See, I have a big problem with this whole line of thinking. You aren't talking about a doctor's office. You aren't talking about a normal job where all of the normal human thought processes and higher brain functions are 100% at work all of the time. You're talking about combat. You're talking about people getting shot at, hurt and killed, forced into situations where you must make split-second gut-level decisions without the time or ability to process them fully. You're talking about scenarios where peoples' lives are relying on themselves and those around them to make these choices. I'm not in the military, and I don't feel qualified to make a judgement on this topic. But to say, "gosh guys, if a woman can be a doctor, then..." is just completely naive. This isn't a normal workplace. It doesn't matter if you think that guys should be able to repress some negative basal urges. If they can't, people are going to die. Wagging your finger and saying, "well you shouldn't look at her ass" doesn't fix that.
As long as a woman has had the proper training and can perform all of the same duties as her male counterparts, she should be permitted to defend her country next to the boys. I doubt that many will be able to perform the same given the differences already mentioned, size being the biggest factor. I really hope there aren't too many concessions made for women to qualify because lives are on the line, making an "equality statement" is no reason to be risking military operations. As for the imagined response to a dead soldier who happens to be female, while I realize many will take it "harder" than if it were a man, it seems silly that it really makes a difference. The life lost was still someone's child, still a sacrifice made for a cause. It should weigh the same, whether male or female.
Issues of gender roles and equality aside, I just don't see the military benefit to inserting such Very High Value targets into the combat theater. Been a while since the last beheading video, are we ready for the next?
I'm not so sure this is a good idea. Combat is difficult enough the way it is, the last thing we need to do is throw bears in the mix.
Nor have you ever been. Until someone that was (like I was)in the military, contradicts me saying that the girls I've served with with weapons are inferior, your opinion doesn't fucking count
She already can--just not in the infantry, SOF, armor, etc. Men and women aren't the same. There WILL be, though. It's a foregone conclusion.
Get off your high horse. That whole post was respectful of the fact that the opinion was qualified due to the lack of service. Going along those lines, why should your opinion count? You've never experienced the situation that this legislation brings up.
Did you read my post, dickhead? My entire point was only that standing back and saying ridiculous things like "women can be doctors" or "control yourself" doesn't apply to life-or-death combat situations. I didn't say women are inferior. I didn't even say they shouldn't serve in combat situations. I said that there's an incredibly spurious line of reasoning that is frequently used in these arguments, and it's a pile of bullshit. "Be nice, boys" works in virtually every job on the planet, but not in situations where you're essentially reduced to your survival instincts.
If combat jobs are now going to be open to women to create an even playing field, then the equality shouldn't stop there. Make the PT standards equal across the board as well. If women are trying to serve as a man, then they need to pass the same tests.
Is there some sort of double post glitch on this thread? Anyway, I am more interested in the ramifications of a female POW's rape pregnancies then seeing a woman come home in a body bag.
Quals to be talking on the subject: Active Army in a largely male division (82ABN) in an all male MOS 19D (Cavalry Scout) Discussing this topic by and large is going to lead nowhere until we hear how each Chief of Service is going to implement this policy. May 15th is going to tell us if these females will be walking into a recruiters office signing an 18X contract, or if the can can sit behind a desk as some ADA computer whiz instead. I've deployed with female attachments. By and large they were a distraction and nuisance that had to be dealt with, not openly welcomed for their specific skillsets. Missions had to be altered to accommodate them. We'd have to shorten patrols, carry their shit for em, take pink dangly shit off their kit that they thought was cute. Would slow the movement back cause they were tired and couldn't keep up. On our small COP as well as the sister COP for our Squadron had several Sexual Harassment claims that stemmed from the same problematic females. It got to the point by the end of the deployment they were only used to escort locals around the COP kitchen work and admin help. Saying they engage in combat regardless of their job is a misnomer. Combat is thrust upon them. They don't actively patrol looking for it. There is a difference that top brass doesn't seem to grasp. I see this as a few things: 1. Females will be allowed to work below the Brigade level but at "combat" jobs like Fires Control, Engineer type jobs, ADA, or the like. But the reality of an integrated Infantry/Cavalry/Armor/SOF is just not going to happen. 2. DEFSEC is adding a pretty big bullet point to his resume despite him leaving in a month or so. 3. This will serve as a big enough distraction to the pro gun supporters that their attention will be shifted enough for some legislation to get passed while their heads are turned. 4. the 11/19/18 CMF will remain 100% male and will continue to be for the long term.
Have any of you guys ever seen a Kiowa Warrior in combat? Google up a video of one providing air support. The copilots leaning out and firing M4s? Landing in the middle of a battle and tossing ammo to the guys on the ground? There are women who pilot Kiowas in theatre. My only concern, which has been raised already, are standards. So long as the overall ability of the unit isn't suffering (lowered standards), I don't see it as an issue.
As a disclaimer, I have never served in any branch of the US military, but five years in the Swedish army. From reading the two pages in the thread, it's quite obvious that there are significant cultural differences between the two which will de-legitimize my opinions somewhat, but at the end of the day people are people and combat is combat. I've served with women all five years in the army including on deployment in Afghanistan, in a combat role. For me, this is a non-issue. There are requirements, both physical and mental, that have to met in order to be selected for a combat role, and if an individual meets those, they are eligible. Assuming that most women do not reach the requirements needed for combat roles should not disqualify the women who do reach those requirements. Just to address some points: I can't imagine that this would be an issue "in the field", so I assume you mean on camp / FOB / whatever. On all US camps or on camps where there has been a US contingent that I have been at there have been plenty of (US) servicewomen. If this is an issue at all, it already is. We're back at requirements. If Sarah does not meet the physical standard required, then she should not have the job. Same as any man. Secondly, if it turns out that the requirements during training at home were not good enough for the "next war" as you put it, I can guarantee you that there would be just as many men that wouldn't hack it. In a military of any size, there are going to be men that only just reach the requirements. Not every man is a tank. I have been showering / shitting / pissing in front of women just as they have in front of me since day one of starting my military service. This is also a non-issue. Sure, there were a lot of nervous, uncomfortable and awkward moments at first, but by week two, it wasn't anything you thought about. You have others things more important to think about. As for units which actively work behind the forward line, there are certainly some groups that do not take kindly to women serving. These groups generally don't take kindly to the men they are fighting either. I've addressed a few points, I'm sure I've missed some or will get called out on my response, but I'd like to reiterate the cultural difference as well. There are many misogynists in the Swedish army, don't get me wrong, just as there are racists. There are times when I see the equality factor coming into effect, which can be frustrating. But it's considered completely normal for women to serve in combat roles in the military, which I think (in a decade or so) it will be in the US as well if this goes through. And having women in your unit brings positives as well, in terms of group dynamics at home and on deployment. In fact, having women in combat roles gave a direct positive effect on deployment in terms of humint. A kid or woman (in any culture, really) might be afraid to talk to a big, bearded, scary man, but will more than likely talk to a woman, despite the SAW in her hands.
I am not in the military, so I wasn't going to post anything, but then I saw some worrisome parallels. A lot of the arguments people are making against allowing women to even try out for certain positions, a lot of them are in essence similar to arguments I was hearing in my home country against female surgeons. It's not such a big deal in the US, but back at home I was told girls are too emotional to handle split second decisions, too slow to react in time to save the patient, too weak to be working 100 hours a week/30 hour shifts with no sleep, too small to be operating in 20lb lead aprons, manipulating heavy surgical instruments and heavy patients, too weak to be doing 16 hour surgeries without a break to pee/eat/sit, and I could go on. Fuck that shit, I thought, and I moved to the US at 18. And let me tell you, the American female surgeons I know are BADASS. There isn't that many of them - because unlike people were arguing back at home, there are no 'quota' for female surgeons, and I'm sure there will be no 'quota' for female soldiers. The requirements for male and female surgeons are the same, and there are not that many girls that want these jobs. But for those that do, and are as qualified as their male counterparts, why stop them? When I interviewed for my job, I was often the only girl in group of 20 guys, interviewed by mostly men. And I got my job not because of some stupid quota some of you are so worried about, but because I was not only as good as those guys, I was actually better. And I'm certain there's some super badass girls that deserve to be at least able to try out for certain positions. And if they are equally as good as the guys, LET THEM SERVE. TLDR: Not all girls wear high heels, cry every 5 minutes, and need your protection from the big, bad world. Some girls are badass. Deal with it, move on, let them try out and see if they can really do it, and stop trying to 'protect' them. Look at your arguments against women in the military, and notice how many are just sweeping misogynistic generalizations. 30 years from now noone will even think twice about this.
Again, let's make this perfectly clear- you cannot compare being a surgeon to being on the front lines of combat. The patient isn't trying to surgery you back. This debate was "women can't do things gud as guyz" for about 3 minutes. It's not the issue.
Active duty Marine in a POG (5954 - radio tech) MOS. I did combat training with women. It was bad. Really, really bad. Hilariously bad. We had forty-pound loads on. Rifle, SAPI plates, helmet, canteens of water, and a backpack that had assorted stuff in it. Basically, nothing. That's a basic assault load. We had about forty women in our platoon. Of those forty, there were five who managed to keep up. The rest of them got shit out the back of the platoon. One of our sergeants kept up the chorus of "You're not gonna make it! No, you're not gonna make it" the entire time to the tune of Twisted Sister, and it was hilarious. The problem was that they were tiny. I'm 195 pounds and about 5'10". A forty-pound pack is nothing; I can powerwalk almost indefinitely with it. The average woman was about 130 pounds and 5'4". We were marching quickly, and they were sprinting. The few women who kept up? They were bigger - 155, 160 pounds. They did fine... at first. The thing is, combat training was a month long. And we didn't have any breaks the whole time. We hiked about ten miles a day. And while it wasn't really that difficult for the guys, the women got FUCKED up. We medically separated (kicked out) almost a quarter of them, just in combat training. When I got to MOS school, most of the women I went there with got put on light duty for stress fractures. Hips, shins, knees, feet. They just had tiny frames, and their bodies couldn't stand the (relatively insubstantial) abuse. Anecdote that is amusing but doesn't have much to do with my argument itself: Spoiler The last days of combat training are a "culmination exercise." Half of it is spent on a Forward Operating Base, responding to attacks, standing guard duty, etc. The other half is spent patrolling, going through MOUT operations, and, best of all, taking a building and spending the night defending it from the instructors. We took one building, the females took another. We all had blanks, took up defensive positions in the windows, and took potshots whenever the instructors came close. Unfortunately, this was St. Patrick's Day. The instructors got shithoused and spent the entire night fucking with us in hilarious fashion. Their favorite tactic was to distract us with a diversion and then have a guy with an M249 come from the opposite direction, bust down the door, and spray blanks into the room while laughing raucously. We figured it out very quickly and almost killed the drunk guy who tried to come in. He went "Shit! Chill out!" and left. They then went off to bother the females. The females weren't very good at it. They did it again... and again... and again... and again... and again. I'm sure that they were all deaf by the end, because firing an M249 is fucking LOUD, especially in an enclosed space. Every twenty minutes or so, we'd hear screams, maniacal laughter, and the sound of a belt-fed machinegun going off. Once they'd sorta figured that out, the instructors started doing a new tactic - create a diversion and then ninja into the building and grab unsecured rifles. It didn't work for us, since we kept half of our guys posted at all times and ended up beating the shit out of one guy who tried to climb through a window. So they went to the females. These idiots only had about three people awake; the rest went to sleep... and left their rifles out! So they'd sneak in, take a rifle, and slip out. Later, around two in the morning, the instructors yelled, "Anyone who's missing a rifle, get out here!" They then lined them up, blindfolded them, and had a mock execution. Probably the funniest thing I've ever watched, especially since a lot of them were crying. Oh, and the next day, we found out that they were too scared to go to the Portashitter next to their building, (always turned into a mini-firefight) so they all just shit and pissed in the corner. Fucking disgusting. Now, infantry is about three times as nasty. That forty-pound load just got turned into a seventy-pound load, since you're carrying ammo instead of having it being trucked out to the ranges. And not only that, you get to grab your share of the platoon's gear - mortar plates, M240s, mortar tubes, ammo for said machineguns, (Here, have 600 rounds of 7.62. Have fun!) radios, radio batteries... The average load for an infantryman is above a hundred pounds. No way. No way in hell. You are not going to give even a cock-diesel hard-charging Amazon lady a seventy-pound pack and a fucking M240B and tell her to walk ten miles with it. It's just not going to happen. I can elaborate with the differences when it actually comes to fighting, (I've fought women for martial arts training. They're puny, weak, and give up very quickly. No fighting spirit at all) but the physical differences alone are enough for me to say Fuck No to putting women in combat arms. I have no problem with women being in the pog side of things, though. My job isn't physical at all, and there are women here who are very, very good at it. Edit: Here's a much more lengthy essay on women in combat. The Amazon's Right Breast
Have you held down a 300lb combative man while the anesthesiologist is trying to put him under? But in all seriousness, then if the argument isn't "women can't possibly do it because they ALL are too small/emotional/etc," then what is the argument? That guys can't possibly learn to work with women? That if a soldier dies in combat, it is more sad if it is a woman? That when they torture a woman more, it hurts her more? I am confused.
<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichola_Goddard" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichola_Goddard</a>
One more point to make. A fair amount of points have been made about saying, "Well, fine. The vast majority of women are totally ill-equipped for combat. But what about the one-in-a-million Olympic-caliber woman? Shouldn't she get the chance?" From the essay I posted the link to: I'll close with a quote from Orwell: