Women in combat

[obgyn65]

I have always been a big supporter of women's rights. This topic is no exception.

 

[JakeBrake]

Not that dated Sniggle. Could have been the BAR. AKA M1918 (Browning Automatic RIfle for the non-military)

Been there. Done that. The M60 is new-fangled.

 

[REWahoo]

I think women deserve a fighting chance.

 

[JOHNNIE36]

I have always been a big supporter of women's rights. This topic is no exception.

I don't think anyone on this forum would ever say they are not for women's rights. I also support those rights. Have you really read all the post? I think the biggest problem the military faces is the mixing of males and females and the watering down of standards to accommodate women. As the saying goes, "been there-done that", except my experience was not in the military. Good thing as there were no life and death situations in my field. Someone posted, "just wait until somebodys daughter gets drafted". Should they ever reinstate the draft, that will separate the "men from the boys (er, girls)".

For the sake of the country, I hope this works.

 

[TOOLMAN]

What are your thoughts on this one?

I guess it was going to happen sooner or later. In theory, I'm all for equal rights. In practice, I'd imagine it will cause all sorts of problems.

I have was not in the military, but I have been to more that 40 counties, and have seen women in the military in some of them. In Israel it is very common.

I expect it will work in the USA much like it works in other countries, which follow this practice. To me people seem to be the much the same the world over. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military_by_country

 

[haha]

I have was not in the military, but I have been to more that 40 counties, and have seen women in the military in some of them. In Israel it is very common.

In Israel women have mandatory service; I think 3 years for men, 2 for women. However, there are very few women in infantry units. The Israelis run a hyper egalitarian society. If they have very few women in their infantry units, it is because they have decided that it is not a good idea.

Ha

 

[frayne]

Went through and graduated Ranger School back in 1970 and I think the drop out rate was something like 75%. That said I still think a hard charging dedicated female could go through and graduate the course.

 

[M Paquette]

I have no doubt that females in combat is "doable". I just don't look forward to the next 10 years as we endure the "carnage" (NOT on the battle field). I don't look forward to the news media smearing stories of female soldiers raped by captors (ala Jessica Lynch) or as likely by their "comrades" (already an issue in our military schools).

The thing is, all this already happens, without women in official combat roles. Our military doesn't get to face nice tidy situations with the 'front lines' and rear echelons. A supply clerk moving a cargo, or an MP transporting a prisoner have a significant risk of encountering an improvised explosive device or a band of insurgents, just like the 'front line' combat troops. They just haven't been eligible for the training and pay.

 

[Tyro]

Just an observation: I'm [-]hearing[/-] reading a lot of the same arguments (and terminology) as with gays in the military.

 

[AndrewJackson]

Call me a crazy conspiracy theorist: but maybe the gays in the military(as tyro references)/women in combat is just a side show to get everyone to completely forget about the monster military industrial complex.

 

[tinlizzy]

Men continued to do most of the grunt work while females were promoted to supervisor or found ways to get into the cafeteria work force, labs, purchasing, etc. etc.

I'm a union employee. Ratio of females is 1:100, nationwide. In my location there are 66 full-time employees, 2 are females. There are only 3 inside full-time jobs, one per shift. These jobs are coveted because they are indoors.

The 2nd shift inside job recently went up for bid and myself and the other female were the only employees to bid the job. Why? Because the men are all waiting for the 1st shift inside job to open up. But here's the kicker - the contract says that jobs will be open to employees within the same classification first (inside job), then outside the classification (outside job). Taking the less desirable 2nd shift job gives that person first dibs on the 1st shift job when it opens up.

Anyway, my female coworker got the 2nd shift inside job and with only 18yrs seniority will get the most coveted job in the building later this year when the 1st shift inside person retires and the men have still not figured this out.

There might be some value in having a female perspective in combat.

 

[Gumby]

About damn time. Now lets change the selective service registration requirements to include 18YO women, too.

It would appear that the Selective Service System is now ripe for another 14th Amendment Equal Protection challenge in court. When this was last done, in 1981, the Supreme Court upheld the current law, at least in part on the basis that women were not allowed to serve in combat. See Rotsker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981) FindLaw | Cases and Codes

 

[Lsbcal]

In Israel women have mandatory service; I think 3 years for men, 2 for women. However, there are very few women in infantry units. The Israelis run a hyper egalitarian society. If they have very few women in their infantry units, it is because they have decided that it is not a good idea.

Ha

This is a good point.

I don't imagine a female combat soldier will have any problem killing and doing the hard chores.

What happens if a female soldier becomes a prisoner of war? The abuse could be terrible and if the public hears about this it could really affect the military. Why not think ahead and make sure it cannot likely happen? Maybe that has already been done? If it has that would make me feel a lot better.

 

[samclem]

Just an observation: I'm [-]hearing[/-] reading a lot of the same arguments (and terminology) as with gays in the military.

The challenges are very different, just as they were different for the issue of racial integration. Maybe some people want to believe the issues are the same.

 

[Alan]

The thing is, all this already happens, without women in official combat roles. Our military doesn't get to face nice tidy situations with the 'front lines' and rear echelons. A supply clerk moving a cargo, or an MP transporting a prisoner have a significant risk of encountering an improvised explosive device or a band of insurgents, just like the 'front line' combat troops. They just haven't been eligible for the training and pay.

... or the safety equipment.

I saw an interview with a US army woman translator working with the infantry on the front lines in Iraq. Since women are not officially in the front line they don't provide body armor as part of their equipment, so she used to borrow from her male colleagues. Once women are officially allowed in the front lines, body armor better suited to the female shape will be made available.

 

[mickeyd]

This PC move seems to be in the offing no matter what anyone thinks. I heard Gen Dempsey and SECDEF Panetta endorse the idea.
My next comment... Welcome to Instant Coughbullshit

Will 18 YO women ever be required to register for the draft like 18 YO men do?

Crickets...

 

[samclem]

A perspective from Margaret Wente of Toronto's Globe and Mail. In part:

U.S. Marine Captain Katie Petronio is as tough and motivated as they come – a combat engineer officer with five years of active service, during which she led many field operations. She used to think women like her could serve in the infantry, but she has changed her mind. For one thing, women are far more prone to injury than men. Her last stint in Afghanistan was so gruelling that after seven months, she had lost a large amount of muscle mass and stopped producing estrogen. “I went from breaking school records to being broken in a rather short amount of time,” she told an interviewer. “And I was only doing a portion of what my infantry brethren were doing.”
. . . .
What happens when women are fully integrated into combat? Fortunately, we have a great example: Canada. Overall, women account for 14 per cent of all jobs in the Canadian Forces, a slightly lower percentage than in the U.S. As a result of a human-rights decision, front-line combat jobs were opened to women in 1989. Yet today, despite strenuous recruiting efforts, women hold just 2.4 per cent of these jobs. Their commanding officers praise their competence but treat them differently, by shielding them from combat. According to a Wall Street Journal report this week, the widespread impression among Canadian female soldiers – much to their frustration – is they are used “only sparingly.” Men serving next to women also exhibit a counterproductive battlefield trait: protectiveness.

Wente cites numerous examples of the differing physical capabilities of women, (should be obvious, but apparently we need to explicitly state these things today), but I don't think that alone should be a reason to exclude >>individual<< women from combat units, if they meet objective physical standards relevant to the job. Neither should the unacceptably high rate of pregnancy (not all women will get pregnant. Those who do get pregnant while in specified military duties (combat, at sea, etc) and any male servicemember associated with the pregnancy should be subject to UCMJ penalties for causing her to be unfit for duty).
But the protectiveness of male soldiers is something much harder to grapple with. It is detrimental to mission accomplishment, and it's neither the woman's nor the man's "fault." The physical attractions and the jealousies and emotional conflict that will result are much more likely and have more serious ramifications in a field deployed combat unit than in any office (or in typical non-combat military unit). I also think the sanitation issues are getting short shrift in the rush toward equal treatment.

As a nation, we don't presently have a shortage of volunteers for combat duty, so there's no particular pragmatic national security reason to take this step. We are doing it for other reasons. We need to get past the blanket "everyone should have equal opportunity" pablum and actually look at the impact. And if mixed gender combat units will result in more deaths of men and women in those units or lowered military effectiveness (the same thing), then we need to decide if we should go with the "theoretical good" or the "practical good."

And we're back to Project 100,000.

A theoretical question: How much do we truly value equality? From a physical strength standpoint, we know a fundamental reason women, in general, have less skeletal muscle strength than men: their testosterone levels are lower. Men and women are "unequal." Systematic testosterone injections and weight training for women would allow them to have many of the traits that make men, in general, more suited to land combat . . Anyone who doubts this should take a look at the the East German women's sports teams of the 1970s or female bodybuilders today. So, if they want it, why should we deny women this remedial treatment if it would allow them to be physically more equal to men and to better serve in combat units? Yes, the side effects might kill them on average 8 years earlier than other females, but that's no worse than men already experience. Yes, they might not be able to bear children thereafter, but men can't do that, either. We'd be doing a lot to promote equality on several levels. If we think this abhorrent, why? Because everyone has a fundamental right to do anything another person can do?

 

[haha]

We need to get past the blanket "everyone should have equal opportunity" pablum and actually look at the impact. And if mixed gender combat units will result in more deaths of men and women in those units or lowered military effectiveness (the same thing), then we need to decide if we should go with the "theoretical good" or the "practical good."

And we're back to Project 100,000.

As usual, we will go with the theoretical good. Checking against reality has been banned, for anyone who is not desiring to commit career suicide.

Ha

 

[Bimmerbill]

I've always had issues with the two physical fitness test standards. One for men, one for women.

I've seen first hand the kind of issues a mixed gender unit has. They are the same issues everywhere I think, but at a minimum the behavior I observed was a distraction from the mission.

I say give it a shot as long as PT standards are the same for both men and women.

 

[antmary]

I've always had issues with the two physical fitness test standards. One for men, one for women.

I've seen first hand the kind of issues a mixed gender unit has. They are the same issues everywhere I think, but at a minimum the behavior I observed was a distraction from the mission.

I say give it a shot as long as PT standards are the same for both men and women.

I agree with this...in a life-or-death situation, both sexes must be able to pass the same requirements.

A side note: I think that most girly-girls would not want to participate in combat. Socially - in our culture - things may heat up, and get very interesting if and when the draft comes along again.

 

[Redbugdave]

There exists a fundamental difference in how the different genders are hardwired (despite the best efforts of the feminists and castrated males). Men are designed to fight and protect their tribes, and women are designed to be the nesters and nurturers of their tribe. The woman's role is NOT a weak one. Remember the movie "300"? Although graphic, it also focused on how the difference between men and women strengthened their culture. Women's strength must be used strategically, not by placing them on the front lines.

The bond that men in combat share is amazing, and completely different from the bond men form with women. Put a fighter with a natural nester and ask them to fight together, and you have just complicated things in a way that aren't there with two fighters working together. The added complexity is that a man feels a natural need to protect a woman fighting in his unit, not the same as with another man. This can be seen as sexist, chivalrous or patronizing, whether or not the woman is just as capable as the man. However, it is instinct, not intent.

Does this mean that women should not be in a combat role? It depends on the situation. I do think the standards need to be the same for both sexes for a particular job. I believe the standards will be lowered and we will have a less effective military force.

You know the old saying...It's all fun and games till someone gets killed.

 

[Katsmeow]

There exists a fundamental difference in how the different genders are hardwired (despite the best efforts of the feminists and castrated males). Men are designed to fight and protect their tribes, and women are designed to be the nesters and nurturers of their tribe.

Oh, please. This reminds me in the mid-70s when I went to interviews for jobs shortly before I graduated from law school. I wanted to be a litigator and I was constantly being asked how I would feel about having to compete with men (fine) and whether it would bother me to beat a man in court (no) and how I saw my career plans as opposed to my family plans (I didn't seem that as being opposed).

Women and men differ. I am very competitive by nature and am not much - at all - of a nester or nurterer. I do enjoy being a parent -- I didn't have my first child until I was 40 -- but a know lots of men who enjoy being a parent. I never enjoyed the stereotypical nesting/nurturing activities. For example, even though I absolutely love being a parent (3 kids), I had zero difficulty returning to work when my son was 6 weeks old.

To say that men natural fighters and women are natural nesters is too general. That may be true for many men and many women, but it isn't true for anywhere near all of them. And, frankly, I would think that it most certainly isn't true for the women who will volunteer for combat roles in the military. To say that they can't have those roles because a natural woman would be a nester rather than a fighter is the epitome of stereotyping women and fencing us in.

It was always frustrating to me when in interviews people seemed so boggled by the idea I wanted to be litigator and they wondered how I would feel about a role in law that was so competitive. To me it was obvious that if I hated competing I wouldn't have been wanting a job as a litigator. I guess I just failed to realize that they knew better than me about how I should feel as a proper woman.....

 

[Gumby]

The added complexity is that a man feels a natural need to protect a woman fighting in his unit, not the same as with another man.

It might be instructive to look at some recent Medal of Honor winners from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan:


Corporal Jason Dunham USMC -- threw himself on a grenade to protect his fellow (male) Marines

Specialist Ross McGinnis USA -- threw himself on a grenade to protect his fellow (male) soldiers

Petty Officer Michael Mansoor USN -- threw himself on a grenade to protect his fellow (male) sailors

Staff Sergeant Robert Miller USA -- killed while diverting Taliban fire so his fellow (male) soldiers could escape

Sergeant First Class Jared Monti USA - killed trying to rescue a wounded fellow (male) soldier

 

[Buckeye]

About damn time. Now lets change the selective service registration requirements to include 18YO women, too.

+1

 

[Buckeye]

This PC move seems to be in the offing no matter what anyone thinks. I heard Gen Dempsey and SECDEF Panetta endorse the idea.
My next comment... Welcome to Instant Coughbullshit

Will 18 YO women ever be required to register for the draft like 18 YO men do?

Crickets...

The sooner we (women) have to register, the better. Maybe this will make the politicians think a little harder prior to sending our mothers, fathers, and children into harms way.