Women in combat, bad/good idea?

[Galactus]

The idea that any woman who passes the physical qualifications to serve in a combat role can't hack it in the field is so very :huh:. They didn't just arbitrarily decide these qualifications, you know, they've been killing stuff for centuries and the qualifications and training are adapted to make sure they put the most effective warriors on the ground.

To be honest, I think you have too high an opinion on the logic of the military-industrial complex :P These are the same guys who spent millions on trying to kill goats by staring at them.

Basically a lot of stuff is far more based on tradition, superstition and habit than we'd like to admit. Not only in the military of course, but it is by no means exempt.

[MercenaryChef]

i am terribly interested in this topic. i have little to offer myself having not served in the military much less in a combat role. one day i would like to ask my father who served three combat tours in viet nam how he feels about this topic and how a woman might have gotten along in his experiences in the military and in combat. but, unlike some people he does not need to point out constantly that he was in the military to give his thoughts and feelings credence.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Sorry, I worded that ambiguously. I meant it needs to be addressed in general, and particularly in Congress and/or wherever else military policy is set. I know that the officials quoted in the article are generally in favour of women in combat, as they've seen the results. Not all policymakers have that experience, though.

That consequence of the VA's records not reflecting reality, and personnel being denied benefits because of it, is something I hadn't thought of. Do you think it will be a persuasive argument, legally, to use these denied benefits / incorrect records to help get the official policy changed?

[Guest Raidne]

That consequence of the VA's records not reflecting reality, and personnel being denied benefits because of it, is something I hadn't thought of. Do you think it will be a persuasive argument, legally, to use these denied benefits / incorrect records to help get the official policy changed?

I think the possibility of denied benefits will help, yes. You wouldn't believe the records the military keeps - it's amazing how detailed they get. Inaccuracies cause a LOT of problems. Maybe I'll write a law review article on it.

And if our American Boarders wrote letters to Secretary Shinseki in the meantime expressing concern about the problem, yeah, I think that would make a difference.

ETA: It won't be a problem, of course, until those people are veterans, i.e. retired from active service, and start filing claims. We're not even seeing many claims from the Persian Gulf yet - most of them are still from Vietnam.

[Liffguard]

Did we post this article from the New York Times already?

Good article, and I agree. There isn't really that much of a distinction nowadays between "front-line" roles and other roles (I think the more common distinction is "roles whose goal is to close with and engage the enemy" or something like that). Anyway, many women have shown that they are fully capable of fighting. It is mostly outdated attitudes that maintain the current situation.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

OK, so why is it not sexist?

Let us partake of your reasoning on this.

Well it depends on what you'd define a sexist as. If it involves treating a member of the opposite sex in any way differently, then it would be classified as sexist.

However, i am a firm believer that some things are inherent. Women are on average weaker than men. This, is the basis of all sexism. As a human, particularly in the profession of soldier, we may well feel a responsibility for those weaker than us. Thats not to say that stronger women do not exist, but rather that no matter what they can benchpress they represent a different side to the species, and this can never be avoided. Therefore, when a man sees a dead woman, i find it unlikely that he will see her merely as a dead comrade. Its similar to an older, weaker man trying to aid a teenager (who is actually stronger). Its not rational, its an inherent result of how we see our fellow humans. I don't believe its possible to eliminate either. But thats just me.

I suppose you could make an argument saying that a man who was more upset by a dead female comrade than a male to be sexist, but at the same time i don't see the point in pretending that this reaction is in someway 'unnatural' or even 'wrong'.

Perhaps I'm in denial and will ultimately be proved incorrect, but i can only speak for my own personal inclinations. As said previously, if a woman can make the requirements I'd have no quarrel with them serving in the same capacity as the men.

[Paxter]

Well it depends on what you'd define a sexist as. If it involves treating a member of the opposite sex in any way differently, then it would be classified as sexist.

However, i am a firm believer that some things are inherent. Women are on average weaker than men. This, is the basis of all sexism. As a human, particularly in the profession of soldier, we may well feel a responsibility for those weaker than us. Thats not to say that stronger women do not exist, but rather that no matter what they can benchpress they represent a different side to the species, and this can never be avoided. Therefore, when a man sees a dead woman, i find it unlikely that he will see her merely as a dead comrade. Its similar to an older, weaker man trying to aid a teenager (who is actually stronger). Its not rational, its an inherent result of how we see our fellow humans. I don't believe its possible to eliminate either. But thats just me.

I suppose you could make an argument saying that a man who was more upset by a dead female comrade than a male to be sexist, but at the same time i don't see the point in pretending that this reaction is in someway 'unnatural' or even 'wrong'.

Perhaps I'm in denial and will ultimately be proved incorrect, but i can only speak for my own personal inclinations. As said previously, if a woman can make the requirements I'd have no quarrel with them serving in the same capacity as the men.

Well, you are not alone on this Ser. Queensland Liberal senator Bruce Scott made the comment today that:

"The presence of women on the front line would threaten the rational thought process and performance of male soldiers".

"Both culturally and biologically, males are engineered to protect females from harm and I believe placing servicewomen in life-threatening situations will affect the performance of male soldiers who may risk their own safety and the success of the mission to protect the female members of the team," Mr Scott said.

Less convincing were the arguments of another Liberal MP, Stuart Robert (who has served in the armed forces):

"[The Defence Personnel Minister] Mr Combet had never served on the front line, never parachuted at night in the rain or spent nights without sleep."

"For him to stand there and give his opinion and push the Government into something is simply outrageous," Mr Robert said.

"If we're going to look at putting women on the front line, we need to make sure we're doing it for all the right reasons, we're not doing it because politically it might look good."

For the record, I side with sio on this issue. In a society that is striving for egalitarianism, we really need to be able to come up with more objective criteria than simply: "men only".

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

Also from the article:

Just for good measure:

The article also acknowledges that it's difficult for women to be members of the light infantry, and few women seem to be interested. But that's no reason they can't belong to artillery and armor units. A lot of people seem to have an overly simplistic view of what a combat role is.

I give it three years, tops, before the official policy is changed in the U.S.

For one, having women in combat without having it be official does them a disservice. If you claim benefits for PTSD with VA, we presume that it's connected to service if you were in combat. If VA does have records of service in combat, it's going to be a lot harder for you to collect those benefits. That's a shame, and a truly discriminatory result coming out of women being unofficially in combat roles.

This was a huge problem during the first gulf was. Women and men shared foxholes, but the men got combat pay and the women didn't since the US didn't send women into combat zones. :stunned: Very true. It took a lot of complaining for them to change the law to allow women to receive combat pay.

(Whole units were sent; and the majority of the units were mixed, both male and female, and even support units were faced with combat situations)

While I have never served in combat, I did serve 9 years on active duty, had my leadership school at Ft Benning with airborne rangers and held my own with them. Sure I am not as strong or as fast, but I didn't need to be to do my share or carry my load.

[Galactus]

Well it depends on what you'd define a sexist as. If it involves treating a member of the opposite sex in any way differently, then it would be classified as sexist.

If it is treating a member of the opposite gender differently becuase of their gender alone, then yes.

However, i am a firm believer that some things are inherent. Women are on average weaker than men. This, is the basis of all sexism. As a human, particularly in the profession of soldier, we may well feel a responsibility for those weaker than us.

Bwahahah.

Oh, seriously. That's hilarious. If there is anything soldiers throughout history has shown it's that respect for those weaker tahn them is not a part of their modus operandi.

Thats not to say that stronger women do not exist, but rather that no matter what they can benchpress they represent a different side to the species, and this can never be avoided. Therefore, when a man sees a dead woman, i find it unlikely that he will see her merely as a dead comrade. Its similar to an older, weaker man trying to aid a teenager (who is actually stronger). Its not rational, its an inherent result of how we see our fellow humans. I don't believe its possible to eliminate either. But thats just me.

Fact is, just pound it into their skull until they learn. People have gotten used to women being teachers and politicians, to women working on factory floors and in the clergy. Why should the military be any different? Women ALREADY die in wars. Why should it matter if they do so while actually being able to defend themselves rather than as passive victims?

I suppose you could make an argument saying that a man who was more upset by a dead female comrade than a male to be sexist, but at the same time i don't see the point in pretending that this reaction is in someway 'unnatural' or even 'wrong'.

It is wrong because you are denying yourself 50% of the population for use as soldiers in case you need it. Which is a terrible waste.

[Stego]

I was up posting in this thread at 4 something am last night because I don't sleep well. I don't sleep well due to my handy-dandy combat inspired PTSD.

I would not wish this shit on anyone. And the thought of a woman having to deal with this is heart rending to me. Yeah, that's sexist. I make no apologies to those who have no fucking clue. I saw what war does to women in Bosnia. I saw the burns, the maimings, the results of the gang rapes... and those were just the girls under 12. I don't need any more proof than my nightmares to know how psychologically damaging women in combat can be.

Why the fuck would anyone fight for the right to get paid shit for enormous terror, suffering, longing, boredom, and then lifelong misery? I don't fucking get it.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Why the fuck would anyone fight for the right to get paid shit for enormous terror, suffering, longing, boredom, and then lifelong misery? I don't fucking get it.

As Lany has pointed out, as did Raidne's NYT article, in some cases they've already got the combat part going -- and the associated aftereffects -- and aren't getting any pay for it.

Why would women volunteer to go through that? Why do men? I don't think arguing that *nobody* should be going through all of that means you can turn around and say that you're willing to put men through it but not women. Ultimately, if you're treating an 18-year old as an adult with respect to their life choices, uninformed as they may be, then I believe you should be as accepting as an 18-year old woman's choice as an 18-year old man's. (Or girl's and boy's, if you prefer.)

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Bwahahah.

Oh, seriously. That's hilarious. If there is anything soldiers throughout history has shown it's that respect for those weaker tahn them is not a part of their modus operandi.

I'd be interested to hear if any of the boarders who have served agree with this. Certainly these individuals exist, but to say its a majority? Bad soldiers get the press, the good ones get ignored.

Fact is, just pound it into their skull until they learn. People have gotten used to women being teachers and politicians, to women working on factory floors and in the clergy. Why should the military be any different? Women ALREADY die in wars. Why should it matter if they do so while actually being able to defend themselves rather than as passive victims?

I said i may be proved wrong. I believe certain things are inherent. You disagree. I guess we'll find out eventually in this instance.

It is wrong because you are denying yourself 50% of the population for use as soldiers in case you need it. Which is a terrible waste.

I'm not arguing against using women. I'm simply not going to pretend that some baggage won't come with it.

Stego is right in one way, this argument is silly from a feminist perspective. This is an 'equal right' you don't want tbh.

[Galactus]

I saw what war does to women in Bosnia. I saw the burns, the maimings, the results of the gang rapes... and those were just the girls under 12. I don't need any more proof than my nightmares to know how psychologically damaging women in combat can be.

But that's my point Stego: Those women weren't even in combat positions and it happened anyway. Being a civilian in no way protects you from the effects of war. (indeed it has often be noted that the safest position in a warzone is in one of the armies)

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Indeed. Let's not worry our pretty little heads about anything, shall we? Our menfolk will protect us from all harm and harmful influences, including ourselves.

I get that this protection is well-intentioned, but let's not pretend that even well-intended actions and ideas can't have pretty shitty results.

[mormont]

Stego is right in one way, this argument is silly from a feminist perspective. This is an 'equal right' you don't want tbh.

Surely the entire point of equal rights is that you don't get to cherry pick the ones you want? There is certainly no shortage of people willing to complain bitterly that 'feminists' do just that.

[Stego]

Sigh.

[TerraPrime]

Why the fuck would anyone fight for the right to get paid shit for enormous terror, suffering, longing, boredom, and then lifelong misery? I don't fucking get it.

Why do black people want equal pay and promotion opportunities in the armed services? Why do gay people want it? And to take it a step further, isn't it sexist against men to put only men in positions of distress and unreasonable burdens?

But since you already admitted that your view is sexist, there remains very little to discuss.

Re: Ser Not Appearing

Stego is right in one way, this argument is silly from a feminist perspective. This is an 'equal right' you don't want tbh.

I maintain that the fight for equality must extend to all spheres. In fact, it must extend particularly to fields where the outcome of equal treatment may be detrimental to women. If the fight for equality only applies to areas that directly benefit women, then that's not gender equality - that's gender opportunism. As a self-declared feminist, I don't find this argument for equal treatment in the armed services to be silly, at all. In fact, I think this lends legitimacy to the moral principles behind feminism - equality for people based on gender.

[Stego]

Sexism isn't the highest crime in the world.

[Relic]

Sexism isn't the highest crime in the world.

You're coming from a good place here Will, but as you've already stated, your view is sexist and wont really fly under logical scrutiny. I think that an all female division, as someone mentioned earlier, is a pretty good idea. At least at first.

[Galactus]

Sexism isn't the highest crime in the world.

It's easy to say when you're not on the recieving end, no?