News Why not allow female soldiers to have combat roles?

[bluemoonKY]

The problem is this: Americans are not ready for females to return in large numbers in body bags. Culturally, we can accept 20 something year old guys going out and getting killed. Yet, it's very difficult for us to accept the same fact for women. Heck even in combat, I was able to look at male insurgents torn bodies and feel ok, but the one time I saw a woman the same way it tore me up.

If it did not bother you to see male insurgents' turn bodies, why did it bother you to see a woman the same way? Was the woman you saw the same way not an insurgent? If so, the problem would be noncombatants getting killed. This would be a non-issue for this case because the female soldiers would not be civilians. If the woman's torn body you saw was that of an insurgent, I don't understand why the gender difference bothers you. I really don't see what genitalia has to do with this.

If there is a real argument against letting females into combat roles is this: Combat arm men (who are mostly ubran inner city or rural kids) are not ready to see females get torn apart.

I still don't understand. What does genitalia have to do with this? You say that urban inner city and rural kids are not ready to see females get torn apart. I don't get it. I suppose the only category other than urban and rural would be suburban. What does geographical area have to do with this? Are suburban kids more ready to see females get torn apart than urban or rural kids?

Because unlike in the movies, no one dies cleanly. It's easy to sit here, academically argue for it, but let's face it, no one here is going to be out there in the dust with the ruck shooting the rounds.

This argument could just as well be applied against allowing men into combat positions.

So, before I can say, let's push for letting women in the Infantry, I need to know one simple thing, how will letting females wear the blue cord improve the fighting force?

The more, the merrier. The more females you have as infantry soldiers, the more rifles there will be shooting at the enemy. A woman can pull a trigger just as well as a man can. Genitalia is irrelevant.

 

[bluemoonKY]

The problem with the whole idea of "let women do the same jobs so long as they keep the standards equal" is they will likely never do this, because then too many women would fail, which leads to the feminist groups crying foul, and thus political pressure being applied to push a certain number through regardless of whether they can meet the standards or not.

I don't know what the physical standards (if there are physical standards) are for men to join the infantry, but I know that whatever those standards are, some women could meet those standards. Wouldn't the femininst groups cry foul more now with 100% of women barred from the infantry than if we gave women that are truly physically equal a chance?

I always hear this silly argument that no women can do anything worthwhile to help in the infantry because they are too physically weak. People will say that no women could carry a wounded man to safety. Aneta Florczyk is a woman, and she can pick the average man up with no problem. Please click the link for proof:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aneta_Florczyk2.JPG

It also creates a lot of problems regarding hygiene (men can go without showering for weeks in the field, women cannot without becoming susceptible to various diseases, and if a woman gets her period in the wilderness, that can attract wild animals like bears, or the enemy if they know how to track it (sometimes infantrymen will defecate into a bag to hide the stench)), there's the issue of checking for ticks, where infantry soldiers check each other's private parts, and so on.

Why can't a woman put her bloody tampon in a bag and bury it like the men do with their feces? I'm advocating that women be allowed to join the infantry as volunteers. If a woman chooses to never join the infantry because of ticks, then she would not have to join the infantry. But if a woman wants to join the infantry despite the fact that there are ticks in this world, they should be allowed to. A woman could either choose to get a man to inspect her genitalia, or a woman could get another female soldier to check her genitalia for ticks.

There's also the issue of carrying the loads. An infantryman needs to be able to carry loads of well over 100 lbs, sometimes up to 130 lbs. That is very hard for a lot of men.

The way to solve this problem is have equal physical standards for men and women.

Here is an article by a female Marine combat engineer on this subject: http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

I've read that article by the female Marine combat engineer before. Just because she cannot handle being an infantry soldier does not mean that no women can handle being an infantry soldier.

No one is claiming women lack the bravery or intelligence to do the job, but there is a sizable strength and size difference between men and women. And if the feminists want full 100% equality, are they willing to require that all girls, upon turning 18, register for the Selective Service?

THere is a sizable strength and size difference between men and women. The way to solve this problem is have equal physical standards for men and women. For instance, if a man has to carry a 130 pound bag for five miles to join the infantry, then the women should be required to carry a 130 pound bag for five miles to join the infantry.

 

[bluemoonKY]

What I saw was argument similar to abortions. Both genders can suffer from sexual assualts but females have to live with worse consequences if they get pregnant from sexual assualt. Then come moral arguments about how deal with the post-sexual assault consequences.

The way to solve this problem is just allow women to join the infantry as volunteers. If a woman does not want to risk being a POW and being impregnated in a sexual assault, she could just not join the infantry (or not join the military). If a woman wants to chance it, she should be allowed to.

 

[bluemoonKY]

The consequences of being a POW are as bad as the enemy wants to make them, regardless of gender.

Exactly. The enemy could kill male and female POWS if they wanted to.

I think CAC hit on the only salient point against equality (actual equality: Andre's point is valid against forced integration). Are we really ready for it as a society?

I don't think that it's fair to women soldiers (who want to be infantry soldiers and are qualified to be infantry soldiers) to keep them out of the infantry just because some people in America are too immature to accept it.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

If it did not bother you to see male insurgents' turn bodies, why did it bother you to see a woman the same way? Was the woman you saw the same way not an insurgent? If so, the problem would be noncombatants getting killed. This would be a non-issue for this case because the female soldiers would not be civilians. If the woman's torn body you saw was that of an insurgent, I don't understand why the gender difference bothers you. I really don't see what genitalia has to do with this.



I still don't understand. What does genitalia have to do with this? You say that urban inner city and rural kids are not ready to see females get torn apart. I don't get it. I suppose the only category other than urban and rural would be suburban. What does geographical area have to do with this? Are suburban kids more ready to see females get torn apart than urban or rural kids?



This argument could just as well be applied against allowing men into combat positions.




The more, the merrier. The more females you have as infantry soldiers, the more rifles there will be shooting at the enemy. A woman can pull a trigger just as well as a man can. Genitalia is irrelevant.

When I read what he said, it did not appear to me that he was citing the biological differences as the direct reason for why seeing dead women upsets him more than seeing dead men.

I believe that what he was getting at is that it is a cultural thing. While you personally may not be more upset by seeing dead women than when you see dead men, I think that that is probably not the way the general population feels.

I think that in our American culture, the thought of women going to war and fighting and dying is something that turns the stomach. I don't think it's for rational reasons or biological ones, but rather just because that's how things have been... for a very very long time.

And like he (or maybe it was Gale) pointed out, perhaps our country is not ready yet to try and make the change into one that feels indifferent to whether its military is all men or both men and women. And also perhaps it would not be a good idea, the reasons for why it might not be a good idea included such reasons as how it would affect the logistics of the military.

 

[rootX]

The way to solve this problem is just allow women to join the infantry as volunteers. If a woman does not want to risk being a POW and being impregnated in a sexual assault, she could just not join the infantry (or not join the military). If a woman wants to chance it, she should be allowed to.

It wasn't the women that was my main concern but new life they will be carrying inside them. That was the reason I saw a link to the abortions debate.

 

[CAC1001]

One thing, but to those who think men are not more upset by women getting shot or blown up, Israel tried using women in combat in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and they had a problem of men trying to protect women. That is just something instinctive and also cultural. Think of it this way, if you have a family and a criminal breaks into the home, and the man goes and hides with the children and leaves the woman to handle the criminal, would you think much of the guy?

I don't know what the physical standards (if there are physical standards) are for men to join the infantry, but I know that whatever those standards are, some women could meet those standards. Wouldn't the femininst groups cry foul more now with 100% of women barred from the infantry than if we gave women that are truly physically equal a chance?

If you gave women truly physically equal a chance, sure, but that is not reality. If the standards are made equal and 99% of the women end up not being able to meet them, claims of sexual discrimination will occur. That is why they always create lower standards for women for physical activities. Army Airborne School was made a lot easier once they started allowing women to attend it. Also Army Basic Training for the non-combat arms was eased up a lot when they started mixing in women.

I always hear this silly argument that no women can do anything worthwhile to help in the infantry because they are too physically weak. People will say that no women could carry a wounded man to safety. Aneta Florczyk is a woman, and she can pick the average man up with no problem. Please click the link for proof:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aneta_Florczyk2.JPG

No one has said that "no women" can meet the standards, but the number that could is so miniscule and considering the politics involved, why possibly detriment the force for this incredibly small number? It is also not a silly argument to say that most women are physically weaker than most men, that's just a fact (that's why we have men's sports teams and women's sports teams).

Why can't a woman put her bloody tampon in a bag and bury it like the men do with their feces? I'm advocating that women be allowed to join the infantry as volunteers. If a woman chooses to never join the infantry because of ticks, then she would not have to join the infantry. But if a woman wants to join the infantry despite the fact that there are ticks in this world, they should be allowed to. A woman could either choose to get a man to inspect her genitalia, or a woman could get another female soldier to check her genitalia for ticks.

Having men do it could cause all manner of problems. Also, there might not be another female in the area.

All that said, I'd agree that if women can meet the standards, then let them try and see how the military deals with all these little problems (tick inspections, women having their period, hygiene issues, etc...). There would likely be very few females who would volunteer for the combat arms, so such problems the military would probably be able to adapt to. Allowing women to serve in the military period complicates things and causes problems, but that unto itself isn't an excuse to not let women serve.

Canada let's women serve in their combat arms, and they have the same issue, very few women doing it. Germany's KSK force is open to women if they can meet the standards, although thus far none have until recently, I think one made it. Israel has a mostly female infantry battalion called Caracal, although it generally does not handle any of the hardcore fighting and is not very highly respected within the Israeli army from what I understand.

The way to solve this problem is have equal physical standards for men and women.

Yes, but our political culture likely won't stand for this due to political correctness.

I've read that article by the female Marine combat engineer before. Just because she cannot handle being an infantry soldier does not mean that no women can handle being an infantry soldier.

Sure, but again the number that could would be very small.

 

[rootX]

If you gave women truly physically equal a chance, sure, but that is not reality. If the standards are made equal and 99% of the women end up not being able to meet them, claims of sexual discrimination will occur. That is why they always create lower standards for women for physical activities. Army Airborne School was made a lot easier once they started allowing women to attend it. Also Army Basic Training for the non-combat arms was eased up a lot when they started mixing in women.

I agreed with some of the points in your previous point but here you are just lacking evidence. I am not willing to believe these statements as such: "Army Airborne School was made a lot easier once they started allowing women to attend it. Also Army Basic Training for the non-combat arms was eased up a lot when they started mixing in women"

Canada let's women serve in their combat arms, and they have the same issue, very few women doing it. Germany's KSK force is open to women if they can meet the standards, although thus far none have until recently, I think one made it. Israel has a mostly female infantry battalion called Caracal, although it generally does not handle any of the hardcore fighting and is not very highly respected within the Israeli army from what I understand.

Could you provide information sources?

 

[russ_watters]

I really don't see what genitalia has to do with this.

This is naive to the reality/history that women are/have been considered "the fairer sex".

I don't know what the physical standards (if there are physical standards) are for men to join the infantry, but I know that whatever those standards are, some women could meet those standards. Wouldn't the femininst groups cry foul more now with 100% of women barred from the infantry than if we gave women that are truly physically equal a chance?

I'm not sure, but when I was at the Naval Academy, it was all about the statistics. They didn't want to merely allow women in, they wanted to prove progressiveness by showing how many were let in. I think that is logical in a twisted sort of way: it doesn't matter if a job is technically open to women, if there aren't any women in it, it gives the appearance of them being underrepresented. Thus the perceived need to attempt to achieve a better level of statistical equality.

This (ill)logic applies to other forms of affirmative action as well.

I don't think that it's fair to women soldiers (who want to be infantry soldiers and are qualified to be infantry soldiers) to keep them out of the infantry just because some people in America are too immature to accept it.

That's true, but is it really relevant? Perhaps it should be, but I don't think it is.

 

[MarneMath]

Let's assume bluemoon has argued successfully on behalf of women, I still have to ask how does allowing females into the infantry make a better infantry? We have no problems with filling our ranks with men and face none of the logistical problems.

As for if Airborne school was made easier, the answer is yes. It had to be. Prior everyone had to do 42 push ups and be able to run five miles in 40 or less. Females must only do 19 push ups and a females average run time is a minute to two minutes slower per mile. How can you keep the same physical rigor when half the group is held to such a lesser standard?

 

[CAC1001]

I agreed with some of the points in your previous point but here you are just lacking evidence. I am not willing to believe these statements as such: "Army Airborne School was made a lot easier once they started allowing women to attend it. Also Army Basic Training for the non-combat arms was eased up a lot when they started mixing in women"

From what I have been told by some military friends I know, they had to ease the standards of both when women were mixed in. Also my own experience from going through Infantry OSUT (One Station Unit Training) which is all-male and then conversing with a girl on what training had been like for her in the non-combat arms Basic.

Could you provide information sources?

Regarding Canada, according to this link, 83 women served in the infantry in Afghanistan: http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/1...anadas-combat-positions-in-afghanistan-study/

Regarding Germany, I might have made a mistake on the KSK, however the force is open to women. I could swear reading somewhere though that they had a woman make it through the training recently.

Regarding Israel, Caracal was created for reasons of political correctness back in 2000. It mostly patrols the peaceful Jordanian and Egypt borders, and is used primarily for handling drug and weapons smuggling. They do not use it for any kind of hardcore fighting, although this may be changing because of what's happening with Egypt now. Here is one article: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/israels-only-co-ed-combat-unit-proves-its-worth

 

[russ_watters]

Let's assume bluemoon has argued successfully on behalf of women, I still have to ask how does allowing females into the infantry make a better infantry? We have no problems with filling our ranks with men and face none of the logistical problems.

I don't think either of those is actually true, particularly during the height of the war in Iraq. But even if it were true, drawing from a wider pool would actually enable you to increase the standards, increasing the quality level.

 

[MarneMath]

May not sound right but it is. When a lot of us were getting blown apart 11 series was a hard job to enlists for. It got so bad that even ranger contracts were no longer offered and for a few months 11 was closed for enlistment.

 

[russ_watters]

Not sure of who, what, when or why, but there were times when enlistment quotas fell far short: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/595112991/Guard-fails-to-meet-recruiting-quota.html?pg=all

Either way, broader pool = higher standards

 

[MarneMath]

I wouldn't consider 04 the height nor guard numbers indicative of active numbers, but even if they were, we are talking about three branches. Armor, artillery and infantry. As I stated before the combat arms never had to fight for enlistment unlike Mi which is always short.

Once again, I'm not sure if that broader pool is worth it if it is not needed and causes more problems than solutions.

 

[Gale]

Either way, broader pool = higher standards

Unfortunately, as MarneMath and Cac have already said, this was simply not the case when women were added to the ranks. Again, as a woman in the military I see the standards first hand, and its very evident that women have negatively impacted physical standards.

You can reference Physical Fitness test charts of any branch and compare how drastically different female requirements are than male. While I agree with some of the adjusted standards (there's no way the average female could compete with the average male regarding push ups and running times) some standards are just way too low, (push ups may be harder for women, but a fit woman should be able to do more than is currently expected). There are simply natural physical differences between men and women.

The presence of a high number of women at a command performing to these lower standards obviously effects the men stationed there as well. However, it's sort of chicken and egg scenario, since commands with high female ratios are usually those far from combat (intel, logistics, etc) and they tend to fair worse with regards to physical standards than those of commands of almost entirely male service members (combat unit, special forces, any of the few remaining units that don't allow females).

But physical standards are really only part of the equation, and arguably less of the equation when modern war-methods are considered. Technology and intel make up a huge proportion of military missions today, and obviously female physical limitations are not really an issue. In fact, some studies show females may out-perform males in such fields. In fact, the military is downsizing and the standards that are most scrutinized are intellectual and skill-based, not physical standards. If you're interested in enlisting, willingness and ability to be cannon fodder is not as valuable as say, computer or engineering skills.

Really, regardless of gender (or any other sort of) equality, the military should be most concerned with getting the best people into the position that best suits them. The fact is, combat is rarely the best fit for a woman because of natural, physical limitations of her body, and it is also a poor fit because of the impact a woman's presence has on those around her. If that same woman is more useful somewhere else, why send her to combat at all?

 

[russ_watters]

Unfortunately, as MarneMath and Cac have already said, this was simply not the case when women were added to the ranks. Again, as a woman in the military I see the standards first hand, and its very evident that women have negatively impacted physical standards.

You're right, I was unclear: I meant that a broader pool makes it possible to increase the standards. That doesn't mean it is actually done. In reality, average standards were lowered.

 

[Drakkith]

In fact, the military is downsizing and the standards that are most scrutinized are intellectual and skill-based, not physical standards. If you're interested in enlisting, willingness and ability to be cannon fodder is not as valuable as say, computer or engineering skills.

Someone let me know when the U.S. Air Force changes their standards in this way. I've seen too many good people get booted out because they failed to meet PT standards. Which apparently negatively impacts your work performance enough to justify kicking them out, regardless of what your actual job actually is. By the way this has happened to more than one person who was deemed too fat to stay in, yet they were solid muscle from working out 2-4 hours every day. Silly waist measurement...

 

[Gale]

Someone let me know when the U.S. Air Force changes their standards in this way. I've seen too many good people get booted out because they failed to meet PT standards. Which apparently negatively impacts your work performance enough to justify kicking them out, regardless of what your actual job actually is. By the way this has happened to more than one person who was deemed too fat to stay in, yet they were solid muscle from working out 2-4 hours every day. Silly waist measurement...

Somewhat off topic but:
Different branches have different standards. But for all of them there are definitely MINIMUM fitness requirements which are not that difficult to maintain. I emphasize "maintain," (my quoted comment was regarding joining the military.) If they were already in, that means at some point they were within standards and then they let themselves go... That's not just a problem of physical fitness but of motivation and discipline amongst other things. Also, they're not kicked out for one failure, nor are they surprised by the test, and are often on fitness programs designed to help them get within standards. It's a long process before someone is booted for fitness failures.

Also, solid muscle would pass the waist measurement, plus there are other policies to prevent "fit" but heavily muscled individuals from being booted out.

But aside from that, there are many government jobs out there that don't require physical fitness that those friends of yours can and maybe should aim for. Again, the goal of military placement should be the best "man" for the job. Any military position has minimum standards that everyone must meet regardless of other qualifications, gender, race etc. That's where the equality issues come into play. Standards for specific jobs and roles once someone is in the military is a different story. It is much more difficult to cast a blanket of fairness and opportunity over everyone interested in say, combat, when the nature of combat necessarily restricts the types and interactions of people on the line.

 

[Drakkith]

Somewhat off topic but:
Different branches have different standards. But for all of them there are definitely MINIMUM fitness requirements which are not that difficult to maintain. I emphasize "maintain," (my quoted comment was regarding joining the military.) If they were already in, that means at some point they were within standards and then they let themselves go... That's not just a problem of physical fitness but of motivation and discipline amongst other things. Also, they're not kicked out for one failure, nor are they surprised by the test, and are often on fitness programs designed to help them get within standards. It's a long process before someone is booted for fitness failures.

Of course. I can't argue against any of that.

Also, solid muscle would pass the waist measurement, plus there are other policies to prevent "fit" but heavily muscled individuals from being booted out.

If there policies such as this in place, I have never heard of them.

But aside from that, there are many government jobs out there that don't require physical fitness that those friends of yours can and maybe should aim for. Again, the goal of military placement should be the best "man" for the job. Any military position has minimum standards that everyone must meet regardless of other qualifications, gender, race etc. That's where the equality issues come into play. Standards for specific jobs and roles once someone is in the military is a different story. It is much more difficult to cast a blanket of fairness and opportunity over everyone interested in say, combat, when the nature of combat necessarily restricts the types and interactions of people on the line.

Perhaps, but when the best person for the job doesn't pass their PT test, it's nothing but a loss of a skilled person for no good reason in my opinion. (But I'm probably already heavily biased)
But anyways, I don't want to derail the thread, so I'll stop posting about this.