Women Warriors

[GGT]

The US has decided it's time to fully incorporate women into the military, including lifting the technical "ban" on combat duty.

Thoughts, comments?

[GGT]

Okay then, I'll start. It's about time.

Women have been vital military actors/participants for generations. It no longer makes sense to treat women differently than men, or use "combat duty" as a special distinction for men only. At this point in time, it's military procedure, process, and advancement that's being challenged...it just took women to bring these issues front and center.

We already know that women are "attached" to infantry units as medics, IT specialists, translators, resource specialists, etc. Women pilot helicopters and jets. They take just as many risks, bleed and die the same as any man, but can't get combat pay or advance in leadership hierarchy as any man can.

For the skeptics that cite male brute or physical strength standards --- that didn't matter during the Vietnam war. Even a 90 pound weakling could be forced to fight. It's ironic that our modern Defense Dept. would treat female volunteers who want to enlist and serve, with higher mandates than that.


Also, the right wing social conservatives are whining too much about peeing or pooping in the field, and that men would feel "embarrassed" in front of women soldiers. FFS, if they can't handle normal bodily functions, how can they handle the blood and guts of war? Would they freak out if a combat victim was pregnant and delivering a baby? Too much blood or female parts?

[Timbuk2]

Struggling to find reasons why this should not be allowed.

Main argument is that if, after all the usual boot-camps and years of training, a woman succeeds to the same level as a man, why should she not be allowed on the front-line.

One of the main reasons given against however, that I read about yesterday and made me ponder, is the very nature of men as opposed to women. Men naturally feel protective toward women. Will this serve as a distraction on the battlefield? Does it matter if it does?
For a completely random eg; in the heat of battle, a Captain has two comms come his way:
1. The enemy line has been broken, all units should press forward to take advantage.
2. A unit in the flanks is under heavy fire. The unit is comprised mainly of women, and needs assistance.
Will the Captain be unduly influenced by the unit under fire, go to their rescue, thereby risking the entire battle as the push is short of a unit?

~

Anyway. Boadicea.

[ar81]

Women going to war is not a matter of gender, as I see it.
There is nothing to vindicate.
Going to war is about killing people.
Are you suggesting that women should be given the "right" to kill people?

I know vets who are partially blind and have had their faces messed up by an explosion.
How do you think a woman may feel having her face messed up?
Today wars are not about swords and knives.

Germans do not like to get involved in wars outside their nation.
They were cheated once by Hitler, to get involved in wars that are not theirs.
The best that a recruit can get from war is to get back in one piece.

[GGT]

snip


One of the main reasons given against however, that I read about yesterday and made me ponder, is the very nature of men as opposed to women. Men naturally feel protective toward women. Will this serve as a distraction on the battlefield? Does it matter if it does?

Are you sure you want to use that standard for soldiers? Men have knowingly blown woman and children to smithereens, in the name of War, in the heat of battle. Women "naturally" feel protective toward men, and children, too. Does that make for a distracted soldier or a better soldier?

For a completely random eg; in the heat of battle, a Captain has two comms come his way:
1. The enemy line has been broken, all units should press forward to take advantage.
2. A unit in the flanks is under heavy fire. The unit is comprised mainly of women, and needs assistance.
Will the Captain be unduly influenced by the unit under fire, go to their rescue, thereby risking the entire battle as the push is short of a unit?

It shouldn't matter if the unit under heavy fire is mainly women or men. The Captain wouldn't leave any unit behind, OR risk the entire mission. She'd figure out a way to get aid to the flanks under fire, and continue pressing forward into enemy lines.

[Veldan Rath]

As long as the new gender neutral standards are not a lowering of the physical standards then I have no problem with women in combat. But you do have to look at the logistics of having to meet the needs of both genders and that as life can be quite uncivilized at the front lines, it could lead to interesting issues.

[Timbuk2]

Not necessarily disagreeing with your points Gee.

There are differences between men and women, some which are, in my view, fairly fundamental. Whether those differences would affect roles on the front line is up for debate, which is why I brought it up.

Australia, New Zealand, Canada (pledged but not yet happened?), Israel and Norway all have front-line female soldiers, and not heard of issues there.

[Loki]

Struggling to find reasons why this should not be allowed.

Main argument is that if, after all the usual boot-camps and years of training, a woman succeeds to the same level as a man, why should she not be allowed on the front-line.

One of the main reasons given against however, that I read about yesterday and made me ponder, is the very nature of men as opposed to women. Men naturally feel protective toward women. Will this serve as a distraction on the battlefield? Does it matter if it does?

I think it's sexist, untested bullshit. Remember when we were hearing about how army morale would be destroyed if gays were allowed to openly serve?

[ar81]

Air Force appalled by the number of sex assaults
http://rt.com/usa/news/air-force-sexual-us-610/

Almost a quarter of female troops become victims of sex assaults in combat zones
http://rt.com/usa/news/sexual-milita...s-assault-962/

[Loki]

Seems like pretty conclusive evidence of men being protective of women in combat situations.

[Flixy]

Not necessarily disagreeing with your points Gee.

There are differences between men and women, some which are, in my view, fairly fundamental. Whether those differences would affect roles on the front line is up for debate, which is why I brought it up.

Australia, New Zealand, Canada (pledged but not yet happened?), Israel and Norway all have front-line female soldiers, and not heard of issues there.

Wikifist, but Australia doesn't allow women in combat functions.

Pretty hard to find out if it's possible in our army, but from what I gather all functions are available, combat functions as well, except the marine corps and submarines, and apparently the commandos are open but no woman ever made the selection.

[wiggin]

There are some issues, but they mostly have to do with gender dynamics rather than competence on the battlefield. In fact, the IDF (though still barring women from some roles) has found that women are better at some jobs. There's a mixed gender infantry brigade, and they've found that women tend to be better at defusing tense situations at checkpoints before they escalate. Women also make most of the decisions on border security - they handle the data feeds from fences, control remote weapons stations, and direct forces to the region. They also (I believe) are the people who give permission to fire. Women are a big chunk of drone operators as well. They also administer much of the weapons training - IIRC along with normal drill instructors, they also do things like teach the tank course, etc. So, in principle, it would seem that women are no worse (and sometimes better) at many of the critical jobs in the military, and could presumably be moved to combat duty as needed.

That being said, there are some fundamental physical limitations. Some of the jobs have qualifications so grueling that nearly all of the men drop out; I can't imagine a woman being able to carry those loads over those distances at that speed. Some jobs require extended periods in cramped spaces with little room for modesty; I can see an argument for gender segregation, even if the tasks are eminently doable. That's why women were barred from submarine duty in the US until very recently (I had a female friend who was going through training to be a nuclear reactor engineer, but she was concerned that she would only be posted on one of the supercarriers... only to be assured by the Navy that women were about to be allowed on sub duty). Lastly, and I know I'll get in trouble for this, women get pregnant. If you're trying to have a battle-ready force of young, able bodied individuals, a not insignificant percentage of the women will be pregnant at a given time and be unable to deploy.

None of the above caveats are reasons to have a blanket ban on women in certain roles, though it's certainly not crazy to be hesitant about it. At the end of the day, it seems like women generally have integrated decently into the military, albeit having to deal with the macho culture and such.

[ar81]

Seems like pretty conclusive evidence of men being protective of women in combat situations.

It seems that aside of their enemies, they need also to protect themselves from friends.

The US has decided it's time to fully incorporate women into the military, including lifting the technical "ban" on combat duty.

Thoughts, comments?

How about adding children to the battlefield. After all many of them already know how to play Call of Duty.

[Enoch the Red]

I think it's sexist, untested bullshit. Remember when we were hearing about how army morale would be destroyed if gays were allowed to openly serve?

This sums up my opinion fairly well. If a woman is mentally and physically capable of doing the job, she absolutely should be allowed to do it.

[Dreadnaught]

It's a step forward.

The main things the military needs to address are improving the support for and reducing the sigma around reporting rapes.

Though some women will have disproportionate trouble passing certain physical tests required to get into certain combat units. Whatever happens, there should be no claiming of "disperate impact" and having those physical requirements somehow changed.

[GGT]

Not necessarily disagreeing with your points Gee.

There are differences between men and women, some which are, in my view, fairly fundamental. Whether those differences would affect roles on the front line is up for debate, which is why I brought it up.

There are differences between and among men, too. This reminds me of the debate about female cops or firefighters, worrying they wouldn't meet the physical challenges. Or lowering standards to accommodate them in an affirmative-action type move. That didn't happen either.

Newt Gingrich has said that women can't spend 30 days in a ditch because they get infections.

Well, men get trench foot and malaria....even suffer embolisms from crouching in tight spaces like tank turrets. Men also get UTIs and yeast infections. We all know he was referring to female anatomy and menstruation, as if they're valid reasons to question their capabilities. Methinks he doesn't understand biology or modern pharmaceuticals.

<The GOP has a habit of expressing a particular gender and sexual bias ignorance. What's up with that? >

Australia, New Zealand, Canada (pledged but not yet happened?), Israel and Norway all have front-line female soldiers, and not heard of issues there.

It's important to remember that US women HAVE been on the front lines since forever. Their roles have advanced beyond nurses/medics or unarmed 'ancillary support', but the pay scale and leadership opportunities haven't kept pace. This move is going to make process and procedure match up with reality.

[Hazir]

The only exception I would see is for pregnant women. It may not be a popular notion but I think pregnancy while serving in a combat function should be treated as a private risk and it should not burden the army as if it is any odd employer. They should get the right to discharge any woman in a combat function if she gets pregnant.

[Flixy]

Considering at any given time a large portion of the military is not on a mission, you can also just assign them to home based functions, and then maternity leave around the birth. IIRC over here women are not sent on missions during the first years of having a child.

[wiggin]

The only exception I would see is for pregnant women. It may not be a popular notion but I think pregnancy while serving in a combat function should be treated as a private risk and it should not burden the army as if it is any odd employer. They should get the right to discharge any woman in a combat function if she gets pregnant.

Considering at any given time a large portion of the military is not on a mission, you can also just assign them to home based functions, and then maternity leave around the birth. IIRC over here women are not sent on missions during the first years of having a child.

I don't think it's grounds for discharge, Hazir - then no woman in her right mind would sign up - but I also don't think it's as straightforward as you describe, Flixy. Trigger-pullers (as opposed to non-combat roles) get deployed quite frequently and on short notice. They also deploy as a unit, not on an individuals basis. Obviously if the numbers were small this wouldn't be a concern, but if significant numbers of women ever entered combat roles, we would be in trouble if we made those kind of policies wrt pregnancy. Frankly, it's the best reason I can think of for discouraging women from combat roles.

[Lebanese Dragon]

Another alternative is to just do a person by person basis for who is eligible for what.

[RandBlade]

Women (unless pregnant) should either be equally able to be on the frontline or not in the military at all. It's quite shocking that they're currently in the absurd situation: do male soldiers get paid more than their female counterparts* to compensate for their higher risk?

* I know men are more likely to get promoted as they get more experience but a rookies counterpart is another rookie, not a captain.

[GGT]

Men get combat pay when deployed, in addition to their regular military pay, IIRC. Deployment in combat zones comes with automatic death insurance (paid to their spouses, another example of the inequities for same-sex married couples), but not sure if that benefit extends to soldiers attached to combat units.

Modernizing military SOPs is long overdue....not just for women or gays, but also defining what "combat" or "war duty" means.

Along with this comes modernizing Selective Service. If it's going to be mandated for all 18 year old males (another debate of its own) it should be mandated for all 18 year old females, too.

[Hazir]

Considering at any given time a large portion of the military is not on a mission, you can also just assign them to home based functions, and then maternity leave around the birth. IIRC over here women are not sent on missions during the first years of having a child.

That would be preferential treatment for what basically is not much different in essence than willfull self-mutilation i.e. making yourself unfit for battle.

A woman who has the desire to become pregnant should be allowed to have herself considered for placement in a non-combat position on an equal footing with a male. Once she is in such a non-combat position things can refer to 'normal' regulations wrt to pregnancy.

[RandBlade]

That would be preferential treatment for what basically is not much different in essence than willfull self-mutilation i.e. making yourself unfit for battle.

A woman who has the desire to become pregnant should be allowed to have herself considered for placement in a non-combat position on an equal footing with a male. Once she is in such a non-combat position things can refer to 'normal' regulations wrt to pregnancy.

Do you have that belief for all employment rights laws?

Should regular employers be allowed to dismiss pregnant women for their pregnancy if they can't do their job due to the pregnancy?
Should Statutory Maternity Pay etc be abolished?
Should employers be required to hold a job open for if/when a woman returns (which she's under no obligation to do) after maternity leave rather than filling the vacancy?

[wiggin]

I don't think Hazir's right, RB, but this is certainly a specialized case. For one, combat troops are a pretty tight age range which fits smack dab in the middle of maximum fertility for women. For another, it's a job that can't be held open indefinitely - a country needs a given effective fighting force. Certainly it wouldn't be an issue for the occasional woman combat soldier (already women are not deployed to warzones for ostensibly non-combat jobs during pregnancy), but what if our combat forces were 50% women? Assuming that at any given time 10% of them would be pregnant/in maternity leave (not unreasonable at all given the ages), you're looking at a permanent reduction of 5% of your fighting force. I think that it's not unreasonable to be concerned about that more than if your workforce in a less exigent job was similarly curtailed. (Also, FYI, the US doesn't have statutory maternity pay. It doesn't even have maternity leave for small businesses.)

Maybe it's just the price of doing business, and we would have to shift to a higher target troop level and frequent deployment of understrength units. I certainly don't see a good way to reasonably and fairly deal with the issue without being viciously discriminatory. Yet Hazir isn't wrong that it's a non-trivial problem.

One thing I really take exception with, though, is Hazir's contention that we might see women getting pregnant on purpose to avoid deployment. I simply don't see that as likely on a large scale in a professional military, and I think it impugns the sense of duty of our soldiers to suggest it would be a problem. Your punitive arrangement is also somewhat problematic in that plenty of people get pregnant when they're not planning to.

[RandBlade]

10% sounds rather high as a ballpark figure but more than 5% of the force isn't deployed at combat zones at any one time anyway. I do agree its a concern, but not I think one that warrants a dishonorable discharge.

[wiggin]

10% sounds rather high as a ballpark figure but more than 5% of the force isn't deployed at combat zones at any one time anyway. I do agree its a concern, but not I think one that warrants a dishonorable discharge.

So let's imagine that our hypothetical fighting force is composed of men and women of approximately 18-30 years of age. Pregnancy plus maternity leave gives you a year per child. Assuming at least one pregnancy per woman before the age of 30 (average age of 1st child in the US is around 25), you're talking roughly 10% of the the female combat force. Obviously this is only relevant for deployment; they can still do most of their jobs back home during pregnancy. However, to suggest that you can just keep pregnant women home since the majority of your force isn't deployed anyways misses the point. Whole units are deployed that train and work together. What if the woman is a platoon commander or higher? Not so easy to replace. What if she's a spotter for the sniper, or the explosives expert, or the tank gunner? These jobs are not easily replaceable where you can just slot in an equally trained soldier and expect the same performance. Soldiers work in teams, and arbitrarily breaking them up by subtracting 5% of any given unit's strength is problematic.

Also, you're wrong about deployment numbers. Just counting Iraq and Afghanistan, maximum deployment was about 14% of total active duty troops. Since most of those were trigger pullers, it's a higher percentage of combat soldiers... and that's not including other theaters at the time where a pregnant woman would not be used. Along with various small conflicts going on, pregnant women are also not allowed on US Navy ships; given that another ~15% of our active duty force is afloat at any given time, that starts to add up. And these are small wars - think about the percentage of combat troops used in the first Gulf War. That was a mind-bogglingly large chunk of the US military.

[Khendraja'aro]

That line of reasoning, wiggin, can be applied to any job save the ones with the least responsibilities and training.

[wiggin]

Yes, but not every job involves life and death and national security, and not every job requires a year off (pregnancy + maternity leave) rather than 3 months.

[Khendraja'aro]

Police force, Secret Service, anyone working in a Chemistry Lab, I'm sure there are more.

Not to mention that you're obviously proposing that never anything untoward like an accident happens. Or enemy fire. Or illness.
Anything which would remove, say, the tank gunner from his post without prior warning. Even if he is male.

The point would be: You know that this can happen and then you should plan accordingly.

It's the same as with every other job with some responsibility: There should always be a plan for the time when you're not available for whatever reason. Countless companies have gone under because some guy in a key position did not plan for him to be unavailable for more than one day. Doesn't have to be the boss - you just need a sysadmin who didn't write down his passwords, for example.