Well, it shouldn’t matter. But that is not the same as saying it doesn’t.
The issue is that it isn’t going to be like that, unfortunately.
I agree with you, and, having worked with some fantastic US troops recently, I know that it’s not the same. The differences go MUCH deeper than sheer size of the military, and it is not a one-size-fits-all answer. I’m not going to get into it all here, but I may get some of the nuances better than someone without that experience.
But just because something is difficult, or going to cause problems, doesn’t mean it isn’t right, and the simple fact is, if a woman wants to serve her country on the front lines, and has proven herself capable, she should be allowed to do so.
No but F-14 pilots are expected to be able to keep them from rolling over. When female pilots were brought into the fighter combat roll it turned into a political event with members of Congress intervening in the process. The very first woman to qualify died early in her career.
The military does not function well when put into the role of being an equal opportunity employer. It’s function is to train people to kill other people and destroy things. While these are not mutually exclusive goals there is no place in the military for compromise on it’s mission. The standards need to be maintained for the safety and success of the mission. I think everybody can agree on this.
So putting training/qualification issues aside there is a practical problem with investing time and money training women and it’s been mentioned. They get pregnant. In time of war this can drastically reduce the readiness of an operation that requires skilled soldiers.
Most recently, the Army was considering allowing women to attend Ranger School. Logistically this should have been very easy. Complete overhauls of living quarters and training facilities would not have to be made. No adjustment to POI would have been necessary. It should have been as easy as saying “okay, let women go through if they want.”
But that is not how it works. They established an entire committee to review the “feasibility”. Then they started nitpicking every aspect of training. For instance, why are candidates required to shave their heads, anyway? We couldn’t possibly ask women to do that, right? So then, to not be sexist we have to stop making men do it. Discussion then came up about slit trenches and patrol bases and all kinds of mess. It got to the point where every single part of training had to either be justified as necessity or alterred.
Why? Why change anything? If you want to fully integrate females into anything, it should be as simple as just letting them in. Change nothing. Any change to “accomadate” female personnel is just an admission that they can’t do it to the current standard.
In a perfect world, women would simply be given the oppurtunity to do any job they desire. If they fail, they fail. If they pass, they pass. But the Army is never going to do that. This is an Army that doesn’t believe males can share living quarters with females without raping them. This is an Army that believes women are fragile little flowers that cannot protect themselves from the rape-lust driven males. This is an Army driven by a culture which more openly accepts bloody violence on television than a bare breast.
At the small unit level, it works fine. Another reason it is easier to implement in smaller militaries. I’ve seen MP platoons all share a tent with no issues. 30 males and 2 females all sharing a tent without raping or assaulting each other. It can be done. But big mother Army would never go for that. They want “seperate and secure”. Seperate but equal, right?
The entire culture and attitude towards female soldiers (hell, towards females in general) needs to be changed. Instead of trying to effect these changes, the Army will do its best to accomadate instead of integrate.
Then, instead of accepting that a higher percentage of women who enlist for the infantry are going to fail than the percentage of males, the Army is going to adjust their standards. Adjusting of course means “lowering”, but they will never call it that.
The thing is, the reverse is true. Male enemy combatants (and yes, definitely Muslim males of fighting age) are less likely to surrender to a female, thus raising the risk to the unit as a whole.
And that’s really kinda the point. It’s not about the women. It’s not about the men. It’s about the unit, and it’s combat effectiveness. The Israelis have pulled almost all female soldiers from combat infantry units, because the men react worse to a female getting wounded or KIA, and the enemy is less likely to surrender to a female.
Of modern armies in the world, none, not one, has women integrated into coed infantry combat units. Multiple armies have tried, including the Russians and the Israelis. All have backed away from the idea, because it doesn’t work well, for a variety of reasons both biology based (upper body strength, resistance to diseases when living in filthy conditions in the field) as well as psychology based (male sexual instincts, male protective instincts, female sexual instincts, male and female reaction to aggressive females etc).
The only modern military attempting this is the Chinese PLA. And the female combat infantry units are ALL female, not coed. If that is the direction the OP is interested in, it might be worth exploring, but coed combat infantry units are just not a good idea. The don’t work well, and they reduce unit effectiveness.
Bottom line, unit effectiveness is THE most important thing. More important than politics, sexual or otherwise. Things that degrade that end up in more body bags coming home to grieving families.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
I agree totally. Some of the tangental arguments I am having here have, I think, clouded other people’s idea of what exactly my opinion is.
Just to restate:
I think women should be allowed to serve equally across the board in any military position they desire. Absolutely no changes or adjustment should be made to any current training. If she passes, she earns it. If she fails, she can get a different job. Nothing should be done to “promote” women in any particular job field. No standards should be lowered and no specific accomadations should be made. Assuming that such accomadations or changes are necessary is simply admitting there is no female capable of doing the job.
The issue is that it would never happen like that. Training will be adjusted and standards will be lowered to reach official or unofficial quotas.
My gosh. Do female dorms at the military academies, the Citadel, etc. have the same requirements, or is it only the grunts who are supposed to be unable to repress their unbearable urges? Whomever came with those requirements has a serious mental problem. Mind you: in general, I do think that having to keep separate “male” and “female” toilets is a PITA for many job sites - it’s not as if people don’t share potties at home! What, going to work suddenly makes both genders get cooties or something?
Ah, it was one in Gramps’ army. Then again, most people couldn’t drive, back then: “driver” was a specialist job.
So how does shaving your head make you a better soldier? Sikhs serve as soldiers in the modern British and Indian armies. They are culturally and religiously forbidden to cut their hair, and so sport long hair covered by a turban. Their long hair not withstanding , those guys are among the most dedicated and toughest soldiers around – you would not want them as your opponents on any day, good or bad.
By your logic, the army should ignore all cultural differences among its recruits. But no modern nation would be able to sustain a dedicated fighting force made of volunteers if it ignores the prime motivation for going to war – the (perceived, often false) need to protect one’s culture/religion/people/society (i.e. everything that embodies a nation) against the invasion of an alien one. So the army makes tiny cultural changes – mostly cosmetic ones that will make no difference to the overall performance of the recruit.
I find it oddly curious that in early 1900s, women bobbed their hair to show that they were as good as men, and in early 2000s you are calling upon them to shave their heads to still show that they are as good as men (in some roles). Again, by extending your logic, should we ask men who want to get the sole custody of their children (i.e. “mother” as well as father their children) to grow their hair long and put on lipstick?
From their experience, no doubt. Please bear in mind that rape may not always be a one-on-one situation, and even the toughest soldier will fall under assault from multiple attackers.
I think that the culture and attitude towards male soldiers (and men in general) needs to be changed too. But that is for another thread. IMO, a lot will change for the better if the army accepts that (a) consensual sexual acts are non-prosecutable, and (b) every human being can do the job should be allowed to do it, irrespective of gender or sexual orientation
The situation in the Israeli army is similar, although not as severe. The women’s area - barracks, bathrooms and showers - is always fenced off, and males are strictly prohibited from entering, creating a “safe zone” for female soldiers. There are no locks or electrical countermeasures, though, and women are allowed to hang out by the men’s barracks. In other parts of the base, bathrooms are either male/female or simply a single co-ed room.
One interesting rule is that female enlisted soldiers are not allowed to spend the night at a base unless a female officer - any female officer - is present in their barracks.
Well, this is BS. The military does have a rape problem, you can’t deny that. Apparently males cannot even share military bases with females without raping them, so why are you astounded that they’re not sharing living quarters? You can’t actually believe that the military takes rape too seriously, do you?
We have co-Ed barracks (although not co-Ed rooms) and sometimes my showering/bathroom facilities simply have a flip-sign on whether it’s a men’s or a ladies at the time. I know my husband was initially taken aback to find out we sleep in the same tents and everything, but the only time it ever gives me pause it when it’s a brand new group of (usually all men) I haven’t worked with yet.
It can be done. Does that mean there are no perverts in my Army? Clearly I can’t say that, but what I can say is that my military culture doesn’t support it - they are the odd ones out.
I don’t know what your point is. The Nazis were more ideologically driven than the Soviets - that’s why they kept the concentration camps open even when they could use the manpower elsewhere. And the Nazis lost the war shortly after being invaded, unlike the Soviet Union.
But like you say, Nazi Germany allowed women in the work force when they started getting desperate for workers, just like the Soviets used women snipers when they were running low on personnel. Neither did so by choice, let alone because there was no difference in performance between men and women.
Regards,
Shodan
What army is that? I’m curious.
Incidentally, another problem with going fully co-ed is religion. That may not be an issue in Europe, but in more religious parts of the world, plenty of men would refuse to share a tent with women, or women to share a tent with men. It’s not something I’m particularly happy with, but that’s the way it is.
Going by Poysyn’s location, Canada.
Well, Canada *is *the Europe of North America.
Regardless of the reason they were motivated to allow women to join, the point is they did, and there were some successful women that served. No one is advocating that men would not perform better in these jobs, no one says that qualified men should be denied the opportunity so women can join and no one believes that standards should be lowered to allow women to be included. The point being made is that IF a women is qualified and CAN so the job she SHOULD be allowed. All the reasons given are sexist or enabling sexism to dictate the opportunities people have.
I hardly see why other countries treatments or beliefs of women should dictate ours.
As far as men being more hostile and less likely to surrender to a woman, allow a man to step forward or you use the necessary force to subdue him. There are people that would also be more likely to surrender or cooperate with woman. This falls back on using the resources you have on hand effectively.
I’m in law enforcement now and regularly have to deal with men that have issues with women. There have been times I have stepped back so a male officer could detain one of these offenders, not because the offender was aggressive and fighting back, but because he surrendered to the male officer without any issues and it made the situation safer for everybody. Just like there have been times when people are more open and compliant with me than they were with a male officer. I don’t think anyone here would advocate women should not be in law enforcement.
Strength, nerves, hormones, social/political/religious etiquette … it’s all been covered so far.
I would add that women (or young women) are by and large USELESS these days.
The majority of women that would apply or serve on the frontlines are a minority. While those assets to society are getting shot at, their counterpart wastes of oxygen would be staying home and acting like Paris Hilton all the time.
We already shouldn’t be losing any young men and women for wars we don’t belong in, and countries that we shouldn’t give two shits about.
Great comment on first page about women POWs.
Yes, we are very sophisticated. 
I will also add that my yearly fitness test - the BFT (Battle Fitness Test) is the same standard, male or female, and when I did my Army Officer course, I was carrying the same gear (and took my turn as machine gunner and signal operator) as everyone else.
I know it would be a difficult transition, but it’s wrong to say the reason it shouldn’t happen is anything other than sexism.
I applaud this rational and smart thinking - and not letting some femi-nazi attitude get in your way which then also endangers everyone involved.
I do however disagree about women as police officers. Usually they are respected less, physically inferior and simply out of place - and they always will be.
Though I am biased because of my personal involvement and having watched good squad forces be debilitated by affirmative action where lives are in danger in order to achieve some status quo.