Poll: Women In Combat? Yea or Nay?

[Thaluikhain]

It should be noted that make shift tourniquets are basically no-nos now a days. At best, its ineffective , or you put too much pressure on too small and area and end up actually cutting the guy up some more. At worst, you only partially cut off blood flow, which is actually worse then just letting it bleed. Which is why the US Army uses this awesome contraption, that you can actually apply to your self with one hand.

You literally cannot screw up with this thing.

I remember in basic, our Drill Sergeants showed us how to make a make shift tourniquet out of Israeli bandages. And then told us to never, ever, ever use it.

Ah, that would make sense...as an aside, I really should do my first aid course again, my qualifications have expired.

 

[SerithVC]

Women should be allowed into any unit where they meet the requirements. If they meet the requirements that are set for the men, then there's no reason whatsoever to keep them from whatever roles they want to fulfill.

i agree fully, and would like to say that if it's more of a problem that the guys are distracted by the presence of a woman, then they need to go and grow the fuck up.

 

[Knife]

snip

Ah, the wonders of modern medicine. Back in the day if you left it for over 2 hours, you would be missing a limb. Then again we used a scrap of fabric and a piece of wood - make your own tourniquet, which I imagine would be inferior.

Kind of like this:

 

[Machine Man 1992]

but on the other hand, why can't we have a space in our culture that is only for males?

Because it's discriminatory?

Creating societal barriers based on gender is simply wrong.

So I was just imagining those women's only fitness clubs, women's health centers, domestic abuse shelters that service only women, charities that serve only victimized women, and the entire month of October being devoted to Breast Cancer Awareness?

Aren't those discriminatory?

 

[Machine Man 1992]

snip

Ah, the wonders of modern medicine. Back in the day if you left it for over 2 hours, you would be missing a limb. Then again we used a scrap of fabric and a piece of wood - make your own tourniquet, which I imagine would be inferior.

Kind of like this:

That looks hardcore.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

I don't really care one way or the other. If the military says women can serve in combat-specific roles, I'm cool with it. The only places where I think integration would be tricky business is special forces and submarines. Special Forces because it's just fucking grueling and unit cohesiveness is life or death for those guys, and subs because... well, let's face it: a bunch of guys and girls in a tiny cramped space for months at a time... yeesh. All kinds of problems I can see with that. Female sub commanders is one thing; they get their own bunk and most people aren't stupid enough to mess around with someone well above their paygrade, but full integration I just don't see going smoothly.

At the same time, if we can't trust our own men and women not to fuck around why the hell are we trusting them at all to defend the country?

 

[GonvilleBromhead]

There have always been three reasons for preventing women for joining, and all have been related to combat effectiveness:

1) Physical. This reason is now dead in the water, but an understandable reason in the past. We now know that women can do the job, physically (and emotionally) as well as men. This is why pretty much all civilised armies permit women in a wide variety of support arms and non-front line combatant arms (such as combat pilots, on ships, etc.)

2) Small unit cohesion. This was the reason for segregation in the US army until the 50s, "don't ask, don't tell", etc. Without such cohesion, a unit cannot be an effective fighting force, and is a reasonable concern regarding military effectiveness - to use an example from the past, a platoon or section composed of white guys from Mississippi with a black NCO in the 1940s would not have been any use in a fight, and as far as the military is concerned, they quite rightly think that "using unfair discrimination to ensure that the army can do its job" is better than "we must be just, the fact that our troops are lynching one another for looking at them funny is an acceptable consequence". In fact, in the cases of black serviceman, segregation was probably the best solution at the time, ensuring small unit cohesion whilst ensuring that all Americans could serve their country. Similarly, don't ask don't tell was a surprisingly pragmatic approach allow gay men and women to serve without it affecting the combat efficiency of the unit - in both cases the only practical alternative was "no blacks" and "no homosexuals".

Regarding women in the military in the 21st century, this is of course trickier, but I think we're certainly getting to the stage where this is becoming less and less of an issue due to societal shift. There may be a couple of things that could cause problems, such as a CMT prioritising a female for casualty evacuation over male, or an infantryman forgetting that evacuation of casualties comes from the rear when faced with an injured servicewoman, but these are things that can be sorted. All in all, I'd say we're on the cusp of this not being a problem any more.

3) How the enemy treat women. This is where it gets tricky, and not wishing to go into too much detail...well, how well do you think some of the chaps we're fighting today, or are likely to face, are going to treat a captured woman? This, for me, is the main issue holding us back at the moment. Though, of course, it becomes less of an issue if our likely enemies have a somewhat more enlightened view of women.

In summary, I can see it happening in the future, but the reasons it hasn't happened yet are reasonably sound, and I wouldn't raise a particular hue and cry if it were changed.

 

[Ollybol8]

I think as long as it's a equal playing field then sure why not?

 

[LordLundar]

Here's the thing, the only difference at this point is being in combat roles They are already being trained for combat duty and put in combat zones, but they're not assigned to actively fight.

It's honestly depressing as because of this they are ineligible for awards and commendations related to combat actions. A female soldier fending off an assault single handed(which would ordinarily merit a gold star at minimum) would be ineligible because it was a combat engagement. And yes, situations like that have happened in the past. The excuse was that while they're not meant to be in combat, it doesn't mean they don't wind up in combat.

 

[Breccia]

Let's say that we had two groups of people:

A) A group of fit, able-bodied women under 30 willing to take up arms to defend their country
B) A mixed group of whoever who insist that women NOT go into combat

If you asked most armed-force recruiters which group they'd give guns to, 90%-plus would choose Group A.

 

[Yuuki]

Question: What's the difference between a Male and a Female of the human species?
Answer: Genitalia.

What on earth...meaning no offense but I recommend going back to school, or at least taking a biology class or two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_physiology

 

[Yuuki]

Let's say that we had two groups of people:

A) A group of fit, able-bodied women under 30 willing to take up arms to defend their country
B) A mixed group of whoever who insist that women NOT go into combat

If you asked most armed-force recruiters which group they'd give guns to, 90%-plus would choose Group A.

What about the third group:
C) A group of fit, able-bodied men under 30 willing to take up arms to defend their country

If forced to pick only ONE option out of the three, which would the armed-force recruiters pick?

(this is where I'm expecting a reply of "hey that's not fair, why not a mix?")

 

[Tradjus]

If they can hack all the same tests and all the same requirements men can, then why not?
The only complication I can possibly see is accommodating women's needs, you know, slightly different gear and separate housing from men. But like, the Military gets 25% of the United States G.D.P, that's hundreds of billions of dollars a year. I'm not going to let them try and convince me they can't afford plate carriers designed for women and a few more tents or barracks buildings per base, THEY CAN AFFORD IT.

 

[Nghtgnt]

First, from personal experience, it was rare that I encountered a female in the US Army who could actually physically perform the job of an infantryman (for example). I'm not particularly convinced this is due to that classical "feminine weakness" so much as it seems to be a cultural thing - the female soldiers simply didn't want to do the sort of workout that would give them the condition necessary to perform the tasks. That some otherwise normal women were perfectly capable of doing the ruck march in the right amount of time or passing other physical standards set for males seems to imply that this shortcoming was a personal failing rather than one that broadly affects all women.

I've noticed this as well. I think at this point the questions become moreso
(1) do women actually want to join combat arms units, and
(2) are the women who want to the type of people who are able to perform in those jobs

So far most of the females I've seen (in the news) who want to be in combat arms are officers who want it for career purposes (lots of General-level positions are for combat arms personnel only). Depending on your personal views this can be either good or bad.

...western civilization is more or less hard wired to be appalled at the death of "women and children" - the adult male by contrast is seen as expendable and only worth mention by exclusion.

This is something that's been on my mind lately and is kind of interesting, because with the Syria chemical weapons issues people always very specifically point out that "women and children" were gassed.

Anyways, at this point I know my post will just get buried and no one will read it, but here's some informational stuff:

For all the people mentioning standards, rest assured that the military is currently not looking to lower standards for women - it's actually started looking at lowering the standards for EVERYONE [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/5/pentagon-hints-at-changes-to-allow-more-women-in-g/].

Secondly, some people were talking about sexual assaults in the military - despite what the media and "documentaries" and politicians would have you believe, the military is NOT filled with rapists. In fact, the numbers are horribly misleading and you can find a pretty good analysis as to why here [http://rokdrop.com/2013/05/20/how-the-special-interests-are-sensationalizing-the-military-sexual-assault-issue-and-i-have-the-facts-to-prove-it/]. This isn't to say it doesn't happen, or that ANY amount sexual assault is acceptable, just that people are misleading the public.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Was there a pressing need to allow soldiers on submarines to smoke? You seem to keep missing that point - ash trays were also an utterly unnecessary expense. But they did it anyway. Why that and not this?

Because they lack the political will necessary for the push to be made. The problems I've listed can be resolved if there exists the political will to do so. Most of my post was about the various things that sap that will.

And I call bullshit on that. They said exactly the same thing about allowing African Americans to serve with white soldiers - that it would have a negative impact on unit cohesion and combat effectiveness.

The impact of such a move will vary based upon the individuals in question. Adding an African American into a unit that includes a significant number of racists for example would result in a reduction of unit cohesion - the mere fact that you have a member that other members hate (the cause of the hate is irrelevant) is more or less a textbook example of something that can erode cohesion. By contrast, introducing significant numbers of women in a combat unit would result in various sexual relationships forming - a process that will absolutely affect the group dynamics.

The belief (again, I don't particularly support this belief) is that this has the potential to negatively affect unit cohesion. Truth told, there really isn't much of an argument against this point - sex and the social politics attached can absolutely have a negative impact upon a group. The question, then, is if this impact is significant (in other words, it harms in any way the ability of the unit to perform it's mission) or if it can be readily overcome. Based on the sheer number of activities between genders these days, it seems reasonable to assume such a problem can easily be combated.

Maybe it is due to my only real experience with the armed forces being the Marines (my Uncle) but, according to what I know, no matter what happens personally, when a squad deploys, you are loyal to the squad no matter what. If you were fighting in the barracks, it doesn't matter - in the field you're brothers (or in this case, brothers and sisters). My Uncle was very proud of that - he considered is part of his honor as a Marine.

Such a perception is largely based on a rose tinted view of the past. By and large my own experience is you got along quite well with most people in your unit but that was far from universal. The chain of command and other apparatus certainly help contain problems to a great extent that that doesn't mean it eliminates them by any stretch. Conflicts appear at all levels and they're fought with the same tools in the military as in any other social group. I hated more than one Sergeant in my time and detested more than one member of similar or lower rank.

So yes, there might be some tension due to sex. But, once deployed, the squad members would store that shit until they completed their mission. That is the kind of professionalism I've grown up believing that our armed forces had. With honor like that, I don't see a problem.

As I said, the various controlling constructs of the military help contain such things but it does not eliminate them by any stretch. Fragging, for example, is a well known practice of intentional fratricide with a long and sordid history across any army you care to name.

And, that aside, when previous "threats" to unit cohesion occurred, the armed forces sucked it up and adjusted. They've done it before, successfully. I have confidence they can do it again. And again. And again. And yet again when they have to integrate cyborgs or what-have-you.

I certainly agree - the military absolutely could overcome this problem. But, as I've pointed out time and again, there isn't any particular need to go through the trouble unless the nation is facing an existential threat. Doing it now would not improve military preparedness in the slightest; no extra manpower would be gained. You'd spend a pile of money producing solutions to various minor problems, deal with all the growing pains that come with adding a group to a population where they were previously excluded all in exchange for nothing more than a nebulous moral victory where women are allowed to officially die for whatever cause the nation decides is worth the blood price.

 

[ceeqanguel]

I answer that question in the same way when a woman tells me she wants to visit afganisthan: Why would you want to go there? You KNOW you're likely to be beaten, raped and killed, and there's nothing you will be able to do about it. And nowadays, man-on-man hypermacho rape is the new trend.

PressTV. May 9, 2013:

Three rapes happen every hour in US military: Report

A new report by the US Defense Department, Pentagon, says almost three rapes occur every hour in the US military, raising serious concern about the soaring rate of sexual assault among US servicemen.


According to the Pentagon, sexual assaults in the military have increased to the alarming level of 70 per day or three every hour, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

The report added that 26,000 service members were sexually assaulted in 2012, a 35-percent increase since 2010 when 19,000 such cases were reported.

However, the overall rate of sexual assault in the US military may be higher, as many victims fail to report out of fear of vengeance or lack of justice under the military?s system of prosecution, the report added.


?The more closed and hierarchical an institution is, the more the victim is stigmatized and the rapist gets away with it,? said Susan Brooks, pastor and volunteer rape crisis counselor.

Brooks went on to condemn the US military for maintaining a culture of gender and power relations, which she says produces the rape culture among service members.

Many high-ranking US military commanders have recently been convicted and relieved of duties for multiple sexual offenses and corruption over the years.

On May 6, authorities said Lieutenant Colonel Jeff Krusinski, director of the sexual assault prevention program for the US Air Force, has himself been detained for sexually assaulting a woman not far from the military headquarters in Arlington, Virginia.

In 2012, over 30 male Air Force boot camp trainers were cited for sexually harassing, abusing and raping at least 59 military recruits at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas.

 

[ceeqanguel]

To be more clear: I am all for gender equality anywhere, but since the army is so monstruous, why wold women wat to go there?

 

[DefunctTheory]

It's honestly depressing as because of this they are ineligible for awards and commendations related to combat actions. A female soldier fending off an assault single handed(which would ordinarily merit a gold star at minimum) would be ineligible because it was a combat engagement. And yes, situations like that have happened in the past. The excuse was that while they're not meant to be in combat, it doesn't mean they don't wind up in combat.

There is no such thing as Gold Star

There's the Bronze Star (Women get it) and the Silver Star (Women get it). Perhaps your referring to the Medal of Honor?

Only one woman has ever gotten it. But considering the raw percentages of how many women get into combat situations versus males, and then compare it to how many Medals of Honor get distributed, and that's not surprising.

In any case, there is no regulation, rule or law that keep females from earning medals, and as far as I know, there never has been any.

The only exception being the Combat Infantryman Badge, but male non-infantry soldiers don't get that either.

 

[Thaluikhain]

So I was just imagining those women's only fitness clubs, women's health centers, domestic abuse shelters that service only women, charities that serve only victimized women, and the entire month of October being devoted to Breast Cancer Awareness?

Aren't those discriminatory?

Of course not. You can go start your own men's fitness clubs, health centres, abuse shelters, charities and awareness campaigns. You can allow whoever you want in a private organisation, spend your money however you want. And people do.

Your nation probably won't allow you to start your own military because you don't like the existing one.

 

[Quaxar]

You literally cannot screw up with this thing.

But only if it doesn't fit over your head. We once had a guy with a head wound whose wife tried putting a tourniquet around his neck "like they do on ER". Fortunately, she was quite incompetent at it.
I swear, sometimes I feel like I'm working in a huge asylum.

And to stay completely offtopic, do you happen to know any reasoning for Army First Aid pouches favoring NPAs over OPAs? Seems like a weird choice considering its contraindications, although I guess it takes up less space than a whole set of OPAs...