Women in Combat Ban Lifted... Thoughts?

[dallasgatr]

Originally Posted by 108

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_i...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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

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]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

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]

Originally Posted by helix139

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]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

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

[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
[quote]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

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/h...-American-West

[uftaipan]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Good post dee

[bluelang]

Originally Posted by uftaipan

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]

Originally Posted by uftaipan

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]

Originally Posted by HALLGATOR

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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