK
1/30/2013 11:46:57 PM ET The first comment has the subtle joke I have ever seen on one of these comment sections.
AndThatIs, AScientificFact
1/30/2013 6:07:28 PM ET I'd love to add a comment but appearently this box has a hidden HTML link.
Rick, Utah
1/30/2013 5:02:17 PM ET OK but what about the AF Academy's separate sports teams for women Shouldn't this idea of integration be instilled at the beginning of training
Thinking, Texas
1/30/2013 3:12:14 PM ET Can the military afford this now Sequestration anyone Evidently the phyiscal and pyschological demands of these AFSC's have not been factored in They are demanding and can wear out the best human body let alone a women's body Reality is not envogue these days.
Jake, AL
1/30/2013 12:43:18 PM ET Not sure how Strategic Thinker's hypothetical differs substantially from women who are sexually assaulted by people wearing the uniform of the U.S. armed forces quite frankly. Only real difference is that medical aid might be more readily available but rape is rape no matter whether an enemy or a supposed friendly force is responsible.
PB, US
1/30/2013 12:34:07 PM ET I think we all need to look at this in a different way. Does anyone think there is a large number of females lined up to fill these positions Really how many females in the present AF could pass the initial schools training and get assigned to one of these postions I'm all for it but I'm just looking at from a basic math point of view. Think about it. The new rule doesn't open this up to a large pool of eligible candidates. They just aren't there
Dave, FL
1/30/2013 12:31:30 PM ET Strategic Thinker CONUS What in the world did you just type I think you may have made a good point but my brain hurts.
confused, earth
1/30/2013 8:40:43 AM ET Aside from females completing all the training which I know they will. Now I only ask that when not if when a female special operator gets captured raped and releasedRESCUED well past the time anything medical can be done to terminate a pregnancy whathow will be the American people react What will be the reaction of the leaders that sent her in harms way What will be her reaction upon the birth of the child This is the worst case scenario that we ALL need to be prepared for with this kind of decision being made to allow females in combat roles. One child born into this world this way is one to many. Good luck to us all.
Strategic Thinker, CONUS
1/30/2013 5:57:46 AM ET A standard is a standard.....should not change. There are good reasons to have very high physicalmental standards in these jobs.......concerning the PT standards....agree make eveyone cookie cutters and use 1 standard for all. Use the Male run and push up times and female waist measurement...that way we all fail and get kicked out...........
Hope, And Change
1/29/2013 9:56:09 PM ET I highly doubt women will be able to complete a full pipeline course without the standards being lowered. Best of luck to those who want to be the real deal...In the field I was so busy I couldn't even piss if I wanted to let alone take care of a monthly problem that consists of 7 days...Not saying its not possible but YOU have no down time during the first 6 months of the pipe line. As they say Man Up.
CCTAmn, Andrews AFB
1/29/2013 3:54:04 PM ET You know women are in combat every day from every service. I guess I just don't understand all the talk of what if a woman was captured or what if a woman was shot. Women have been captured over there. They've been in firefights. They've been vehicle gunners. They've been out on the streets of Iraq of Afghanistan on patrols. Women have been shot. Women have lost limbs. Women have lost their lives. Do people not know these things As a women myself I can understand the hygiene issue...but at the sametime I've done field training where I haven't showered for days on end. Iam pretty sure I came out smelling better than any of the men.I don't know why this has become a fight over PT standards. No one issaying that the standards will be dropped to accommodate women. I have seen many girls who could kick a dude's ss and then ask for more. IF they can make the current standard so be it.I have shared living space with men through SERE schools and train
J.T., Stateside
1/29/2013 2:06:42 PM ET Everyone needs to back off the so-called PT Standards. Everyone knows they suck in the standard AF. They are even harder in Spec Ops. They will not lower their standards even if women join their forces. There is a very high drop out rate in all of those AFSCs. My BF is a SWOT and it took two years to be completely qualified. I have seen plenty of beast mode women working out in crossfit I know a couple that have completed army airborne. If they want to transition to SWOT then by all means let them. They know the job and they can handle the physical with it too.
Wx Desk, Charleston SC
1/29/2013 11:29:31 AM ET G.I. Jane became a Navy Seal so I know others can also. Good luck ladies.
Dude, Over Here
1/29/2013 8:41:11 AM ET I just noticed all this crying about PT needing to be so equal yet no one is saying that MEN's pt standards should be the same as WOMEN's standards. Clearly it sounds more of a I-want-women-to-fail-to-show-that-men-are-better rather than people being able to pass a standard. And if you hate the unfair equality no one is forcing you to stay in the military.
someone, somewhere
1/29/2013 8:16:44 AM ET PT test needs to equal across the board...since you want to make it official now.So Ms. I don't feel like it can feel like it.
Wolf-1, Earth
1/29/2013 8:15:13 AM ET The only problem i have is they are supposed to be held to the same standards. We all know the standards are gonna be lower.
airman , somewhere in the usa
1/29/2013 8:05:19 AM ET Did anyone see this line in the story To me that means it gives the USAF permission and a reason to lower the standards. It's the catch all the loop hole they need. You guys are in trouble. Ensuring all service men and women are given the opportunity to succeed and are set up for success with viable career paths.
Old Guy, Someplace else
1/28/2013 8:41:26 PM ET Much about equality being celebrated but accountability equality and utilization equality is being overlooked. The reducing of operational risk with intent of giving reasonable survivability of those participating in the accomplishing the tasked military objective will result in the small tactical unit being composed of the military members having the more robust and adaptable physical abilities and stamina being selected to do the toughest missions in the more physically demanding operational environments. Trained to do something is not the same as being utilized in using of the skills in the high-risk environment. Commanders given the opportunity will put the more able to do something forces into harm's way to avoid a high KIA and WIA count connected to their planning and implementing decisions.
John, Anchorage Alaska
1/28/2013 6:15:00 PM ET We are this much closer to the Starship Troopers reality
Dan, AK
1/28/2013 5:12:07 PM ET I agree that the standards should NOT be lowered just to get women to serve on the front lines. However I personally do not think that the PT standards should be equal for men and women. I say this because some women myself included are able to pass the PT Test and are capable of getting 85 to 90 percent scoresthat is my scores BUT doing certain exercises and waist measurments will be different for men and women GENERALLY speaking. And before someone comes back and says equality is equality...even with PT let me tell you this. I want you to strap two 6 to 8 pound weights to your chest and make the same EXACT score on your PT Test if not higher. That is what I and many other women who serve have to deal with EVERYDAY for PT regardless of our fitness level. The standards although they could be mandated better are set for a reason.
Setsunna, Somewhere USA
1/28/2013 4:55:02 PM ET I think the standards will always be lower for women no matter what. I am a TACPJTAC and I couldnt imagine asking a woman to carry our standard gear lead-out of 105 lbs or more for more than 12 miles. I think it is disgusting that politicians are putting the safety of our military to push their political agenda. It is unfair that people who have never done the job are making rules for the job. This is all about fairness well it wouldnt be fair for all the hard working men for politics to get in the way of the mission..
TACP, ft.bliss
1/28/2013 4:26:05 PM ET An add-on article httpwww.huffingtonpost.combrenda-s-women-in-combat_b_2551276.html
Lt, GA
1/28/2013 1:45:20 PM ET GREAT Now women should be required to register with Selective Service too
ogmike, NJ
1/28/2013 11:41:49 AM ET I think women should have the same rights as any man but i do think they should keep the standards the same across the board just for safety of the women trying to get in and for the men that are already in the career fields.
Kenny , VAFB CA
1/28/2013 9:19:54 AM ET Come on 2d Lt from Alaska. Your big concern is that a man's rage for revenge will take over if he sees a female go down Natural instinct has very little to do with actions in the field. Who's natural instinct is it to run towards gunfire If we're talking purely animalistic instinct it's far more natural to attempt to preserve one's own life than it is to put yourself in harm's way to try to save an unrelated female. All of the newly opened career fields have very intense and lengthy training requirements. A large part of that training and any military training is designed to overcome individuals' natural instinct. Let females in. The guys will be fine.
Raging for some revenging, Moody
1/28/2013 9:17:10 AM ET In my opinion before they start this little publicity stunt all regulations should be equal across the board that includes the current PT test. Equality is equality.Nycon TX
Nycon, TX
1/28/2013 2:11:45 AM ET First and foremost I believe in equality within logical reason. There needs to be more thought towards this rather than just jumping the gun. Think about the difference between the female urinaryreproductive system comparedd to that of a man and the care that a woman's system will require the privacy and the natural male instinct to protect a woman. This move is a nice thought but not a well thought out idea to actaully implement. Improvement is good but if it is not broke don't fix it. Imagine the mental anguish of a female getting captured rapped pregnant with the child of some insurgent.... just a thought you go girl
fiddle, in the band
1/28/2013 1:34:14 AM ET The day has finally come I'm not saying women will fill all those slots but the opportunity is finally there. I know when I first joined in 2002 I wanted to be in pararescue and they wouldnt even acknowledge the fact that I could do it or that I was the only volunteer for that matter. So even though I'm content in my job I know now that if I want to live my dream of being a pararesurer then I can. Thanks
Ashley, Incirlik
1/27/2013 9:19:51 PM ET Call me old fashioned but I'm not sure if we're ready for this change in the Air Force. Like Brandon said hopefully there is some serious study put into this because we need another death much less than we need the publicity of putting the first woman in a combat role. Lastly we must not lower the standards to accommodate this change. The physical standards were set for the career field so they must be enforced across the board period.
Brad, Phoenix valley
1/27/2013 1:38:59 AM ET I agree with everyone here give women all the same opportunity every job available but do not lower the standards one bit because that compromises safety. If woman want equality then everything should be equal with equality comes the good and the bad woman should register for selective service and become eligible to be drafted just like men. I see no problems with equality but often I see that people want the good that comes with opportunities but do not want to accept the bad. I treat everyone the same in the shops that I have run but often when the dirty work or heavy lifting is needed then some no longer want to be equal.
Steve Hurlburt Field FL, Hurlburt Field FL
1/26/2013 2:55:03 PM ET I honestly don't have a strong opinion on this one. All I can say is that this better be about results rather than politics. I don't care what they do as long as we maintain force integrity.
2LT for now, WV
1/25/2013 5:42:25 PM ET Equality of Opportunity is different than Equality of Results. As it stands many believe that a majority of women could not make the cut in these special ops fields. So in order to validate the change the services would need to lower the standard in addition they would be reducing the number of men in each of these fields in order to make room for female applicants because we all know the military isn't getting bigger. I'm curious how this equates to more equality. Equality always results in taking from one group to subsidize another whether it is for a good cause or not. Equality is a nice word and yet as long as we have different standards for men and women it is only a word.
SSgt. Rod, Korea
1/25/2013 5:08:05 PM ET No disrespect intended but I started PJ Indoc course during 1973 on the day I completed BMT. I was age 17 5 ft 11 inches tall and weighed 145 pounds.I weighed 172 pounds whenI graduated Indoc about 8-9 weeks later.I have no recollection of anybody making it through training without gaining muscle mass.
John, Anchorage Alaska
1/25/2013 4:34:02 PM ET I can only see this as a political thing and not really necessary.
jenkins, US
1/25/2013 4:08:46 PM ET There are already women serving in combat missions i.e. Explosive Ordnance Disposal. There are guys who cannot even fathom going and disarming explosives and putting themselves in harms way. Requirements for men and women are rightfully there because let's face it men are genetically stronger. With that said there is no reason why women should not have the right to pursue combat positions if they so choose. I personally know many EOD women and they are out there putting their lives on the line all the time.
Rebecca, Texas
1/25/2013 4:03:16 PM ET I say if they meet --The-- standards -It isnt a male female standard it is just the standard- go for it. But I foresee a huge problem. On the front lines or in a COB-FOB space is at a premium. Do we have the available real-estate to make separate barracksbathrooms will we have to monitor our troops outside the wire and make sure while they are on missions our leaders ensure men and women are sleeping in separate areas There are so many problems I can see i dont know if it is possible to implement without have a truly unisex environment like Starship troopers.I do however find it strange that everyone on here is talking about women meeting the same standards and equality but no one brought up how a female has to run significantly slower do less pushups and do less sit-ups on the PT test.
bbat, somewhere
1/25/2013 3:33:35 PM ET You cannot have the icing and not the cake. Equality should mean equal across the board. Womens PT standards should be the same as the Mens standards. Women should have to sign up for selective service at the age of 18 too. It seems there is too much selective equality going on. I am all for Womens rights and equality but in my personal experience women do not belong on the battle field.
Mitch, sheppard
1/25/2013 3:31:23 PM ET I am all for equality. Lets keep the standards for these Battlefield Amn positions as I am sure there are female Amn that can meet or exceed those standards. While we are at it lets eliminate gender discrimination in the PT test too. If I have to do 50 pushups to max out my PT test then females should as well. Let's have the same standards for run times too. After all aren't we all interested in equality or only when it is convenient.
A SCNO, An AFB Near You
1/25/2013 3:08:53 PM ET Why do we have two PT standards I recommend we go to the female standard and soon...I test in March. Hello club 100
Allen, GA
1/25/2013 2:38:32 PM ET The STO and CRO AFSCs are wrong in this article. Combat Rescue Officer AFSC is now 13DX. There is no such thing as a combat control officer that is likely referring to the Special Tactics Officer who's AFSC is now 13CX.The control and recovery shredded AFSC has become two seperate AFSCs as explained above.
TE, Nellis
1/25/2013 2:21:58 PM ET We are still behind the power curve on giving women equal rights in the military for all positions. Yes this latest act is a step towards the right direction. However this should have been done years ago. Women join the military to perform a job wear the same uniform bleed red just like anyone else so if they can cut the mustard just like their male counterparts then why not let them serve in ALL career fields. Make the final positions available to women ASAP and let's all do the jobs we are qualified to do.
Steven, Scott AFB
1/25/2013 1:57:20 PM ET Bad idea
Deluxe, PNW
1/25/2013 1:24:20 PM ET Agree that this is a good move as long as the AF doesn't lower standards for women recruitscross trainees into these career fields. The next fair action for the DoD is to no longer make women exempt from Selective Service registration at age 18.
Joe, FL
1/25/2013 1:14:49 PM ET I agree with Brandon and I am a female. I have no intention of changing to one of these combat career fields. My intention is to be where I believe I need to be and where the Air Force needs me to be. There are plenty of sucessful women in the military who have made General ranks without being in a combat career field. I looked into the psychology of all of this and I don't see this lasting for very long. The fact is that men are more protective of women than other men and this can cause negligence and safety compromise if a woman goes down next to a man because their natural instinct and rage for revenge will take hold.
2Lt, Alaska
1/25/2013 1:13:27 PM ET Why not add selective service in there too And how about regular fit requirements while you're there. I forsee a tactical hygiene kit if there isn't one already. Contents mandtory the pill.If one of the aformentioned 15 percent can handle and make it through then great AirGirl PowerI dont think that the argument that the nation can't handle their daughters being tortured is valid. Tell that to any male soldier'ssailor'sairman's mother and hope for the best.
Male, Keesler
1/25/2013 11:40:30 AM ET I am personally on the fence about this. I personally haven't seen a woman I believe would be able to make it in any of these careerfields having tried out myself but that doesn't mean they aren't out there. However if anyone thinks that these women are more common than not you are kidding yourselves. Only time will tell and I'm very interested to see how this plays out. I hope no negative effects. Go get 'em girls.
Didn'tsurvivethecut, TX
1/25/2013 11:34:00 AM ET As a 32 year veteran All I have to say is go for it. In my 79 years of life I have learned that women can be tough as nails. I saw my son 145 lbs make a ParaRescueman and I know his daughter is as tough as he is.
James W. Hill, Columbia TN
1/25/2013 10:17:26 AM ET Finally I have been waiting for this day forever. Equality equals success. I will be cross training into Pararescue ASAP.
Ashley Taylor, Grand Forks
1/25/2013 10:14:01 AM ET If women can pass the requirements for the career field and show profiency I am all for it. If they want standards lowered or show any sign of weakness that will hurt their mission or fellow Airmen then it needs to stop.
SSgt, USA
1/25/2013 10:09:28 AM ET Do NOT lower the standards for females. If complete equality to males is what is trying to happen then they need to be equal with standards as well. Lowering them wouldn't make females completely equal right
Emily, mo
1/25/2013 10:00:11 AM ET I support this move. HOWEVER it's time to FORCE young women to register for selective service. I just hope the same people who advocated for equality are ready for their unwilling daughters to be drafted. Fair is fair.
all4equality, staff
1/25/2013 9:46:00 AM ET I have see some bada-- women in my time with the AF. I would take some of them into combat over some of the men I have served with hands down. I agree with the standards comments. Not being spec ops myself I can only assume the demanding nature of the job everyone needs to be able to pull their weight regardless of gender.
DCAL, Stateside
1/25/2013 9:16:16 AM ET What does the picture of Col Leavitt have to do with the story Yes she is a female but she is not in one of the career fields that have been opened to women.
Caveman, Bedrock
1/25/2013 9:14:52 AM ET From someone who has served in one of these career fields this is a terrible idea. None of the commanders in these career fields will speak up either. They are going along to get along with the massive PC push that has come.
Caveman, Bedrock
1/25/2013 9:11:43 AM ET I may be old school but I remember this debate back in 1994. The feeling then was that the nation couldn't stomach the thought of a female being captured and tortured as a result of being in direct combat. I still feel that way. Equality has it's limits and I feel like this is one of them.
DC, Wichita KS
1/25/2013 8:22:49 AM ET I hope they do some serious research on the psychological effects of co-ed direct combat units before they implement this. Men are naturally hard wired to protect women even if it is with our lives. One could easily make a poor judgment call and sacrifice the safety of his unit for the sake of a female. Also the main reason behind the 1994 rule was privacy. Has that magically changed or have women stopped caring about privacy in the last 19 years With sexual assault being such a hot topic right now I dont see how putting men and women in those situations would be a good idea
Brandon, Miami
1/25/2013 7:57:16 AM ET I think this will be a welcome change in the Air Force - I know multiple females currently who want and could hack it just like any of the males. The one major point is though that they will have to be held to the exact same physical standards as the males or they will not be fully trusted to have another's back. Just my two cents.
Pancho Villa, Mexican Border
1/25/2013 7:54:29 AM ET Yes I agree. DO NOT LOWER THE STANDARDs to allow females to make the Cut. Gender equality fine i get it. Lowering the standards just so the Air Force can sport the title of first SpecOps female will get people killed.
gabriel , ga
1/25/2013 7:38:30 AM ET Women had to meet the same PAST standards as men in the EOD schoolhouse I don't see why they would lower the standards for the SpecOps field. If they can meet the same standards as men I don't see how SpecOps should be any different than EOD.
Nelson, Vermont
1/25/2013 12:33:34 AM ET If they can hack it and there is no problems in unit effectiveness fine. I am actually all for it. But make NO mistake they WILL lower the standards for all SPECOPS and Infantry positions.At least the USCG holds their female rescue swimmers to the same standard as the men. Will the AF
