I’ve been in the Army - a co-ed army, BTW, the Canadian Armed Forces - and we weren’t SPECIFICALLY trained to run in terror, either. You’re trained to be disciplined, to have certain skills, and to be devoted to accomplishing the mission you’re assigned. If you’re a good enough soldier to do the job and not be unnecessarily distracted by mortal danger, or the desire to protect your friends, there’s no reason the instict to protect females would be any greater a distraction than what you’re already facing. IMHO, it’s a red herring.
I have to admit that I have worked with female soldiers, and my honest perception is that on average they were just as good as the average guy. Women ARE weaker than men, on average, but
Really weak, wimpy women don’t join the frickin’ Army, guys, and
You do not have to be an Olympic athlete for 99% of Army roles. Quite frankly, any reasonably fit person can do it. And hey, some women are great athletes, so you can find women for those roles too.
FWIW my sister fixed jets during the Vietnam War at Udorn AFB in Thailand. Plus, she’s very assertive (as am I) and we learned to handle guns in our teens. If a woman can and is willing to do the job as well as a man, I have no objection to her being in a combat situation.
I’d have to agree that menses is a poor argument against women in combat. If expectations in boot and beyond are equal for men and women, I have LITTLE problem with women in combat. The ONLY issue I have with it is that you can lose a lot of human resources in combat (see the Soviets in WWII). Women are crucial to the population of a country (more so then men-only they can give birth). I’d rather that those who give birth to our future citizens not be in combat, but if that is their choice, and they prove they are capable, then fine.
I believe you’re talking about Shannon Faulkner, and she didn’t expect special treatment–she just couldn’t hack it, and dropped out as many cadets do in their first year. She just got far more media attention for dropping out because of who she was. Besides, in that case, the system worked exactly as it should–she didn’t get special treatment, and the system weeded her out because she wasn’t tough enough.
Interestingly, I saw a 60 Minutes report on The Citadel regarding women. In 1999, the Citadel graduated its first female cadet. At that time, there were 142 women enrolled, with no apparent problems.
I didn’t say that all women of insufficient physical toughness would self-select out, just that many or most would. And if the system is set up to handle women as a matter of course, than those like Shannon Faulkner will be dropped in the course of training.
I’d like to second this. You really don’t need to be any kind of athlete for most of what you have to do, even in the infantry. You’re trained to a basic level of physical fitness and strength that isn’t particularly remarkable. Anyone with a regular gym program is already as fit as most soldiers.
(1) Not all women do, therefore not all women would be unfit for combat
(2) In a live combat situation, I personally (as I imagine most women would) would take the birth-control pill without 7-day-lapse and thereby avoid menses. I would even be happy for military authorities to prescribe that as a rule. After all, soldiers are dosed with other drugs and vaccinations to protect their performance as much as possible, albeit to ward off tropical disease or chemical weapons, etc.
So some women can meet those requirements, but not all => ban all women?
Well, as has been pointed out, not all men make military requirements => ban all men?
This is true.
I have maybe a couple of periods a year. (No reason for it, I just don’t get 'em).
On the odd occation I do get one, I don’t get emotional, or cramps, etc. It’s not actually all that uncommon, a lot of women get this… extreeme reations, like Dysmenhorrhea are quite rare.
Now, I’ve been attacked on this elsewhere for presenting as evidence in support of my argument a report which “must” have political overtones. But I’ve yet to see anything of substance which contradicts it.
Tracer, are you sure? I seriously couldn’t see them allowing people that refuse to take the pill, and with any possibility of the menses inhibiting them into combat, no matter what the religion. And would it truly be against their religion, as they aren’t using it at all as a contraceptive, and probably not even being in situations where they’d need it as a contraceptive?
You are right, Catholic women can take the Pill if it is medically indicated for hormonal stabilization. And if the RCC were to adjudicate that there is too much of a BC component in this prescription, then they can just sign in for noncombat roles as today.
If the individual is fully capable of performing up to standards, and the unit can function with that individual in it (training, training, training…), then I have no objection to that individual filling any billet in the services.
OTOH, how the heck do I train the voting public back in Middle America to accept this…
jrd
That is wishful thinking at best. It is a fact that, on average, women are physically smaller and weaker than men. I can see how in certain types of combat units this may not be a significant disadvantage (ie serving onboard a warship). I can also see how lower upper body strength can be a disadvantage (ie rapelling off a helicopter, carying a heavy load around. But, if they meet the requirements, they should be allowed in the same units as blacks and other groups who have been segregated units in the past. I just cant agree with dropping the requirements in order to fullfill some PC social experiment.
I’ve never been in the military or in combat, but I imagine it takes a little more than just sitting on your ass, pointing a gun at someone and shooting. It looks like it involves a lot of running and ducking through trees, buildings, and foxholes.
So, Dave, because 11.1% of female recruits wash out due to repetitive stress injury, the other 88.9% should be barred from combat roles? That makes no sense.
Women also wind up pregnant a lot, and have to be evacuated out. Wasn’t there a ship in the Gulf War with women soldiers that they called the “Love Boat” because so high a proportion of the females were pregnant?
Sua - I think the point is that expending the extra effort to incorporate women into the combat military isn’t worth it. I doubt the repetitive stress injuries stop happening once you get out of basic training. Women soldiers/sailors are going to get injured more than men through out their careers.
I remember reading that they conducted war games with all-male battalions, mixed, and all female battalions. Almost without exception, the all-male wound up first, the mixed second, and the all-female last. I can’t locate the cite, but I am told that questioning the role of women in the military can be as much as an officer’s career is worth.
A lot of jobs in the military involve heavy lifting. Men are going to out compete women for those jobs, overall.
Well, no, december, but you do need a strong sailor to load shells into the guns, or a strong soldier to carry a SAW, or use a bayonet, or carry a backpack, or load a truck, or evacuate a 200 pound casualty.
A) We definitely need a cite on that one.
B) What “all female battalions” were these, and how well-trained were the women in them and in the mixed battalions? Talk to any veteran of combat and he (or she) will tell you that the vast majority of a unit’s ability comes from training done within that unit and the experience of the leadership. This experiment would be valid only if they manned all three units with the same level of experience and training. That would be difficult, since the only way to get any female Lieutenant Colonels with direct-fire combat arms experience is to spend twenty years training them in direct-fire combat arms skills and tactics. Ditto for Sergeants Major (twenty years), Captains (five to ten years), Sergeants First Class (eight to twelve years) or even the first-line supervisors, Lieutenants (two to four years) and Sergeants (two to four years).
As for your assertion that **
, I hear that mostly from people whose definition of “questioning the role of women in the military” includes “let me paw and degrade them, give them less and worse training, provide them with fewer and inferior resources, and do everything I can to make them quit, then cite their failure as a reason they shouldn’t be allowed.” We don’t have Political Officers in the American military – I hear quote-politically-incorrect-endquote statements every single day, and no one’s ever lost a career because of them.
I think the logic with keeping women and gays out of the millitary are both the same… some good logic with a bunch of prejudice thrown in for fun.
I think, its really important to keep people from falling in love during a war. well strategicly. the army needs the first alegiance being towards them, towards your comanding officer, or someone like that. not towards another soldier who you love. think of any situation with men and women where romance does not EVER occur. no one wants it to be nessisary to keep track of who you can’t send because if you do their boyfreind/girlfreind will try and look out for them.
women, also, can get pregnent. and you do not need to be pregnent while people are shooting at you. I don’t think its possible even in theory to keep 10,000 men from haveing sex with 10,000 women. and even one pregancy is a major thing. and no birth control is 100%
Women as a group are smaller and have less physical strength than men. That seems to be a given. If the study you mention had looked at battalions made up of soldiers weighing over 150 and compared them to battalions made up of soldiers weighing less than 150, I suspect the results would be the same. The point is, it is not the fact that they are women so much as it is the fact that one group is smaller and weaker than the other. In scientific terms, I suppose you could say the the independent variable was not gender but physical size.
If I were on the front lines I would prefer that all my fellow soldiers were big, burly types that could wrestle a bear to the ground. But I would also like them to be able to pick off a sniper at 200 yards, crawl through small openings, understand military strategy, maybe even speak a foreign language or two. I would take into consideration all these things and others in selecting my deal troopers.
