Poll: Women In Combat? Yea or Nay?

[Eclectic Dreck]

As to 2... are you really going to claim that women can't be in combat because of their periods? I'm not sure whether to be amused by the comic immaturity or shocked that you actually think a period is going to stop a female soldier from doing her job.

It doesn't prevent them from doing the job; however, the associated problems of not properly dealing with this issue simply mean that a female soldier is vulnerable to a host of maladies men are not from a simple problem of hygiene. This is not an insurmountable problem by any means but, again, the issue largely isn't about resolvability of various minor issues; it is if the measures that would be necessary to solve the problem are worth the effort.

For each of the problems you might list, there is a solution. The higher incidence rate of failure to meet standards means you'd simply need to start with more trainees to get the desired end result. Of course, this comes at a cost - those who fail still get paid for the attempt, money is still spent on the materiel for training, and many who fail will draw some amount of disability payment for the rest of their lives as a result. As such the obvious solution absolutely represents an increase in cost to field a single female soldier. I'm not going to speak to what the cost difference might be because, again, this is an issue that I've simply never seen a study on - it's far to incendiary an issue to actually take up with any seriousness.

The issue of hygiene is likewise solved by simply increasing the logistical effort devoted to a unit that includes women but, here again, you see a problem. Supplying an army in the field with the basic necessities of rations and ammunition is incredibly difficult especially when your supply lines are thousands of miles long. While the necessary supplies to greatly mitigate hygene related health issues (and, truth told, we aren't talking about much more than baby wipes and tampons) are comparatively minor it again represents a consideration you can overlook in a dire situation.

There are absolutely women in the world who could fight in the infantry to great effect. There are absolutely women who could even serve in various Special Operational roles. The problem is that recognizing they exist and actually making that happen are two wildly different things. There are very real issues with females serving in those roles in general but, more importantly, there are a host of social barriers that stand in the way as much as anything.

As I pointed out before the thing that really gets in the way are things like questions about the effects on unit cohesion and combat effectiveness when soldiers are sleeping together (a thing that absolutely will happen) and this long held distaste we in the west have with involving women directly in combat. That many can broadly recognize that women are just as capable of being shot at as men is a remarkably different and easier to make realization than accepting that it's okay to send them to be shot and maimed and killed as a key part of their job description.

That, more than anything else, is what keeps women out of direct combat roles today. Those jobs may well involve being shot at and even call upon them to defend themselves and their unit but such action is not expected. To put them into a direct combat role would be to say that we, as a society, are fine with sending women to die for a cause. That is a line few nations have been willing to cross.

 

[Kittyhawk]

Simple answer. Yes. Any person that is willing to put their life on the line for their country, should not be turned away based on their gender. If they are capable and willing to do their duty, why not?

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

It doesn't prevent them from doing the job; however, the associated problems of not properly dealing with this issue simply mean that a female soldier is vulnerable to a host of maladies men are not from a simple problem of hygiene. This is not an insurmountable problem by any means but, again, the issue largely isn't about resolvability of various minor issues; it is if the measures that would be necessary to solve the problem are worth the effort.

They (the US government) spent millions developing a glass ash-tray that would break into three non-sharp pieces so that people on submarines could smoke without worrying about glass shards during combat. If they will go to that much effort so that people can smoke, they can do this for female soldiers.

As I pointed out before the thing that really gets in the way are things like questions about the effects on unit cohesion and combat effectiveness when soldiers are sleeping together (a thing that absolutely will happen) and this long held distaste we in the west have with involving women directly in combat.

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.

Historically, soldiers having sex with one another hasn't weakened unit cohesion - it's strengthened it.

More likely, it will have little to no effect. The men and women in the armed forces are trained professionals. Will they get into relationships? Sure. But I am confident that they can keep that from interfering in their jobs.

 

[Something Amyss]

Rampant sexual assault, unit cohesion, special privileges, physiological differences, and there hasn't been a single woman who was able to pass the Marine Corps Officer Infantry School.

Ahh yes, unit cohesion. That great danger that has destroyed our fighting forces so many times over. Like when negroes were introduced. Or when negroes were integrated. Or when women were first allowed to serve. Or when they stopped asking if you were gay. And I'm sure that openly serving homosexuals will destroy unit cohesion any minute now.

Women in combat will just be another in a long line of military failures that has made our military forces so inept and incompetent that our nation is actually in constant danger.

But I'm sure chicks in combat are different than all those other times because reasons.

 

[MHR]

If they meet men requirements yes. There is no reason to not to

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

They (the US government) spent millions developing a glass ash-tray that would break into three non-sharp pieces so that people on submarines could smoke without worrying about glass shards during combat. If they will go to that much effort so that people can smoke, they can do this for female soldiers.

There isn't a question about the existence of a solution but rather that there does not exist the need nor the will to do so. It is an utterly unnecessary expense that can be avoided by simply not confronting the problem. Given that the modern US military is fairly small, there isn't a shortage of troops that might force this (and other) issues.
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.

Historically, soldiers having sex with one another hasn't weakened unit cohesion - it's strengthened it.

For as many examples of sex strengthening a small community, you'll find examples where it has weakened it. As I said in an earlier post, there does not exist any evidence to suggest the impact (which will be significant) is necessarily negative.

More likely, it will have little to no effect. The men and women in the armed forces are trained professionals. Will they get into relationships? Sure. But I am confident that they can keep that from interfering in their jobs.

If your confidence is that "professionalism" will overcome any of the baser instincts, I'd say you have a delightfully naive view of the world. The US military, for example, has a median age in the early twenties. And just like any group of early twenty somethings, is widely defined by a host of silly actions and endeavors. Truth told, the military, in my experience, was remarkably similar to a college fraternity in many respects - complete with scandals, drinking contests, and stupid decisions about all things - sex included.

To assume that somehow, the nebulous concept of "professionalism" will keep sex from having an impact on a group is foolish on it's face. It's like saying "Friendship" has no effect on a group or naked animosity. I will agree that the effect is not necessarily negative - just that there is a strong belief that it is.

To put that last point in perspective, when I was initially deployed to Iraq there existed a standing order that you weren't allowed to have sex with anyone. That included your spouse if you were lucky enough to deploy together.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Rampant sexual assault, unit cohesion, special privileges, physiological differences, and there hasn't been a single woman who was able to pass the Marine Corps Officer Infantry School.

Ahh yes, unit cohesion. That great danger that has destroyed our fighting forces so many times over. Like when negroes were introduced. Or when negroes were integrated. Or when women were first allowed to serve. Or when they stopped asking if you were gay. And I'm sure that openly serving homosexuals will destroy unit cohesion any minute now.

Women in combat will just be another in a long line of military failures that has made our military forces so inept and incompetent that our nation is actually in constant danger.

But I'm sure chicks in combat are different than all those other times because reasons.

Unit cohesion is much more then just being stuck together and is a lot more important than you think, especially with the ones who are doing the actual work. The fundamental difference between the women and non-whites is that non-whites were allowed to share the same ammenities as whites; men and women are still segregated due to their biological differences.

I can judge by your sarcastic comments that you have absolutely no experience in the military. I can brush off your opinion as easily as you do mine; because unlike you, I have an experienced opinion. You also failed to address any of my other listed arguments, so take your time.

In the mean time, I ask you to read what I'll link below, the gentleman say it a lot better than I can.

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/let-us-fight-you

No!!! You're wrong and those LTs are wrong because reasons!!

J/K, thanks for the article (I'm ex-Military also), I had never read that one before but I find it's a pretty compelling case.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Simple answer. Yes. Any person that is willing to put their life on the line for their country, should not be turned away based on their gender. If they are capable and willing to do their duty, why not?

Rampant sexual assault, unit cohesion, special privileges, physiological differences, and there hasn't been a single woman who was able to pass the Marine Corps Officer Infantry School.

Prosecute the sexual assault, Tell them to get over it like any other time units where intergrated, remove those, irrelevant, and doesn't mean there won't be in the future.

 

[oreso]

Snip

Separate but equal [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal], eh?

No. If they can serve in the military, then they can serve in the military.

As if separation by gender isn't something we already do in many organizations, both government, private, commercial, and otherwise across the United States. We segregate prisons by gender, schools and colleges can be all male/female, as well as groups like the Boyscouts and Girlscouts of America.

Those are sexist too. Just because sexism is widespread and accepted, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Interestingly, at least in the UK, Scouts and Guides was the gender split. But girls wanted into the Scouts, so they got it. Guides is still girls-only. Not immediately relevant, just interesting.

Anyway, yes, hopefully, over time we'll begin to phase out some of this gender segregation too. Girls and boys learn together more or less fine. I've no idea about the research, but it'd be interesting to see if/how prisoners can get rehabilitated in gender mixed facilities.

I'm not blindly insisting that segregation is always the worst thing evar, but "men might try to save women" is a woolly excuse we shouldn't just accept. "Men might try to run away from gunfire" too, but we manage to largely train them out of that.

Trying to draw a comparison from what I'm describing to pre-civil rights racial discrimination is just plain silly. Do I even need to explain why?

Separate-but-equal with regards to pre-civil rights racism, and here with modern military sexism, It's not exactly the same issue, naturally. But I think the arguments against it are much the same: Separate but equal is not equal. The mere act of discriminating people into different boxes based on a largely irrelevant fact of their biology is itself a bad thing to do. And even if you try to treat these two (now neatly divided) groups equally, you will inevitably fail.

I mean, even if we do have sex-segregated squads with nominally equal roles; I'd be surprised if commanders would unflinchingly and with equal likelihood send in "the girl squad" off on dangerous missions compared to their male counterparts. Indeed, "Men might try to save women"; but segregation is ENABLING that sexist instinct, not combating it.

Cheers!

PS. And thank you very much to the service people who've shared their stories.

 

[Dense_Electric]

Set physical requirements. Have training to determine who meets physical requirements. Those who meet them are in. Those who don't meet them can go home and try again next time.

I've never understood why anything else - sex, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc., should be a factor. None of those things are relevant to firing a rifle or flying an aircraft or commanding a warship, so why do we even need to ask about those things?

 

[Jadak]

The only valid argument against women being able fill in any role in the military is the claim that they are 'not up to the task' or 'less able'. Regardless of ones view on women in general, that point is moot. If they can't make the cut, there's no point in forbidding them to join, as they can't make it anyways. And if they do qualify, then there is no reason not to let them.

 

[Joccaren]

So long as they are held to the same physical and mental standards as the men in the military, then sure. Let them go wild. No reason for them not to be allowed to fight if they are able and want to.
If it does lead to problems with the men in the military doing stupid things because girls, then form all women squads to keep that to a minimum.

 

[sleeky01]

Not to put too fine a point on it but....if she wants to, better her than me.

 

[miketehmage]

The only arguments I can really make against it, isn't against women, but more the idea of having both genders serving.

It's often said that people who serve in the military form a special bond. Well with a man and a woman that could turn into a romance. And seeing your romantic partner blown up by an IED or shell is bound to fuck with your head.

That said, I voted yes if they meet the requirements.

 

[Xan Krieger]

Of course they should be allowed to. They should be treated the exact same as men, same fitness standards, same haircut, and I don't get why it would be a problem for guys. A soldier is a soldier, gender is irrelevant. I don't see why any guy would treat a female soldier differently. How hard is it for soldiers not to have sex? They're soldiers, they don't get paid to have sex, it's not part of the lifestyle.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

As I understand it, men and women don't serve co-operatively because there's some psychological effect that degrades performance due to men being reckless and stupid. In which case yes, but only in gender-segregated units. Naturally also if it makes sense for the situation, but considering the populations we have now in general, we don't really need to preserve our females like we used to.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Why is everyone try to compare this to racism? Whereas racism tends to be predominately cultural, rape in the military probably stems largely from a dark side of human nature.

Going to disagree there, rape is at least in large part a cultural issue. One of the reasons the US military has such a problem with rape is that nobody wants to confront the issue. Admitting that many, many US soldiers are rapists is interpreted as an attack on the military.

I'm not going to try and give the same talk that two well read gentlemen have, so I'll just leave a link for a well thought out and written article.

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/let-us-fight-you

God deliberately made men more aggressive to protect society? Men have to have their place in society as leaders and protectors?

Yeah, not going to take that terribly seriously.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

There isn't a question about the existence of a solution but rather that there does not exist the need nor the will to do so. It is an utterly unnecessary expense that can be avoided by simply not confronting the problem. Given that the modern US military is fairly small, there isn't a shortage of troops that might force this (and other) issues.

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?

Oh, and you skipped this:

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.

I'm still waiting for an answer to that one. Kheapathic failed to answer it above when Z. Amaranth asked him the same thing.

If your confidence is that "professionalism" will overcome any of the baser instincts, I'd say you have a delightfully naive view of the world. Truth told, the military, in my experience, was remarkably similar to a college fraternity in many respects - complete with scandals, drinking contests, and stupid decisions about all things - sex included.
To assume that somehow, the nebulous concept of "professionalism" will keep sex from having an impact on a group is foolish on it's face.

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.

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.

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.

 

[VondeVon]

Speaking as an individual that doesn't want to live a hard life, I like that my gender gives a free pass for military service. Speaking as a firm believer in true equality, I hate that my gender bars me from it.

Physical fitness, ability - fine. People should only do the job if they're capable. And, yes, females in general are less strong than males. But that doesn't mean they can't aim and fire, drive or fly or even just wear a lighter armor (or be required to train and develop muscles more). Yes, females have value as incubators for the next generation of canon fodder but that isn't their *only* value. The ability to spawn children is an addition to the section of humans who identify as female, it is not their sum total (as has been promoted in past wars, where a woman's place was to breed and support the men).

Imagine if strong, healthy men were excluded from battle because, I dunno, they were blondes and blondes were considered 'too dumb' to serve, or redheads because that genetic strain is rare and needs to be part of the nation of tomorrow.

The only concern I have is the sexuality of male and female soldiers because sometimes it seems like some people can't just zip it up and focus on more important things. Maybe those people, male or female, would be required to serve in single-gender units?

 

[Frankster]

I'll just leave a link for a well thought out and written article.

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/let-us-fight-you

The back and forth you and others were having with Bara was a rather interesting read, but I feel if that article is indicative of your beliefs, then it does you a disservice, for a lot of the basis of that article is based on gender beliefs which are...questionable:

?Women and children first? has been a tenet of all emergency rescue efforts for time immemorial, yet we are evidently now prepared to dismantle this fundamental principle of western society for the sake of equality. It is an abdication of natural masculine responsibility to forfeit our role?even in small part?as protectors and defenders. Should we expect our teenage daughter to go down with the ship so a man might live in the name of equality? No matter how much she begs for the ?opportunity,? would you let her? - See more at: http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/let-us-fight-you#sthash.W5XBlQIz.dpuf (...)

The question looming, hidden and afraid in masculine hearts, as this discussion rages, is nearly impossible to ask: Where now does a man go to prove his manhood in society? This is dismissed in our postmodern culture, but in the history of the world, the individual man has always had opportunities to prove his strength, valor, and skill as part of a grand adventure or the challenge of apprenticeship. If you do not accept the need for men to know intrinsically that they have proven themselves as men (protectors, providers, leaders) in a way only they can, consider the devastation of a woman unable to conceive. - See more at: http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/let-us-fight-you#sthash.W5XBlQIz.dpuf"

I found these 2 paragraphs grating in particular, so if it was your son that begs to go down with the ship then its ok because he is male? Fuck this whole guys is disposable protector gender that needs to prove himself via feats of strength or courage to prove his reproductive value and worth as a man BS.