Women in the Military
 

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.

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.
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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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?

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?

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If you expect men to accept women as equals than it would be neccesary for women to be tested at the same level men ore. The army physical fitness test is a great example. Today in the military there is a men's standard and a woman's standard (much lower than the men's).

Any woman who can meet the same physical standards as the men that is. Why does the military have 2 standards? Why is it that men have to do at least 40 push ups to pass the pt test but women only have to do 8?

Raise the level and have one standard and I'll support woman serving in front line positions. I would guess less than 1% of the females in the military could pass the PT test at the men's standard.

In my basic training the men marched 5 miles to the range while the women were bused. Why? Becuase the women were simply not able to do it. Not one of them could march with their rifle and ruck further than 1 mile. I witnesses an entire platoon of women fall out. Its a fact folks!

Number of pushups required to pass (ages17-21):

Men = 42
Women = 19

Number of situps required to pass:

Men = 53
Women = 53

Time in 2 mile run to pass:

Men = 15.54
Women = 18.54

Why is it that the standards are lower for women?

Yes, what a joke. This is just mind boggling to me. People who support women in the front lines lose the argument when it comes to the double standards.

Bingo.

I don't mean to be rude, but hearing someone who's never been in the service explaining their opinion on this topic is like hearing a man tell what it's like to give birth.

I've been in the military, and I think there are more problems than benefits from women in combat units. Special forces in particular have their own opinions, which don't align with the plot of "G.I. Jane."

Beyond that, there are two other factors:

1. America is not ready to see women come home in body bags, as Willypete said.
2. People think it's worse for a captured woman to be raped than it is for a captured man to be tortured. I haven't seen an explanation for that, but that IS the prevailing opinion.

For the record, there are many, many women serving admirably in the military, and we couldn't get along without them.

Just not in combat units, IMO.

And yet, why is it that women outperform men in G-Loc resistance when flying aircraft? They tend to be shorter, with the larger thighs, and higher haemoglobin counts. Their bodies are better able to deal with the blood being forced into the legs becasue of this and other reasons.
(Women also have higher survivablilty than men on the operating table due to the blood oxygen thing.)

With that in mind, women are physically BETTER suited than men to be combat pilots.

(G-Loc = Gravitational force induced loss of consciousness)


Both men and women have their strengths and weaknesses, men are just more genetically predisposed to the physical act of fighting on land.

So let me get this straight. Women serving in active military duty might reduce public approval of unnecessary wars? Hell dude, that's a reason FOR women in the military, not against!

I would only be accepting of women in combat if they volunteered for it specificly and were forced to prove they were on equal footing with the average male combat troop.

None of the lower standards they try for female firefighters and the like.

I still wouldn't be happy with it, the last thing you want in a foxhole is sexual tension, but thats a different issue.

If there were sexual tension it would be the fault of those in charge of training, not the women on the front lines. Besides, anyone who's thinking with their junk whilst under fire deserves whatever they get.

I might be wrong but I dont' think you can train sex out of a 19 year old living in close quarters.

Lol and yet abstinence sex ed is encouraged by the same groups.


// not a personal dig at Ustwo

I thought our troops were the most disciplined fighting force in the world. Ustwo, why do you hate our military? ;)

I think you underestimate the motivational power of military punishment.

Look up the methods used on young boys to try to prevent masterbation... MUCH worse than military punishment and it still didnt stop anything.

So essentially, what's going to happen if we let women fight on the front lines, is that the entire cohesiveness and effectiveness of the american military is going to disappear in an orgy of late adolescent lust? Is that what has happened in the rest of the military where women are quite common? Does anyone have any kind of basis for this perspective beyond a healthy mistrust of teenage sexuality? Has the integrated israeli military fallen apart in an orgy of soldier on soldier lust? I mean, i understand the argument, it just, to me, seems to lack any kind of basis in reality.

other commenters are smart to bring up the Israeli example...their integrated army has been one of remarkable sucess...and that's not because Israeli women are known for their chastity. Several of my friends who have made aliyah report it's quite the opposite.

Also, you're assuming that sexual tension doesn't happen between men. Just a thought.

Well unless we are trying to emulate the Sacred Band of Thebes, I'm not to worried about sexual tension amoung males. Don't ask don't tell and all that :eek:

I'm not saying a sex integrated army couldn't succeed, I'm just not sure ours is ready for it.

well, as recruiting numbers for May are being released late, this friday instead of the first of the month, suspicions are running high that the numbers are not good.

so speaking of policies that hamper recruiting an effective and professional army....i see Don't Ask/Tell as a parallel to the gender segregation. there isn't a whole lot of room to tolerate mistakes that keep us from having the best Army we can...if we're going to win in two theaters and remain a deterrant around the world...i think we need to give up these anachronistic and blind policies that deter enlistment.

You're putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that sexual tensions can not be stamped out no matter how hard you try. There's a reason there are terms such as navy-goggles, lack of opportunity will alter perceptions and lead to gross misconduct if not treated correctly. Ask any Petty Officer or Gunny about male-female soldiers... I have a couple stories myself that I have witnessed.

If you took the time to read my posts I have no problem putting women on equal footing with male soldiers. What I am trying to say is reasoning that these people are adults and are disciplined enough to combat the most powerful driving force in human nature is ignorant.

Shakran,Have any of these reporters ever have to squat and take a dump in front of you while you watched for hostiles?
How about take a bath out of a helmet?
Ofcourse not, it is not all about actual combat situations, I served with some
tough WM's but I really dont think they could have handled some situations we found ourselves in.

Women have their place in the military, it's not in combat. I know I would not have been able to do it, I would always have been thinking is she going to crack, lose it and put us all at risk?
And I'm not saying that does not happen to men, cause it does,and I have seen it first hand, but they are removed rather quickly.

I DO think that women can be just as effective in combat, but not in western armies.

We've crippled ourselves with the sexually based roles in our society.
Women have served with distinction in many wars and national armies, yes, even in combat.

Has no-one heard of the mythological Amazons?

Seeing as most of the objections are based on sexual tensions arising, I'd say the fault is more of the inadequacy of the American public to deal with sexual freedom as a whole. (I use USA because it seems the discussion is revolving around women in YOUR armies.)

My other point of contention is to ask why women fel the need to be permitted in combat. Why feel the need to prove yourself equal to men in one of the most base acts we can commit. No, I'm not aying that those who fight are base, but that the act of war is undesirable, although sometimes unavoidable.
I can see it being a case of wanting the chance simply because it's denied to you, but would expect enlistment number not to rocket up if the combat restrictions were lifted.

And if they were lifted, I would sincerely expect to see a single qualifying standard. Purely for their survival. If troops have to run distance x in time y to evade an enemy and it's over the basic entrance requirement for the women, it'll look awful bad if only the men return.
Bullets, bombs and Death are not sexually biased and won't hold women to a lower bar.

I am rapidly approaching middle age. I haven't worked out in over a year. I am grossly out of shape in terms of endurance, I'm lucky I'm not fat. I have yet to meet a woman who I couldn't beat the living crap out of had I wanted to. Yes I know out there, there are some who could take me, but we have to be honest about physiology. Men as a rule are stronger and faster. I also think that there is an evolutionary advantage men have with spacial relationships, and our natural aggression can be a plus in combat too.

I never bought into the whole gender stereotyping theory that we make girls into 'girls' by how we treat them. Little girls act differently than little boys and they grow up to be different. In a perfectly gender neutral world, boys would still fight boys and girls would still want to play house.

Now I know modern combat isn't always about who is the fastest and the strongest, but I am perfectly content to send the boys to war while the girls stay home.

Hell, from a species point of view it makes sense. Women are more important to the next generation than men are. The next generation of children is not limited by the number of males, but the number of females. The only time it makes genetic sense to send women into war is where your very survival as a people is in question.

So in rambling conclusion, to me, women in combat goes against who and what we are. Women can fight but only when there is no alternative, they have not evolved for it, they are not as good at it, and I can't see why anyone would want to send them to war. History has had some notable women warriors, but they are notable due to their rarity. Either human kind has tried to keep women down for all of its history by not 'letting' them fight, or their may be some damn good reasons for it.

What I really want to know is, why do people want to see them in combat?

We have an all volunteer military so I would think the answer to your question is rather obvious. Some women want to be in combat positions.

I'm with David Hackworth on this one. Women need to be held to the same training standards as men if they wish to serve in the front lines.

I don't like the idea that somebody's perceived role for me would define me decisions about my life. You may think of women as homebodied caregivers (generalizing here), but that doesn't mean it is okay to limit my choices for it.

And if men on the front lines have that hero factor or fear factor as the case may be, don't punish the women by excluding them...expect more from the men!

You can't call me an equal and then limit the kind of equality you are willing to share.

Not being shot at is punishment? :confused:

Having other people choose my future and limit my options is punishment.

in other words, expect less from the women on the front lines. how is that equal?

What's your point? Are you suggesting there's gonna be a lot of sexual tension between a male and female soldier while she's defecating?

And you might be surprised- news people are generally pretty laid back about privacy - after all we're always reaching in each other's shirts to get the mic placed right, etc.

And yes, I've worked with women in satellite trucks during hurricane coverage where we had to eat, change, sleep, and work in the truck. Can't change outside 'cause there's gallons of rain being driven sideways at you.

And there's even been times when we've had to relieve ourselves into jugs because we're not anywhere near a bathroom and we can't leave the truck. We werent' worried about enemy fire at the time, but we didn't have any privacy either. No big deal. We were adults, and we did not go at it like jackrabbits afterward either, as some are suggesting the soldiers would do if they were integrated.

I say again, if you're trying to get in the pants of the soldier next to you while machine gun bullets are whizzing past your helmets, you're a moron. Gender has nothing to do with it.

And if you're a big enough moron to try and screw while you're being shot at, you shouldn't be in the military anyway.

First I find it highly suspect that an infront of camera news woman is going to relieve herself in a jug in front of you. Sorry just dont see it happening.

Your analogy holds no water imo, so you work with women, big deal,as do alot of us. Is there any tension from the fact that you might be killed at any moment? From what I have seen there are plenty of office romances.
And they start without that tension.


And my point being is what happens after the rounds stop flying, what if something develops then?
Now you have 2 people who could in fact compromise future action because they have special feelings for each other.

My point of view is from experience, I know what mind frame it takes to live for months in the field, not a day sleeping in a van.
Women will only complicate an already difficult situation.

I don't think you understood what I said. The conversation was that some men have hostility or hero complexes with women they may work with. Don't punish women for the men's complexes, expect better BEHAVIOR from men.

Man oh man. Though I've never been in combat, I've got just about 10 years of active duty Naval service and I'll tell you what I've seen so far.

Women in the military is necessary, but causes a new set of challenges that the direct results of unfortunately are not ever truly felt by those who make that decision. It's not a good or a bad thing. It's not "G.I. Jane". It's women serving honorably, and disonorably. It's the men around them serving honorably, and dishonorably. As one who has worked side by side with women I have no problem with the concept, but the problems that arise when those women (or men) follow those urges we all have only decrease mission readiness. Is it fair that a female can choose to get pregnant so she can miss a deployment, now causing someone else to fill that billet while she's gone? You can't make her promise not to. But you have to let her go when she does. A man can't get pregnant to get out of a deployment. Is that fair that she has an "out" that he doesn't? Sexual assault cases, fraternization, and harassment grab headlines when they occur in the military, further damaging an already unpopular service.

The other issue is that women coming home in body bags is, in our nation, even less acceptable than men dying. Is THAT fair?

This decision should be made by front-line commanders, not civilian officials who don't have to take those units into combat, or deal with or worry about what's actually going on in those units. My observation is that while most women serve honorably and with no problem, the few who misbehave or do not uphold their commitments to service are ruining it for the rest of them, just like the men who act like asses do.

-Mikey

Women should only go into battle. if there is a shortage or unequal balance then men should be dispacted. There are more women in the world now there for if women die in battle then it will equal out the sex define.

I did not delete the above.....simply to explain the reasoning for deleting the rest

Manx, I am truly saddened by what you are now doing. I was another one that appreciated your well thought out posts in Politics.

If you choose to come back once again, I sincerely hope that it is to bring a positive contribution here because I believe you have valid points to make.

But what you are doing now does not speak well for you.

With great regard,
Pen

i find it a bit conceited that you feel making parallels between being a tv camera man and a frontline soldier in combat are a useful way to discuss the issue.

First Woman Gets Silver Star Since WWII


Anyone care to suggest that Ms Hester doesn't belong in the military?

I find it absurd that you seem to think men and women can work together unless they're being shot at, in which case they'd screw like rabbits. That's a ridiculous premise. I HAVE been shot at in my job and the last thing I was thinking about was sex.

What if these sex crazed male soldiers have to rescue a woman somewhere? Is she guaranteed to get gang raped because these soldiers can't handle sexual feelings?

You can't have it both ways. Either we have well trained military that's got plenty of discipline, or we've got a bunch of frat boys. Which is it?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._re_mi_ea/iraq

thought this was interesting and pertained to the topic. women killed on the frontlines today in Iraq.

This is a ridiculous collection of posts by a bunch of ignorant non-military do-gooders.

I dare you to try and elaborate.

We have commited to cleaning up this board. We would very much like the help of all who frequent politics in doing so. We have no intention of playing favorites in any way and will use a very simple formula to accomplish corrective actions in here from this point on, these steps are as follows:

If you make a statement that seems to staff as inflamatory, we will Remind you of what civility is.....in Yellow

We ask that others indulge in self control and refrain from rising to the bait, as it can take time to notice these things

If you outright insult, or degrade the person of another member, we will stop you from doing so again for a period of time, and tell EVERYONE exactly why and for how long.....in orange

If anyone goes beyond this....in any way, they will never have the opportunity to do so again.....Period

You see red....things have become very bad

We only hope these extreme measures can be temporary, and allow some of the immaturity to leech out of this board. If not.....our ranks are going to thin quite a bit. If these rules seem harsh or "Fascist" to you.....

Deal With It

That's a very common, but wildly inaccurate, viewpoint of the military.

A more accurate summation would be that you can't pump up soldiers to the point that they will charge point-blank into enemy fire, and then expect them to amuse themselves by extending their pinkies at tea parties after the shooting stops.

Personal testimony may not be relevant to the analysis, but I knew a woman who was an officer in the Navy. Damn she was hot. And dedicated too. She could certainly kick ass better than I could (one of the many factors that contributed to her hotness). Because of her, I began to have a lot more respect for women making a career out of the military.

The problem isnt people dont think women can perform. The problem is the standards in which they are held. I know many women in the military that can go toe-to-toe with me. The problem is I know many that would be kicked out faster than you can snap your fingers if they were held to the common male soldier standard.

If they held women soldiers to the same physical standards as men most soldiers would not have a problem with them being there. The problem is when there are women who pass when their male counterpart with superior scores fails causes problems.