Women in the Military

[jamesrage]

The point was the service has to be fair to all who can serve.

Fair is not always necessary.

Black people were thought of as animals in the past, but they were not.

No one in this thread is saying women are animals.

They could do anything white people could do.

Women can not do everything men can do.When it comes to a lot of stuff women are not on par with men. This is why there are separate sporting events for women and men.

And able women, who can do what average men in the infantry can do, should be offered infantry service.

You do realize that not that many women would get in the infantry and there would be problems training them in basic training and housing them in their unit. I do not know about the marine corp basic training but with Army infantry those with a infantry MOS only go to basic training units for infantry soldiers in Fort Benning Georgia the only drill sergeants there are infantry. Can the military afford to spend money on a basic training unit full of females to have the vast majority of them fail in the name of equality?

As a low ranking enlisted solder should she get her own room, latrine(in units that have a gang latrine) and barracks floor when she gets to her new unit if she is the only one there? How is that fair?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

The nature of warfare has changed. We don't face frontlines anymore. Women who are in "non-combat" MOS need to be trained at a basic level on small arms maneuvering and fire control. If they get ambushed, they need to be adequatley prepared to return fire. However, infantry MOS face an exponentially higher risk of death and injury than non-combat MOS. in one case, the enemy has found a way to hit supply lines and "safe zones" and it is better to be able to return sufficient fire to supress your enemy. All military personell should be trained for such an event. The other instance is taking the fight to the enemy, going out with the intent to go into harms way. That is not where we need to send mothers/potential mothers. Its a completely unnecessary risk to send potential mothers into that offensive role. The reason men are more expendable, is because one man could, in theory, impregnate as many women as he could have sex with. In a simplified, drawn down scenario, in a society with 1 man and 9 women left after a war, the population could increase by 9 in one year. In a scenario where women go to combat and we return 5 men and 5 women, the reproductive capability of that society is almost halved. Women's role as the bearer of children in society is the most important role there is, and it should be protected, not casually discarded to prove "something".

Our views differ in that your view is based on gender-role ideologies and mine is based on absolute equality - not a fluffy buttery semi-equality or an altered equality or special treatment for various bits of bodily-equipment: but absolute equality with no consideration for the genders at all.

If my view was implemented there'd be far fewer women in the service - point blank. Because I don't believe in fluffing *down* our forces - I believe in maintaining a constant no-bull**** level of readiness and ability. . . and, honestly, the average woman (including myself) can't cut it that way.

Having a multi-tiered qualifying system causes problems rather than prevents them. . .Considering recent issues that have come up at my husband's work, for example, that's exactly how things are.

 

[Sadie]

The only thing that matters is, "How will it effect our fighting forces?"

Strength and endurance: The 'average man' is stronger than the 'average woman.' This is a big, huge deal.
Morale: Women and the drama that can happen around them can be a pain in the ass.
Physical: Yeah, monthly mensus is a problem...even in the comfort of one's own home. So are the mood swings. Get a bunch of women in the same company, they all start cycling together, PMS becomes a WMD.

Women do not need to be encumbered by a monthly cycle these days. PMS symptoms are usually relieved by bc methods, too.
There are other ways to reduce the number of cycles women have; although the risks involved need to be taken under consideration.

I'm not keen on the PMS card being played in this day and age, but PMS as a WMD - I'll give on that for a laugh.

As stated earlier, performance is the key. There are many military women who can hold their own beside a "fellow" soldier, marine, etc.

 

[other]

Concerning the scenario that women should be allowed in the infantry as long as they meet the same physical standards: This sounds reasonable on the surface, certainly, but all the other points made about the matter add up... ie. generally women are less physically capable, so of the ones that are up to the standards they will be few. I think this would cause internal problems in an infantry unit, for the simple fact that you will have many men and a few women, holed up together over an extended period. "Drama" between males alone is much different than drama between males over/invoved with females.

Furthermore, aside from the period issue (I guess those in favor expect that such women be forced to take drugs that suppress their cycle?) there is the issue of hygiene. Admittedly, I don't know a lot about the requirements/possible issues--- but I do know that they can generally be much more problematic for women than for men. I remember going for many weeks at a time without a shower or even a change of clothes (especially outer layers), and in very poor conditions, where a fair number of guys had to deal with skin infections and whatnot. Am I wrong if I have the impression that such conditions for extended periods of time are generally much more hazardous to females?

In the end, I agree w/ Tashah's earlier statement: Women and Men both have certain strengths/weaknesses, and should be utilized as such. In fact, I believe I remember reading somewhere that women are generally better at marksmanship... They would do fine as designated marksmen attached to their units, but not living out in the middle of nowhere for months where a ramshackle FOB is the best of living where otherwise you're staying in cramped LP/OPs overlooking a stretch of road or extended patrols crossing through ****-infested irrigation ditches. Not saying they couldn't do it, but that it may simply be more trouble than it's worth.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Concerning the scenario that women should be allowed in the infantry as long as they meet the same physical standards: This sounds reasonable on the surface, certainly, but all the other points made about the matter add up... ie. generally women are less physically capable, so of the ones that are up to the standards they will be few. I think this would cause internal problems in an infantry unit, for the simple fact that you will have many men and a few women, holed up together over an extended period.

That's the point - combat units shouldn't have to craft special rules for the genders because the battle-world doesn't abide by such things.

A woman, if she's on par with other men, should be permitted into frontline units.

 

[tryreading]

Fair is not always necessary.



No one in this thread is saying women are animals.



Women can not do everything men can do.When it comes to a lot of stuff women are not on par with men. This is why there are separate sporting events for women and men.




You do realize that not that many women would get in the infantry and there would be problems training them in basic training and housing them in their unit. I do not know about the marine corp basic training but with Army infantry those with a infantry MOS only go to basic training units for infantry soldiers in Fort Benning Georgia the only drill sergeants there are infantry. Can the military afford to spend money on a basic training unit full of females to have the vast majority of them fail in the name of equality?

As a low ranking enlisted solder should she get her own room, latrine(in units that have a gang latrine) and barracks floor when she gets to her new unit if she is the only one there? How is that fair?

You're just repeating your arguments.

Able, or able, or aBLe, or ABLE women should be in the infantry. That's if they're capable of performing the duties that the average man in the infantry can master, i.e., ABLE.

Whatever your justifications are for keeping all women out of the infantry, they are not as important as the ambitions of the able women who want in.

 

[other]

That's the point - combat units shouldn't have to craft special rules for the genders because the battle-world doesn't abide by such things.

A woman, if she's on par with other men, should be permitted into frontline units.

did you miss the rest of my post?

The pure physical aspects are not and should not be the only thing considered. There are important physiological considerations that, if ignored, can lead to lots of unnecessary medical complications for a combat unit operating deep in theater without access to anything other than water, gas, shrink-wrapped food, and lots of ammo (all if your lucky, I might add).

 

[Aunt Spiker]

did you miss the rest of my post?

The pure physical aspects are not and should not be the only thing considered. There are important physiological considerations that, if ignored, can lead to lots of unnecessary medical complications for a combat unit operating deep in theater without access to anything other than water, gas, shrink-wrapped food, and lots of ammo (all if your lucky, I might add).

When it comes to frontline combat units PHYSICAL ability is THE KEY component - ALL men must meet these requirements. ALL of the men. So it's just common sense for women to meet these requirements as well.

If a man can't meet these physical requirements - even if he's a stellar shot or a superior leader - he won't be there, either. . . he will be placed where his physical inabilities aren't so much of a concern.

 

[jamesrage]

You're just repeating your arguments.

Able, or able, or aBLe, or ABLE women should be in the infantry. That's if they're capable of performing the duties that the average man in the infantry can master, i.e., ABLE.

Whatever your justifications are for keeping all women out of the infantry, they are not as important as the ambitions of the able women who want in.

Unlike you I was a infantry soldier so I have way more insight about what problems of allowing women in the infantry might pose . There would be problems housing the only 1-3 females who could make the cut, how the other soldiers and chain of command would treat them and there would be problems with training them in a basic training unit. I know in liberal willy washy world equality is everything however in the real world equality is not always a must especially when other soldiers lives are on the line. The tiny amount of women who could make the cut does not justify the problems allowing them in the infantry would cause. It does not justify the military spending a **** load of cash of 200 hundred females in a infantry basic training unit cycle just to only have 1-3 women in the whole entire basic training company of that cycle pass.

 

[other]

When it comes to frontline combat units PHYSICAL ability is THE KEY component - ALL men must meet these requirements. ALL of the men. So it's just common sense for women to meet these requirements as well.

Yes. But for the 2nd time, that's not the only component. There are other considerations as well!

If a man can't meet these physical requirements - even if he's a stellar shot or a superior leader - he won't be there, either. . . he will be placed where his physical inabilities aren't so much of a concern.

Yeah, that ain't always true either. but I guess this really depends on what you consider to be a "stellar shot" and a "superior leader." And officially, the physical requirements for infantry are no different than those for any other MOS. In actuality, they tend to be much more rigorous, so training has to be adjusted to suit at the squad or platoon level.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

But front-line units are the only units that don't permit women to serve and they site physical issues as a key concern.

Thus I'm arguing that women, if they're physically equal (which is genuinely very few) should be able to serve in these units.

I'm focusing on physical because physical is the main important issue when it comes to the differences between genders - in which those few women who qualify in all other ways are merely setback because of gender-presumptions.

 

[OscarB63]

But front-line units are the only units that don't permit women to serve and they site physical issues as a key concern.

Thus I'm arguing that women, if they're physically equal (which is genuinely very few) should be able to serve in these units.

I'm focusing on physical because physical is the main important issue when it comes to the differences between genders - in which those few women who qualify in all other ways are merely setback because of gender-presumptions.

if they are physically able then they should be allowed to serve. BUT...they should be in the same living quarters as the males, same shower/latrine facilities, same EVERYTHING.

Too many times have I had to take a cold shower (or no shower) because there were 2 shower trailers and 100 men had to share one and 5 females got the other. Too many times have I had to share a 16 man tent with 30 guys so that 4-5 females could have a tent to themselves.

equality has to be a two way street or it ain't really equal.

 

[cpwill]

But front-line units are the only units that don't permit women to serve and they site physical issues as a key concern.

a key concern. the introduction of sexual issues to units that can least afford the distraction or making the exra necessary accomodations is also problematic.

 

[other]

I'm focusing on physical because physical is the main important issue when it comes to the differences between genders - in which those few women who qualify in all other ways are merely setback because of gender-presumptions.

You can't simply ignore other considerations, too. The physicality of it doesn't always even come into play. Being in the infantry is not just about going into combat. Most of the time it isn't.

 

[Mensch]

Most people aren't aware of this, but the United States women are not allowed in combat roles in the military. They are limited to non-combat roles, such as driving vehicles, establishing bases, and engineering, just to name a few. I for one am against this, I believe that women are every-bit as capable as men. Sure, most women may be physically weaker than most men, and sure it's possible they could go on their period in the middle of a mission, or a relationship may form between two soldiers, add on to that that males are often more protective of women than they are of other men, and terrorists like to torture females more than they do males (including rape and sexual abuse), plus terrorists think of women as inferior and are less likely to surrender to a female than they would a male.

Despite these "drawbacks," I'm still completely for full rights for women serving in the US military. What are your thoughts on this?

I say let the women be trained to fight in combat and enlist them in the infantry if they so wish to see combat.

 

[Mensch]

I have a question related to this thread...

All citizens of Israel are required to serve a stint in the military because the government wants all citizens to be trained in combat operations in case of an attack. I was almost going to make the argument against Maggie D's post that the types of problems she envisions do not typically occur in the Israeli forces, one of the best urban militaries in the world. I stopped short to make that argument because I'm not 100% sure if women are allowed in combat duties in Israel. Being trained for combat is slightly different than actually being allowed in combat. Does anyone know whether or not women are allowed in combat in the IDF?

 

[cpwill]

all female Marines are 'trained for combat' as individuals. this is very very very different from training for combat as units.

 

[tryreading]

Unlike you I was a infantry soldier so I have way more insight about what problems of allowing women in the infantry might pose . There would be problems housing the only 1-3 females who could make the cut, how the other soldiers and chain of command would treat them and there would be problems with training them in a basic training unit. I know in liberal willy washy world equality is everything however in the real world equality is not always a must especially when other soldiers lives are on the line. The tiny amount of women who could make the cut does not justify the problems allowing them in the infantry would cause. It does not justify the military spending a **** load of cash of 200 hundred females in a infantry basic training unit cycle just to only have 1-3 women in the whole entire basic training company of that cycle pass.

To you, the number of women able would be tiny. To you, they wouldn't be worth it.

Its good that you have no say on this issue, but just an opinion like everybody else.

 

[tryreading]

I have a question related to this thread...

All citizens of Israel are required to serve a stint in the military because the government wants all citizens to be trained in combat operations in case of an attack. I was almost going to make the argument against Maggie D's post that the types of problems she envisions do not typically occur in the Israeli forces, one of the best urban militaries in the world. I stopped short to make that argument because I'm not 100% sure if women are allowed in combat duties in Israel. Being trained for combat is slightly different than actually being allowed in combat. Does anyone know whether or not women are allowed in combat in the IDF?

During the War of Independence in 1948, women were on full combat status and assumed important combat command positions. After the war, they were no longer allowed into combat positions. They continued as trainers and provided a valuable source of training manpower. From the late 1990s onwards, they are moving back into combat positions, including flight school. The first female fighter pilot graduated in 2001. Before women were re-absorbed into combat units, there used to be a womens' corps which provides professional support and backup that was created as a parallel administrative system to the command system. It was disbanded in 2001. In its place there is a female consultant to the chief of staff.

General Information about the IDF - Israel Defense Forces


Women in Israeli Combat Units

In 1999, Israel announced that women would begin serving as combat soldiers in the year 2000. According to a plan prepared by the Israel Defense Forces, female units would serve along the Egyptian and Jordanian borders and, eventually, take on the vast majority of border patrol duty. The Carcal company, for example, is being trained to patrol the border for drug smugglers and terrorist infiltrators. This is a coed unit whose 200 female soldiers outnumber the men by 2-to-1.

In early 2000, the IDF decided to also deploy women in the artillery corps, followed by infantry units, armored divisions and elite combat units. The Navy has also decided to place women in its diving repair unit. Altogether, at the beginning of 2004, about 450 women were in combat units.

Female soldiers are supposed to be trained and responsible for the same duties as their male counterparts. Those recruited for combat units have to serve for 30 months instead of the current mandatory period for women of 21 months.

Women in Israeli Combat Units


Video:
60 Years of Women

 

[cpwill]

To you, the number of women able would be tiny. To you, they wouldn't be worth it.

Its good that you have no say on this issue, but just an opinion like everybody else.

they wouldn't be worth it. the military is one of those places where your individual rights or worth are immaterial next to the success or failure of the group.

 

[tryreading]

they wouldn't be worth it. the military is one of those places where your individual rights or worth are immaterial next to the success or failure of the group.

Okey dokey. But...that assumes the able women would not be worth it because they could not contribute to the success of the infantry. On your say-so.

Not a good basis for any decision on this important subject.

They will have to be given the opportunity to try.

 

[cpwill]

i'm not saying they couldn't contribute. i'm saying their contributions would not outweigh their costs.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Most people aren't aware of this, but the United States women are not allowed in combat roles in the military.

This is utter nonsense. About the only roles that are denied to women are serving in Infantry and Armour units (Regiment and lower). But women serve in a great many combat roles, and have for years.

For example, even in the 1980's women served in the Marines in Artillery units. They may not have actually been "cannon cockers", but they served right alongside the men that did. And in my current MOS (Air Defense), I serve with a lot of women that do my exact same job. And Air Defense (PATRIOT Missile system) is most definately a "Combat Arm" and a "Combat Role".

 

[apdst]

Most people aren't aware of this, but the United States women are not allowed in combat roles in the military. They are limited to non-combat roles, such as driving vehicles, establishing bases, and engineering, just to name a few. I for one am against this, I believe that women are every-bit as capable as men. Sure, most women may be physically weaker than most men, and sure it's possible they could go on their period in the middle of a mission, or a relationship may form between two soldiers, add on to that that males are often more protective of women than they are of other men, and terrorists like to torture females more than they do males (including rape and sexual abuse), plus terrorists think of women as inferior and are less likely to surrender to a female than they would a male.

Despite these "drawbacks," I'm still completely for full rights for women serving in the US military. What are your thoughts on this?

It's not about ability. It's about discipline, unit cohesion and hygene.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

The issue is the type of person who goes into the military, not the gender. Joan of Arc, Bodicea and Zenobia are the kind of women America needs. Not politically correct GI Janes.