I think the argument that women are not as physically able to go into combat is complete and utter BS. I have seen some pretty wimpy looking male infanteers, and worked with a few that I could’ve taken out myself when I was in the military. Is it for EVERY woman? No, but neither is it for every man. The training is tough and weeds out many potential soldiers.
As far as I know, Canada allows women into the combat-at-arms trades, providing they can make the physical requirements of the job. The only job closed to women is submarine training, but that is more due to obsolete equipment and the necessary changes for having mixed crews (under the Geneva Convention, women are required separate sleeping and bathroom facilities). An all-female crew might be allowed though.
I myself do not think I could at this time (dragging my big, pregnant self through pepper-podding drills does not excite me), however, there was a time (when I finished basic training) that I feel I probably could’ve made a go at Battle School, if the desire had been there. I definitely have friends, both male and female who would make kick-ass infanteers.
I do think it’s interesting that usually the reasons given for not allowing mixed-gender teams is because the men are “distracted”.
I can see where having to plan around a pregnant female would affect a unit’s battle readiness; but what about men who are discipline problems and thus also affect their unit’s battle readiness? I’m all for restricting individuals from certain jobs in the military based on reasonable job descriptions, but if a woman wants to join the Special Forces and is capable of doing why not give her a chance?
There’s another way of looking at this: Would you like to have the accepted norms of civilian culture imposed on the military?
What if this resulted in a less effective and more demoralized military?
A friend of mine in the Navy pointed out that, in a military environment with equal numbers of men and women, tasks are not assigned randomly. Indoor office jobs tend to go to womwn and men get the jobs involving heavy lifting. Integrating a unit is not generally in most men’s best interest.
I’d like to see the military impose my liberal middle-class values on all those jarhead jockboys, but not at the expense of their [it]raison d’etre.[/it] My revenge on the sadistic rednecks of my youth (who eventually went into the military) takes a backseat to my desire for secure borders and guarded shipping lanes.
It comes down to one very simple point: Would you wanna be around a female with PMS and a gun?
It raises a decent enough question though - Even the most physically fit woman in the world takes a pretty substantial hit to her physical abilities once a month, no? I know it’s hardly the cartoonishly exagerrated thing that I’ve made it out to be, but it seems it could be a big enough problem on average.
Combat test results could probably be found by studying mixed russian units in WWII, btw… I know they at least had females in their paratroop units.
I think the main reason is the lack of facilities for females. There isn’t room for separate male and female berthing and bathing facilities on a sub. I’ve heard that the next class of subs will be designed to carry mixed crews, but really don’t know how reliable these reports are.
Well, for the US at least, we really aren’t worried about our unarmed civilians. They are all in the US, and no one is really predicting that there’s going to be a war on US soil in the foreseeable future. So American women will not get raped in combat unless they are sent to where the combat is.
I’ve also heard the rationale that women’s pelvises aren’t fused like men’s, making the carrying of heavy loads harder on women.
A male soldier with a discipline problem and a pregnant female soldier is not in in the same ballpark. One is remediable, the other is not (excepting abortion). A problem soldier can still be effective in combat, but only less so. A pregnant soldier who is combat exempt has zero effectiveness. And lest you think that only soldiers at the front line are in danger of life and limb, I might remind you of the Scud attack that hit my barracks in Dhahran. Several women died as well as men. A war on terrorism means there effectively is no front, and all of our soldiers will be expected to pick up a rifle and defend to the best of their abilities regardless of their main military function.
Asked and answered (in the very first post, as it happens). The rest is a buncha GD bullshit which you all are free to take up over there (except for the British military’s stated reasons, which was also responsive – thanks Dagon, and welcome!).
