Women In The Military

[Vuk]

Link
So what do you think? A good idea?
Personally, I see nothing wrong with it in Guard units, as I think it is everyone's right to be able to defend themselves and their home. Is it going to be cost effective in the main military?
Also, my biggest concern is standards. There are probably women out there who could exceed the performance of a lot of men in the military, but on average, women are physically far more disadvantaged. Are they going to lower standards to let more women in? Is a wounded 200+ lb. guy with a full kit going to have to worry that his comrade is not going to be able to drag him to safety?
Also, you have another serious problem that is unique to women: pregnancy. What happens if 6 people in your unit get pregnant and are unable to continue serving in combat? I can see that creating lots of problems.

So what do y'all think?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If they keep the standards high enough then it's a good thing.

But it beats me why this is a left wing issue or a 'victory for women' or any of the weird things they say about it. It only benefits the few women who want to and are able to.

I also read something the other day about how a female chess player was dealing a "crushing blow to male chauvinism", lol.

[Ironside]

Link
So what do you think? A good idea?
Personally, I see nothing wrong with it in Guard units, as I think it is everyone's right to be able to defend themselves and their home. Is it going to be cost effective in the main military?
Also, my biggest concern is standards. There are probably women out there who could exceed the performance of a lot of men in the military, but on average, women are physically far more disadvantaged. Are they going to lower standards to let more women in? Is a wounded 200+ lb. guy with a full kit going to have to worry that his comrade is not going to be able to drag him to safety?
Also, you have another serious problem that is unique to women: pregnancy. What happens if 6 people in your unit get pregnant and are unable to continue serving in combat? I can see that creating lots of problems.

So what do y'all think?

Your article mentions that they will have gender neutral standards, so as long they do a decent job keeping the standards, it should be fine.

Not sure how many female soldiers we (us Swedes) have deployed for peacekeeping in Afghanistan, but there's a few. Total female officers is about 4,5%, but I suspect it's more than that in Afghanistan.

About pregnancy. Well you do have something called the pill nowadays. And in the worst case, it takes a while.

But it beats me why this is a left wing issue or a 'victory for women' or any of the weird things they say about it. It only benefits the few women who want to and are able to.

I also read something the other day about how a female chess player was dealing a "crushing blow to male chauvinism", lol.

Let see now, going from forbidden to be allowed but restricted on understandable requirements. Feminists are supposed to represent all women and it's a significant victory for the few women who want to and are able to. So that should count as a victory in total, don't you think?

[Vuk]

Your article mentions that they will have gender neutral standards, so as long they do a decent job keeping the standards, it should be fine.

Not sure how many female soldiers we (us Swedes) have deployed for peacekeeping in Afghanistan, but there's a few. Total female officers is about 4,5%, but I suspect it's more than that in Afghanistan.

About pregnancy. Well you do have something called the pill nowadays. And in the worst case, it takes a while.

Yeah, IF they keep standards. That is a big if unfortunately.

[HoreTore]

Will women be able to fight in wars, or will they just sexist stereotype at the battlezone?

[Vuk]

Thank you for your sexist example input HoreTore. Sometimes I wonder why I waste my time reading your posts when I know from the beginning that they will be nothing I agree with.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Let see now, going from forbidden to be allowed but restricted on understandable requirements. Feminists are supposed to represent all women and it's a significant victory for the few women who want to and are able to. So that should count as a victory in total, don't you think?

No, why would it?

Feminists should ditch the idea that it's meaningful to talk about all men or all women. The idea that there is really a fight about "...no women have the capacity to do X" is foolish. The woman from the chess article I read was the product of an educational experiment, yeah, you have to devote stupid amounts of time to chess to become a grandmaster. It's as much a victory for women as china's olympic training program. The progressives who love symbolic victories are the ones more in love with being progressive than with actually making positive changes.

A while back I heard something (don't know if it's true) about people with certain kinds of eye surgery not being allowed to be fighter pilots. If that had been the rule, and it turned out to be baseless, then changing it would be good for the guys who wanted to be fighter pilots but were prevented. That would be good for them, but means nothing to those with the same eye surgery who don't want or can't be fighter pilots. It should be seen as what it is.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Allowing women into your infantry school is one thing, allowing them to deploy another.

I doubt women will ever be allowed to deploy into a combat zone as frontline infantry soldiers, for reasons that should be obvious.

[TinCow]

Allowing women into your infantry school is one thing, allowing them to deploy another.

I doubt women will ever be allowed to deploy into a combat zone as frontline infantry soldiers, for reasons that should be obvious.

That's an odd comment, considering that women already do deploy into combat zones as infantry soldiers in the US military. Their MOSs may not list infantry, but their duties most certainly include combat. Saying that they are not infantry soldiers is rather pedantic. A couple words on some personnel records do not define a soldier's duty, their actual assignment does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leigh_Ann_Hester
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...043003415.html

Of course, their MOSs weren't infantry, so I guess that makes them noncoms.

[HoreTore]

Allowing women into your infantry school is one thing, allowing them to deploy another.

I doubt women will ever be allowed to deploy into a combat zone as frontline infantry soldiers, for reasons that should be obvious.

They already do in several countries, and it goes fine.

In other words, there are no reason to have a ban on women, unless you have a massive fear of menstruation. Such a ban is collectivism at its worst, the blatant disregard for the individual. People should be judged as individuals, not on their gender. If a woman fulfills the requirements demanded, of course there is no reason not to allow her.

[Hooahguy]

I was having this discussion before on Reddit and the general consensus among veterans was that as long as the woman can, if need be, carry an injured 250 lb male plus the guys equipment out of a hot zone then its fine to have them along. But they were worried that if they cant do something like that then they would be more of a liability than a help.

Also a lot of people pointed towards the IDF of where woman soldiers have worked, but there its very different environment. Mostly doing checkpoints or border patrol. Nothing like the combat environment in Afghanistan.

[Vladimir]

Why is everyone focusing on the physical aspects and not the social ones? In conventional behind the lines type stuff there as a lot more drama after you've been up for a couple days. Interjecting women into this type of environment is never a good thing.

Now, that being said, I don't know if we're ever going to have that type of war again. Even a hypothetical war vs. China wouldn't be like 20th century industrial era warfare. The term "front lines" is more of a quaint, romantic notion now.

[Fragony]

I am still undecided if I want the Dutch female soldiers to be looking for me. They sure are tougher than me

[Beskar]

I have a Starship Troopers stance on this issue.

In short, the biggest criticism is that macho guys are too scared about being shown up by a "girl" or think women are "pretty flowers" in some 19th century sexism. The professional military has standards, if anyone can meet those standards to be able to serve in that capacity, then that should not bar them. There are women in the Babe Thread that can make mince meat out of me.

[TinCow]

Why is everyone focusing on the physical aspects and not the social ones? In conventional behind the lines type stuff there as a lot more drama after you've been up for a couple days. Interjecting women into this type of environment is never a good thing.

Now, that being said, I don't know if we're ever going to have that type of war again. Even a hypothetical war vs. China wouldn't be like 20th century industrial era warfare. The term "front lines" is more of a quaint, romantic notion now.

If submariners can handle women in their midst for months at a time, then so can infantry. It's called professionalism. Sure, some men are likely too immature to be able to handle women co-workers. The majority of men have no issues working with women, be it in an office, on an oil rig, in a mine, on a ship, or carrying a gun. Fortunately, the military has a strong system for sorting out those who can hack it from those who can't; it's called basic training.

[Vladimir]

If submariners can handle women in their midst for months at a time, then so can infantry. It's called professionalism. Sure, some men are likely too immature to be able to handle women co-workers. The majority of men have no issues working with women, be it in an office, on an oil rig, in a mine, on a ship, or carrying a gun. Fortunately, the military has a strong system for sorting out those who can hack it from those who can't; it's called basic training.

The women on subs thing is fairly new and likely limited. I also wouldn't compare cramped yet still civilized conditions on a modern submarine to field combat. We're taking about combat arms types, not someone who works on nuclear reactors. The some who are likely too immature are likely infantry. Being infantry is far more than carrying a gun.

Edit: And it's not the maturity or professional aspects. It's the social aspects. We're not that short on combat arms that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

[TinCow]

The women on subs thing is fairly new and likely limited. I also wouldn't compare cramped yet still civilized conditions on a modern submarine to field combat. We're taking about combat arms types, not someone who works on nuclear reactors. The some who are likely too immature are likely infantry. Being infantry is far more than carrying a gun.

I think you greatly underestimate the professionalism of the US armed forces. The same social arguments were put forward for keeping the military segregated and for keeping homosexuals out. The people who predicted doom and gloom then were wrong for the same reasons those who predict the same about women are wrong now.

Again, the fact remains that women are already serving in combat in Afghanistan. Any arguments put forward about women being unsuitable for such positions are rather pointless, since it is already occurring without causing any problems.

[Vladimir]

I think you greatly underestimate the professionalism of the US armed forces. The same social arguments were put forward for keeping the military segregated and for keeping homosexuals out. The people who predicted doom and gloom then were wrong for the same reasons those who predict the same about women are wrong now.

Again, the fact remains that women are already serving in combat in Afghanistan. Any arguments put forward about women being unsuitable for such positions are rather pointless, since it is already occurring without causing any problems.

I'm fairly well acquainted with that side of the house and it's not an argument per say but a prediction of what some of the problems will be. Why do it at all if there isn't a measurable benefit in doing so? I believe that the homosexual thing was just an effort to bring about gradual change. Doing it as envisaged by the Clinton administration would have caused far more problem. It took a world war to bring blacks in; we didn't have that in the 90s.

Reference my first post. It's not about the current wars/conflicts, it's about conflicts that we may never see again. Part of it deals with predicting the future and the changing nature of warfare. Show me the measurable benefits. I can demonstrate the proven drawbacks.

[Greyblades]

That's an odd comment, considering that women already do deploy into combat zones as infantry soldiers in the US military. Their MOSs may not list infantry, but their duties most certainly include combat. Saying that they are not infantry soldiers is rather pedantic. A couple words on some personnel records do not define a soldier's duty, their actual assignment does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leigh_Ann_Hester
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...043003415.html

Of course, their MOSs weren't infantry, so I guess that makes them noncoms.

They already do in several countries, and it goes fine.

In other words, there are no reason to have a ban on women, unless you have a massive fear of menstruation. Such a ban is collectivism at its worst, the blatant disregard for the individual. People should be judged as individuals, not on their gender. If a woman fulfills the requirements demanded, of course there is no reason not to allow her.

Eh, there's more to it than ability when it comes to female infantry, if a woman gets shot in vicinity to male soldiers, even if it's someone they havent met, it's likely to send some soldiers berzerk and damages morale alot more than the death of a male.
Attempting to intergrate mixed sex squads can really go badly, all-male squads normally gain a web of bonds between the squad members that can increase effectiveness. All that goes out the window if there's a female member as natural instincts kick in and sooner or later there's a "war" between male squaddies attempting to attract the female.
Of course I'm basing this on memory of previous same topic arguments and this artical and subsiquent comments so I could be wrong.
Personally I think they should make an female only battlegroup that acts on its own theatre of war, lets see al-Qaeda persuade people to kill with promises of 72 virgins now!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If we come into it with a "this is a fight against sexism and we need a victory for women" attitude then we end up with:

1) The only problems are coming from sexist men
2) all we need to do is change it to remove the official restrictions against women

Which is the general attitude of one side of the argument here in this thread. If we were mainly concerned about the women as individuals rather than symbols of feminism we would just consider all the various difficulties that are proposed and make sure that the change was made in a sensible way. And ironically, there would be far fewer people against "women in the military".

[TinCow]

I'm fairly well acquainted with that side of the house and it's not an argument per say but a prediction of what some of the problems will be. Why do it at all if there isn't a measurable benefit in doing so? I believe that the homosexual thing was just an effort to bring about gradual change. Doing it as envisaged by the Clinton administration would have caused far more problem. It took a world war to bring blacks in; we didn't have that in the 90s.

Reference my first post. It's not about the current wars/conflicts, it's about conflicts that we may never see again. Part of it deals with predicting the future and the changing nature of warfare. Show me the measurable benefits. I can demonstrate the proven drawbacks.

Manpower. It is becoming increasingly difficult for the military to recruit people with the skills and education levels it needs. The days of just needing bodies to hold guns is long gone. The future is in highly intelligent, highly capable individuals with a great deal of training. Recruitment isn't too bad of an issue at this very moment because of the economy, but it was a serious issue prior to the current recession and it will go back to being a serious issue as the economy improves. The job simply isn't desirable enough for the kinds of people the military wants. By opening the positions up to women, the potential applicant pool is doubled.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The job simply isn't desirable enough for the kinds of people the military wants. By opening the positions up to women, the potential applicant pool is doubled.

Doubled?

[TinCow]

Even with all the toys, combat roles still come down to bodies holding guns. I spent 2 years prior to my deployment learning about all the high-tech gadgets and tanks and whatnot, but when I was in Iraq doing combat missions it was just me, my platoon, our humvees, and lots of guns. Don't be fooled into thinking we don't need grunts.

My point was that the average infantryman these days needs to know a lot more than they did in 1944. The skill and training that is required to be a modern US infantryman is vastly higher than it was even in Vietnam.

Doubled?

Do we have different definitions of "potential applicant pool"?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Do we have different definitions of "potential applicant pool"?

People who don't want to be in the military aren't potential applicants. And that isn't even considering that people who can't meet the standards aren't potential soldiers. I don't see the pool being anywhere near doubled. It's weird that you put that bit about doubling right after the sentence about "not enough people desire the job...the kind of people the military wants".

If we're worried about our applicant pool we'd be better of going after obesity. About 25% of applicants are rejected for obesity related reasons.

[TinCow]

People who don't want to be in the military aren't potential applicants. And that isn't even considering that people who can't meet the standards aren't potential soldiers. I don't see the pool being anywhere near doubled. It's weird that you put that bit about doubling right after the sentence about "not enough people desire the job...the kind of people the military wants".

If we're worried about our applicant pool we'd be better of going after obesity. About 25% of applicants are rejected for obesity related reasons.

The pool of potential applicants is different from the pool of qualified applicants. Currently, women are not considered for any of these positions. That excludes half of the population from the potential applicant pool. The actual applicant pool is, of course, different from the potential applicant pool. I agree that the pool of qualified applicants would not double by considering women, but it would certainly double the pool of of potential applicants.

[rvg]

Another thing to consider will be female casualties. Let's face it, men are expendable. Both men and the society at large are conditioned to accept the fact that men go to war and die or get maimed. Currently, the female casualty figures have been very low, something that's guaranteed to change with more women in the military and on the frontlines. Women will come back in body bags or in wheelchairs, and the public isn't gonna like that. Also, like was mentioned earlier, female fatalities will have the potential of wrecking morale in mixed units.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

People who don't want to be in the military aren't potential applicants. You would have to assume that women are just as gung-ho as men.

ok I just repeated "potential applicant pool" to myself a dozen times and now I don't know what it means anymore. You mean you aren't talking about the people who conceivably might apply, just the people who legally could apply? But why??? The only thing that's relevant is the qualified people who actually want to apply.

[rvg]

People who don't want to be in the military aren't potential applicants. You would have to assume that women are just as gung-ho as men.

ok I just repeated "potential applicant pool" to myself a dozen times and now I don't know what it means anymore. You mean you aren't talking about the people who conceivably might apply, just the people who legally could apply? But why??? The only thing that's relevant is the qualified people who actually want to apply.

Then again, with more women in the military more men might apply as well.

[TinCow]

People who don't want to be in the military aren't potential applicants. You would have to assume that women are just as gung-ho as men. ok I just repeated "potential applicant pool" to myself a dozen times and now I don't know what it means anymore. You mean you aren't talking about the people who conceivably might apply, just the people who legally could apply? But why???

Clearly you do not think like a lawyer. I said potential applicant pool because it was a statement I could provide a statistic for without looking it up. The pool of 'conceivable' applicants is probably unknown, even to the DoD. Regardless, my point stands. DoD needs manpower. The number of qualified applicants will increase by accepting women. That's ultimatley why women have been accepted into all other previously restricted parts of the services and why it will eventually happen for combat MOSs as well.

[Brenus]

For the one who think women can't do hardship: They deliver babies.
For the one who think women are poor fragile things: Lyumidla Pavlinchenko officially killed 309 Germans (including 36 (males) German Snippers. Lylia Litvyak killed 12 German (males) Pilots.