Another thread in Gen Dis made me think about this topic. Of course, it's a done deal for the most part in the US military. But we're getting enough experience to be able to discuss whether it should have been done in the first place.
I don't know if the military's own think-tankers are looking at this; maybe it's settled that we will continue the Fabian creep toward complete non-distinction in gender roles in combat. But I am still not convinced it's a good idea, or even necessary.
First, I object to how women-in-combat (wic) came about (I will speak as to the US): advocacy groups brought political pressure to bear so as to help accomplish broader cultural goals as a whole. The "women's movement" (it just kills me that a small minority of vocal and extreme sexual warriors have the effrontery to claim to speak for an entire gender) used this issue as one of many to bring what they called "equality" to US society in general. They framed it as some issue affecting the personal civil rights of a woman who wanted a career in the military,and not on how wic might negatively impact our national defense or culture.
To the wic proponents, combat was the only way women could rise to top rank in the military, and until they could join men in combat roles, the military's "glass-ceiling" would stop even wonderfully capable women from rising above one-star level in administrative commands.
Many asked, "And exactly what would be wrong with that?". To the sexual warriors, all else must bow to "equality" for women. They assume that if men and women aren't treated exactly alike, don't have precisely the same opportunities, and don't get the same results as men, then some sort of evil and illegal prejudice must be at work. Nature and reality seem not to count for much with these sorts.
There were many inside and out of the military who looked at the likely consequences of wic, and had objections. First, general suitability of women for the physical rigors of combat. Would physical or training standards be lowered or custom-made so that women could succeed? What would the effect of mixed-sex units be on morale and combat efficiency? What about pregnancies and combat readiness? Jealousy and sexual rivalries? Women as POWs?
Such questions are asked by persons who don't automatically assume a women is just a man without a penis. Such persons know there are immense physical, natural and inherent distinctions between the sexes. We are finding more every day: physical differences in the brains of men and women; neurological differences in how each sex processes information and nerve signals; differences in how well men and women, as a sex, can handle mathematic, geometric, directional and spatial concepts. And that doesn't even begin to determine questions of inherent emotional differences.
There were cultural questions as well: what will wic do to the women themelves; what changes will it generate in society and culture; what happens to their children; why we need to do this? Such questions were brushed off or ignored by the militant feminists who pushed for wic.
So because of steady and strong political pressure, the armed services were orderd to integrate women into traditonal men's roles. We got a gradual slidng of women into combat. At first they weren't even allowed within a certain distance of combat, and then they let women fly transports and medevacs in combat zones; and then helicopter gunships; finally one or two as actual fighter jocks (IIRC); and now women riding in convoys in Tal A'Far.
What do we have to show for it? Well, the services don't like to talk about it, but a disturbing number of women in combat units wind up getting pregnant while on active duty in a combat zone, and thus become medically unfit and must be shipped home. The number of pregnacies oif women on ships is very high. We're starting to see women looking at the miltary as just another job track, and they get into it to use it for economic advantage while times are good, but look for ways to bail when they get activated or sent into combat. (There were numerous instances of women in reserve or national guard units who got pregnant immediately after they got orders to activate.) There are also instances of mothers and fathers both having been activated, leaving their children with relatives or friends.
Another thing the miltary hasn't talked too much about is the sexual violation of the women who have been taken prisoner in the Middle East. Whether outright rape and sodomy or other sexual abuse, it has occured at a vastly higher rate than for male prisoners. It's a fact that the militant feminists who pushed for wic don't want to take responsibility for, or even talk about. Bottom line is, if you're a female soldier, and you're taken prisoner in a Third World nation, you stand about a 10,000-to-1 greater chance of being raped or sodomized than a male POW.
What about in the units themselves? There's no question that women are physically at the bottom pf the military's physical requirements (which in some cases were reduced so that more women could qualify). There's a reason for those requirements. Even living in the field for more than a few days is very difficult, carrying at least 60 pounds of gear on your back, living on what you can carry. Combat is far more difficult; you have to run long; you have to jump high, lift people or things, carry not only your stuff but your buddy's...or your buddy himself. Some women can do this, and a few can even do better than some men. But by and large, they don't do it nearly as well as men. And when they don't, someone has to take up their slack, carry their load, do their job...take their bullet.
It has been a luxury for this country ot have had an all-volunteer miltary. It has resulted in a cadre (IIRC the Army has only 11 active divisions - that's tiny) of very highly-motivated, very comeptent and professional soldiers, sailors and airmen who comprise the most capable military in histroy to this point. But it is a luxury we afford only becasue of a huge outlay of funds for technology and equipment, and because we have waged very low-level wars since the policy's inception. The problem comes when our country faces an imminent major military threat (think China or a full-scale Mid-East war).
In such circumstances a draft and vastly expanded military will be mandatory (a very good argument can be made that it should never have been been abolished, since we now have two generations of Americans who tend to believe military service is supposed to be optional in all circumstances, and not a few who believe they have no duty to serve if called.) And if that happens, we'll be in danger of drafting women just as men, with no distinction. Which will put is in the same category as China, the USSR, North Korera and North Vietnam. There's full "equality" for you. I fully expect that if that happens, some young men will have not the least shame in arguing, "Hey, why should women stay of I have to go?".
Seems to me the whole wic phenomenon was created for political reasons, has created far more chaos and problems than it has helped, and should be reversed.Anybody else? What are your thoughts? For those who support it, I would like them to tell me what advantage there has been for the country.
Reminds me of the research done when giving "boy" toys to young girls and visa versa. The girls took the toy soldiers to be daddies and mommies and the boys took the dolls and made guns out of them. You can make anything work but the better question is should you? I'm with you 100% jumjum. The attack on males and their masculinity has been ongoing for a number of years and this is just one of the avenues of fallout. To all you young men under 20 years old that have survived with their maleness somewhat intact, I congratulate you. Life used to be so less confusing....
They have a perfectly nice set of breasts, no need to pound them in or get them shot off. Alright, now seriously... No, they should not be in combat roles. Women are incapable, on a genetic level, of being as physically fit as their male counterparts. Though I see no problem with allowing women serve in warzones, putting them directly into combat is just plain stupid. A female POW is something that I don't even want to think about. Honestly, who believes that their captors would stop at a good beating? Anyone who doesn't think that they wouldn't be raped is a moron, through and through. Combat arms, not a chance. No way in hell should they be in the infantry, field artillery, combat aviation, or armor.
USMA2010They have a perfectly nice set of breasts, no need to pound them in or get them shot off. Alright, now seriously... No, they should not be in combat roles. Women are incapable, on a genetic level, of being as physically fit as their male counterparts. Though I see no problem with allowing women serve in warzones, putting them directly into combat is just plain stupid. A female POW is something that I don't even want to think about. Honestly, who believes that their captors would stop at a good beating? Anyone who doesn't think that they wouldn't be raped is a moron, through and through. Combat arms, not a chance. No way in hell should they be in the infantry, field artillery, combat aviation, or armor.
completely agreed, plus the fact women in the army would lead to relationships between soldiers being formed - making people emotionally weak etc etc. Pretty much the same reason I'm against Gay men being allowed in the armed forces.
Besides in 10 years time the army ranks will be cut down and robots will do our fighting - allowing us humble men and women to drink beer, get high, have sex, drink beer, have sex, drink beer etc
Guys, you're behind: women are flying AWACS, gunships, A-10's and even footslogging, and they're doing it now. This is almost a done deal.
I would be careful about going too far on the physical fitness end: there are a whole lot of breastless, menses-less women running marathons and triathlons (but you could say they are basically men). Some physio researchers say women as a sex have a generally greater aptitude for endurance (but partly because of naturally greater fat deposits). But you're right that in most of the physical categories you could name as being needed in combat, women lag far behind and cannot hope to equal men...unless they do what all those grotesque female bodybuidlers do, which is pretty much change their sex by massive and continuous injections of anabolic steriods. You know...be Barry Bonds.
Which brings up some interesting questions of whether the sexual orientatation of athletic women differs measurably from the general population. If there was some way I could make people answer truthfully, I'd bet my house that the incidence of female homosexuality, among college-level and professional female athletes, is several times higher than that of the general population. And that that is so regardless of sport or region (at least in the US). Now just because someone plays catcher for the women's softball team of the University of Nebraska, it doens't mena she's gay. But that's the way the smart money bets. There are waaaay too many first-hand reports from women's basketball, tennis, golf, swimming, etc., for there to be nothing to it.
A link to desire for military service? Who knows?
I know that women who win are dodgeball are bi-sexual... :naughty:
I don't really see gender as that big of a problem. I'd much rather serve with a physically fit woman who's a damn good soldier than a total asshat man who just squeeked by in basic.
Woman should not be allowed in combat. They have to sit behind desks and punch papers.
First of all, there's the dreaded "period". I don't want to look into combat in 5 years and see the soldiers taking breaks to change their pads.
Second, pregnancy. A man can fire off a couple knucklechildren with no problem, but a woman will get pregnant and potentially endanger soldiers in combat situations because they can't fight insurgents and morning sickness at the same time.
Woman on the ground in combat situations do not work, as too many problems arise from their fitness level, time o' the month and horniness.
As for the AF, thats fine. They can fly all they want.
What? You guys don't trust anything that bleeds for four days and doesn't die?
YossarianI don't really see gender as that big of a problem. I'd much rather serve with a physically fit woman who's a damn good soldier than a total asshat man who just squeeked by in basic.
But that's not really the choice, is it? Because if you take women out of the equation, they're not going to be replaced by Taco Hut Boy. I guarantee you that if any marginal (just barely meeting qualifications) candidates are being taken, it's women, because there are no doubt recruitng quotas for females that must be filled per agreement with Congress (or certain Congressmen/-women who care about this issue and have control over a committee vital to the service).
It would be more valid to assume the fitness and basic competence, and say, "I'd rather serve with a troop who doesn't give me a woody than with one who does." Because when Mr. Wood shows up, guys just can't think straight, things get all confused, and everything but tending to Mr. Wood takes a back seat.
Look at the bigger picture: how might this affect national defense?; what does this do to our society?