Poll: Women In Combat? Yea or Nay?

[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...

 

[DefunctTheory]

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...

I don't really know why.

If I were to guess, it's because the Army's Surgeon General is an asshole, and enjoys making soldiers jam these things up each others noses during first aid training.

 

[Yuuki]

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.

But for what benefit? What does the military gain from doing that, as opposed to deploying male-only battalions/divisions and easily supporting them with facilities that are already available?

Is the unit's overall performance increased? Higher success rates of missions? There has to be some kind of return.

 

[DefunctTheory]

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.

In my 6 years in the military, I knew exactly one female who had problems with plate carriers. And she had retardly huge breast. The kind of breast that, when you see them, your first thoughts aren't sexual, but of an engineering perspective - How does a female not topple over onto her face every time she stands up? How could God create such a poorly balanced creature?

I don't think the US Military needs to redesign armor to accommodate such a small percentage of females. Besides, the armor still works, it just required what I assume was an industrial strength sports bra.

...

I'll, ah, be back later. Need to um... google something.

 

[Yuuki]

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.

But for what benefit? What does the military gain from doing that, as opposed to deploying male-only battalions/divisions and easily supporting them with facilities that are already available?

Is the unit's overall performance increased? Higher success rates of missions? There has to be some kind of return.

You seem to be under the impression that if women join they'll replace men instead of being in addition to men

You seem to be under the impression that an infinite number of soldiers can be deployed anywhere...it is always specified how many troops are required to get a job done. While it's great to have a larger pool of soldiers to choose from, a smart nation isn't going to deploy 5 female soldiers with 95 male soldiers to a place where things are going to get harsh/uncomfortable, facilities are scarce and the women's performance suffers (even slightly) as a result.
That's why I asked, where is the benefit to the military unit? There are times where a nation has no choice but to send their very best in order to give themselves the best chance, where nothing unnecessary/extra will be done (i.e. cut all corners) unless there is a quantifiable pay-off/return.

 

[Kolby Jack]

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?

Well... who else could do it? Dolphins?

 

[DefunctTheory]

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?

Well... who else could do it? Dolphins?

Dolphins are notorious rapist.

This does not seem like a step up in the fucking around department.

 

[Kolby Jack]

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?

Well... who else could do it? Dolphins?

Dolphins are notorious rapist.

This does not seem like a step up in the fucking around department.

Chimpanzees are notoriously aggressive and territorial, too. They'd always be starting shit. Well, that settles it. Our military must be staffed entirely by scarecrows and jack-o-lanterns with smiley faces.

 

[Yuuki]

So you're deliberately ignoring benefits to increased recruitment because of specific situations you may not want it that you didn't specify beforehand? Shifting the goal posts much?

Besides it increases recruitment potential. When you need it you can't just flick a switch on then back off

That's why I said "...while it's great to have a larger pool of soldiers to choose from...".

Increased recruitment potential is nice, but 10,000 male troops vs 10,000 mixed-gender troops is going to have zero benefits, only downsides regarding increased male-on-female sexual assault and a sudden need for separated shower/toilet/etc facilities. What is the gain/return? Answer the main question already, the goalposts haven't moved anywhere.