They do well enough in the Israeli army, don’t they?
The Israelis operate much like us - combat support jobs are open to women, most direct combat jobs are not.
How many women can’t meet the standards for direct combat? Is it the whole population of women? If a few women can meet the standards, why not let them into combat?
There are always going to be some women who are capable of doing what men can do, even if there are relevant psychological and physical differences between men and women on average. That’s just the nature of sex and gender–all the relevant secondary characteristics are averages along a spectrum.
The question is whether using gender as a proxy for some relevant differences is legitimate. I would say it is not legitimate as a proxy if the actual difference can be measured (e.g. ability to hike a certain distance or carry a load). There’s no point using gender as an approximate proxy when you can just measure that factor directly. If, on the other hand, there is some average difference which cannot be easily measured (e.g. an increased ability to kill without hesitation), then it makes sense to use gender as a proxy.
One real difference between the sexes that does track self-identified gender pretty closely is pregnancy and pregnancy-related health issues. There are a few health problems relevant to combat and unique to males (e.g. testicular torsion), but they tend to be less severe than the ones unique to females (e.g. ectopic pregnancy). Not sure if that factor alone would justify the difference. What happens when women in the military get pregnant now? Do they automatically get leave?
They are usually assigned to rear area support duties.
For example, in the Navy, a pregnant female will not “deploy” on WestPac with her command (assuming, of course, she was in a deployable command in the first place). She would probably be temporarily assigned to a nondeployable command, doing (light duty) busy-work.
I thought there were rules about sexual misconduct already in place. Why can’t those rules continue to apply (with changes of course if the wording is too gender specific). The only difference is that if DADT is lifted, sexuality won’t be cause for discharge but sexual misconduct – regardless of any gender pairing – can be handled just as it always was. Sexual misconduct is sexual misconduct. I’m not talking about finding out someone is gay and coming up with a reason to discharge him/her but true misconduct under the general rules of the armed forces.
I do note that someone mentioned some sexual conduct is swept under the rug now but wonder if, sans DADT, there will be more/less/the same follow-up.
AFAIK Israeli women can volunteer for direct combat, but must serve for 3 years (instead of 2) and do reserve duty just like the men. Is that incorrect?
So basically in most cases there’s no less privacy in the military than a typical college dorm.
DOMA would prevent the DoD from recognizing marriages among same-sex couples, but a domestic partnership isn’t unreasonable. Would domestic partner benefits require an act of Congress or could Obama do it by executrive order?
On the sexual misconduct issue, the rules right now should work fine, if fairly enforced. In the past (my personal experience ends in 1999) it was commonly swept under the rug. If adding open homosexuals to the mix causes more enforcement across the board, then I say good. It will complicate the lives of many XOs and COs, just like adding women to the crews of combat vessels did. That just means they wll have to learn to deal with it.
On women in combat, I have always been somewhat ambivalent on in it. On the one hand, common fairness should mandate that if they meet the physical requirements they should be able to make the same choices as men. The problem is as the regulations stand now, women do not need to meet the same physical requirements as men in the military. That may not matter much if you are sitting at a radar screen or flying a jet, but when it comes to loading munitions or hauling a pack, it becomes a problem. If an infantryman needs to be able to carry 100lbs of gear on a forced march and an infantrywoman only has to carry 70lbs, then each woman added to your platoon reduces your load out and your effectiveness in combat.
This is of course assuming that the physical requirements actually are relevant to the job. Carrying a load is important for grunts and lifting heavy weights is important for deck crew. In an ideal military the specifications would be tied to job, and not to sex and age as they are now.
Jonathan
Some pictures I have seen of combat troops deployed to Iraq are not all sleeping in “dorm” like conditions. For some established bases, yes. Out in the field, they sleep whereever there is enough horizontal space, it seems.
I don’t think it would bother a woman any more than it might bother a dude to sleep in a room full of smelly people snoring… 
Well color me stupid!
I guess gays aren’t allowed in the military for reasons other than bigotry, as well? They’re just inferior fighters! It is not a politically correct thing; if those poor homos could fight worth a damn, sure, we’d give them a job in the military.
Let’s be serious for a moment. I was in the military as I’m sure a lot of others in this thread were too. They don’t just sign you up and ship you off to kill brown people. There is basic training, AIT, and after that, if you’re combat arms, pretty much every day in garrison is spent training for war. And it isn’t just theoretical classroom stuff either. Every day soldiers are given an opportunity to display their skills and the ones who can’t perform those skills are eventually cut loose – or, more likely, given a sham job somewhere where their mistakes won’t kill people. Men have chance after chance to prove they are superior fighters and plenty of them fail at it.
So don’t tell me it isn’t about bigotry. You’re writing off women as inferior fighters without even giving them a single chance to prove otherwise. That’s the definition of bigotry.
It is a lot different than a college dorm. Privacy is nice, but it is often a luxury. It doesn’t matter. Sleeping arrangements while deployed is a problem that was solved a long time ago. Women have been allowed in the Army since the 70s and have deployed with men since at least the 50s; the only issue is whether they’re allowed to kill people as the main component of their job or whether they can only do it incidentally in the course of performing some other job while deployed to a war zone.
Wow, it would be so cool if the Big O did it.
I joined the Army in '87. Random thoughts: when I was in basic training there were these two guys who would lay next to each other on their bunk. One would recline on the other. Not in an overt sexual way, but in a WTF, guys don’t that! kind of way. Seriously, you can’t see one guy resting his head on the other guy’s chest and not think Whuh??? No one ever messed with them over it. We all had more serious things to worry about I guess, like the drill sergeants.
There’s almost always females who can not only pass the guys’ PT test, but there’s usually a couple who can max the guys’ PT test. In combat units, weight gets distributed. There’s the big guy who carries the big gun, and smaller guys who carry smaller stuff. I don’t see why a capable woman can’t participate in a unit like that. Maybe she can’t heft the M60, but some of the other guys can’t either. I wouldn’t want to see the standards lowered so a female who can only do five pushups joins a combat unit, though.
Being stationed with women is sweet, because they make the accommodations better. Not the women, the Army. Women aren’t expected to live in bleak mental hospital conditions like men are. Being deployed with women really is no big deal. If two people want to fool around they’ll find a way but it’s not like they’re going to fool around in front of everybody.
What about the potential (sexual) consequences of women being taken as prisoners? Is that a factor in the equation?
Riiight. “He’s gonna take away your guns and stick your brave American hero soldier son/daughter in a room with a bunch of QUEERS when the mission ain’t accomplished! This flag ain’t pink, teal, and off-white!” They’ll never forgive and never forget it. And they’ll ask why he’s worried about that issue when people are losing their jobs and such.
Ok, that bit cracked me up.
[OT]
Nevermind putting women in combat,; I’ll be happy if the next administration does the right thing and makes women register for the draft when they turn 18, just like their male peers! Who cares if the draft is never used again; it’s the principle of the matter…
[/OT]
I’d rather see the whole idea of the draft dropped entirely.
Why? WWII was necessary and for the greater good of all Americans and the world, there weren’t enough volunteers then either.
Because it is also used in unnecessary wars, and because it encourages the idea that the government does not have to offer an acceptable price for the resources it demands, and can simply take them by force.
The bigotry may have diminished very slightly, but I think not by much. The military tends to be a very conservative institution and does not change as quickly as other segments of society. Plus many soldiers come from a lower-class socioeconomic background which is home to some of the most scorching anti-gay bigotry you will ever find.
Law isn’t magic. There are always outliers who think the rules don’t apply to them. There will be assaults and there will be both command and peer harassment. The overt discrimination will be punished; a lot of the subtle stuff will be overlooked. People may get booted out of the service over it, but that doesn’t mean they won’t raise hell first.