Women in Combat Ban Lifted... Thoughts?

[gatormoe1]

I may be in the minority here but I don't think this is a good idea. What happens when they get captured? What happens if they are sent to an elite unit and can't keep up physically? What happens if they are at war and its that time of the month? I think women can do a lot/most of the things men can do, but I do not believe they should be assigned to combat units on the front lines.

http://www.inquisitr.com/492642/women-in-military-combat-ban-lifted-by-defense-secretary/

[Minister_of_Information]

Some women can hack it, not sure about spec ops though. If captured they face hell on earth. Could make them fight harder, 'no surrender'.

[HALLGATOR]

Judging by some I've known if it is that time of the month then the enemy are the ones in trouble.

[MichiGator2002]

Well, if we learned anything from the combat situation that Jessica Lynch found herself in, it is that woman in combat situations in no way draw any particular focus away from other missions or undue attention from the policy makers or the general public.

Nothing can go wrong with this plan.

The real pre-annoyance is than when human beings behave in adverse conditions in all the predictable ways, it will be predictable human behavior that is blamed for being wrong, not the intelligentsia that flouted it.

[uftaipan]

I have no problem with it as long as women are held to the same physical standards as men. Since that has not happened in similar professions where lives can be at stake over traits such as physical strength (i.e. law enforcement and fire fighting), I have no expectation that it will in this case.

[T3goalie]

I may be in the minority here but I don't think this is a good idea. What happens when they get captured? What happens if they are sent to an elite unit and can't keep up physically? What happens if they are at war and its that time of the month? I think women can do a lot/most of the things men can do, but I do not believe they should be assigned to combat units on the front lines.

http://www.inquisitr.com/492642/women-in-military-combat-ban-lifted-by-defense-secretary/

What happens when they get captured? They get raped!:shhh:

What happens if they are sent to an elite unit and can't keep up physically? They sue the military and standards are changed.:no:

What happens if they are at war and its that time of the month? Men on all sides are scared shitless!:ninja:

I think women can do a lot/most of the things men can do, but I do not believe they should be assigned to combat units on the front lines. I don't either, and i think it could jeopardize others if they are called for certain duty. Fly a jet? No problem. Work a weapons system, No problem. Sharp shooter? No problem, in fact the Russian lady from WWII killed more Germans than any other. I just hope we don't see them kicking in doors engaged in guerilla warfare in the middle east.

[g8orbill]

I am nor in fbo. Of women in combat- The middle east has already shown its disdain for women- if captured it would be fugly

[gatorman_07732]

This is a bad deal

[secgator]

It's being "progressive". :ninja:

(you know--that warped state of NO common sense being applied)

[MastaG8r]

What a freakin' mess. It'll be a logistical nightmare, unless they drop all gender-based privacy considerations and go to co-ed showers and such like in Starship Troopers.

[gatorman_07732]

This is wrong on so many levels

[GatorAbe7]

What exactly are the feminists trying to prove with this?

I guess there was the same sort of reaction back when women first joined the military for any kind of position.

Military decisions are meant to be made with the military, not political ideologue in mind. Unfortunately this administration has this idea that if it's deemed politically fair, then it will work.

[rajinGator]

Beyond stupid.

[channingcrowderhungry]

Judging by some I've known if it is that time of the month then the enemy are the ones in trouble.

Oh my!

[wgbgator]

Women are just as good at dying as men. Its about time.

[brainstorm]

There are reasons why they were not allowed before now. Those reasons still exist or did they figure out a way to deal with them?

[MichiGator2002]

Women are just as good at dying as men. Its about time.

Which, if it accounted for any significant portion of the important issues here, would be a very profound argument. But it actually is of Nth-tastic point. I mean, in theory, that is the same argument in favor of child soldiers too.

[108]

if Israeli women can do it, then American women should be able to do it

[wgbgator]

There are reasons why they were not allowed before now. Those reasons still exist or did they figure out a way to deal with them?

No, the outdated thinking that prevented it is still around, as you can see here on this thread. But the legal and cultural arguments that underpinned it are quickly eroding. As for dealing with it, it appears its going to be ongoing process. Only a few jobs are going to open immediately, they are beginning to work on ways to accomodate this in more combat jobs and infantry units.

[wgbgator]

It is a peculiar thing that the military is basically a left-wing experiment (a vast gov't jobs and job training program - steeped with affirmative action, gender neutrality, non discriminatory against sexual preference) that is fetishized by some on the right, and treated with anything from contempt to ambivalence by some on the left.

[dallasgatr]

if Israeli women can do it, then American women should be able to do it

Bogus. Israeli women are not allowed in every MOS. Around 90% of roles are open to women but only 69% of specialties are filled by women.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Israel_Defense_Forces

[ChartsandGrafs]

This seems like a non-issue to me. If women want to make themselves equally available as men for cannon fodder duty for the Military-Industrial Complex, what is there to object to? If we're going to murder and oppress brown people overseas on behalf of multinational corporations, what difference does it make if it's a man or a woman doing the murdering and oppressing? Worrying about this and not the stupidity of the wars and occupations themselves is to miss the point anyway.

On a side note, many years ago I went through and read the personal memoirs of some of the famous German generals who served on the Eastern Front during WW2. One of the things that stood out to me was the way in which they all described the considerable fighting spirit and tenacity of the Soviet units with larger numbers of female soldiers. One of the generals, I can't remember which, spoke in an almost reverential tone about them. He basically said that female Soviet troops had a reputation with German troops for fighting like vicious, desperate rats. To capture them was dangerous, because, unlike the male Soviet troops, they were much more fearful of going into captivity. As such, they were more likely to pull a knife or explode a hidden grenade upon being captured.

That said, I doubt our female soldiers, who have been trained since birth to think of themselves as little, entitled princesses, minus all the self-esteem, are going to strike much fear into the hearts of our freedom fighter enemies.

[MichiGator2002]

It is a peculiar thing that the military is basically a left-wing experiment (a vast gov't jobs and job training program - steeped with affirmative action, gender neutrality, non discriminatory against sexual preference) that is fetishized by some on the right, and treated with anything from contempt to ambivalence by some on the left.

A lot of how you described it are hardly inherent in, consistent with, or beneficial to the longstanding culture and history of the military that leads to its "fetishized" status. Indeed, the reason it has some of those attributes is because the military is unfortunately also an ant farm at the mercy of those who not only don't adore it but often openly disdain it. I mean, "non-discrimination against sexual preference" is about as old as "The Voice", right?

[helix139]

No, the outdated thinking that prevented it is still around, as you can see here on this thread. But the legal and cultural arguments that underpinned it are quickly eroding. As for dealing with it, it appears its going to be ongoing process. Only a few jobs are going to open immediately, they are beginning to work on ways to accomodate this in more combat jobs and infantry units.

It's not outdated to think that the vast majority of women are physically inferior to the vast majority of men. It's simply a fact if you look at the biology. Men in general have more muscle mass, stronger connective tissues, and higher bone density, enabling them to have greater success at physically strenuous tasks. Many front line tasks are physically strenuous. Thus, physical ability (and by extension gender) is a BFOQ, and that doesn't even consider the cultural issues and logistical issues which are legitimate.

IMO, if a woman can meet the same physical standards that men are held to then fine, but otherwise you're doing a disservice to some very high risk units where ability of all members to perform is paramount.

[wgbgator]

A lot of how you described it are hardly inherent in, consistent with, or beneficial to the longstanding culture and history of the military that leads to its "fetishized" status. Indeed, the reason it has some of those attributes is because the military is unfortunately also an ant farm at the mercy of those who not only don't adore it but often openly disdain it. I mean, "non-discrimination against sexual preference" is about as old as "The Voice", right?

Sure, that's just the latest thing. Way back when it was black soldiers (before slavery even ended), racial integration, letting women in in the first place. The military usually seems to be leading the way, rather than doggedly resisting change. Civilians seem much better at that, in both means and ability. Honestly, I'm not sure why conservatives still care about the military. Its been about a century since business replaced warfare as the primary competitive proving ground for the individual, manly, heroic sort. Plus, theres almost no chance you die in business.

[wgbgator]

It's not outdated to think that the vast majority of women are physically inferior to the vast majority of men. It's simply a fact if you look at the biology. Men in general have more muscle mass, stronger connective tissues, and higher bone density, enabling them to have greater success at physically strenuous tasks. Many front line tasks are physically strenuous. Thus, physical ability (and by extension gender) is a BFOQ, and that doesn't even consider the cultural issues and logistical issues which are legitimate.

IMO, if a woman can meet the same physical standards that men are held to then fine, but otherwise you're doing a disservice to some very high risk units where ability of all members to perform is paramount.

You don't think this was a consideration or requirement? I mean, given that this is the government I'd have to think there were about umpteen studies done before arriving at a decision on this.

[helix139]

You don't think this was a consideration or requirement? I mean, given that this is the government I'd have to think there were about umpteen studies done before arriving at a decision on this.

Yes, because if this administration has shown anything its that things they do are extremely well thought out and all the consequences analyzed and accounted for :lie:

[corpgator]

I'm very liberal and don't like. In the Marines with me, there were quite a few money who could whip me, but the majority of them couldn't meet our phyisical standards and thus has an entirely different physical fitness test. As long as they have to live up to the same standards when they are in combat, it's ok though.

They just need to know that the military has a horrible culture of rape, and women in combat units will probably be raped even more.

[RayGator]

I agree with you. For a lot of reasons it's not a good idea at all.

[wgbgator]

Maybe its just me, but I think more women on combat duty will actually improve the culture of the military. But even if it doesnt, its a volunteer force - you gotta be ok with what you're getting into, and you gotta hack it.

[gatordee]

I spent time in the infantry and do not believe this is a good idea at all. We averaged over 280 days a year in the field. There are plenty of women out there that can handle this but far and few. You are only as strong as your weakest link. It is not your average Joe that joins the infantry and there is a very very strong unity among the men. You have got to trust the guys you are with and there are not that many women that I have met in my life that I would want in my fox hole when the enemy started to close in. Try to count the women tomorrow you would want to have your back in hand to hand combat. In Air Assault school we had one female lieutenant who made it through the course but you could see a huge difference in her from day 1 from graduation and she was going home every night. A big difference when you train like that and have been in the field 40-60 days. However, I do see the argument for each side but me personally am definitely against it. I would hate to know I was heading to combat with a woman I knew was not cut out for it. Do I leave a woman back that cannot keep up to risk the lives of everyone else? Or live with the fact I left a woman back who was captured and is living a life of hell? With the unity you build, it would be very hard.

[northgagator]

My two cents worth

Some women can do a better job in fighting and editing harsh conditions.
A lot of these women fought right along their male counter parts

American Revolution
A few courageous women served in combat either alongside their husbands or disguised as men. During the attack on Fort Washington in 1776, standing alongside her husband John, Margaret Corbin handled ammunition for a cannon. When he was fatally wounded, she took his place at the cannon until she also was wounded. Congress authorized a pension for her in 1779.

Mary Ludwig Hays McCauley gained the nickname “Molly Pitcher” in 1778 by carrying water to men on the battlefield in Monmouth, N.J. She even replaced her husband, William Hays, when he collapsed at his cannon.

Women also served as spies during the Revolutionary War. The war was fought on farms and in the backyards of American families across the width and breadth of the colonies and along the frontier. Women took an active role in alerting American troops to enemy movement. Women carried messages, transported contraband, and generally functioned as spies for the cause.

Ann Simpson Davis was handpicked by Gen. George Washington to carry messages to his generals while the army was in eastern Pennsylvania. Ann, an accomplished horsewoman, slipped through areas occupied by the British Army unnoticed. She carried secret orders in sacks of grain and sometimes in her clothing to various mills around Philadelphia and Bucks Country. She received a letter of commendation for her services from Gen. Washington.[/QUITE]

Civil War
[QUOTE]As in the Revolutionary War, women sometimes disguised themselves and enlisted to fight. It was relatively easy for them to pass through the recruiter’s station, since few questions were asked – as long as one looked the part. Women bound their breasts when necessary, padded the waists of their trousers, and cut their hair short.

http://www.army.mil/women/history.html

Women of the American West
Certainly many women made great sacrifices while traversing the western frontier and most of their names of course didn't make the history books. Their sacrifices and exploits are no less significant than those who did. A sample list of women who made a name for themselves on the American western frontier are...

Charley Parkhurst- The California stagecoach driver who was always thought to be a man.

Pearl Hart- The Canadian born Arizona stagecoach robber who always seemed to meet the wrong men.

Calamity Jane- The frontier scout, Indian fighter and friend of Wild Bill Hickok. A 1990 novel by author Larry McMurtry, Buffalo Girls, is a story about Calamity Jane which includes letters to her daughter.

Annie Oakley- The famous sharpshooter who gained fame in Buffalo Bill's Wild West.

Belle Starr- The notorious outlaw and friend of the James and Younger brothers.

Libbie Custer-The wife of Gen. George Armstrong Custer who lived in many frontier military forts and spent her last years defending her husband's name.

Ellen Liddy Watson (Cattle Kate)- Opposed the cattlemen and was the first woman hanged by vigilantes.

Margaret Heffenan Borland- Owner of 10,000 head of cattle and was the first woman to lead a trail drive.

Lizzie E. Johnson Williams- Cattle dealer and school teacher.

Nellie Cashman- An 1800's gold and silver prospector in southern Arizona. Also very active in raising money for the Red Cross and salvation Army.
http://westernhistory.hubpages.com/hub/Frontier-Women-of-the-American-West

[uftaipan]

Women are just as good at dying as men. Its about time.

Is this a serious argument or are you trying to be funny? I've been an officer for 14 years and have never once given nor have been given an order to "die". Being killed is an unfortunate effect of military service at times (as it is in other hazardous professions), but it is never the mission. To evoke the words of General Patton, a soldier's job is not to die for his country; it's to make the other som'bitch die for his.

The question with regard to woman in ground combat MOSs, then, is are women just as good at shooting, moving, carrying loads, and operating under stress as men. If the Pentagon is prepared to stipulate that those standards will be uniform, without respect to gender, then no problem. You will see no drop in performance. But there will also be very, very few women in ground combat roles.

If, however, we're going to play this game as it's been played elsewhere, and do cute little "adjustments" to the standards based on average physiological differences in order to artificially inflate the number of women in the infantry, then you're going to have problems. A drop in performance is one. An increase in resentment is another. Based on my experience, this is the more likely scenario. I hope I'm wrong.

[tec68]

I spent time in the infantry and do not believe this is a good idea at all. We averaged over 280 days a year in the field. There are plenty of women out there that can handle this but far and few. You are only as strong as your weakest link. It is not your average Joe that joins the infantry and there is a very very strong unity among the men. You have got to trust the guys you are with and there are not that many women that I have met in my life that I would want in my fox hole when the enemy started to close in. Try to count the women tomorrow you would want to have your back in hand to hand combat. In Air Assault school we had one female lieutenant who made it through the course but you could see a huge difference in her from day 1 from graduation and she was going home every night. A big difference when you train like that and have been in the field 40-60 days. However, I do see the argument for each side but me personally am definitely against it. I would hate to know I was heading to combat with a woman I knew was not cut out for it. Do I leave a woman back that cannot keep up to risk the lives of everyone else? Or live with the fact I left a woman back who was captured and is living a life of hell? With the unity you build, it would be very hard.

Good post dee

[bluelang]

Is this a serious argument or are you trying to be funny? I've been an officer for 14 years and have never once given nor have been given an order to "die". Being killed is an unfortunate effect of military service at times (as it is in other hazardous professions), but it is never the mission. To evoke the words of General Patton, a soldier's job is not to die for his country; it's to make the other som'bitch die for his.

The question with regard to woman in ground combat MOSs, then, is are women just as good at shooting, moving, carrying loads, and operating under stress as men. If the Pentagon is prepared to stipulate that those standards will be uniform, without respect to gender, then no problem. You will see no drop in performance. But there will also be very, very few women in ground combat roles.

If, however, we're going to play this game as it's been played elsewhere, and do cute little "adjustments" to the standards based on average physiological differences in order to artificially inflate the number of women in the infantry, then you're going to have problems. A drop in performance is one. An increase in resentment is another. Based on my experience, this is the more likely scenario. I hope I'm wrong.

Stole my thunder, but couldn't have been from a better poster. You don't just get "sent" to "elite units," and any woman who wanted the job would have to be just as cut out for it as anyone else in the unit.

[gatorev12]

The question with regard to woman in ground combat MOSs, then, is are women just as good at shooting, moving, carrying loads, and operating under stress as men. If the Pentagon is prepared to stipulate that those standards will be uniform, without respect to gender, then no problem. You will see no drop in performance. But there will also be very, very few women in ground combat roles.

If, however, we're going to play this game as it's been played elsewhere, and do cute little "adjustments" to the standards based on average physiological differences in order to artificially inflate the number of women in the infantry, then you're going to have problems. A drop in performance is one. An increase in resentment is another. Based on my experience, this is the more likely scenario. I hope I'm wrong.

+1...agree with everything said here.

I served with plenty of women in my MOS (intel) and have nothing but positive things to say about them. But there were occasions when we were forward-deployed and embedded with ground units and we were expected to be able to handle the physical parts of the job. I was always treated with a degree of suspicion (and the usual POG/intel weenie jokes) at first until I could prove myself--and I didn't blame them then or now. When you're operating in a unit, you're only as strong as your weakest link.

IF women can handle the basic physical requirements, then by all means. But, as you've stated here, based on all the experience and anecdotal evidence we have, the reality is standards will most likely be lessened and exceptions made...which will lead to further problems on many levels that the PC-types won't ever deal with.

[wargunfan]

Judging by some I've known if it is that time of the month then the enemy are the ones in trouble.

QFT LOL

[wargunfan]

I have no problem with it as long as women are held to the same physical standards as men. Since that has not happened in similar professions where lives can be at stake over traits such as physical strength (i.e. law enforcement and fire fighting), I have no expectation that it will in this case.

Basic training in the Army and Marines has already been pared down to enable the ladies to graduate. Can you picture a 5' 120 lb. girl humping boxes of artillery shells all day.

[Shade45]

Let's see how this goes. How do Family Care Plans work now?

[gatordee]

Deleted post

[uftaipan]

Let's see how this goes. How do Family Care Plans work now?

Elaborate. I have no idea what you're getting at.

[Minister_of_Information]

There cannot be relaxed standards for infantry and front line combat MOSs. Period.

There will be women that can hack it, but not many, and their presence could degrade the combat performance of the men in their unit. This is not about what's fair, never has been. This is about the life of the nation, and that must always be the determining criterion.

[Minister_of_Information]

It is a peculiar thing that the military is basically a left-wing experiment (a vast gov't jobs and job training program - steeped with affirmative action, gender neutrality, non discriminatory against sexual preference) that is fetishized by some on the right, and treated with anything from contempt to ambivalence by some on the left.

Institutionally speaking you are correct, but in terms of function the army is itself the precondition for and the salvation of the nation. To think otherwise is to sow the seeds of disaster.

[agigator]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KfsIHAQTkM

[gatorev12]

There cannot be relaxed standards for infantry and front line combat MOSs. Period.

There will be women that can hack it, but not many, and their presence could degrade the combat performance of the men in their unit. This is not about what's fair, never has been. This is about the life of the nation, and that must always be the determining criterion.

I agree with most of what you're saying here...but I'd say this is more about the lives of those on the front lines in combat MOSs more than the life of our nation. And that should be just as noteworthy a priority for our nation IMO.

[gatorman_07732]

Maybe its just me, but I think more women on combat duty will actually improve the culture of the military. But even if it doesnt, its a volunteer force - you gotta be ok with what you're getting into, and you gotta hack it.

I don't get this mind set at all. Improve the culture of the military? That is the problem, the military is not your cultrue experiment, they are trained to be a killing machine.

[MichiGator2002]

I think the idea must be to "improve" the military culture for like-minded observers, not for those actually in the military. Like I said, the military is an ant farm for leftist ideologues -- it is a self-contained community that, but for very narrow and readily avoidable exceptions, has to obey the commands of the civil authority. You don't have to win their hearts and minds on liberal social policy, you can actually actively disregard their hearts and minds.

[wgbgator]

Is this a serious argument or are you trying to be funny? I've been an officer for 14 years and have never once given nor have been given an order to "die". Being killed is an unfortunate effect of military service at times (as it is in other hazardous professions), but it is never the mission. To evoke the words of General Patton, a soldier's job is not to die for his country; it's to make the other som'bitch die for his.

The question with regard to woman in ground combat MOSs, then, is are women just as good at shooting, moving, carrying loads, and operating under stress as men. If the Pentagon is prepared to stipulate that those standards will be uniform, without respect to gender, then no problem. You will see no drop in performance. But there will also be very, very few women in ground combat roles.

If, however, we're going to play this game as it's been played elsewhere, and do cute little "adjustments" to the standards based on average physiological differences in order to artificially inflate the number of women in the infantry, then you're going to have problems. A drop in performance is one. An increase in resentment is another. Based on my experience, this is the more likely scenario. I hope I'm wrong.

Ir wasnt totally serious. If you can meet the job requirements (including the possibility of death), then gender, sexual preference or race shouldnt be barriers, just like on the outside.

[wgbgator]

I don't get this mind set at all. Improve the culture of the military? That is the problem, the military is not your cultrue experiment, they are trained to be a killing machine.

People were saying it would make it worse, I was just saying I thought the opposite. "Culture" shouldnt be the primary consideration in any case. It shouldnt be the main case for keeping women out, or forcing them in without condsideration.

[gatorman_07732]

People were saying it would make it worse, I was just saying I thought the opposite. "Culture" shouldnt be the primary consideration in any case. It shouldnt be the main case for keeping women out, or forcing them in without consideration.

A woman is not going to haul a wounded 200lb man on her shoulders. This is the worst conceivable idea this administration could ever do with the military and I believe it is just that by design. There is no other explanation for this asinine policy.

[WESGATORS]

Logically speaking, there doesn't need to be an explicit ban. As long as there is no quota, then I don't see the problem. Not to offend vets with a football analogy, but women are not banned from playing college football (or even NFL football), it's just that you don't have many that would even consider it a viable option for them; nor would they be considered a viable option for the teams. From a military perspective, you are increasing your available pool of participants...how can that be a bad thing? If the additional participants don't meet the standards then what is lost?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[108]

This seems like a non-issue to me. If women want to make themselves equally available as men for cannon fodder duty for the Military-Industrial Complex, what is there to object to? If we're going to murder and oppress brown people overseas on behalf of multinational corporations, what difference does it make if it's a man or a woman doing the murdering and oppressing? Worrying about this and not the stupidity of the wars and occupations themselves is to miss the point anyway.

On a side note, many years ago I went through and read the personal memoirs of some of the famous German generals who served on the Eastern Front during WW2. One of the things that stood out to me was the way in which they all described the considerable fighting spirit and tenacity of the Soviet units with larger numbers of female soldiers. One of the generals, I can't remember which, spoke in an almost reverential tone about them. He basically said that female Soviet troops had a reputation with German troops for fighting like vicious, desperate rats. To capture them was dangerous, because, unlike the male Soviet troops, they were much more fearful of going into captivity. As such, they were more likely to pull a knife or explode a hidden grenade upon being captured.

That said, I doubt our female soldiers, who have been trained since birth to think of themselves as little, entitled princesses, minus all the self-esteem, are going to strike much fear into the hearts of our freedom fighter enemies.

agree with you here :huh:

[Spurffelbow833]

It took women longer than men to reach wargasm, but now they'll crave it just as much.

[reformedgator]

Why does it say about a country when a women is allowed to do its fighting?

[wgbgator]

Why does it say about a country when a women is allowed to do its fighting?

I dont know. That it is the setting of science fiction novel written in the late 1960s?

[HALLGATOR]

I was thinking along the line of "The only good bug is a dead bug."

[gatorev12]

I was thinking along the line of "The only good bug is a dead bug."

Mobile infantry has definitely made you the man you are today Hall...:laugh:

[uftaipan]

Maybe its just me, but I think more women on combat duty will actually improve the culture of the military. But even if it doesnt, its a volunteer force - you gotta be ok with what you're getting into, and you gotta hack it.

Please be more specific. What elements of United States military culture are in need of improvement? And are these improvements designed to make it better at its mission or do you have some other purpose in mind?

[gatorev12]

Please be more specific. What elements of United States military culture are in need of improvement? And are these improvements designed to make it better at its mission or do you have some other purpose in mind?

Well, I can't speak for everyone, but the Duffel Blog makes some fine suggestions every week...

[rpmGator]

It only works if they forget a woman is in trouble, and don't do something stupid to save her. It can get people killed when they act differently based on who it is in trouble.

If they go in after a soldier, its one thing. If they go in to save a woman it is another.

[wgbgator]

Please be more specific. What elements of United States military culture are in need of improvement? And are these improvements designed to make it better at its mission or do you have some other purpose in mind?

I was specifically responding to a previous poster RE: the prevelance of rape. I think having seperation of combat duty contributes to that "rape culture" and the "boys will be boys" stuff. So, I think eliminating those barriers and not having any special treatment will improve that aspect of the culture rather than worsen it as that poster suggested.

[MichiGator2002]

The upside of liberal social policy antfarming in the military... a military as culturally diverse and progressive as Turlington or the Plaza of the America's.

The downside... a military as regimented and combat effective as Turlington or the Plaza of the Americas. Eventually at any rate.

Rpm, it is only one problem to guess how male soldiers might react to danger to female soldiers. Probably it will vary, but the problem will be introduced clearly. No such problem with out enemies, at least -- women captured by some jihadist sect will be subjected to such disportionate mistreatment and violence that it will look like a torture porn marathon.

[rpmGator]

They lost a woman in Desert Storm. The reaction was much different than if it hadn't been a woman.

[wgbgator]

A female vet responds:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/01/leon_panetta_lifts_combat_ban_on_women_the_pentago n_s_announcement_finally.html

It is true that not all women can handle the physical demands of military service. However, neither can all men. In fact, only 25 percent of today’s young people qualify for military service at all—the rest are too obese, too poorly educated, or have criminal backgrounds that bar them. Today Panetta is acknowledging that to maintain the high standards of the military, assignments should be based on ability, not gender.

There will be challenges, just as there are with any policy change across the military. However, the dire predictions of catastrophe in the wake of the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” were gratifyingly overwrought. The pundits who claimed the military would not be able to handle gays serving openly are typically the same ones who argue against women serving equally; I am convinced they will be just as wrong this time as they were then. Today women in the military will revel at the news. Tomorrow they will go back to work.

Bolded is a pretty salient point. There is probably as much (if not more) of a supply requirement driving this as any sort of liberal meddling & experimentation.

[rivergator]

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey:

DEMPSEY: We’ve had this ongoing issue with sexual harassment, sexual assault. I believe its because we’ve had separate classes of military personnel at some level. Now, its far more complicated than that. But when you have one part of the population that is designated as ‘warriors’ and one part that is designated as something else, that disparity begins to establish a psychology that — in some cases — led to that environment. I have to believe the more we treat people equally, the more likely they are to treat each other equally.

[MichiGator2002]

Dempsey, all but explicitly saying "to hell with the predictable and foreseeable concerns, we've got a social experiment to run here".

[ChartsandGrafs]

I have to believe the more we treat people equally, the more likely they are to treat each other equally.

What a funny choice of words for a guy who makes war against poor brown people for a living.

[rivergator]

Dempsey, all but explicitly saying "to hell with the predictable and foreseeable concerns, we've got a social experiment to run here".

Yes, that's exactly what career military men do. And you rose how high in the ranks?

[MichiGator2002]

Yes, that's exactly what career military men do. And you rose how high in the ranks?

The words are what they are. He has deemed whatever comes of this as the eggs necessary to use the military as cookware for a utopian omelette.

[wgbgator]

Or maybe we're also running out of men that arent overweight, uneducated former criminals and there's a pragmatic need for able bodies.

[MichiGator2002]

Or maybe we're also running out of men that arent overweight, uneducated former criminals and there's a pragmatic need for able bodies.

Well, aside from the pointless and empirically baseless first claim, the fact is you haven't found any significant supply of able bodies. Women in infantry units would very reasonably be expected to haul somewhere between 50-100% of their own bodyweight just in gear. That is going to veritably swell our infantry ranks, because what woman can't do that?

[wgbgator]

Well, aside from the pointless and empirically baseless first claim, the fact is you haven't found any significant supply of able bodies. Women in infantry units would very reasonably be expected to haul somewhere between 50-100% of their own bodyweight just in gear. That is going to veritably swell our infantry ranks, because what woman can't do that?

There's been studies going back to the Bush era on the readiness of military age people to serve. It's not a pretty picture. If you think this is purely a some utopian meddling by the Pentagon, I think you're wrong. I think this should viewed in concert with the DADT repeal (and maybe even the ability to achieve citizenship though service) as a means to deal with those readiness issues should the military continue to need a sizeable # of soldiers. Its not a total solution to the problem, but part of a series of actions to address it from within the military.

[bluelang]

Pound for pound, women are exactly as strong as men. Muscle mass is muscle mass. Yes, men have more of it, but they're also heavier. So, again, by ratio, there is no difference. A fit 160lb woman with 5% body fat would be exactly as strong as a fit 160lb dude with 5% body fat - but think about how much bulkier and more buff the average woman would look at that weight.

[MichiGator2002]

Pound for pound strength is all well and good, but not of much consequence when the strength requirement is a non-indexed bench mark. I mean, take military out of it, go get a job loading for FedEx/UPS -- you can either lift the packages you need to or you can't. Doesn't matter how strong you are proportionally if your non-proportional strength can't do it.

[tec68]

I just talked to a buddy of mine that is set to graduate in March and become a Green Beret. I asked him about it and he said its a huge issue at his base.

He told me that he hasn't talked to one guy there that is for the idea. They are all pissed about it because none of them want a woman that will probably be held to different standards protecting their A**es. The men there do not think they will be able to cut it physically in the field, training for weeks at a time when they drop you out there and let loose some chickens and say "Catch those if you want to eat." Or when they capture you and put you through certain types of physical and mental abuse then drop you back off in the woods and capture you again to abuse you more.

He also said that women have a place in the military and they have specialties that they are better at than men but he and everyone else he has spoken to(which is a lot of guys) said it is not combat. Most men there have actually said you will have rape issues not only externally if women are captured but also internally, there will be sexual harassment issues and it is going to ruin a lot of people's lives.

I thought I would share a take from some Spec Ops guys. Dont get mad at me that was from Green Berets and Green Berets in training at Fort Bragg.

[rivergator]

Sometimes it's just too easy. Soledad O'Brien had an opponent to women in combat on and read t his:

O’BRIEN: I’m going to read a little bit from this colonel who said this: ‘The army is not a sociological laboratory; to be effective it must be organized and trained according to the principles which will ensure success…Experiments are a danger to efficiency, discipline and morale and would result in ultimate defeat.’

He agreed with it:

BROWNE: I think that that’s true. I don’t think it’s true with respect to ultimate defeat of the United States in a war. I think what’s likely to occur though is the defeat of the United States in small battles, which means people are going to die. [...]

then she pointed out:

O’BRIEN: That was from a guy in 1941. And that argument was about not allowing black people in the military. That was his exact argument of why blacks should not be allowed in the military, because it’s a danger to efficiency and discipline and morale and will result in ultimate defeat.

link (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/01/25/1495681/cnn-anchor-tricks-opponent-of-women-in-combat-to-endorse-racial-segregation/)

[Minister_of_Information]

There are qualitative differences between men and women. Are you alleging that the same exists / existed in the case of blacks and whites?

[rivergator]

There are qualitative differences between men and women. Are you alleging that the same exists / existed in the case of blacks and whites?

Am I alleging that? Seriously, why ask such a stupid question?

[wgbgator]

There are qualitative differences between men and women. Are you alleging that the same exists / existed in the case of blacks and whites?

I think its just a demonstration in that the rhetoric of opposition is remarkably identical.

[Minister_of_Information]

I think its just a demonstration in that the rhetoric of opposition is remarkably identical.

But the facts are not analogous.

[Minister_of_Information]

Am I alleging that? Seriously, why ask such a stupid question?

Is it stupid to ask whether your analogy was meant to be taken seriously? As it fails otherwise.

[wgbgator]

But the facts are not analogous.

But the rhetoric of "social experimentation" is.

[rivergator]

Is it stupid to ask whether your analogy was meant to be taken seriously? As it fails otherwise.

Actually, and try to follow, the same reason was used in 1941 to opposed blacks in the military as is being used today to keep women from combat.

[Minister_of_Information]

But the rhetoric of "social experimentation" is.

If the facts are not analogous, the rhetoric hardly matters. That's like saying that because Hitler thought whites were qualitatively superior to blacks, that proves that there are no combat-relevant qualitative differences between men and women.

[Dreamliner]

Re: the fear of female combat troops being captured and raped, aren't they being raped by their fellow American soldiers at a goodly rate ?

[Minister_of_Information]

Actually, and try to follow, the same reason was used in 1941 to opposed blacks in the military as is being used today to keep women from combat.

Try to follow yourself: the argument that discrimination against minority men in combat in times past is analogous to current discrimination against women in combat is facially invalid.

[wgbgator]

If the facts are not analogous, the rhetoric hardly matters. That's like saying that because Hitler thought whites were qualitatively superior to blacks, that proves that there are no combat-relevant qualitative differences between men and women.

Huh? That's a weird example. Its more like comparing the rhetoric opposing interacial marriage with the rhetoric opposing same-sex marriage. It too was/is similar, and its been done. Does it makes those things exactly alike? Of course not, nor is that the intent in making the comparison. It's more of a matter of putting the opposition to social change in perspective, and puts the onus on the opposition to make the qualitative arguments you mention, rather than raise alarm bells over "experimentation."

[Minister_of_Information]

Huh? That's a weird example. Its more like comparing the rhetoric opposing interacial marriage with the rhetoric opposing same-sex marriage. It too was/is similar, and its been done. Does it makes those things exactly alike? Of course not, nor is that the intent in making the comparison. It's more of a matter of putting the opposition to social change in perspective.

Let's plot it out:

Some people were concerned that a subset of A was not capable of functions that A as a group has done for aeons. Since this subset of A was later shown to be as capable as the rest of A at this function, concerns about the capabilities of B to perform A's function are similarly misguided.

[wygator]

Forget rape within the unit. When you have men and women thrown together in the field, they will do what men and women like to do together.

First, you will lose a certain amount of the women from the unit due to pregnancy.

Second, you will negatively impact unit cohesiveness because you will have the guys competing for the gals.

By the way, this is exactly what happened in one of the first experiments with women on ships.

[wgbgator]

Let's plot it out:

Some people were concerned that a subset of A was not capable of functions that A as a group has done for aeons. Since this subset of A was later shown to be as capable as the rest of A at this function, concerns about the capabilities of B to perform A's function are similarly misguided.

Was it her intent to prove this? I think it was just to make some codger look out of touch and foolish. And she did.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Reducing the combat effectiveness of the fascist U.S. military might not be such a bad thing.

[uftaipan]

Reducing the combat effectiveness of the fascist U.S. military might not be such a bad thing.

Taking your schtick to a thread of your own creation might not be such a bad thing.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Taking your schtick to a thread of your own creation might not be such a bad thing.

Why? You certainly didn't.

[uftaipan]

Why? You certainly didn't.

I'm commenting on the actual topic at hand: women in direct ground combat roles. I'm not using issues I consider peripheral to the topic at hand to insert my tired (and my God, they're tired) views on the same thing I've said over and over and over.

Question for the group: Is there anyone here who doesn't understand that ChartsandGrafs believes the country is being run from behind the scenes by some kind of fascist, corporate shadow government responsible for all the ills of the world, including the "false-flag attacks of 9/11", etc, etc, etc?

Probably not.

We got it. I swear by my true masters in the Military-Industrial Complex that we got it.

But if you think you've missed someone on here, start your own thread.

[ChartsandGrafs]

That's a nice non sequitur rant and all, but I'm commenting on the topic as well.

Many people here are suggesting that adding women to U.S. military combat roles is a bad thing because it would allegedly reduce combat effectiveness. And this, of course, is assumed by default to be a negative.

Well, I disagree, especially in consideration of how our military is being used around the world for aggressive warfare against sovereign nations to prop our petrodollar empire. We're not fighting any legitimate defensive battles. It's all about expanding economic and military hegemony. Therefore, if the Military-Industrial Complex wants to sabotage itself through counter-productive policy decisions, I'm all for it.

Maybe instead of whining about my viewpoint you can actually, you know, attempt to refute it?

[wygator]

Suppose the draft were reinstated.

How many dads would stand by and watch their daughters drafted for combat?

[northgagator]

Suppose the draft were reinstated.

How many dads would stand by and watch their daughters drafted for combat?

Based in our current and past diplomatic record I would shudder in fear if my daughter and or my son were put into harms way.

[gatorev12]

That's a nice non sequitur rant and all, but I'm commenting on the topic as well.



Why do you continue to aid & abet the US military and the government in such dastardly goals then?

Even if you practice what you preach and don't pay income taxes (which I doubt), every consumer good you purchase in this country is taxed at some level. Businesses factor in their corporate taxes into their consumer goods, so you're perpetuating the system by staying here.

Of course, everyone has the right to free speech (even delusional speech) in this country--so I'm not criticizing you for using that right. Just observing that if you truly believe half of what you say, continuing to live here and supporting the system itself leaves one open to being labeled a blatant hypocrite.

[Gatoragman]

Having never served in. combat, as most in this discussion on the board, we should be honorable enough to hold our opinions and listen only to those who are or have been in combat.To think any of us who haven't served can relate is awfully presumptuous. Until you have been put in the same situations our combat troops have been and still are today to have an opinion is ridiculous. If combatt troops think it will work I am fine with it, if they don't, it will be another in a long line of failed policies, with this possibly costing lives, that we know it alls have dumped on our military

[gatorev12]

Huh? That's a weird example. Its more like comparing the rhetoric opposing interacial marriage with the rhetoric opposing same-sex marriage. It too was/is similar, and its been done. Does it makes those things exactly alike? Of course not, nor is that the intent in making the comparison. It's more of a matter of putting the opposition to social change in perspective, and puts the onus on the opposition to make the qualitative arguments you mention, rather than raise alarm bells over "experimentation."

On some level, I can see that you agree no comparison is ever going to be identical and allow for that. Thank you for being able to make that distinction.

I think a pretty glaring difference though is that when the armed forces were de-segregated in the 1950s, the training standards or job qualifications weren't lowered in any way. Blacks and whites had to perform the same physical fitness tests to qualify for certain combat units, so there was no lessening of standards.

Most of the objection that I've seen about this isn't centered around a sexism, it's centered around: will women be held to the same fitness and qualifications as men?

[Minister_of_Information]

Was it her intent to prove this? I think it was just to make some codger look out of touch and foolish. And she did.

If you're saying that the purpose of that quotation was purely rhetorical, I'd agree.

[uftaipan]

Maybe instead of whining about my viewpoint you can actually, you know, attempt to refute it?

Fine, I’ll bite. Even as I write this, I know that all you want is attention, and – Military-Industrial Complex, forgive me – I’m willfully giving it to you.

Even under the worst-case scenario, putting women in direct ground combat roles will not have the effect you’re looking for. Let’s say, the Pentagon insists (meaning Congress told them to insist) on the handicapping of physical standards for women in order to allow them to compete with men, as they have done in other MOSs. Let’s further surmise that they have quotas to ensure that at least, say, a minimum 10% of ground combat roles are reserved for women (or go unfilled). Even further, let’s say that, as has happened in other MOSs, women are given multiple chances to succeed at training under circumstances that men would have been given the boot. Finally, let’s say that whenever a woman in the infantry does something adequately, it is publicized widely as something surreally heroic (never seen that before :roll:); and that whenever a woman fails as all people can fail, resulting in something as bad as the death of fellow personnel, it is carefully suppressed (never seen that before either :roll:).

That’s probably the worst scenario (on the given issue) that I can realistically imagine.

Even if that happens, the most adverse impact it would have is in small units at the tactical level of war. It would not, in one professional’s opinion, affect the ability of the United States to project strength at the strategic level of war, which is, of course, your stated concern.

If you know as much as you claim to about the capabilities and limitations of the all-powerful Military-Industrial Complex, then you already understood that. Therefore, I can only conclude that your remark about this being a great idea to limit the combat capabilities of our fascist military was just another snarky attempt to bring the discussion away from its intent to something you would rather be talking about.

An alternative method for getting people to talk about what you want to talk about is – wait for it! – starting your own thread.

We all done now?

[LittleBlueLW]

This thread is awesome.

Libs arguing for women to die.

And we wonder why liberal ways destroy the family unit.

The whole liberal mindset is warped.

You will reap what you sow.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Even if that happens, the most adverse impact it would have is in small units at the tactical level of war. It would not, in one professional’s opinion, affect the ability of the United States to project strength at the strategic level of war, which is, of course, your stated concern.

This is obviously false, as women in more combat roles would result in reduced combat effectiveness, if we are to believe the naysayers, and likely higher casualty counts. Higher casualty counts mean increased pressure on the politicians, which in turn increases pressure on the Pentagon to change strategy or wrap up operations. It's quite clear that this would compromise the ability of the United States to project strength, contrary to your erroneous claim.

If you know as much as you claim to about the capabilities and limitations of the all-powerful Military-Industrial Complex, then you already understood that. Therefore, I can only conclude that your remark about this being a great idea to limit the combat capabilities of our fascist military was just another snarky attempt to bring the discussion away from its intent to something you would rather be talking about.

These are the words of a paranoid man.

An alternative method for getting people to talk about what you want to talk about is – wait for it! – starting your own thread.

We all done now?

I'm talking about women in combat roles, which is the subject of the thread. Just because I'm approaching the subject from a different angle - the desirability of reduced combat effectiveness - doesn't mean I need to start a whole new thread on the exact same subject.

If you don't like my comments, just ignore them. I don't see how your whining about them is productive in any way.

[rivergator]

This thread is awesome.

Libs arguing for women to die.

And we wonder why liberal ways destroy the family unit.

The whole liberal mindset is warped.

You will reap what you sow.

Yes. and conservatives arguing that only men should die because they are so tuned into the family unit.

[gatorev12]

Yes. and conservatives arguing that only men should die because they are so tuned into the family unit.

River---is it fair or safe for qualifications to be dropped to allow women into combat units?

[Spurffelbow833]

Re: the fear of female combat troops being captured and raped, aren't they being raped by their fellow American soldiers at a goodly rate ?

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7038/6780576182_75f486f53d_z.jpg

[Juggernautz]

If dogs can risk their lives in combat why not women?

[gatorev12]

A pretty insightful read that addresses these topics--and where the pressure is coming from to get this implemented:

On Thursday, however, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said, "Today Gen. Dempsey and I are pleased to announce that we are eliminating the ground combat exclusion rule for women and moving forward with a plan to eliminate all gender-based barriers to service." This, in effect, voids the 1994 rule that mostly excludes women from units below the brigade level when the primary mission is direct ground combat.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, proclaimed that, "The time has come to rescind the direct combat exclusion rule for women and eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service,"

Why is this necessary? How did such a “time” arrive upon us? According to the Wall Street Journal, “last February, Mr. Panetta ordered US military service chiefs to find ways to expand the role of women.” In other words, the military chiefs did not go to the Secretary of Defense and say, “we need to place women in combat units in order to fulfill our military mission.”

Had they said this, it could have been for two possible reasons. One is that there are not enough men willing to serve in combat. Or two, women are demonstrably better in combat than men. The first is clearly not the case, as the military is cutting back on personnel. The Armed Forces have more men in combat units than, according to President Obama, they need. Two, there are no studies demonstrating women’s superiority or even equivalence to men in combat. In other words, this came from the top – the political top. It is ideological pressure that created this requirement, not military necessity.

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/why_men_fight

[HudsonGator]

I served in the infantry. 99.99% of women simply cannot do what men are expected to do in infantry and armored units.

So you radically alter an institution for .01% of the population?

[Gatormb]

If dogs can risk their lives in combat why not women?

Haven't read the whole thread but I'm assuming those in favor would have no problem with their daughters and grand daughters being drafted should we have one again. If women want to be treated equally in the military so be it.

[HudsonGator]

Make women live up to the same PT standards as men and you'll reduce the number of women in the military to 1 or 2 % overnight.

It is intellectually dishonest to say on the one hand that women should be treated the same and given the same opprotunities as men, yet at the same time hold them to lower physical standards.

[lacuna]

If dogs can risk their lives in combat why not women?

Seriously? Equating women with dogs is the offensive product of a misogynist mind.