Women in Combat Ban Lifted... Thoughts?

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by uftaipan

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_a...t_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]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

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]

Originally Posted by rivergator

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

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

But the facts are not analogous.