News Why not allow female soldiers to have combat roles?

[bluemoonKY]

It's my understanding that the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marines do not allow women into combat roles such an infantry, armor, etc. The arguments I've always heard/read against allowing women into combat positions have never made sense to me.

One time I read someone write that it would be a bad idea to allow women to join the infantry because it would result in situations in which a woman would be present when a man is wounded, but she could not carry the wounded man because she would be too physically weak. This is a foolish argument for two reasons. First of all, some women are stronger than some men. I'm sure that the strongest women in America are stronger than the average male US Army infantryman. If physical strength is the determining factor, why not just require all potential infantry troops (females and males) to pass equal strength tests in order to join the infantry? If we did that, that would filter out the women that cannot carry a wounded man, while allowing the women that could carry a wounded man to join. Secondly, having female military troops would not have to be in lieu of having male troops also. If a woman cannot carry a wounded male soldier, that does not mean that she cannot fire a rifle. All oars in the water.

Another argument I've read against women being in combat positions in the military is that it would be a problem because some women have prepubescent children, and it would be a hardship to their children if they were killed. First of all, it seems to me like this argument could just as well apply to prohibiting fathers from being in combat positions. Furthermore, the military could just have a policy against prohibiting mothers from joining combat positions.

If you don't think that women should be allowed to join combat positions in the military, please tell me why would should not be allowed to join combat positions in the military.

 

[Evo]

It's my understanding that the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marines do not allow women into combat roles such an infantry, armor, etc. The arguments I've always heard/read against allowing women into combat positions have never made sense to me.

One time I read someone write that it would be a bad idea to allow women to join the infantry because it would result in situations in which a woman would be present when a man is wounded, but she could not carry the wounded man because she would be too physically weak. This is a foolish argument for two reasons. First of all, some women are stronger than some men. I'm sure that the strongest women in America are stronger than the average male US Army infantryman. If physical strength is the determining factor, why not just require all potential infantry troops (females and males) to pass equal strength tests in order to join the infantry? If we did that, that would filter out the women that cannot carry a wounded man, while allowing the women that could carry a wounded man to join. Secondly, having female military troops would not have to be in lieu of having male troops also. If a woman cannot carry a wounded male soldier, that does not mean that she cannot fire a rifle. All oars in the water.

Another argument I've read against women being in combat positions in the military is that it would be a problem because some women have prepubescent children, and it would be a hardship to their children if they were killed. First of all, it seems to me like this argument could just as well apply to prohibiting fathers from being in combat positions. Furthermore, the military could just have a policy against prohibiting mothers from joining combat positions.

If you don't think that women should be allowed to join combat positions in the military, please tell me why would should not be allowed to join combat positions in the military.

Women are allowed in combat positions in the US military.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/womnen-in-combat-army-batallions_n_1519054.html

 

[bluemoonKY]

You didn't say what I thought you said at first.

I had to edit this.

 

[bluemoonKY]

"Under the new policy, female officers and non-commissioned officers will be assigned to combat units below the brigade level. The change will open up about 14,000 new jobs for women in the military, but there are still more than 250,000 jobs that remain closed to women.

The new jobs within combat battalions are in personnel, intelligence, logistics, signal corps, medical and chaplaincy."

Evo, you have to read that link carefully. Your link indicates that women are allowed into combat battalions, but women are still excluded from the combat positions like infantry.

Yes, women can be paramedics in a combat battalions, but why not allow women into combat positions like infantry?

 

[Evo]

"Under the new policy, female officers and non-commissioned officers will be assigned to combat units below the brigade level. The change will open up about 14,000 new jobs for women in the military, but there are still more than 250,000 jobs that remain closed to women.

The new jobs within combat battalions are in personnel, intelligence, logistics, signal corps, medical and chaplaincy."

Evo, you have to read that link carefully. Your link indicates that women are allowed into combat battalions, but women are still excluded from the combat positions like infantry.

Yes, women can be paramedics in a combat battalions, but why not allow women into combat positions like infantry?

Women will be allowed in infantry combat positions.

USMC general details women’s infantry training

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/05/marine-women-infantry-officer-course-richard-mills-combat-050212/

The military is already moving in the direction to allow women in direct infantry combat.

US Army plans

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/05/army-to-open-14000-jobs-6-mos-women-in-combat-050212/

 

[rootX]

Something I came across recently:

No women are deployed in the infantry where the primary role is to "close with and kill" the enemy - to engage in hand-to-hand combat.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19657646

 

[bluemoonKY]

Evo, you're not reading your links carefully enough. The following is from YOUR link:

"Marine officials have emphasized that women who successfully complete IOC will not receive the Corps’ 0302 infantry officer designation. Defense Department policy still bars the services from assigning women to jobs whose primary mission is direct ground combat, such as infantry and special operations."

The Marines allows women to go to infantry training school, but the Marines don't allow the women to be assigned to the infantry. If I just read the headline of your article and not the entire article, I would think that the Marines allow women into infantry also.

 

[bluemoonKY]

The military is already moving in the direction to allow women in direct infantry combat.

Instead of just allowing women to attend infantry training school and disallowing said women from joining the infantry and instead of saying that the military is moving in the direction to allow women into direct infantry combat, why not just allow women into direct infantry combat?

 

[Evo]

Instead of just allowing women to attend infantry training school and disallowing said women from joining the infantry and instead of saying that the military is moving in the direction to allow women into direct infantry combat, why not just allow women into direct infantry combat?

As the marine corps paper states

The female officers’ performance at IOC will be monitored closely and used to inform a recommendation the Corps will make to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Mills said. That’s expected to happen in mid-November.

 

[AlephZero]

Another argument I've read against women being in combat positions in the military is that it would be a problem because some women have prepubescent children, and it would be a hardship to their children if they were killed.

but why not allow women into combat positions like infantry?

I assume the rank of gunner in a UK artillery regiment is a combat position ...

Of Camp Bastion's medical facilities, Mr Heyman said: "It's a very good place to go if you have been shot but as a maternity ward very limited."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19657646

 

[bluemoonKY]

Evo, to heck with recommendations. That's just more red tape. Instead of using the female officers' performance at the IOC to inform a recommendation in mid-November, why not allow female soldiers into the infantry now?

Furthermore, that is just for the Marines. What about the army?

 

[bluemoonKY]

rootx, I think that women should be allowed to serve in the infantry in America and in the UK.

Why doesn't the UK Army allow women into the infantry?

 

[Evo]

Evo, to heck with recommendations. That's just more red tape. Instead of using the female officers' performance at the IOC to inform a recommendation in mid-November, why not allow female soldiers into the infantry now?

Furthermore, that is just for the Marines. What about the army?

I posted the link to the Army.

Change isn't going to happen overnight, they are "moving in that direction". I believe the army link I posted addresses some of the "issues". I don't know any more than what's on the internet.

 

[bluemoonKY]

I posted the link to the Army.

Change isn't going to happen overnight, they are "moving in that direction". I believe the army link I posted addresses some of the "issues".

I read your link. All the "issues" that the link mentioned were foolishness.

Why are we only moving in the direction of allowing women into infantry now? Why weren't women allowed in the infantry from the beginning of the war on terror?

 

[russ_watters]

I am in favor of allowing women in combat roles, but only if the physical requirements are made exactly the same for the women as for men.

 

[rootX]

I have to wonder if gender plays a role when someone is held as a war prisoner. For example, what if female soldier goes into pregnancy when she is captured by enemies.

 

[lisab]

I am in favor of allowing women in combat roles, but only if the physical requirements are made exactly the same for the women as for men.

Totally agree.

 

[MarneMath]

Well, first let me state I served as a grunt in the military. Let's just say this, I don't particularly care if women serve in combat or not. If a woman wants to be an 11 bang bang (infantry) and can do the minimum physical requirement for a male and not burden the team (I apply this standard to weak male infantrymen too.) then I have no physical problem with bringing them to a cop where we only shower once a month.

If they can get over the hygenie issue, the sexism that will occur (it will, so let's not pretend it won't), and meet the physical requirement to do so, then fine.

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 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. 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. 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?

 

[zapz]

I have to wonder if gender plays a role when someone is held as a war prisoner. For example, what if female soldier goes into pregnancy when she is captured by enemies.

I think it's essentially this but with a slightly darker side. Female POWs would be at a different type of risk- sexual assault. A lot of unpleasantness would stem from that. No idea if that's why though

 

[CAC1001]

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. For example, they keep separate physical standards for men and women for firefighting and police forces even for the most part. When the Navy first opened up the flying of fighter jets to women, they had to push multiple women through who weren't technically qualified to fly the aircraft, leading to one ultimately killing herself and another one being barred from flying later on. And that's a job women are physically capable of doing.

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. 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.

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

They will probably allow it though, as the military sees the writing on the wall with this administration, but it is bad to push for policy in the name of political correctness IMO. 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?

 

[Andre]

When the Navy first opened up the flying of fighter jets to women, they had to push multiple women through who weren't technically qualified to fly the aircraft, leading to one ultimately killing herself and another one being barred from flying later on. And that's a job women are physically capable of doing...

Been there, seen that. I followed the carreer of three female fighter pilots in my air force, because that was part of my job. The first one didn't make it, the second one was okay and the third one was really awesome (aka the right stuff).

It's not the gender, just the passion.

 

[lisab]

I think it's essentially this but with a slightly darker side. Female POWs would be at a different type of risk- sexual assault. A lot of unpleasantness would stem from that. No idea if that's why though

Males are at risk of sexual assault, too. It's not pleasant for anyone to experience, regardless of gender.

 

[rootX]

Males are at risk of sexual assault, too. It's not pleasant for anyone to experience, regardless of gender.

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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

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?

 

[Gale]

First of all, I'm active duty and a female, so I'm pretty familiar with this issue.

And to clear up the argument about whether women are or are not allowed in combat... currently there are still combat restrictions (in every branch) not allowing women in direct combat positions. There are numerous combat support and other such openings that women can fill, and indeed they may face actual combat in such positions, but the general rule is that women are still not supposed to be on the front line. As noted, statements to the contrary are generally just that: statements.

And another issue to throw in the mix, no one has really mentioned logistical issues of having to support two distinct genders with separate facilities, and that's a huge issue especially in the Navy where space is a commodity. As long as genders are treated as distinct and requiring separation, having both in a confined area necessarily creates the extra stress of supporting both.

Also, it really is the psychological effects, as MarneMath mentioned, on society, and more immediately, on other men on the front line that really prohibits women from serving in combat positions still. Many think that the (supposed) inferiority of women is what prevents them from manning the front line but in fact, it is actually the male response to them being there which prevents women from equal service. If a single woman is fit enough and wants to fight, that's all well and good, but if it prevents good order and discipline, it doesn't matter how much of a super star she is if she prevents 20 other soldiers from properly following orders and doing their job. If one man breaks ranks to protect a woman due to some biological or socially trained imperative, then that's a problem.

Naturally, now would come suggestions of single-gender companies, but that brings back the argument of masses of females dying at once in combat and the social and political ramifications which would be felt back home.

I would argue that its not really a problem in our military so much as a problem with our culture in general that is simply emphasized in the military. As long as gender is distinct and separate there will be issues. And whether we really even want our culture minimize the distinction between genders is still under debate.

 

[CAC1001]

Naturally, now would come suggestions of single-gender companies, but that brings back the argument of masses of females dying at once in combat and the social and political ramifications which would be felt back home.

Also would there even be enough females to create such companies? Most women in the military, from what I understand of it, have little to no interest in the combat arms. Regarding women dying or being wounded, I used to think this, but look at what happened with Lara Logan or the women missing limbs in the Wounded Warrior commercials. I don't think modern society really will have a problem with females in the combat arms now.

 

[russ_watters]

Also would there even be enough females to create such companies?

A hypothetical for you:

37 sailors died in the Iraqi Exocet missile attack on the USS Stark in 1987. The Stark was a Perry Class frigate with a crew of about 215 sailors. The smallest two of three junior enlisted berthings on such a ship hold about 35-40 sailors. Those berthings are located one on top of the other. One would be the natural candidate for conversion to a female berthing. The two Exocet missiles that hit the Stark hit one of those berthings, so if the one hit had been an all-women's berthing, then most of those killed in the attack would have been female and most of the females onboard would have been killed.

 

[Gale]

Also would there even be enough females to create such companies? Most women in the military, from what I understand of it, have little to no interest in the combat arms.

Most? I don't think you talk to many military women. Anyone who joins the military has to be prepared for a career in the "combat arms." It's the military! Women (or men for that matter) without any such interest should probably avoid military service. Not that every service member ends up in such a position, but every service member is given at least a rudimentary training in weapons. Its a hazard of the trade. There are other ways to be patriotic or earn a paycheck if one wants to avoid combat.

Also, units come in all sizes, so of course it would be possible to have an all female unit. Besides which, no one in the military gets to choose their duty station anyway. If such a unit existed, females would simply be assigned to that unit and wouldn't really have a choice, (supposing their MOS/rating suited that unit). It isn't necessary to have a unit full of enthusiastic, volunteer females. Male units aren't even that way.

Regarding women dying or being wounded, I used to think this, but look at what happened with Lara Logan or the women missing limbs in the Wounded Warrior commercials. I don't think modern society really will have a problem with females in the combat arms now.

Perhaps one woman here or there may be tolerable, but again, masses of women being killed in battle would be a bitter pill for society as a whole. We are definitely becoming more culturally desensitized to such things, but again, whether that's good or bad is arguable in itself.

 

[CAC1001]

Most? I don't think you talk to many military women. Anyone who joins the military has to be prepared for a career in the "combat arms." It's the military! Women (or men for that matter) without any such interest should probably avoid military service. Not that every service member ends up in such a position, but every service member is given at least a rudimentary training in weapons. Its a hazard of the trade. There are other ways to be patriotic or earn a paycheck if one wants to avoid combat.

I just mean that the drive to open the combat arms to women in the military is not being pushed for by the masses of women in the military. Also, while on paper everyone is supposed to be ready for combat, there are plenty of people with no intention of ever going into combat who join the military. This used to happen a lot with the National Guard and Reserves especially (although now not so much as they get called up all the time).

 

[MarneMath]

37 sailors died in the Iraqi Exocet missile attack on the USS Stark in 1987. The Stark was a Perry Class frigate with a crew of about 215 sailors. The smallest two of three junior enlisted berthings on such a ship hold about 35-40 sailors. Those berthings are located one on top of the other. One would be the natural candidate for conversion to a female berthing. The two Exocet missiles that hit the Stark hit one of those berthings, so if the one hit had been an all-women's berthing, then most of those killed in the attack would have been female and most of the females onboard would have been killed.

I think what CAC was saying is that he has doubts that a company of females could be a few platoons of all females, to include lower enlisted, senior NCO, 2nd LT and Capt, and followed by a heavies weapon platoon of mortars. That would be a company. Not to mention the female forward observers, jtacs, rto's, medics, etc that need to come along for the ride. It isn't a simple problem of hey we got 100 people and 100 spots...it's finding people qualified to do it.

It's the military! Women (or men for that matter) without any such interest should probably avoid military service. Not that every service member ends up in such a position, but every service member is given at least a rudimentary training in weapons. Its a hazard of the trade. There are other ways to be patriotic or earn a paycheck if one wants to avoid combat.

I have had a different experience. I'll use are military jargon here. Honestly, most POG wish to be POG, male or female. A S2/G2 or CS or CCS wanted to serve in those functions. I find it hard to believe that a male or female who wished to be an intel analysis, imaginary analysis, a blackhawk mechanic, or any job that is interesting on it's own, would wants to be a FO, tanker, or 11 bullet catcher.

While I'm 100% confidence that no one would advoid combat and do their job with honor, I think it takes a special little idiot to relish rucking 100 lbs in the mud in the woods with the prospect of showers a pipe dream. I believe many women or men don't have this urge or desire. I also believe that is what it means to be combat arms.

 

[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.