Women in the Military - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

arch13 · 05-18-2005, 05:54 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/defense_bill_women

The gist of this artical is that an amendment has been inserted into a defense bill that would prevent women from serving in the front line services of any of the armed service branches.

Quote:

Rep. John McHugh (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y., planned to offer an amendment to put into law a Defense Department policy from 1994 that prohibits female troops in all four armed services from serving in direct ground combat units below brigade level.

The amendment would define "direct ground combat" and allow the
Pentagon to further exclude women from units in other instances, while requiring defense officials to notify Congress when opening up positions to women.

Apparently, women are second teir soldiers that some believe do not serve as effectivley, or more effectivley, than men.
To say this bothers me is an understatment. I see no issue whatsoever with allowing women to serve in every front line position. They are just as capable (and often more capable) than their male peers.

This smacks of a patriorical attitude of "Women are weak and cannot do these jobs"
Well bullshit to that. I've met female soldiers that beat every male in their unit in every endurance test without the test being curved for gender.

And we can't forget good ol' Rumsfeld.

Quote:

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Wednesday the Army is working with Congress and battlefield commanders "to find an appropriate way that's consistent with our country's view on that subject."

Well isn't that interesting."...our country's view on that subject." I do wonder what he means by that. His view or mine? This amendment isn't even consistent with the current Military rules that began allowing women to serve frontline last year.

To me quite honestly, this seems like some in the military have become disturbed by the success of women on the front lines and don't want to see it repeated. Then they'd have to think of a day when a women may be part of the joint chiefs.

What are your thoughts on this issue?
Do you feel the amendment is justified or not?
Do you feel this protects women, or limits them?

cellophanedeity · 05-18-2005, 06:13 PM

I think that as long as women prove ourselves able, there is no reason for us to do whatever job we can.

If a skilled women wishes to fight for what she believes in, I see no reason for her not to be allowed to.

I don't understand the rationel behind this decision.

samcol · 05-18-2005, 06:28 PM

It's my personal opinion that the front lines should consist of men only. Maybe I'm a male chauvinist but that's how I feel. I think the sexual tension between men and women would hinder the cohesiveness of a military unit.

arch13 · 05-18-2005, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

It's my personal opinion that the front lines should consist of men only. Maybe I'm a male chauvinist but that's how I feel. I think the sexual tension between men and women would hinder the cohesiveness of a military unit.

So would all female front line units be a problem for you Samcol?
How about all female special forces units?

I'm genuinely interested in your opinion here.
Is the sexual tension between the sexes the only problem you see in mixed gender units?
Would gender exclusive units that both can serve front line duty aleviete [sp?] this problem in your opinion?

Stare At The Sun · 05-18-2005, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

It's my personal opinion that the front lines should consist of men only. Maybe I'm a male chauvinist but that's how I feel. I think the sexual tension between men and women would hinder the cohesiveness of a military unit.

I totally agree. Not to mention the fact that the "hero factor" would go up, when some guy is trying to be brave and whatnot infront of the few chicks of the unit. Also, its not uncommon for urban combat to involve hand-to-hand combat. And like it or not, men are stronger, better fighters.

Their simply is not enough reason to PUT women on the front lines, when they could be better served elsewhere. There are enough men to do the job, so be it. It's not sexist to say that women are not as good of soldiers as men are, simply put, they are not. Besides the fact that a soldier is supposed to do one thing, follow orders. And that order is usually to kill. If he is distracted by a woman in the unit that he likes, he will do a lesser job as a soldier. That in turn could get the entire unit killed.

Not to mention the fact that it would just further infuriate the islamic world.

sprocket · 05-18-2005, 07:06 PM

Men do stupid shit around women to impress them, whether they are conscious of it or not. Warfare is complicated enough.. why complicate it further by throwing sexual tension into the mix just so we can pat ourselves on the back for our "evolved", PC mentality. It isnt sexism, its practicality.

samcol · 05-18-2005, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arch13

So would all female front line units be a problem for you Samcol?
How about all female special forces units?

I'm genuinely interested in your opinion here.
Is the sexual tension between the sexes the only problem you see in mixed gender units?
Would gender exclusive units that both can serve front line duty aleviete [sp?] this problem in your opinion?

Well I can tell you about when I played high school football (I know this is a weak comparison compared to risking your life on the front lines). There were a couple girls who decided to play. They were on the team, but were never really part of the team. Some guys tried to hurt them purposely to make them quit, and others would go easy on them because they were afraid of hurting them. Overall, the experience of playing with women was ackward to say the least.

Gender exclusive units are an interesting idea that I had honestly never thought of. It actually sounds like a possibility that would alleviate the tensions between men and women that I feel is a real problem. I know our enemies don't see women the same way we do in the US, so would their treatment in POW prisons be the same or different?

I hope some older veterens as well as people who have recently served comment on this topic.

ObieX · 05-18-2005, 07:15 PM

I dont think gender exlusive units are a good idea. People used to say the same stuff about blacks in the military too, but they got used to it. They won't fight as good, what will the enemy think, it'll be a distraction...etc.

filtherton · 05-18-2005, 09:31 PM

If women are a distraction on the front lines, it could only be the result of poor training and a lack of discipline on the part of the male troops. If you're in the middle of a firefight and you're thinking with your dick, you shouldn't be in a firefight. In fact, you shouldn't be in the army at all, because you are an undisciplined liability.

I don't think women being a distraction is relevant at all because when it comes down to it the people who are in charge of training and commanding the military set the tone. If they foster an environment where inequality among the genders is the status quo, then they have only themselves to blame if women on the front lines are a distraction. I've heard that the american military is one of the most disciplined in the world. How disciplined are our soldiers if they can't handle fighting next to someone with a vagina? Not very.

KMA-628 · 05-18-2005, 09:59 PM

Having served before the "integration" and after, during war time and peace time, my opinion, without getting into all fo the details based on personal experience:

Nope.

I know how sexist it sounds and i am willing to accept that moniker in this situation.

In same cases it was o.k., but it the majority of situations, it was bad. And I will repeat myself in case anybody missed it, i am speaking from personal experience on this one. It is real easy to spout an opinion when you are far removed, it is another thing to live it.

One example out of a whole bunch: I had to cover for a female when the shit hit the fan once, and she couldn't hack it, and there was nothing we could do about it except cover for her ass because our asses were on the line. In the reverse situation, if we had a guy that couldn't hack, we got rid of him using our own ways, ways that would've gotten us court-martialed if we attempted them on a female.

Locobot · 05-18-2005, 10:03 PM

I doubt such a bill would pass constitutional scrutiny if a woman decided that she actually did want to serve on the front lines. Who knows? I think this is basically already military policy, women are left behind when entering areas of definite hostility (e.g. Fallujah). I think that this is the impetus behind the bill, or at least I heard as much on the radio. It causes those units who have to leave women behind to be under-staffed (undermanned?? hehe). I suppose it comes down to a definition of "front lines." Such a term is pretty archaic and insufficient to describe the type of warfare we face in Iraq, at least.

The notion that having women on the "front" will cause the men to lose their brains and become inefficient soldiers has been proven incorrect time and again, including in our excursion in Iraq. Also the idea that women are somehow physically less-able than men to conduct almost any task of modern warfare is patently false (ditch digging excepted). Is there a great amount of hand-to-hand combat in going on? Really? That runs counter to my impressions. Women tend to be excellent markspeople and are just as capable as men of being conditioned to squeeze that trigger when required.

There are real physical differences between men and women; I won't deny that. I wouldn't advocate that every job and unit in the military be thrown wide open to women, or something silly like a quota system. But I am in favor of women women taking a wider role in the military and, (here's the kicker) being eligible for selective service (the draft).

Don't you all know a man who is such an whiny weakling that you would be scared to enter a war with them at your side? Don't you all know women who are tough and level-headed enough that you would gladly fight beside them?

Women's Lib is an advancement that our society possesses. The status of women has not progressed as far in many of the cultures we find ourselves pitted against. This is an advantage, we should treat it as such.

arch13 · 05-18-2005, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

Having served before the "integration" and after, during war time and peace time, my opinion, without getting into all fo the details based on personal experience:

Nope.

I know how sexist it sounds and i am willing to accept that moniker in this situation.

In same cases it was o.k., but it the majority of situations, it was bad. And I will repeat myself in case anybody missed it, i am speaking from personal experience on this one. It is real easy to spout an opinion when you are far removed, it is another thing to live it.

One example out of a whole bunch: I had to cover for a female when the shit hit the fan once, and she couldn't hack it, and there was nothing we could do about it except cover for her ass because our asses were on the line. In the reverse situation, if we had a guy that couldn't hack, we got rid of him using our own ways, ways that would've gotten us court-martialed if we attempted them on a female.

Well then I want to pose the same question to you. If the genders could do the same but be seperated into gendered company's, would that be a problem. For example, what if only female troops where sent into a city to take it?
Is the problem with the mixing of genders, or women in the military?
(Women are much worse to one another in my experiance than men are, so I do think that other women in an all female copy would "take care of the situation" as need by like you mentioned for discipline)

In otherwords, do you advocate no women in mission critical situations, or no mixing of genders, or both?
If you would like to speak on the side of no women is mission critical situations, would you be so kind as to provide an explanation as to why so we may better understand your point of view
(again, I am not attacking you, just hoping to distill some of what you are saying to better understand your position)

filtherton · 05-18-2005, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

Having served before the "integration" and after, during war time and peace time, my opinion, without getting into all fo the details based on personal experience:

Nope.

I know how sexist it sounds and i am willing to accept that moniker in this situation.

In same cases it was o.k., but it the majority of situations, it was bad. And I will repeat myself in case anybody missed it, i am speaking from personal experience on this one. It is real easy to spout an opinion when you are far removed, it is another thing to live it.

One example out of a whole bunch: I had to cover for a female when the shit hit the fan once, and she couldn't hack it, and there was nothing we could do about it except cover for her ass because our asses were on the line. In the reverse situation, if we had a guy that couldn't hack, we got rid of him using our own ways, ways that would've gotten us court-martialed if we attempted them on a female.

Sounds more to me like the blame lies with your leadership and training, rather than with women as a whole.

WillyPete · 05-19-2005, 01:50 AM

Face it, in life some people just fold under pressure.
Blame it on society and gender roles if you want, but the problem is that whilst we still see women as differently from men, the focus on their actions will be different.

If you have a man in your group, and they have trouble at some point but are generally very good then you might work with them and try and resolve it.
If a woman had the same issue, gender differentiation in the midst of a very testosterone fuelled environment would lead most men to tag their actions as 'because they're a woman'.
In a man it might be listed as 'cowardice' or 'insecurity'. Even 'trauma related stress'.
But a woman will always have to fight that extra stigma.

Now, with my own background, I can say that men in action DON'T show off in front of the women. That's left to the bars and downtime. What typically occurred is that the men were constantly more aware of the women and their safety than that of their male team members. Sometimes at the point of risk to themselves or others. I don't mean it as them being gung-ho, but more as a fact that they did not treat them as equals but tended to a more paternal instinct to protect, even to the point of deserting their individual resposibility at the time. This is very prominent amongst men with sisters, wives and/or are close to their mothers. It's not wrong, but simply a natural or conditioned response.

For those men and women who have never been in the military, think about the time you saw a fight. If, as a guy, you're in a fight and you have a buddy with you, you don't worry about the buddy's welfare until you've sorted your opponent out. but if your girlfriend or your buddy's girlfriend is there, you tend toward not being as aggressive or holding her back whilst your buddy fights.

It's much harder to break this social barrier than it is to just separate the sexes.
I know I'm not quoting stats or reports here, but it's what I've seen with my own two eyes. Yes, even in a leadership role, where I might not have been perfect, but I wasn't bad.

Seaver · 05-19-2005, 07:07 AM

This is how I view it.

As a soldier I would have NO problem with a woman being there, as long as they were held to the same mental and physical standards. Right now mentally they are, but the physical requirements are simply rediculous for women. If they are of equal fighting ability they should be of equal physical ability (they go hand in hand). But they're not. I could honestly walk the running requirement for some women in the military. This would cause a rift in the fighters.

This isnt saying all women are weaker, in my short military career there were two women who were much much better runners than I. But until the standards are equal, the way they are viewed will NEVER be the same.

The problem that I see is if/when they get captured. These people know enough about America so they know about chivalry. In SERE school (the interogation required for spec-ops and pilots), they LOVE women in there. Why you ask? Because the majority break under very little pressure. Those that dont cause men who would otherwise not break to. As long as they beat the woman infront of the more chivalric men they would give information to stop it. Dont underestimate how de-masculating it is for a chivalric man to see a woman being beaten and be unable to stop it.

cellophanedeity · 05-19-2005, 07:10 AM

WillyPete, I think a large reason why these "because she's a woman" thing is because we've yet to have enough time to prove ourselves.

Men used to think that they were the only ones who could be good doctors, or even be capable of rational thought until women joined in despite the negativity the males gave.

Give us time to prove ourselves, and give yourselves time to smarten up. If a woman's in the army, she doesn't, or at least shouldn't, expect a man to take care of her.

raeanna74 · 05-19-2005, 07:21 AM

I've heard all the arguements for and against women serving in the front lines. Really both sides of the arguement have good reasons that are not chavenist either. From what I understand, the Israeli military has successfull integrated men and women in all the areas of service. I may be wrong and someone please correct me if they have any information to the contrary. If my information is correct though perhaps we can take lessons from them in regards to how they've effectively combined the genders in their fighting forces. I think that no matter how the issue is handled the situation needs to be handled with care. I think the military would benefit from having female minds cooperating. Perhaps we'd use different tactics that might prove more effective and less costly. Course it can always go the other way. As for the women who are asking to fight on the front lines my biggest question is WHY? Are they simply wanting it because it's denied to them? Or do they truely believe they'll be more valueable there? Their motivation is probably the most important fact to consider and also the hardest.

KMA-628 · 05-19-2005, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arch13

In otherwords, do you advocate no women in mission critical situations, or no mixing of genders, or both?
If you would like to speak on the side of no women is mission critical situations, would you be so kind as to provide an explanation as to why so we may better understand your point of view
(again, I am not attacking you, just hoping to distill some of what you are saying to better understand your position)

No, i don't want to get into more examples, because then the discussion will degrade to a nitpicking of individual cases rather than understanding that i am speaking from my experience as a whole.

Like the rest of the guys, I looked forward to haveing females deployed with us, so I didn't go into it with a negative attitude.

It was only after years of dealing with the integration that I became sour on it, and it wasn't just the females fault, many of the problems related to the men and how they reacted to the women.

All in all, i think the role of women in the military should be like it was in the WW's, Korea and Vietnam. They had a role and they did their jobs admirably and courageuosly.

Like I said, i will take any flak for this, i don't really care, but I don't want women in any combat division.

And, my feelings are for other reasons too, kinda like why we don't hunt does or why we throw back female crabs if we catch them, the future of our species depends on them, not us dumb guys, plus, society can handle "our boys" dying, i think having "our mothers" dying presents a harder issue to deal with.

So, to sum it up, my reasons are many and not just limited to experience. However, they are my reasons, for why i have my opinion. I am not trying to force my opinion on anyone or try and and sway anyone.

However, it seems like i am the only one who has had "real" (i.e. dangerous and potentially dangerous situations) experience in this matter, so I thought I would share how it was for me and the feelings it left me with.

jcookc6 · 05-19-2005, 07:50 AM

I see no reason women can't continue to serve as they have been. The U.S.Army is a purely volunentary. No one is making anyone join who does not want to. There is a chance that someone is going to get hurt in combat areas. No one is asking women to be in pure combat outfits like the infantry or armor.

stevie667 · 05-19-2005, 07:54 AM

Personally, i'd prefer to keep women out of the frontline bog standard (not to sound insulting, but my military terminology isn't up to scratch) units because one can almost guarantee that men in there may not be thinking entirely straight about things when women are around.
In higher trained units, where everyone is there to do exactly what they have to do and you've been through serious shit to get there, i'm ok with that. The women have proven they can be just as tough as the men, and more power to them for doing it. Then men in those units are more likely to treat and view them as they would other male soldiers.

Unfortunatly we don't live in a perfect world. However much we may not like it, sexism DOES exist, and when you have a bunch of guys with guns, the testosterone present is going to cause issues, big and small. Men are genetically programmed to know they are bigger and stronger than women, and western men also are socially programmed to be chivalrous (it's a generalisation i know, but once again i can't think of the right word) towards women and not fight alongside them. History has always been fought with men, and you can't change centuries of views overnight.

I have no doubt that women are capable fighters, and can do just as good a job as men, but what i do doubt is at this present moment in time integration isn't going to occur smoothly throughout the entire armed forces.
Women on the frontline will work, just not now.

KMA-628 · 05-19-2005, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raeanna74

From what I understand, the Israeli military has successfull integrated men and women in all the areas of service. I may be wrong and someone please correct me if they have any information to the contrary. If my information is correct though perhaps we can take lessons from them in regards to how they've effectively combined the genders in their fighting forces. .

You are absolutely correct.

It is pretty wild, walking around with a good-looking women, dressed in fatigues and combat boots, carrying an uzi.

BTW - Interesting side note/fact: You can tell the "job" of the israeli soldier by the weapon they carry. If you are serving in the Israeli army, you are always active and always carrying a weapon (like most civilians as well, you walk around the bus station and most people have a side-arm). Anyway, if you held an office or support/admin position, you carried an Uzi, if you were in the infantry, you carried a rifle, etc.

Anyway, to your comment, we cannot mimmick the Israeli situation and i don't think we want to.

Women are fully integrated into the Israeli military because the shit that goes on in Isreal doesn't differentiate between civillian or soldier, man or woman, adult or child. Even if you are a civilian, you are pretty much always at risk and almost always living in a war-zone like climate.

For us, it has always been a "send the boys" kinda thing. Wars were never something that "involved" the children and the women (i.e. in the bullets whizzing past your head kinda sense, not the staying home and worrying about daddy kinda sense).

It is a totally different situation for the Israelis, and while I appreciate their situation and how they have handled integration, i do not wish us to experience what they have in order to have developed their integrated military.

frogza · 05-19-2005, 08:07 AM

I have always thought that if someone wants equal opportunity, risk, pay etc. The standard set to qualify a person for it should not change based on age, race or gender. If women want on the front line, they need to be able to do the same things the men can do. Having two sets of standards is what kills morale.

flstf · 05-19-2005, 08:25 AM

As long as the physical (and mental) standards are kept high and the women (and men) meet them, they should fight on the front lines and also work as police officers and fire fighters in civilian life.

irateplatypus · 05-19-2005, 08:39 AM

arch13, i do not think that was an effective way to begin the discussion.

anyway...

the line for what women have been thought to be capable of has been moved back, again and again. it's unescapably true that some women are combat-ready... no doubt about it.

the real issues are separate...

first, what does it mean to be in a society where women in combat is acceptable? what have we lost from our cultural roots that may have been beneficial to society? what have we shed that may have hindered us? this represents a dramatic sea-change in gender expectations and priorities... does this change represent an overall positive or negative thing for American culture?

lastly... accomodating previously excluded groups based on gender has almost always been accompanyed by a drop in standards. what if fewer than 5% of women are combat-ready relative to their male counterparts? do you drop the standards to make it more "fair"? inevitably, some elements of our society will demand standards be lowered in order not to "exclude" others based on gender. this will endanger the lives of all infrantry-type units... but i think that's a call such people will be willing to make while watching the war from their couch.

so, my suggestion would be to allow females in the combat-units IF THEY CAN MAKE THE CUT. I would even be in favor of raising physical/mental fitness standards to weed out the weaker males for the women who can truly succeed in that environment.

StanT · 05-19-2005, 08:54 AM

So why is this a problem in the US military, but not in the Israeli one?

All of the evidence I've seen says that women in the Israeli army are just as effective as men.

raeanna74 · 05-19-2005, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

Women are fully integrated into the Israeli military because the shit that goes on in Isreal doesn't differentiate between civillian or soldier, man or woman, adult or child. Even if you are a civilian, you are pretty much always at risk and almost always living in a war-zone like climate.

For us, it has always been a "send the boys" kinda thing. Wars were never something that "involved" the children and the women (i.e. in the bullets whizzing past your head kinda sense, not the staying home and worrying about daddy kinda sense).

It is a totally different situation for the Israelis, and while I appreciate their situation and how they have handled integration, i do not wish us to experience what they have in order to have developed their integrated military.

I had not thought of it in that light. Necessity is truely the mother of invention in the Israeli situation. Excluding 9-11 and Pearl harbor when there were attacks on U.S. soil, those who have been threatened in the U.S are primarily those who've gone to war. I can see this as fostering a "protect the women and children" type of attitude. It makes sense that in the Israeli situation everyone who is threatened, fights. They're forced to do it by their situation. It makes a lot of sense. From what I understand there is a lot of turnover in their military as every young person has a term to serve. I am assuming that this circulation would expose the men to work with women so that they are able to handle the concept better and treat them as military equals in a better sense. I could see how our situation in the U.S. does not lend itself to the same kind of integration so smoothly.

BigBen · 05-19-2005, 09:13 AM

I used to be biased towards females in combat roles, but my own personal experiences have made me change my mind. I have served with some tough (waaaay tougher than me) females, and to say they can't hack it is simply false. I was the one not hacking it in certain situations, and I relied on my team to help me out.

It is true that if there is a problem with mixed gender units, it is a problem with the leadership of that unit! Only the leader can make the change, or allow the status quo continue.

I have a little problem with the whole "Females Only" unit. That doesn't sound fair to me. Integration is the key.

On another (but directly related) topic, how is the U.S. doing with their recruiting efforts for females in these units? Remember, the soldiers serving today used to be civilians, and they made a choice as to what military occupation they persued. In Canada, we have suffered from the very start with recruiting females into non-traditional roles. We have begged, pleaded, and bribed women into theCombat Arms, and the vast majority quit far sooner than their male peers.
Why? Is it cultural? Is it the physical requirements? Is there harassment occuring? We don't know, and are investigating the causes.

If only 3% of female candidates join up for the front line units, and then 50% of them fail in training, and then an additional 45% get out soon after, one quickly finds a lack of female representation on the parade square! We need more women applying (recruiting efforts), more women successfully completing training (training issues solved) and more women staying in (unit issues and efforts).

I want to stress that I fully support women in all career paths, including military ones. My experiences have taught me that they are as capable as any man. The problem is that although they were stronger, smarter, and better overall than me, I am the one still in, and they have moved on to something else. (yet more proof that they are smarter than me)

I have to share a personal story: there was a guy (lets call him Jack, not his real name) that was NOT up to standard. He sucked at almost everything he did, and was always passing the blame on to others. One day, a woman showed up as a replacement for one of the guys who got hurt. Jack smiled to himself, thinking that he would be finally accepted as "one of the boys" now that the new person was here, and obviously different. Jack started to talk down to the new girl (lets call her Jill) and give her a pretty hard time. Jill finally did what any new guy would do, she called Jack on. "Fuck you, let's go" I think were her exact words. Jack realized that he could not back down without looking like a total idiot, and he also realized that Jill was going to kick his ass.
"I'm not going to fight a girl..." he sneered, looking at the rest of us to save him. We didn't say a word.
Jill stood up, and walked over to him, so that she was about an inch away from his face. "You scared of a little girl?" she said. She was foaming at the mouth, she was so mad.
I think that Jack was about to say something regarding Jill's sexual preferences, and she didn't let him. She beat the living shit out of him, and when she was done, she turned on us, "Who's next?"
We calmed her down as best we could, and laughed at Jack until he quit. She was officially part of the team. The way she beat on him, I knew that she would probably win a fair fight against me. Or most of the other guys. She didn't kick balls or scratch or anything. It was fist against face. And boots against face, at the end.

She left our unit about a year later, and got the army to put her through trade school. I think she is an electrician now. Still in, and still tough.

Finally, I have to say: Although it is true that the PT standards are different for males and females, there is no difference in the job requirements. I could care less if she has to do 10 less push-ups than me; she has to walk just as far with the same kit. I think that the physical requirements should be job based anyway.

I have yet seen a battle won by how many push-ups, sit-ups and chin-ups each unit can do...

BigBen · 05-19-2005, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

my suggestion would be to allow females in the combat-units IF THEY CAN MAKE THE CUT. I would even be in favor of raising physical/mental fitness standards to weed out the weaker males for the women who can truly succeed in that environment.

Oops... remind me not to vote for you, or I think I would be looking for a new career!

Those standards are tough enough as-is, thank you very much. Any tougher, and I doubt I would make it.

Not to get into a statistics battle, but:

Assuming that the physical fitness of men and women are distributed normally, and that Men are a full standard deviation higher than women, you still have a good proportion of women that are in better shape than some men!

Raising the standards is always a good idea.

Seaver · 05-19-2005, 01:35 PM

As I said. I'd personally have no problem as long as we were the same standard.

The enemies bullets dont care if you have breasts or not, why should physical standards?

shakran · 05-19-2005, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

It's my personal opinion that the front lines should consist of men only. Maybe I'm a male chauvinist but that's how I feel. I think the sexual tension between men and women would hinder the cohesiveness of a military unit.

ya know. I just don't buy that. I'll tell you why. I'm a news photographer. That means I work at a TV station. Some of the most beautiful women on the planet work for TV stations, and we've got a WHOLE lot of extremely attractive women working at my station.

Every day I go out and work on stories with a gorgeous reporter.

Every afternoon I come back and write stories sitting right across from a gorgeous anchor, then go into an edit bay generally right next to another gorgeous reporter.

If the argument that men and women can't be in the military together because of sexual tension were valid, then it would hold true for other jobs. In other words, I should be fired right now because according to that theory, I should never be able to get any work done because I'd be too busy fantasizing about getting in the pants of about 15 different women with whom I work.

Obviously, that's not the case. I get my work done, and then some, and "sexual tension" doesn't enter into the equation.

And I'm just a cameraslinger. It's not like I had to go to bootcamp to start working as a photojournalist. The United States military is supposed to be the best trained group of people on the planet. Are you seriously trying to tell me that all that elite, special, and very expensive training goes out the window if a girl walks by? Gee, seems like the enemy has an easy task then. Just have some girls wander around the battlefield. There would be so much sexual tension that our side would forget to shoot, right?

Seaver · 05-19-2005, 08:58 PM

Um... the adrenaline of life and death situations would multiply those feelings. You know the old saying there's no atheists in foxholes? well there's no virgins on R&R deployments. Add this to the fact these are the only women they're allowed to have contact with for 6+ months?

shakran · 05-19-2005, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Um... the adrenaline of life and death situations would multiply those feelings. You know the old saying there's no atheists in foxholes? well there's no virgins on R&R deployments. Add this to the fact these are the only women they're allowed to have contact with for 6+ months?

Please. If someone's shooting rifles at me, the last thing I'm gonna do is go looking for a quickie. That's just ridiculous.

Seaver · 05-19-2005, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Please. If someone's shooting rifles at me, the last thing I'm gonna do is go looking for a quickie. That's just ridiculous.

Not at the time... but my friends in Iraq admit it. The women they wouldnt look at twice in their units suddenly become models. And yes... there IS problems with women going in and out of multiple tents in those situations.

shakran · 05-19-2005, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Not at the time... but my friends in Iraq admit it. The women they wouldnt look at twice in their units suddenly become models. And yes... there IS problems with women going in and out of multiple tents in those situations.

In and out of tents? Who cares? If they're in the tent, they're presumably off duty. What they do on their own time is their lookout. They can screw around all they want for all I care as long as they don't lose their edge on the battlefield. And there are NO studies that show that they would and plenty of real world examples to show that they wouldn't - -after all, victorious militaries have been visiting whorehouses since wars began. Hell back in the civil war Union general Joe Hooker used to round up prostitutes for his men (they were called Hooker's girls - - where the term hooker comes from). And after getting all the sex they could stand, they proceeded to pummel the rebel army.

This issue doesn't boil down to sex- - that's just the excuse being used to try and keep it from happening.

It boils down to "This is new, and therefore we fear it."

KMA-628 · 05-19-2005, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

ya know. I just don't buy that. I'll tell you why. I'm a news photographer. That means I work at a TV station. Some of the most beautiful women on the planet work for TV stations, and we've got a WHOLE lot of extremely attractive women working at my station.

Every day I go out and work on stories with a gorgeous reporter.

Every afternoon I come back and write stories sitting right across from a gorgeous anchor, then go into an edit bay generally right next to another gorgeous reporter.

If the argument that men and women can't be in the military together because of sexual tension were valid, then it would hold true for other jobs.

O.K., c'mon, this is a weak analogy and doesn't even remotely work for this part of the argument.

First, you work eight hours then go home. We work around 16-20 and we don't go home for a long, long time.

Second, if you have a girlfriend, you see her when you want to. If we have a girlfriend....we don't know when we will see her, if ever.

Third, dangerous for you is heavy traffic. For us, the danger is 24/7, it never ends.

So, yeah, i see where you are trying to go, but it ain't gonna work here.

Note: in my argument, i didn't play the sexual card, but it is a huge problem and a major distraction for people that have other things they should be focused on.

shakran · 05-19-2005, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

O.K., c'mon, this is a weak analogy and doesn't even remotely work for this part of the argument.

First, you work eight hours then go home. We work around 16-20 and we don't go home for a long, long time.

Second, if you have a girlfriend, you see her when you want to. If we have a girlfriend....we don't know when we will see her, if ever.

Third, dangerous for you is heavy traffic. For us, the danger is 24/7, it never ends.

So, yeah, i see where you are trying to go, but it ain't gonna work here.

Note: in my argument, i didn't play the sexual card, but it is a huge problem and a major distraction for people that have other things they should be focused on.

Well let's see. I don't remember the last time I put in an 8 hour day, I and many of my colleagues have gone overseas with the military and have run around with them while they were in combat - - I wasn't real worried about heavy traffic but I did keep my eye out for people shooting at me, I've also covered hurricanes (several weeks cooped up in a satellite truck intermixed with actually having to go out in the storm to do standups), I've covered gang wars in south america - my camera battery caught a bullet there and shut me down, which should tell you how close I've been to 'em. I've also covered military actions against the south american drug cartels, and we got shot at there too. So yeah, I think I know a little bit about danger. And by the way, you get to carry a gun and shoot back at the people shooting at you. I've only got a camera.
And it's not at all unusual for me to leave my wife (not girlfriend) for several weeks to go work on stories in some foriegn country somewhere.

Now you guys certainly face more than I do, but you're also trained for it much better than I am. I refuse to believe that having a female in the general vicinity would reduce a soldier's fighting effectiveness. It just won't happen unless the soldier is a hypersexual idiot. When the bullets fly, the last thing on anybody's mind is sex. I know I've never thought about screwing anyone when I was in the middle of a gunfight.

And the argument that the danger never ends, so you can't have distractions is total BS. I've also talked with plenty of soldiers returning from wars who have wanted to thank the people that sent them playstations and video games. If distractions are that bad, why are they allowed to play video games in their down time?

The simple answer is that having "distractions" (the real word is diversions) not only is not a bad thing for their downtime, but in fact it is a GOOD thing. If all they did was fight all day, then had to go back to their cot and stare at the tent wall and think about the terrible situation they're in, they'd be insane within the week.

There are plenty of distractions for the soldiers. Many of them have newborn kids they're thinking about. Many of them have families going to food shelves back home because their soldier pay isn't enough to cover the expenses of their families. Those are pretty hefty distractions. Maybe we should also outlaw any soldiers with families, since the distraction might reduce their combat efficiency.

I stand by my statement that all this is is people being afraid of something new.

sprocket · 05-19-2005, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

I stand by my statement that all this is is people being afraid of something new.

Strategically, what problems are caused by preventing women from entering combat? I cant think of any in our current situation.

Do we NEED women on the frontlines? Is there a shortage of male troops on the frontlines?

The primary purpose of our military is simply at its heart, to ensure your survival and ensure this nations sovereignty in a hostile world. In what way would allowing women into combat assist this goal? In military combat, where humans can potentially be stretched and pushed to the limits of human capability (mentaly and physically), would it introduce more potential complications for our troops and ultimately risk our suvival? I think it might, and until the above questions are definitively and honestly answered, it does not matter whether a woman can match the standards put in place for male soldiers. Thats not the issue. Unless there is a catastrophic shortage of male troops, or for some reason they alone are unable to get the job done, AND the benefit of integrating women into the frontlines would outweigh any possible complications it may introduce, there is no pragmatic need for it.

We cant afford to have our military make decisions like this based on political correctness, "equality", or the ambitions of the few girls out there who dream of glory on the battlefeild. Its not a fear of trying something new, its resistance to an idea that, at the moment, offers no practical benefit to our survival so far as I can see.

I have never been in the military, so I'm speaking with absolutely no experience. I just hope the people in charge ask the right questions when tackling this issue. Political correctness, womens rights, etc shouldnt factor into the policy at all. And if those are the primary motives behind the people who champion this idea, please please please stay out of our military's affairs from now on.

It seems like a "neat" and very modern idea to have women on the frontlines of combat... but is it needed? If it isnt.. we shouldnt waste our time with it.

raveneye · 05-20-2005, 04:18 AM

An excellent review article on this overall question concluded that there are serious ongoing problems with a gender integrated military. I've posted an excerpt below, just the section on the potential for disruption of unit cohesion. Browne reviews the entire published literature on the subject through 2001, in a 200-page analysis. It's absolutely excellent.

I'm agnostic on this question, since I've never served in the military. However, I find Browne's points difficult to refute (and he is not the only person making them; just about all controlled studies found serious problems with cohesiveness in gender integrated units). Perhaps those in favor of integration could take the time to read this and comment.

KR Browne. 2001. Women at war: An evolutionary perspective. BUFFALO LAW REVIEW 49 (1): 51-247.

Quote:

VI. POTENTIAL DISRUPTION OF UNIT COHESION AND EFFECTIVENESS

Inclusion of women into combat units can have other adverse impacts on morale and group cohesion. Integration of women, for example, may cause tensions between members of the group resulting from sexual jealousy or from a perception that women are somehow favored members of the group. Pregnancy leads to lower rates of deployability and potentially reduced readiness. Finally, there is the question of how to train a sexually integrated force. It is to these issues that we now turn.

A. Sexual Integration Disrupts Cohesion by Creating Sexual Jealousy and Frustration

To achieve tolerance and cooperation, the conflict over reproductive interests has to become subordinate to other interests.598 ÄJan A.R.A.M. Van Hooff & Carel P. Van Schaik

One of the principal concerns about integration of women involves the effects of women on military cohesion. Introduction of women can disrupt bonds among men in a number of ways.599 It has long been recognized that specific bonds between individuals may actually impair group cohesion. For example, in a squad of special forces troops, a close personal friendship between two individuals is viewed as harmful to the group because of the division of loyalties between the friendship and the unit.60ø Similarly, a study of "buddy" relationships among Korean War troops found that only because the choice of a special "buddy" was private did buddy relationships not upset unit cohesion.60' In a sexually integrated group, the stakes are higher. The personal relationship may be a sexual one, which may lead not only to greater pair-versus-group conflict but also to conificts related to sexual jealousy. 02 In circumstances in which teamwork is essential, competition within military units leads to friction and loss of efficiency.603 And, among young men and women, there is little that they compete for harder than members of the opposite sex.604

It should hardly be surprising that when young men and women, mostly in their late teens and twenties, are living together in close quarters, sexual and romantic relationships will develop. A Roper poil conducted after the Gulf War revealed that about two-thirds reported sexual activity in their integrated units in the Gulf.605 Of those reporting sexual activity, 55% believed that it had harmed morale and 36% believed that it had degraded unit readiness.606 The RAND study on integration likewise found that dating and sexual relationships were perceived to reduce morale, especially on ships and on overseas deployment.607 The study found that these relationships created a number of problems. The "sexualization" of the atmosphere makes it difficult for colleagues to regard one another as ~just co- workers and thereby undermines cohesion.6 8 One respondent complained that "[the mess.., at night [for] this unit looks more like a singles club or promenade deck than a mess hall."609 Another complaint was: I get tired of seeing a junior enlisted female and her boyfriend [at mess]. Both are attached to [this unit]. This place is like high school all over again. Everyone is dating others. To me this is not the military. We are here to do a job not meet our spouse6.10Guys seem more worried about getting a girl than doing their job. Not only are these relationships viewed as unprofessional by some, they also can create resentments based upon jealousy and sexual frustration.61' Moreover, when the relationships terminate, the morale of both the individuals involved and the unit suffers, and the man is often left vulnerable to charges of sexual harassment or even rape.612 For example, a male and female Naval Academy midshipman were found in the woman's room "after a long night of drinking and socializing."613 The man admitted to consensual sex; the woman contended that she was heavily intoxicated that night and had no memory of having sex with the man but "suspected" that maybe she had been sexually assaulted. Because Academy rules forbid sex on campus, the man was expelled. The woman, by denying engaging in consensual sex, had admitted no wrongdoing and therefore was not prosecuted. The man found himself working in a warehouse to pay off the $76,000 he owed the Navy to reimburse it for education costs, while the woman graduated to the fleet.614

When sexual relationships occur between members of different ranks, the military chain of command may be compromised by the appearance of' partiality.615 Even relationships between members of different units can be harmful. For example, if a member of one unit is dating a member of another unit, there can be resentments between units based upon either jealousy or perceptions that the member of one's own unit is being mistreated by a member of the other unit.

This is not to suggest that in the heat of combat male and female troops will be focusing on sexual relations rather than fighting. Indeed, many report that combat zones are the least erotic of places. For example, Samuel Hynes, a Marine pilot in the Pacific war, recalls that the pilots "felt no sexual need even though being apart from women for a year" and asked, `Were we living our sexual lives strafing or in the all-male committed life of the squadron?"616 Similarly, in discussing a poem about masturbation, Paul Fussell notes that "it is notably what front-line troops would stigmatize as a rear-echelon problem" because at the front the men were "too scared, busy, hungry, tired, and demoralized to think about sex at all."617 Indeed, he wrote, "the front was the one wartime place that was sexless."618 Nonetheless, relationships that have developed away from the front can have substantial effect at the front. Moreover, in a war like the Vietnam War, where combatants may return to positions of relative safety at night or every few days, it does not take long before they are thinking about sex, as demonstrated by the ready availability of prostitutes in such areas.619

Recognizing the disruptive potential of sexual and romantic relations, some have suggested that this problem can be adequately dealt with by extending anti- fraternization rules to all sexual relationships within a unit even if the participants are of equal rank.62ø Madeline Morris, in her call for greater integration of women into combat units, urges a "military `incest taboo" that would defme members of sexually integrated units as "brothers and sisters between whom sexual relationships would be unacceptable."62' This approach "would amount to a broadened fraternization policy, prohibiting not only inappropriate relationships between ranks but also sexual relationships regardless of rank within military units."622 However, there are several reasons to think that this approach will not work.

First, it treats the incest taboo as an arbitrary social rule that can be extended at our whim to other contexts. Under this view, brothers and sisters abstain from sexual relations with each other because there is a rule against it; therefore, we can simply expand the group to which the rule applies. Freud notwithstanding, however, the primary reason that brothers and sisters do not engage in sexual relations is not that society has created a rule against it, but rather that brothers and sisters (and others who are reared together from an early age) are not ordinarily attracted to each other.6~ This lack of attraction appears to be an evolved psychological mechanism designed to avoid inbreeding with its attendant reduction in offspring viability.6 The notion that the incest taboo can simply be redefined rests on an inadequate understanding of human psychology.

The military "incest taboo" is different in nature from the aversion that brothers and sisters experience for each other. It is neither a biologically predisposed aversion nor even a norm that has been instilled in individuals throughout their lives. Rather, it is an externally applied rule to which the parties are first exposed in their late teens and early twenties, a period of peak sexual interest. As numerous parents seeking to control or channel their children's sexual and romantic inclinations have found, attempts to define the class of people with whom they can have relationships are typically doomed to failure.

The second reason that redefining the incest taboo is not likely to avoid the impairment of cohesion caused by relationships between male and female personnel is that the interests sought to be protected by fraternization rules extend beyond consummated sexual activity. Although in today's politicized climate, the term "fraternization" is often shorthand for illicit sexual relations, rules against fraternization long preceded the integration of women into the military. "Fraternization" entails the association of officers and enlisted personnel (or sometimes even of officers or enlisted personnel of different ranks) "on terms of military equality."6 ~ male officer who enters into financial arrangements or gambles with male enlisted personnel violates the anti-fraternization rules.626 Thus, anti- fraternization rules are a method of reinforcing the military hierarchy, a hierarchy that facilitates the efficient operation of the military.627

The somewhat impersonal relations between personnel at different levels are believed to be necessary because superiors must sometimes order subordinates into the jaws of death. As British military historian Richard Holmes has observed: There may come a moment in even the best-conducted, most democratic of armies, when a leader gives an order which will result in the certain death of his subordinates, and a framework of discipline which does not pr~are for this eventuality does both army and society a disservice. "Undue familiarity," wrote John Ellis, "might lead the men to question one's orders or even one's right to give them."629

Anti-fraternization rules may not be consistent with civilian mores,63ø but the judgment of those most familiar with the problems of military discipline view them as critical to the maintenance of good order and discipline. Unfortunately for military discipline, however, the increasing prevalence of an "occupational" orientation leads to the same kind of resentment of such rules that would attend them in civilian life. In his study of extended field maneuvers in Honduras, for example, Charles Moskos found a widespread attitude among junior enlisted personnel of both sexes that what they did in their "private lives" was their own business, rather than the Army's.~' Given the favorable sex ratio for women, it is hardly surprising that they are the ones who most strongly object to the anti-fraternization rules.632

Sexual relationships can create other special problems in the military. In 1997, Kelly Flinn, a female B-52 pilot, was threatened with court martial for having committed adultery by having an affair with the civilian husband of a female airman, disobeying a direct order from a superior not to see him again, lying to investigators about the relationship, and fraternizing (in the form of a two-night sexual relationship) with an enlisted man.~3 The most visible reaction from the civilian community focused on the adultery charge and took the position that Flinn should not be punished for having had a sexual relationship with a married man; after all, her private life is her own business.~4 The position of the military and most of its defenders was that the adultery charge was only a small part of the transgression; although inappropriate, more threatening to military discipline was Fliim's disobeying an order and lying to her superior.~5 What may have been the greatest threat to military discipline, however, got somewhat less attention: Flinn was having an affair not just with any married man, but with the husband of a female airman. It is hard to imagine a greater threat to morale and discipline in the enlisted ranks than "poaching" of their spouses by officers.~6 Had the sexes been reversed, and a male Air Force pilot had been having an affair with the wife of an enlisted man, one doubts that the national media and congressional leaders637 would have rushed to the pilot's defense 8 or that he would have been favored with a lucrative book contract.~9

Even successful enforcement of a prohibition of within- unit sexual relations will not solve the problem of sexual attractions. The military can regulate, or at least attempt to regulate, behavior, but it cannot regulate thoughts. The male and female soldier who fall in love with each other but obey the strictures of the "incest taboo" pose little less risk to the group than a couple that consummates that love. The pair-versus-group conflict will continue to existÄperhaps in heightened form because of resentment over the limitation on their loveÄand to the extent that other members of the unit are aware of the mutual attraction, they are likely to suspect that the couple is engaging in sexual relations anyway,~ø with the same negative consequences that would flow from a consummated physical relationship.

The impossibility of preventing within-unit romantic and sexual relationships places the military in a serious bind. The harm from such relationships may be widely recognized, but if an expanded fraternization policy is unlikely to be followed, then it is not in the military's interest to adopt one, other than to satisfy political demands. As Richard Holmes has observed, "Wise leaders know that nothing is so destructive of cooperation as the giving of orders that cannot or will not be obeyed."~' Indeed, it was exactly this concern that led Douglas MacArthur, while Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, to refuse to institute a policy banning fraternization between American military personnel and Japanese women. He said, "My father [also an Army general] told me never to give an order unless I was certain it would be carried out. I wouldn't issue a no-fraternization order for all the tea in China."~2

Sexual attractions, tensions, jealousies, and frustrations comprise much of the emotional repertoire of young men and women and can substantially disrupt the performance of an organization that relies on teamwork. Yet, at the same time, they are an inevitable consequence of sexual integration.

B. Perceived Special Treatment of Women Disrupts Cohesion

One of the most significant obstacles to achieving a cohesive group is the belief that some members have privileges that others do not."3 The "we're all in this together" feeling that cohesive groups experience cannot endure when it is clear that some are "more equal" than others."~ Many male personnel believe, with some basis, that women are "more equal" in the eyes of the military and civilian leadership."5 The RAND study found that this belief is enhanced by such things as "an unofficial Army policy" under which women were to receive showers every 72 hours while in the field."6 One need not invoke sexism to understand why there would be resentment "among the men, who endure a heavier workload when the women, the vehicles, and the drivers return to base so that women can take showers.""7

Lower physical standards for women are a perpetual source of resentment among men. Physical fitness grades are considered at promotion time, and men feel that they have to work very hard to "max" the fitness tests while women can meet their lower standards much more easily. As one female Army captain complained, "My fifty-one-year old father has to run faster and do more push-ups than I do to max/pass the APFT [annual personal fitness test] ," and she noted that a "lame female in my age group still is allowed to virtually walk the two-mile run and still past the test.""8

Many men also resent the fact that women can avoid deploymentÄor even their service contractsÄsimply by getting pregnant."9 Any other act by which one intentionally makes oneself nondeployable is a court- martial offense.65ø There was a widespread perception that many of the women who were nondeployable during the Gulf War because of pregnancy intentionally got pregnant to avoid service in the Gulf.65' The military has responded to many of these problems by prohibiting their discussion.652

Many men also perceive that their superiors allow female personnel to get away with things that they could not,653and it cannot be doubted that the "gender card" is a potent weapon. A study of Army and Air Force pilots found an overwhelming belief on the part of men that women were given more time to complete tasks, more training, and more chances, and that they were not washed out of training under circumstances in which men would be.654 Women themselves also felt that instructors were more lenient with them, and "they appreciated the special considerations."655

Women are widely perceived as simply not holding up their end. As one enlisted man complained to Laura Miller, "Today all you hear in the Army is that we are equal, but men do all the hard and heavy work whether it's combat or not."656 Yet another told her: "The majority of females I know are not soldiers. They are employed. Anything strenuous is avoided with a passion. I would hate to serve with them during combat! I would end up doing my job and 2/3 of theirs just to stay alive."657

These negative attitudes are not confined to enlisted men. One major told Miller that "[ilf every soldier in the U.S. Army today had been trained at the same low level of expectation that female soldiers routinely are, the U.S. Army today would be either dead or in Prisoner of War camps."653

The RAND study on integration found that there was a common perception that junior enlisted women used "female problems" to get out of unattractive duties.659 This belief is not without foundation. Several women told Laura Miller while she was conducting a study of harassment of Army women that they avoided certain duties by complaining of menstrual cramps.66ø Others told her that they could hide contraband (such as candy) by placing tampons or underwear on top of the contents of their lockers or drawers because once encountering these items, their superiors would be too embarrassed to look any further.6 Still others obtain special consideration by flirting with their superiors.662

According to both men and women, some women use complaints of sexual harassment, or a threat of such complaints, to avoid unpleasant tasks.663 Some superiors are reluctant to assign unpleasant tasks to a woman, because she has a "club" she could use against him if he did.6~ Moreover, a woman can complain of sexual harassment if she does not like her job, and even if the charges are unsubstantiated, she is generally placed in another work group.665 Men are also reluctant to push women hard during physical activities because of fear of unfounded charges of sexual harassment.666

Men in the military are deathly afraid of these sexual harassment charges, and, given recent experience, they are right to be. This is especially true of senior enlisted men, who feel they have a large investment in their careers that could be lost by a sexual harassment charge that would render them "guilty until proven guilty."667 Most of the men interviewed for the RAND study reported being personally aware of such occurrences.6~

Women also receive favored treatment in receiving plum assignments. Nowhere has this been more obvious than in combat aviation. With the post-Cold War "drawdown" of the military, there are fewer flying billets available, and the competition for them is fierce. Women are moved ahead of men in response to pressures to train more female pilots.669 For example, the Presidential Commission reported that at the Naval Academy, some pilot billets are set aside for women, so that women can claim the positions over men with higher class standings.67ø Only if women pass these positions by can they be claimed by men. Men have responded with predictable resentment.67'

The view that "some are more equal than others" is extremely destructive of group cohesion. Paradoxically, Madeline Morris points to the following statement of a female former Army officer as support for the view that integration of women has positive effects: It helps a lot to have females there, but especially if they have some rank. Like in Saudi, during the Persian Gulf War, my commander told me to `Act like a soldier, not like a girl.' I confronted him and he backed off. So he got feedback, because there was a female thereÄbut especially because I had enough rank and the confidence to confront him. Not everyone would have been in a position to do that. Thus, members of a small, and already suspect, group have a "right" empowering them to question their superiors, in this case over a comment that is far milder than those that virtually every man must endure. Having a woman in a unit is not unlike having a general or achniral's son in the unit when the father repeatedly steps in to protect his child. At least three consequences are predictable: The son's complaints are always going to be taken seriously; everyone will resent, if not hate, the son; and unit members will lose confidence in their superiors.

A cohesive military group needs to know that it will be supported and protected by the chain of command when it is in the right. But all along the chain of command everyone now knows that conscientious service is not enough to avoid substantial career damage. A perception, however incorrect, that one is on the wrong side of "gender issues" can substantially impair, if not end, one's career.

Perhaps the most visible such case is that of Admiral Stanley Arthur, then-Vice Chief of Naval Operations, who was a legendary pilot in Vietnam and commander of naval forces in the Gulf War and, by all accounts, an honorable man.672 When Rebecca Hansen, a female helicopter pilot, washed out of training, she contacted her senator, Senator David Durenberger of Minnesota, and complained that her failure was in retaliation for her having filed a sexual harassment charge.673 The decision had been reviewed up the chain of command, but in response to an inquiry by the senator, Admiral Arthur undertook a review of the matter. Several weeks later, Admiral Arthur reported to the senator that his review revealed that the woman in question was not qualified to be a pilot.674 Not satisfied with that response, the senator placed a "hold" on the nomination of Admiral Arthur to the position of Commander in Chief of Pacific Forces (CJNCPAC), the most prestigious operational command in the Navy. Apparently unwilling to be accused of taking the wrong position on a "women's issue," Admiral Jeremy "Mike" Boorda, Chief of Naval Operations, then withdrew Arthur's nomination.675 Then, to add insult to injury as far as Admiral Arthur's supporters were concerned, Admiral Boorda overruled the decision to discharge Hansen and offered her a job on his staff.676 That was not good enough for Hansen, who demanded that the Navy send her to law school and assign her to work on women's issues. When that demand was refused, she left the Navy.677

The treatment of Admiral Arthur, based entirely on his decision to support the grounding of a female pilotÄa decision whose good faith has been challenged by no oneÄ sent "a clear messageÄone not to be missed by many admirals."678 After Admiral Arthur's experience, "[amy politically sensitive officer understood, rightly or wrongly, that women were to succeed as pilotsÄperiod."679 One of the most egregious cases (at least of those to come to light) involved a female helicopter pilot who had failed a routine safety test.~ø A subsequent performance review found that she had panicked on several occasions while carrying passengers. On one occasion, her copilot had to land the helicopter for her because she had become incapacitated. She was revived with oxygen on the ground and carried away on a stretcher.68' The admiral in charge of the Pacific Fleet's Air Forces overruled a safety panel's recommendation and allowed her to keep her wings.682 Not surprisingly, male pilots were outraged.

In his study of F/A-is Hornet training in the Navy, Robert Gandt describes a problem female aviator who was not very open to criticism.6 After she mistakenly cycled the landing gear when there was an indication of trouble, which is a serious violation of procedure,6~ a Navy commander said something along the lines of "I can't wait to hear her story about that."6 When she found out about this comment, she filed a complaint alleging "verbal assaulI~," which was treated as a claim of sexual harassment. 86 Although a JAG investigation concluded that there had been no sexual harassment, the effect of the complaint was that her mishandling of the plane was forgotten. The flight instructors believed that that was her real motivation for the charge.~7 When she was later subjected to a review board because of repeated problems, the board unanimously recommended that her flight status be terminated.688 The commanding officer of the RAG believed that removing her wings was unwarranted but recommended that she be transferred. The commander of the fighter wing agreed.~9 When the case went before the Admiral, he threw out the entire recommendation relying on "extenuating circumstances."69ø Once again, the instructors concluded that if you are female, you can't fail.69' Concerns about preferential treatment are not, of course, complaints about women themselves but rather about the way the military has responded to their presence. Mistakes in implementation of a policy do not demonstrate that the policy goal is not worthwhile. However, there is a sense in which the kinds of mistakes that the military has made are inevitable, at least as long as its performance is measured by how many women it can attract and keep.

C. Integrated Basic Training: Will It Get the Best Out of Either Males or Females?

Perhaps nowhere are the problems and perils of sexual integration more apparent than in the issue of whether the sexes should go through basic training together. Cohesion is enhanced when men have shared a particularly grueling experience, which suggests that if the sexes are both to participate in combat they should train together. If the sexes train together under the same standards, however, training must be relaxed, because a regimen that challenged most men would cause most women to fail, but a training regimen that could be survived by many women would not challenge many men, and therefore men would not develop the same sense of camaraderie that is nurtured in the crucible of ordeal. As Richard Holmes has observed, "There is a direct link between harshness of basic training and the cohesiveness of the group which emerges from it."69

Traditional basic training was rigorous and, at times, somewhat abusive. In the words of a former head of drill instructors at Parris Island: Military training exists to break [the recruit] down to his fundamental self; take away all that he possesses, and get him started out in a way that you want him to be. Issue him all new clothes, cut his hair, send his possessions home, and tell him he doesn't know a damn thing, that he's the sorriest thing you~ ever seen, but with my help you're going to be worthwhile again. Today, much of that harshness has been eliminated.694 Effort is viewed as more important than achievement.695 Navy recruits are told that it does not matter how fast they cover the "confidence course," because the point of it is `~just to have a good time."696 Recruits are shown an orientation video reassuring them that "physically, anybody can get through boot camp" and that it is "O.K. to cry."697

Numerous studies have shown that different things motivate males and females. Men respond better to harsh discipline and criticism; women respond better to positive motivation. Failure tends to make men work harder; it tends to make women quit.698 It may be a good strategy for motivating women, but no serious person can believe that the way to motivate young men is to tell them that a task is an easy one that anyone can do and that it is "O.K. to cry." There is a deeper reason than anti-female animus that drill sergeants exhort (or, at least, formerly exhorted) their recruits by calling them "ladies" and otherwise challenging their manhood. But that kind of motivation does not work well for women, so it has largely been discontinued. What has replaced it is, in the words of Brian Mitchell, a "myopic focus on getting recruits through training instead of preparing them for wartime service."699

As Mitchell writes, the "emphasis on self-esteem and `positive motivation,' inspired by the need to protect women from the harshness of military life, has led the military to an excessive reliance upon leadership and a potentially fatal neglect of discipline."700 General Claudia Kennedy, who later made headlines for her accusation of sexual harassment against a fellow general, has declared basic training to be "a safe and intensely supervised integration, see Anderson, supra note 61; see also Mark Thompson, Boot Camp Goes Soft: Empathetic Drill Sergeants Make Basic Training Easier, but the Recruits May Not Be Ready for War, TIME, Aug. 4, 1997 (noting the widespread view of male soldiers and outside experts that combining men and women in boot camp "leads to relaxed standards of physical performance"). experience."70' When the female head of the Great Lakes Naval Training Center boot camp refers to recruits as "the youngsters in our care,"702 you know that, in the words of one observer, "this is not your father's navy."703 This declaration mirrors that of General Kennedy, who began speeches introducing the "Consideration of Others" program with the proud declaration that "This is not your father's army anymore!," as if abandonment of tradition were an effective way to enhance respect for and attachment to military institutions. The commander of the naval base at Pearl Harbor has declared that his "first priority is child care,"704 a stance that may be welcome to many parents but that is somewhat disconcerting to those who believe that his first priority should be national defense.

The fact that different techniques motivate men, on average, than motivate women is a strong argument for sex-segregated basic training. The Marine Corps has found that the traditional male-drill-instructor model, in which the drill instructor screams at recruits to intimidate and motivate them does not work well for women.705 According to the female commander of the training battalion that trains female recruits at Parris Island, "Em] ales and females learn differently and we communicate differently."706 Thus, different training methods are needed, even to achieve the same goals.707 Moreover, female drill instructors tended not to be comfortable in the traditional male-style drill- instructor mode.708

There are, however, costs of training the sexes separately. If men and women are ultimately to be integrated in the same units, separate training for women may interfere with their later acceptance into those units; they will always be "outsiders." They will not have gone through the same grueling training as the men, and the men will know it and resent the women's being allowed to get through easily.709 On the other hand, when they train together, the lesser physical demands placed on women are even more apparent.

This quandary is no doubt responsible for the vacillation of the military on the question of whether basic training should be sexually integrated. The Army, for example, had integrated basic training in the late 1970s but abandoned it in the early 1980s because men were being held back and women were not able to excel.71ø Alone among the services, the Marines have never had integrated training.

The conflicting pressures are also reflected in opposing recommendations of two commissions assigned to consider the question of integrated training. The first was created by the Secretary of Defense and headed by former Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker. It unanimously recommended that the sexes be separated in basic training in all services because integrated training resulted in "less discipline, less unit cohesion, and more distraction from the training program."711 However, the Secretary of Defense rejected that recommendation.712 The publicly stated reason was that the Joint Chiefs of Staff opposed the move because it violated the precept that you "train as you fight," despite the fact that most women, of course, do not fight.

The second study was commissioned by Congress and chaired by Anita K. Blair.713 It recommended, by a bare majority, that the status quo be maintainedÄthat is, that integrated training be continued in the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and segregated training be continued in the Marines. Five of the nine members supported the recommendation, one voted against, and three abstained. The abstentions were prompted by concern that the majority was not devoting sufficient attention to the negative aspects of integrated training, especially "the overwhelming consensus among trainers that something is seriously flawed in gender-integrated training."714

There is no obvious answer to the training question. Both integrated and segregated training have their costs, and both kinds of costs are a consequence of sexual integration. The challenge for the military is to train males and females in such a way as to get the best out of both of them and at the same time creating conditions that allows them later to participate in cohesive units. If the primary purpose of basic training is to create a self-identity as a "warrior," it would seem that that result is more likely to be attained through segregated training.

D. Pregnancy Leads to Lower Rates of Female Deployability and Potentially Lower Readiness

Lionel Tiger's explanation for the origins of men's resistance to women rested in part on the fact that large numbers of women would be pregnant or nursing at any given time and therefore the missions of men who were inclined to include women would less likely be accomplished.715 Today, of course, women have greater control over their pregnancies, so one might think that inconvenient pregnancies are no longer a problem. In fact, however, pregnancy has substantial current-day effects on deployability and therefore, predictably, on military readiness. At Fort Bragg, for example, there are 600 to 800 women (equivalent to an infantry battalion) pregnant at any given time.716 While in the civilian sector employers can often hire temporary help, in the military when a soldier is out, the rest of the unit must pick up the slack.717 Moreover, it should be noted, even discounting "female-only" medical problems, women are substantially more likely than men to report for sick call. Indeed, a recent study of sick-bay visits on a submarine tender found that women outnumbered men by a ratio of six to one.718

In today's military, perhaps 10% of female personnel are pregnant at any given moment.719 When the destroyer tender U.S.S. Acadia returned from an eight-month deployment, 29 (8%) of the 360 women on board had been transferred off the ship because of pregnancy, earning it the unenviable nickname "The Love Boat."72ø Who is to blame for this obvious personnel problem? According to Linda Bird Francke, the Navy is to blame for failing "to instruct its youngest recruits on sex education and birth control."721

Pregnancy results in substantial limitations on a woman's ability to contribute to her unit. In the Army, for example, pregnant soldiers are not transferred to or from overseas commands, and they are exempt from physical training and wearing load-bearing equipment.72 After twenty weeks, they are exempt from standing at parade rest or at attention for more than fifteen minutes and exempt from weapons training, swimming qualifications, and field duty. Moreover, they are not assigned to duties where nausea, fatigue, or lightheadedness would be hazardous.723

The non-deployability rate for women is approximately three times the non-deployability rate for men, the difference being largely due to pregnancy.724 According to Martin Binkin of the Brookings Institution, the services have, so far, been able to deal with pregnancies. He notes, however, that the problem might not be so manageable in combat units, as opposed to support units, where the requirements of teamwork and burden sharing are greater.725

The problems of pregnancy are even greater than the bare numbers would suggest. A Navy study found that 41% of pregnant sailors were single.726 Thus, the services must face not only the question of how to deal with pregnant personnel while they are pregnant, but also the longer-term issue of how these women are going to combine the rigors of child-rearing and the demands of a military job.727 During the Gulf War, 16,300 single parents and 1231 dual-service couples with children served in the Gulf, all of whom were required to have approved child-care plans on file.728 The opportunity to become pregnant provides female service personnel a potential egress from military service.729 There were widespread and persistent rumors that at the outset of the Persian Gulf crisis some women intentionally became pregnant to avoid deployment. For example, four of the twenty-two women in the 360th Transportation Company scheduled to leave for the Gulf were found to be pregnant, all having conceived less than six days before their regiment was deployed.730 The argument against the suggestion that this was a deliberate act is simply that it is implausible that women would get pregnant to avoid deployment because women in the military receive only six weeks maternity leave.73' But the critical fact is that if these women did not deploy with their units, they were unlikely to be sent overseas, even if they did report "for duty," and, of course, they could elect to leave the service rather than return.732

Perhaps the most honest argument on this side of the debate has come from Betty Friedan. She acknowledges that pregnancy may interfere with performance requirements, but argues that pregnancy must be tolerated if women are to be assimilated.733 Thus, the choice is between military effectiveness and "equal opportunity."

E. Lesser Female Strength Poses Substantial Readiness Problems

The view that technological advances have rendered the very large sex differences in strength unimportant is widespread.734 While it is true that most soldiers will not engage in hand-to-hand combat, such combat is the last resort of all warriors, whether they are infantry riflemen, tank drivers, or fighter pilots, and it can be the last resort of those occupying support positions, whether signalmen, clerks, or cooks. Moreover, hand-to-hand combat is not the only combat task requiring strength. Lifting heavy artillery shells, damage control tasks on a warship, carrying a machine gun, and pulling the lever operating the ejection seat of a fighter plane all require substantial strength. Even the prosaic task of digging foxholes imposes a substantial obstacle to women.73

It is not just combat positions that require physical strength, however. Many combat support positions do, as well. In a study conducted in the early 1980s, all Army men in heavy-lifting MOSs were found q~ualified for their jobs, but only about 15% of women were.7 Since then, the Army has periodically attempted study of the strength issue, but very little progress has been made because of concern about how strength requirements would affect women's service opportunities. Some changes have been made in training to accommodate weaker females, such as training runs now being performed in running shoes rather than combat boots to deal with the extremely high level of stress fractures among women. However, there has been substantial reluctance to impose strength requirements more broadly,737 and increasing women's strength has often taken a backseat to the more palatable chore of simply making the job easier. Thus, the job of stretcher carrier in the Navy, formerly a two-man job, has been redefined as a four-person job.738

Adverse conditions often interfere with the neat system of MOSs. While women can probably drive a truck as well as a man, if the truck gets a flat tire, then the driver needs to be able to handle the seventy-pound tires. In the Gulf War, male officers had to perform heavy lifting, at a time when they should have been pursuing their command responsibilities, because their female subordinates were too weak to do it.739 If a ship gets struck by a bomb or a missile, all hands may have to turn to the tasks of damage control, such as fire fighting, flood limitation, and evacuation of the wounded.74ø Analyst James Dunnigan has described damage control as "the most dangerous, unpredictable, and chaotic" of the Navy's combat operations.7 The sex differences in ability to engage in such tasks are not small. The Presidential Commission was presented with a 1985 study that found that "[w]hile clear majorities of women (more than 90% in some cases) failed to meet the physical standards for eight critical shipboard tasks, virtually all the men passed (in most cases 100%).~~742 One percent of women, compared with 96% of men could carr~ water pumps to the scene of a fire or flooded compartment. ~

Strength differentials have led some to argue that equipment should be redesigned to eliminate the need for strength.7~ If the effectiveness of a weapon can be retained with lower weight, then such a change would benefit both men and women; if nothing else it may allow more ammunition to be carried. If effectiveness is traded for lower weight, however, then such a change would predictably result in the loss of additional lives. Equipment modification, like any other change, should be judged first by the criterion of combat effectiveness.

shakran · 05-20-2005, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprocket

Strategically, what problems are caused by preventing women from entering combat? I cant think of any in our current situation.

Do we NEED women on the frontlines? Is there a shortage of male troops on the frontlines?

Careful. You're on a very slippery slope there. If your argument were valid, we'd never have had equal rights:

Do we NEED black people in the workforce? Is there a shortage of white workers in the workforce?

Do we NEED women in jobs other than secretaries, teachers, and nurses? Is there a shortage of male lawyers, cops, and doctors?

You can see that by basing a morality decision solely on what the population NEEDS to survive, you cease being anything close to moral.

And as to the (extremely long) article posted here - - seems to me the problem isn't with the women, but with the asshole men who couldn't view women as anything other than sex objects. My original point stands: If such were inevitible, I wouldn't get any work done either because I'd be working with 15 sex objects and would be too busy trying to cop feels to write my stories.

WillyPete · 05-20-2005, 04:45 AM

I think the only way you're going to resolve it is by having women killed in action.
sorry, but it's how it's worked for the isrealis. They've realised they're all in it together.

As for a woman's capabilities? Ever come between a mother and her cubs?

What we face is something that's been done ever since mankind started drawing up rules about fighting.
For centuries, farmer and lower classes were prevented from fighting. Not because they were crap at it, or they died easily or because of feelings between soldiers. It was because they had not been trained in a social code from birth as to their role in time of war.
They didn't know when to give quarter, or to expect honourable action toward them in time of defeat.
The current warrior classes felt that as a fighting force they were unreliable when held to their own standards and attitudes towards the act of war.
They were not able to feel that the warriors themselves would be able to rely on the enemy to accept an honourable surrender or take them hostage. It was concern for their own safety and position in society that made them refuse the role of fighting to those of the farming class.

Modern Western fighting men aren't debilitated because of physical weakness in the women of their unit, but rather more in the personal weakness with which they regard those women and their own social attitudes towards them, whether derogatory or protective.
As I said, it'll take time and some women dying and fighting in order for modern western man to accept women as equals in the military role.

05-18-2005, 07:06 PM	#6 (permalink)
sprocket Psycho Location: In transit	Men do stupid shit around women to impress them, whether they are conscious of it or not. Warfare is complicated enough.. why complicate it further by throwing sexual tension into the mix just so we can pat ourselves on the back for our "evolved", PC mentality. It isnt sexism, its practicality. __________________ Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

05-18-2005, 07:15 PM	#8 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	I dont think gender exlusive units are a good idea. People used to say the same stuff about blacks in the military too, but they got used to it. They won't fight as good, what will the enemy think, it'll be a distraction...etc. __________________ We Must Dissent.

05-18-2005, 09:59 PM	#10 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	Having served before the "integration" and after, during war time and peace time, my opinion, without getting into all fo the details based on personal experience: Nope. I know how sexist it sounds and i am willing to accept that moniker in this situation. In same cases it was o.k., but it the majority of situations, it was bad. And I will repeat myself in case anybody missed it, i am speaking from personal experience on this one. It is real easy to spout an opinion when you are far removed, it is another thing to live it. One example out of a whole bunch: I had to cover for a female when the shit hit the fan once, and she couldn't hack it, and there was nothing we could do about it except cover for her ass because our asses were on the line. In the reverse situation, if we had a guy that couldn't hack, we got rid of him using our own ways, ways that would've gotten us court-martialed if we attempted them on a female. __________________ Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

05-18-2005, 10:03 PM	#11 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	I doubt such a bill would pass constitutional scrutiny if a woman decided that she actually did want to serve on the front lines. Who knows? I think this is basically already military policy, women are left behind when entering areas of definite hostility (e.g. Fallujah). I think that this is the impetus behind the bill, or at least I heard as much on the radio. It causes those units who have to leave women behind to be under-staffed (undermanned?? hehe). I suppose it comes down to a definition of "front lines." Such a term is pretty archaic and insufficient to describe the type of warfare we face in Iraq, at least. The notion that having women on the "front" will cause the men to lose their brains and become inefficient soldiers has been proven incorrect time and again, including in our excursion in Iraq. Also the idea that women are somehow physically less-able than men to conduct almost any task of modern warfare is patently false (ditch digging excepted). Is there a great amount of hand-to-hand combat in going on? Really? That runs counter to my impressions. Women tend to be excellent markspeople and are just as capable as men of being conditioned to squeeze that trigger when required. There are real physical differences between men and women; I won't deny that. I wouldn't advocate that every job and unit in the military be thrown wide open to women, or something silly like a quota system. But I am in favor of women women taking a wider role in the military and, (here's the kicker) being eligible for selective service (the draft). Don't you all know a man who is such an whiny weakling that you would be scared to enter a war with them at your side? Don't you all know women who are tough and level-headed enough that you would gladly fight beside them? Women's Lib is an advancement that our society possesses. The status of women has not progressed as far in many of the cultures we find ourselves pitted against. This is an advantage, we should treat it as such. Last edited by Locobot; 05-18-2005 at 10:07 PM..

05-19-2005, 07:21 AM	#17 (permalink)
raeanna74 I'm not a blonde! I'm knot! I'm knot! I'm knot! Location: Upper Michigan	I've heard all the arguements for and against women serving in the front lines. Really both sides of the arguement have good reasons that are not chavenist either. From what I understand, the Israeli military has successfull integrated men and women in all the areas of service. I may be wrong and someone please correct me if they have any information to the contrary. If my information is correct though perhaps we can take lessons from them in regards to how they've effectively combined the genders in their fighting forces. I think that no matter how the issue is handled the situation needs to be handled with care. I think the military would benefit from having female minds cooperating. Perhaps we'd use different tactics that might prove more effective and less costly. Course it can always go the other way. As for the women who are asking to fight on the front lines my biggest question is WHY? Are they simply wanting it because it's denied to them? Or do they truely believe they'll be more valueable there? Their motivation is probably the most important fact to consider and also the hardest. __________________ "Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

05-18-2005, 06:13 PM	#2 (permalink)
cellophanedeity Heliotrope Location: A warm room	I think that as long as women prove ourselves able, there is no reason for us to do whatever job we can. If a skilled women wishes to fight for what she believes in, I see no reason for her not to be allowed to. I don't understand the rationel behind this decision.

05-18-2005, 06:28 PM	#3 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	It's my personal opinion that the front lines should consist of men only. Maybe I'm a male chauvinist but that's how I feel. I think the sexual tension between men and women would hinder the cohesiveness of a military unit.

05-18-2005, 09:31 PM	#9 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	If women are a distraction on the front lines, it could only be the result of poor training and a lack of discipline on the part of the male troops. If you're in the middle of a firefight and you're thinking with your dick, you shouldn't be in a firefight. In fact, you shouldn't be in the army at all, because you are an undisciplined liability. I don't think women being a distraction is relevant at all because when it comes down to it the people who are in charge of training and commanding the military set the tone. If they foster an environment where inequality among the genders is the status quo, then they have only themselves to blame if women on the front lines are a distraction. I've heard that the american military is one of the most disciplined in the world. How disciplined are our soldiers if they can't handle fighting next to someone with a vagina? Not very.

05-19-2005, 01:50 AM	#14 (permalink)
WillyPete Addict	Face it, in life some people just fold under pressure. Blame it on society and gender roles if you want, but the problem is that whilst we still see women as differently from men, the focus on their actions will be different. If you have a man in your group, and they have trouble at some point but are generally very good then you might work with them and try and resolve it. If a woman had the same issue, gender differentiation in the midst of a very testosterone fuelled environment would lead most men to tag their actions as 'because they're a woman'. In a man it might be listed as 'cowardice' or 'insecurity'. Even 'trauma related stress'. But a woman will always have to fight that extra stigma. Now, with my own background, I can say that men in action DON'T show off in front of the women. That's left to the bars and downtime. What typically occurred is that the men were constantly more aware of the women and their safety than that of their male team members. Sometimes at the point of risk to themselves or others. I don't mean it as them being gung-ho, but more as a fact that they did not treat them as equals but tended to a more paternal instinct to protect, even to the point of deserting their individual resposibility at the time. This is very prominent amongst men with sisters, wives and/or are close to their mothers. It's not wrong, but simply a natural or conditioned response. For those men and women who have never been in the military, think about the time you saw a fight. If, as a guy, you're in a fight and you have a buddy with you, you don't worry about the buddy's welfare until you've sorted your opponent out. but if your girlfriend or your buddy's girlfriend is there, you tend toward not being as aggressive or holding her back whilst your buddy fights. It's much harder to break this social barrier than it is to just separate the sexes. I know I'm not quoting stats or reports here, but it's what I've seen with my own two eyes. Yes, even in a leadership role, where I might not have been perfect, but I wasn't bad.

05-19-2005, 07:07 AM	#15 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	This is how I view it. As a soldier I would have NO problem with a woman being there, as long as they were held to the same mental and physical standards. Right now mentally they are, but the physical requirements are simply rediculous for women. If they are of equal fighting ability they should be of equal physical ability (they go hand in hand). But they're not. I could honestly walk the running requirement for some women in the military. This would cause a rift in the fighters. This isnt saying all women are weaker, in my short military career there were two women who were much much better runners than I. But until the standards are equal, the way they are viewed will NEVER be the same. The problem that I see is if/when they get captured. These people know enough about America so they know about chivalry. In SERE school (the interogation required for spec-ops and pilots), they LOVE women in there. Why you ask? Because the majority break under very little pressure. Those that dont cause men who would otherwise not break to. As long as they beat the woman infront of the more chivalric men they would give information to stop it. Dont underestimate how de-masculating it is for a chivalric man to see a woman being beaten and be unable to stop it.

05-19-2005, 07:10 AM	#16 (permalink)
cellophanedeity Heliotrope Location: A warm room	WillyPete, I think a large reason why these "because she's a woman" thing is because we've yet to have enough time to prove ourselves. Men used to think that they were the only ones who could be good doctors, or even be capable of rational thought until women joined in despite the negativity the males gave. Give us time to prove ourselves, and give yourselves time to smarten up. If a woman's in the army, she doesn't, or at least shouldn't, expect a man to take care of her.

05-19-2005, 07:50 AM	#19 (permalink)
jcookc6 Psycho Location: Venice, Florida	I see no reason women can't continue to serve as they have been. The U.S.Army is a purely volunentary. No one is making anyone join who does not want to. There is a chance that someone is going to get hurt in combat areas. No one is asking women to be in pure combat outfits like the infantry or armor.

05-19-2005, 07:54 AM	#20 (permalink)
stevie667 Too Awesome for Aardvarks Location: Angloland	Personally, i'd prefer to keep women out of the frontline bog standard (not to sound insulting, but my military terminology isn't up to scratch) units because one can almost guarantee that men in there may not be thinking entirely straight about things when women are around. In higher trained units, where everyone is there to do exactly what they have to do and you've been through serious shit to get there, i'm ok with that. The women have proven they can be just as tough as the men, and more power to them for doing it. Then men in those units are more likely to treat and view them as they would other male soldiers. Unfortunatly we don't live in a perfect world. However much we may not like it, sexism DOES exist, and when you have a bunch of guys with guns, the testosterone present is going to cause issues, big and small. Men are genetically programmed to know they are bigger and stronger than women, and western men also are socially programmed to be chivalrous (it's a generalisation i know, but once again i can't think of the right word) towards women and not fight alongside them. History has always been fought with men, and you can't change centuries of views overnight. I have no doubt that women are capable fighters, and can do just as good a job as men, but what i do doubt is at this present moment in time integration isn't going to occur smoothly throughout the entire armed forces. Women on the frontline will work, just not now. __________________ Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information. Last edited by stevie667; 05-19-2005 at 07:56 AM..

05-19-2005, 08:07 AM	#22 (permalink)
frogza Registered User Location: Right Here	I have always thought that if someone wants equal opportunity, risk, pay etc. The standard set to qualify a person for it should not change based on age, race or gender. If women want on the front line, they need to be able to do the same things the men can do. Having two sets of standards is what kills morale.

05-19-2005, 08:25 AM	#23 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	As long as the physical (and mental) standards are kept high and the women (and men) meet them, they should fight on the front lines and also work as police officers and fire fighters in civilian life.

05-19-2005, 08:39 AM	#24 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	arch13, i do not think that was an effective way to begin the discussion. anyway... the line for what women have been thought to be capable of has been moved back, again and again. it's unescapably true that some women are combat-ready... no doubt about it. the real issues are separate... first, what does it mean to be in a society where women in combat is acceptable? what have we lost from our cultural roots that may have been beneficial to society? what have we shed that may have hindered us? this represents a dramatic sea-change in gender expectations and priorities... does this change represent an overall positive or negative thing for American culture? lastly... accomodating previously excluded groups based on gender has almost always been accompanyed by a drop in standards. what if fewer than 5% of women are combat-ready relative to their male counterparts? do you drop the standards to make it more "fair"? inevitably, some elements of our society will demand standards be lowered in order not to "exclude" others based on gender. this will endanger the lives of all infrantry-type units... but i think that's a call such people will be willing to make while watching the war from their couch. so, my suggestion would be to allow females in the combat-units IF THEY CAN MAKE THE CUT. I would even be in favor of raising physical/mental fitness standards to weed out the weaker males for the women who can truly succeed in that environment. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

05-19-2005, 08:54 AM	#25 (permalink)
StanT © Location: Colorado	So why is this a problem in the US military, but not in the Israeli one? All of the evidence I've seen says that women in the Israeli army are just as effective as men.

05-19-2005, 09:13 AM	#27 (permalink)
BigBen Comedian Location: Use the search button	I used to be biased towards females in combat roles, but my own personal experiences have made me change my mind. I have served with some tough (waaaay tougher than me) females, and to say they can't hack it is simply false. I was the one not hacking it in certain situations, and I relied on my team to help me out. It is true that if there is a problem with mixed gender units, it is a problem with the leadership of that unit! Only the leader can make the change, or allow the status quo continue. I have a little problem with the whole "Females Only" unit. That doesn't sound fair to me. Integration is the key. On another (but directly related) topic, how is the U.S. doing with their recruiting efforts for females in these units? Remember, the soldiers serving today used to be civilians, and they made a choice as to what military occupation they persued. In Canada, we have suffered from the very start with recruiting females into non-traditional roles. We have begged, pleaded, and bribed women into theCombat Arms, and the vast majority quit far sooner than their male peers. Why? Is it cultural? Is it the physical requirements? Is there harassment occuring? We don't know, and are investigating the causes. If only 3% of female candidates join up for the front line units, and then 50% of them fail in training, and then an additional 45% get out soon after, one quickly finds a lack of female representation on the parade square! We need more women applying (recruiting efforts), more women successfully completing training (training issues solved) and more women staying in (unit issues and efforts). I want to stress that I fully support women in all career paths, including military ones. My experiences have taught me that they are as capable as any man. The problem is that although they were stronger, smarter, and better overall than me, I am the one still in, and they have moved on to something else. (yet more proof that they are smarter than me) I have to share a personal story: there was a guy (lets call him Jack, not his real name) that was NOT up to standard. He sucked at almost everything he did, and was always passing the blame on to others. One day, a woman showed up as a replacement for one of the guys who got hurt. Jack smiled to himself, thinking that he would be finally accepted as "one of the boys" now that the new person was here, and obviously different. Jack started to talk down to the new girl (lets call her Jill) and give her a pretty hard time. Jill finally did what any new guy would do, she called Jack on. "Fuck you, let's go" I think were her exact words. Jack realized that he could not back down without looking like a total idiot, and he also realized that Jill was going to kick his ass. "I'm not going to fight a girl..." he sneered, looking at the rest of us to save him. We didn't say a word. Jill stood up, and walked over to him, so that she was about an inch away from his face. "You scared of a little girl?" she said. She was foaming at the mouth, she was so mad. I think that Jack was about to say something regarding Jill's sexual preferences, and she didn't let him. She beat the living shit out of him, and when she was done, she turned on us, "Who's next?" We calmed her down as best we could, and laughed at Jack until he quit. She was officially part of the team. The way she beat on him, I knew that she would probably win a fair fight against me. Or most of the other guys. She didn't kick balls or scratch or anything. It was fist against face. And boots against face, at the end. She left our unit about a year later, and got the army to put her through trade school. I think she is an electrician now. Still in, and still tough. Finally, I have to say: Although it is true that the PT standards are different for males and females, there is no difference in the job requirements. I could care less if she has to do 10 less push-ups than me; she has to walk just as far with the same kit. I think that the physical requirements should be job based anyway. I have yet seen a battle won by how many push-ups, sit-ups and chin-ups each unit can do... __________________ 3.141592654 Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

05-19-2005, 01:35 PM	#29 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	As I said. I'd personally have no problem as long as we were the same standard. The enemies bullets dont care if you have breasts or not, why should physical standards?

05-19-2005, 08:58 PM	#31 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Um... the adrenaline of life and death situations would multiply those feelings. You know the old saying there's no atheists in foxholes? well there's no virgins on R&R deployments. Add this to the fact these are the only women they're allowed to have contact with for 6+ months?

05-20-2005, 04:45 AM	#40 (permalink)
WillyPete Addict	I think the only way you're going to resolve it is by having women killed in action. sorry, but it's how it's worked for the isrealis. They've realised they're all in it together. As for a woman's capabilities? Ever come between a mother and her cubs? What we face is something that's been done ever since mankind started drawing up rules about fighting. For centuries, farmer and lower classes were prevented from fighting. Not because they were crap at it, or they died easily or because of feelings between soldiers. It was because they had not been trained in a social code from birth as to their role in time of war. They didn't know when to give quarter, or to expect honourable action toward them in time of defeat. The current warrior classes felt that as a fighting force they were unreliable when held to their own standards and attitudes towards the act of war. They were not able to feel that the warriors themselves would be able to rely on the enemy to accept an honourable surrender or take them hostage. It was concern for their own safety and position in society that made them refuse the role of fighting to those of the farming class. Modern Western fighting men aren't debilitated because of physical weakness in the women of their unit, but rather more in the personal weakness with which they regard those women and their own social attitudes towards them, whether derogatory or protective. As I said, it'll take time and some women dying and fighting in order for modern western man to accept women as equals in the military role. Last edited by WillyPete; 05-20-2005 at 04:48 AM..