Women in U.S. infantry (USMC, Rangers, etc. - merged)

[daftandbarmy]

From the Economist:

See Jane shoot

WOMEN will soon be eligible for combat positions in the American military. The Pentagon's announcement that it will overturn its rule against women serving on the front lines has drawn praise from editorial boards as an important step toward equality of the sexes. For example, the New York Times says:

The Pentagon’s decision to end its ban on women in combat is a triumph for equality and common sense. By opening infantry, artillery and other battlefield jobs to all qualified service members regardless of sex, the military is showing that categorical discrimination has no place in a society that honors fairness and equal opportunity.

Of course, not everyone is so thrilled. Allen West, an Army veteran and former Republican congressman, surely speaks for many:
GI Jane was a movie and should not be the basis for a policy shift. I know Martha McSally, have known women who are Apache and Cobra helicopter pilots, and served with women who were MPs, but being on the ground and having to go mano y mano in close combat is a completely different environment.

I completely disagree with this decision and can just imagine all the third and fourth order effects and considerations for implementation, such as standards for training. Unless the Obama administration has not noticed we are fighting against a brutal enemy and now is not the time to play a social experiment with our ground combat forces. President Obama, as Commander-in-Chief, should be focused on sequestration and the failure of his policies in the Middle East. This is the misconceived liberal progressive vision of fairness and equality which could potentially lead to the demise of our military.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/01/women-combat

 

[cupper]

And there is a reason Allan West wasn't re elected. :facepalm:

 

[Edward Campbell]

But there is a very credible opponent of women in combat, indeed of women in the military in large numbers, and he, Marten van Creveld, make his case in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Small Wars Journal:

http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/to-wreck-a-military

To Wreck a Military

by Martin van Creveld
Journal Article

January 28, 2013

In 1968, the U.S. Armed Forces numbered 3,500,000 troops. Of those, just over one percent were female. Back in 1948 Congress, by passing Public Law No. 625, had capped the number of military women at two percent of that total. Those who did wear uniforms were limited to a very small number of Military Occupation Specialties. No military woman could be deployed abroad against her will. The highest rank any woman could attain was that of colonel. However, change was in the air. As the War in Vietnam peaked, the Johnson administration feared, with very good reason, that trying to call up more men might meet with massive resistance. It might even lead to civil war. Casting about for a solution to the problem, one measure the military took was to try and attract more women. That was how the latter got their feet in the door.

The decision to admit more women proved to be the opening shot in the gender wars in the military. Supported by the courts, which consistently insisted on “equal rights,” throughout the 1970s and 1980s female service personnel demanded, and were granted, greater and greater rights. The more time passed, the less inclined the forces to resist their triumphant march and the more they tended to roll over at the first sign of a feminist demand. To note a few landmark decisions only, in 1976 the Service Academies were opened to women. In the same year, women retained the right to remain in the services even when they were pregnant and, as a consequence, unable to perform some of the jobs to which they were assigned. The 1991 Tailhook debacle represented the worst defeat of the U.S. Navy since Pearl Harbor. In the next year, President Bush's Commission for Women in Combat solemnly recommended that they not be allowed to participate in it. However, no sooner did President Clinton assume office than the decision was reversed. Women were allowed to fly combat aircraft, crew warships, and participate in ground operations down to the brigade level.

Even as the forces were feminized, they also became progressively smaller. By the time the Cold War ended, the number or troops was down to 2,050,000. Of those, about 8.5 percent were female. Later, the number of troops was cut even further, to 1,400,000. As part of the process, the share of women rose to between 16 and 17 percent. It was with this force that the U.S. went to war first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. Now that incoming Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel wants to carry out further drastic cuts, the last barriers to women’s participation in every kind of unit and activity are about to be demolished. Meanwhile, though the ratio of population to uniformed soldiers has gone down from 55:1 to 227:1, so unattractive has military service become that the forces have been reduced to recruiting tens of thousands of non-citizens. In many cases so low is their quality that, once they have been recruited, the first thing they must learn is how to read.

Looking back, clearly what we see is two long-term processes running in parallel. The first is the decline of U.S. armed forces (as well as all other Western ones, but that is not our topic here). The second is their growing feminization. Critics will object that, even as they were being downsized, the forces went through one qualitative improvement after another. In particular, the so-called “Revolution in Military Affairs” is supposed to have increased their fighting power many times over. That, however, is an illusion. To realize this, all one has to do is look at Afghanistan. Over there, “illiterate” tribesmen—not, take note, tribeswomen—are right now about to force the U.S. to withdraw its troops after a decade of effort in which they achieved hardly anything.

Are the two processes linked? You bet they are. Consider a work by two female professors, Barbara F. Reskin and Patricia A. Roos, with the title Job Queues, Gender Queues. First published in 1990, it has since been quoted no fewer than 1,274 times. As they and countless other researchers, both male and female, have shown, over time the more women that join any organization, and the more important the role they play in that organization, the more its prestige declines in the eyes of both men and women. Loss of prestige leads to diminishing economic rewards; diminishing economic rewards lead to loss of prestige. As any number of historical examples has shown, the outcome is a vicious cycle. Can anybody put forward a reason why the U.S. military should be an exception to the rule?

Are the processes welcome? That depends on your point of view. If the reason for having armed forces is to guarantee national security, then the answer is clearly no. By one count, almost one third of enlisted military women are single mothers. As a result, whatever the regulations may say, they are only deployable within limits. Adding to the problems, at any one time, one tenth of all servicewomen are certain to be pregnant. That again means that there are limits on what they can do on the job. Women are unable to compete with men when it comes to the kind of work that requires physical fitness. Those who try to do so nevertheless are almost certain to suffer a wholly disproportionate number of injuries. As a result, the part of their training troops of both sexes spend together often borders in the ridiculous and represents a gross waste of resources. Furthermore, women’s retention rate is lower than that of men on the average. As a result, bringing them to the point where they are qualified to do their jobs also represents a gross waste of resources.

Last not least, as figures from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan show, relative to their number military women are 90 percent less likely to be killed than military men. In other militaries around the world, incidentally, women’s share among the casualties is much lower still. Uniformed women, in other words, are not pulling their weight. Whether this is because public opinion will not stand for large numbers of dead servicewomen or because the women themselves have found a thousand ways to avoid going where the bullets are is immaterial. Probably both factors play a role. Instead of fighting, women get all the cushy jobs. For anyone who serves in the military, or whose livelihood depends on public approval, the prevailing climate of political correctness makes it impossible to mention the problem even in a whisper. Obviously, though, it is bound to have some effects on the morale of male personnel.

One may also look at the problem in a different way. Over the last few decades people have become accustomed to think of the feminization of the military as if it were some great and mighty step towards women’s liberation. In fact, it is nothing of the kind. For thousands, probably tens of thousands of years, we men have laid down our lives so that the women we love might live. To quote the Trojan hero Hector on this, he preferred going to hell a thousand times to seeing his wife, Andromache, weeping as she was led into captivity by one of the “copper-wearing Greeks.” Wouldn’t it be truly wonderful if the tables were turned and women started laying down their lives for us? After all, people of both sexes live in a democracy where women form a majority of the population. Why, then, shouldn’t they die in proportion to their numbers?

In fact, as the number of troops of both sexes who are killed shows only too clearly, women’s presence in the military is little but an expensive charade. True equality—equality of the kind that will make service personnel of both sexes take the same risks and suffer the same casualties—is as far away as it has ever been. Everything considered, perhaps it is better that way.

You don't have to agree with van Creveld but you do have to be able to refute his arguments with logic, not emotions.

 

[cupper]

But there is a very credible opponent of women in combat, indeed of women in the military in large numbers, and he, Marten van Creveld, make his case in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Small Wars Journal:

http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/to-wreck-a-military

You don't have to agree with van Creveld but you do have to be able to refute his arguments with logic, not emotions.

Only if he used logic first. ;D

 

[Pandora114]

If the USA opens the draft again, and includes women there will be a HUGE baby boom me thinks. 

 

[Baloo]

I was going to make a more drawn out reply to the aforementione article, however once I got to the paragraph that essentially claimed women were not pulling their weight, due to their lack of relative casualties, I tuned right out.

Prestige in reference to the military has a hell of a lot less to do with supposed feminization and more to do with modern, societal outlooks on national service or even economic conditions.

 

[armyvern]

If the USA opens the draft again, and includes women there will be a HUGE baby boom me thinks.

I think you're wrong; any woman that actually wants (aspires) to be an infanteer and whom meets/exceeds the minimum ability to do that job will, most probably, react the exact same as her male counterparts whom want to do that job ... meet with, close and destroy the enemy; it's exactly what they've trained to do their whole careers and what they willing to do and is what they also excel at doing ... else they'd not have volunteered for that job in the first place.

 

[Pandora114]

Yeah but not all women do. Therefore if they start drafting women be prepared to see a huge baby boom.  You cannot turn down a draft notice. 

I was talking about a conscription/draft scenario, not a voluntary service one.

 

[MikeL]

If you are conscripted, you don't have to go into a combat arms MOS.  Plus the US hasn't had a draft since Vietnam.

As well there are legal ways of avoiding conscription(for males/females),  such as attending school,  your current employment, age, etc.  Even more in a country such as Israel.  So if a draft ever were to happen,  there may not be a "baby boom" with numbers of women getting pregnant just to avoid service.  It wouldn't just be a % of women trying to avoid it,  there would also be a % of men as well.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I think you're wrong; any woman that actually wants (aspires) to be an infanteer and whom meets/exceeds the minimum ability to do that job will, most probably, react the exact same as her male counterparts whom want to do that job ... meet with, close and destroy the enemy; it's exactly what they've trained to do their whole careers and what they willing to do and is what they also excel at doing ... else they'd not have volunteered for that job in the first place.

Unfortunately guys can be quite immature and can have the attitude that even when a woman performs above standard physically, mentally and skill wise at the end of the day "they're still a woman".
One can be cavalier about it but being made the outsider of any team will wear down even the most stubborn soldier, male or female.

 

[armyvern]

But there is a very credible opponent of women in combat, indeed of women in the military in large numbers, and he, Marten van Creveld, make his case in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Small Wars Journal:

http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/to-wreck-a-military

You don't have to agree with van Creveld but you do have to be able to refute his arguments with logic, not emotions.

I'll do my best; my comments/observations in yellow:

To Wreck a Military

by Martin van Creveld
Journal Article

January 28, 2013
...

The decision to admit more women proved to be the opening shot in the gender wars in the military. Supported by the courts, which consistently insisted on “equal rights,” throughout the 1970s and 1980s female service personnel demanded, and were granted, greater and greater rights. The more time passed, the less inclined the forces to resist their triumphant march and the more they tended to roll over at the first sign of a feminist demand. (The use of the word "feminist" in relation to even basic, mundane jobs within the military being available to women way back when indicates the author has a chauvinistic slant - perhaps more aptly believing that we should be home in the kitchen and not employed anywhere in the military). To note a few landmark decisions only, in 1976 the Service Academies were opened to women. In the same year, women retained the right to remain in the services even when they were pregnant and, as a consequence, were temporarilyunable to perform some of the jobs to which they were assigned exactly as their male counterparts would sometimes be temporarily unable to perform jobs to which they were assigned due to medical injuries etc. The 1991 Tailhook debacle represented the worst defeat of the U.S. Navy since Pearl Harbor and was not related to their being women in the service, but rather occurred precisely because of unprofessional conduct by both sexes.  To be clear, if women were not serving in the military at the time of this scandal, the females involved would simply have been of the civilian-picked-up-from-the-bar-during Fleet Week persuasion.. In the next year, President Bush's Commission for Women in Combat solemnly recommended that they not be allowed to participate in it. However, no sooner did President Clinton assume office than the decision was reversed. Not unlike a Prime Minister cancelling, say, a helicoper project that was began by his predecessors upon his election --- this is called politics and is not gender-based.Women were allowed to fly combat aircraft, crew warships, and participate in ground operations down to the brigade level. And, the sky did not fall.

Even as the forces were femenized (there's the use of that word yet again.  I am far from a feminist nor do I know any serving in the CF), they also became progressively smaller (downsizing due to the fall of communism, shrinking economies and budgets, not downsizing due to females being amongst those serving.  Absolutely irrelevant and non topic-related). By the time the Cold War ended, the number or troops was down to 2,050,000. Of those, about 8.5 percent were female. Later, the number of troops was cut even further, to 1,400,000. (So, here we have an admission of the why the shrinking occurred and a smaller force was seen as "OK" <--- the walls came tumbling down.)As part of the process, the share of women rose to between 16 and 17 percent. It was with this force that the U.S. went to war first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. Now that incoming Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel wants to carry out further drastic cuts, the last barriers to women’s participation in every kind of unit and activity are about to be demolished. Meanwhile, though the ratio of population to uniformed soldiers has gone down from 55:1 to 227:1, so unattractive has military service become that the forces have been reduced to recruiting tens of thousands of non-citizens. In many cases so low is their quality that, once they have been recruited, the first thing they must learn is how to read. So, apparently the downsizing is confirmed as not being related to females being employed in combat roles because in his last sentence he admits that the ratio is already down per capita ... and females are yet to be allowed to serve in direct combat roles.  Less men joining because more women are in his inferrence?  I doubt that to be the case - the ratio is down precisely because of the earlier mentioned post cold-war downsizing and shrinking budgets.  The number of teachers per student is also down on civvie street due to shrinking economy; I suppose that too could be women's faults in his reasoning.

Looking back, clearly what we see is two long-term processes running in parallel. The first is the decline of U.S. armed forces (as well as all other Western ones, but that is not our topic here). The second is their growing feminization. Three times! IUt is a word that clearly is at the top of his "frequently used" words vocabulary. Critics will object that, even as they were being downsized, the forces went through one qualitative improvement after another. In particular, the so-called “Revolution in Military Affairs” is supposed to have increased their fighting power many times over. That, however, is an illusion. To realize this, all one has to do is look at Afghanistan. Over there, “illiterate” tribesmen—not, take note, tribeswomen—are right now about to force the U.S. to withdraw its troops after a decade of effort in which they achieved hardly anything.  Ahhhh yes, their tribeswomen were merely home cooking each day none ever became a suicide bomber, none ever his an active member of Al Qaida in the adobe, none could outright be employed anywhere outside the home in any type of wage-earning job; is he really inferring here that we western women should be at home cooking too just as Afghani tribeswomen were doing?

Are the two processes linked? You bet they are. Consider a work by two female professors, Barbara F. Reskin and Patricia A. Roos, with the title Job Queues, Gender Queues. First published in 1990, it has since been quoted no fewer than 1,274 times. As they and countless other researchers, both male and female, have shown, over time the more women that join any organization, and the more important the role they play in that organization, the more its prestige declines in the eyes of both men and women. Loss of prestige leads to diminishing economic rewards; diminishing economic rewards lead to loss of prestige. As any number of historical examples has shown, the outcome is a vicious cycle. Can anybody put forward a reason why the U.S. military should be an exception to the rule?  Any loss of prestige within the Canadian Forces was caused by liberal-politics and defence-neglect during the Decade of Darkness and our nation's fall from the world stage; we are starting to get that prestige back now; it had nothing to do with the fact that we have women serving in our military or in direct-combat roles.  Again, an off-topic and irrelevant point.

Are the processes welcome? That depends on your point of view. If the reason for having armed forces is to guarantee national security, then the answer is clearly no. I can guarantee you that I may be women, but I will throw my ass on the line and directly in front of you should you try to cross our border in a hostile manner; given the sheer differences in numbers, I am also quite sure it would be a futile effort on my part, but to infer that no female would rise up in the interest of national security should the shit hit the fan is absurd.  Our women have already proven that we will stand by, beside and support our men and other women when the situation requires us to' national pride and a desire and will to defend is NOT limited to the male sex. By one count, almost one third of enlisted military women are single mothers. I have 1 single mother and three single fathers working for me. So what?As a result, whatever the regulations may say, they are only deployable within limits (they aren't restricted here in Canada ... and neither are the single fathers). Adding to the problems, at any one time, one tenth of all servicewomen are certain to be pregnant I have 11 females - none pregnant; for every pregnant female, there is also a male who is an expectant parent). That again means that there are limits on what they can do on the job (No, not "again" - you've brought this up before; men break legs and and are also temporarily unavailable to perform all their tasks. I know of no man in the CF who has been 100% available 100% of the time. Women are unable to compete with men when it comes to the kind of work that requires physical fitness. Indeed, some women are unable to compete exactly as some men are unable to compete; that is why the minimal standard required to do "those" jobs must remain and not be degraded down.  If a woman can't hack it, then she doesn't make the cut; exactly as now occurs with men who can't meet that standard. Those who try to do so nevertheless are almost certain to suffer a wholly disproportionate number of injuries. Not in my 25 years of experience they aren't.  They suffer no more higher a rate of injuries than their male counterparts.As a result, the part of their training troops of both sexes spend together often borders in the ridiculous and represents a gross waste of resources. Furthermore, women’s retention rate is lower than that of men on the average. As a result, bringing them to the point where they are qualified to do their jobs also represents a gross waste of resources. You are expending the resources regardless of the sex of the candidate; 20 males or 19 males/1 female.  If 1 female is a waste of your resources, then so is 1 male; it costs no more to train a woman than a man.  As for the retention rate, this has also not been my experience in the CF;  then again, our culture here is completely different than that of the US military.  We seemed to have moved on since the days of "barefoot" dreams of women relegated to the kitchen;  our sky has not fallen.  It is not an issue, is not treated as an issue we are treated as competent and equal.  perhaps more of that in the US military will see those women who are trained actually wanting to stay in an environment that is not a poisonous workplace.

Last not least, as figures from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan show, relative to their number military women are 90 percent less likely to be killed than military men. And yet, women fill, today, absolutely 0% of your direct-combat jobs, but are only 90% less likely to die.  Anyone worth their salt on military statistics will be able to attest to the mere fact that the infantry suffers the highest percentage of deaths in a ground war.  Does this mean the other percentages are NOT pulling their weight? No, it means they have different roles and lower direct risk to start with.  I bet if he quoted statistics on downed Blackhawks/Apaches (where their women can serve)... he'd see the ratio of male and female causalities in those downings to be representative of the actual sex-based numbers serving in those positions overseas.  In other militaries around the world, incidentally, women’s share among the casualties is much lower still. Uniformed women, in other words, are not pulling their weight. Actually, comparatively speaking, the CF lost a proportional number of female soldiers in Afghanistan to the overall number of women who served outside the wire on patrols etc. Whether this is because public opinion will not stand for large numbers of dead servicewomen or because the women themselves have found a thousand ways to avoid going where the bullets are is immaterial. A thousand ways to avoid the bullets?  It's not immaterial; they can't die when you won't allow them into the bullet's path with their brothers-in-arms.  What an insult to the US service women who have been feeld by bullets, IEDs, and a myriad of other means whilst proudly, and honourably, serving their country overseas in Afghaistan (guess they couldn't figure out any "one of your thousand ways"). Probably both factors play a role. Instead of fighting, women get all the cushy jobs. (Such a BS soundbite; if it were up to you, they'd have no jobs in the military ... not even the "cushy" jobs you find it so self-generous to allow them to perform now.  Do not bitch when they get "all the cushy jobs" when it is precisely attitudes such as yours that strives to keep them only employed in those "cushy" jobs - way to contradict yourself.)For anyone who serves in the military, or whose livelihood depends on public approval, the prevailing climate of political correctness makes it impossible to mention the problem even in a whisper. Obviously, though, it is bound to have some effects on the morale of male personnel.Yes, morale here sucks; it has for 25 years ... thanks to us women making the Canadian sky fall in.

One may also look at the problem in a different way. Over the last few decades people have become accustomed to think of the feminization (4 times; not even going to dignify this with a response)of the military as if it were some great and mighty step towards women’s liberation. In fact, it is nothing of the kind. For thousands, probably tens of thousands of years, we men have laid down our lives so that the women we love might live. I'm heading back into the kitchen.To quote the Trojan hero Hector on this, he preferred going to hell a thousand times to seeing his wife, Andromache, weeping as she was led into captivity by one of the “copper-wearing Greeks.” Wouldn’t it be truly wonderful if the tables were turned and women started laying down their lives for us? They are trying to and yet you are attempting to stop them from being allowed to do so while whining that they are not. Make up your mind already; piss or get off the pot.After all, people of both sexes live in a democracy where women form a majority of the population. Why, then, shouldn't they die in proportion to their numbers? Let them in, let them serve in roles they are capable of serving in and, I bet, they do your nation proud; it's already been proven.

In fact, as the number of troops of both sexes who are killed shows only too clearly, women’s presence in the military is little but an expensive charade. True equality—equality of the kind that will make service personnel of both sexes take the same risks and suffer the same casualties—is as far away as it has ever been. Everything considered, perhaps it is better that way.  Ahhh; the final confirmation; what we have here is a male chauvinist who wants all us women folk home in the kitchen while he protects us.  As stated, females presence "in the military is an expensive charade" - note he did not use "combat roles".  His rant has nothing to do with keeping women out of combat, it is all about his wanting us in the home. He has outed himself in his last para (like the word "feminist" being so prominent throughout wasn't a clue of what was coming ...)

Please forgive me for not viewing this gentlemen as a "credible" opponent; he is simply a chauvinist who is attempting his own charade.

 

[armyvern]

Unfortunately guys can be quite immature and can have the attitude that even when a woman performs above standard physically, mentally and skill wise at the end of the day "they're still a woman".
One can be cavalier about it but being made the outsider of any team will wear down even the most stubborn soldier, male or female.

I'd agree, but that doesn't make it a female problem/fault.  It simply makes the offender an asshole whether their targeted person be male or female.  There is no excuse for this attitude, and any fellow soldier who excuses its occurrence without correcting it actually assists in the breeding of that attitude and needs to give themselves a good lookover in the ethical mirror.  Don't be the guy that shrugs it off as, "oh well, 'tis the way it is".

In schoolyards, we call that bullying.  Anyone who sees this occurring should stop it from occurring (the professional thing to do).  Full Stop.

 

[cupper]

I'll do my best; my comments/observations in yellow:
Please forgive me for not viewing this gentlemen as a "credible" opponent; he is simply a chauvinist who is attempting his own charade.

I would have just pointed out the fact that they are already participating in combat situations makes the whole point a moot technicality.

 

[Journeyman]

NOT commenting on the topic, merely the logic

I would have just pointed out the fact that they are already participating in combat situations makes the whole point a moot technicality.

If there was a discussion on eliminating Obstetricians, would you respond "untrained people have delivered babies; it's a moot point"?

Merely being in a "combat situation" does not make one an infanteer; there's actually a few more bits to the job.

 

[Jarnhamar]

NOT commenting on the topic, merely the logic
If there was a discussion on eliminating Obstetricians, would you respond "untrained people have delivered babies; it's a moot point"?

Merely being in a "combat situation" does not make one an infanteer; there's actually a few more bits to the job.

Great point.

 

[PanaEng]

I was going to make a more drawn out reply to the aforementione article, however once I got to the paragraph that essentially claimed women were not pulling their weight, due to their lack of relative casualties, I tuned right out.

Prestige in reference to the military has a hell of a lot less to do with supposed feminization and more to do with modern, societal outlooks on national service or even economic conditions.

I was just going to say that.
Moreover, many of his assertions on numbers, while mathematically correct, are statistically biased; like the percentage of women killed in combat - how many of the woman he lumps in the sample were actually in combat units?
Errors like that make the article worthless - regardless of what the very much respected Mr  Campbell may say.

Chimo!
Frank

 

[Infanteer]

Agree with panaeng et al that the article isn't very good.

Van Crevald has written on the history of the IDF on a few occasions over the course of his long career.  He has often been critical of the use of women by the IDF, so this article is just another in what seems to be a hobby horse of his that mars what is otherwise a stellar career on putting out very useful writings on war and warfare.

He implies causation between feminization and reduction in overall numbers (while ignoring other factors - end of draft in the States?).  He uses some obscure book to talk stats about prestige.  He trots out the same old laments that we've heard for the last 30 years.  The world has moved on (rather than ended), a very small percentage of women are joining the combat arms if they wish to and some are even being awarded decorations for valour.  Martin Van Crevald needs to move on.

 

[Biggoals2bdone]

I hate to break up all the warm and fuzzies, but I have to.

Everyone says oh well we've gone through this issue and were done with it and look how well we did.

I think we did and are still doing piss poor on the integration of women in the forces.

I can't count how many times women at work have gotten out of doing stuff at work because to heavy, or that's a man's job or whatever, or gotten off work because of bad periods or silly stuff like that.

and the other major gripe...STANDARDS...it is complete BS that a woman who has to do the same job as me, is not held to the same standard.

and yes I do feel that when we're a group of guys we have a certain dynamic, throw a woman in the mix and that dynamic is completely upset, and ruined.

Not to say I haven't met some women (probably 2-3) who could hold their own and etc...but I have found that to be an exception and not a regular happening.

 

[Strike]

I think we did and are still doing piss poor on the integration of women in the forces.

I would say it's more an issue of integrating men to working with women other than their wives if your post is anything to go on.

I can't count how many times women at work have gotten out of doing stuff at work because to heavy, or that's a man's job or whatever, or gotten off work because of bad periods or silly stuff like that.

See my comment above.  So, you're going to penalize a woman because a man is too much of a chicken to call the woman on (what you perceive to be) her laziness?  Do you also believe it's a woman's fault if she gets raped because she was dressing provocatively?

and the other major gripe...STANDARDS...it is complete BS that a woman who has to do the same job as me, is not held to the same standard.

What standard is that?  Is that the one where a woman usually has to perform twice as well as a man to get half the recognition?  Remember, the express test is not a measure of someone's ability to do a job.

and yes I do feel that when we're a group of guys we have a certain dynamic, throw a woman in the mix and that dynamic is completely upset, and ruined.

Is that the dynamic of watching porn in the wardroom and hanging up pictures of naked women in the office?  How does having to watch your language and temper your jokes negatively affect your combat effectiveness?

Not to say I haven't met some women (probably 2-3) who could hold their own and etc...but I have found that to be an exception and not a regular happening.

I could say the same about a whack load of men I've had to work with.

 

[cupper]

If there was a discussion on eliminating Obstetricians, would you respond "untrained people have delivered babies; it's a moot point"?

Your response is a false equivalency. First no one is calling for elimination of Combat Arms, but expanding those who would be eligible to enter the trades. Second, the untrained people that end up delivering babies are typically forced into that situation because there is no trained person around at the time of delivery. Not to mention the fact that people gave birth long before the development of medical practices and procedures.

Merely being in a "combat situation" does not make one an infanteer; there's actually a few more bits to the job.

Really? I never would have figured that if you hadn't pointed it out.  :sarcasm:


DOD had a ban on women holding combat arms positions. The point of the ban was to keep women from combat.

War has changed. There is now no real front line or defined area of combat.

DOD relaxed its preclusion of women in certain trades where they could come into combat situations.

Women have been involved in direct combat due to the positions they were assigned. The position may not be a direct combat position, but through workarounds in the system, they were attached to combat units.

The author essentially says that putting women in combat positions should not be done. It's already being done. Ergo, a moot point.


Just as an aside, did anyone else thing that every time the author used the word "feminization" what he really meant was "pansification"?