View Full Version : Women in combat?
Has there been any political disscussion by any of the candidates concerning women in combat? What are your feelings on the subject? For or against? In a voluntary capacity or mandatory as it is for males? What about in the event of a draft? I, obvisiously, am for it - mandatory if a woman enlists and is in an occupantion that requires it as well as mandatyory if they are drafted. But I am suprised little attention is given to it considering we are in a long term war during an election year. Maybe it's just me, and the women I know in the service, who are interested in this. But since I ws in the Coast Guard (and yes they do go to war) which lifted it's ban on women in combat in the early 1970's and allows CG females to serve in combat positions as well as in any and all job specialties/occupations (unlike the other services) it wasn't a problem. But I would think it would be an issue for other women since it severely limits the jobs they can hold as well as advancement opportunities. Here's a bit of statistics:
"In the Army women cannot serve in the following: infantry, armor, cannon field artillery and short range air defense artillery.
In the Navy women are excluded from Submarine Warfare, Special Warfare (SEAL) and ratings particular to submarine service such as fire control technician, missile technician, and one aspect of sonar technician. Women can be sonar technicians...they just cannot serve in the submarine component of the rating.
The Marine Corps assignments closed to women are infantry, armor, field artillery, security force guard protecting nuclear material, and several positions related to armored, amphibious, assaultunits and fleet antiterrorism security teams.
Air Force positions closed or restricted are Combat Control, Special Operations Forces, Rotary Aircraft, TAC Pararescue, and Weather assignments with infantry or Special Forces.
All Coast Guard occupations and assignments are open to women."
According to a study by the Women's Research & Education Institute, the following percentage of military positions (jobs) are currently open to women:
Army: 52 percent
Navy: 59 percent
Air Force: 97 percent
Marines: 20 percent
Coast Guard: 100 percent
She-Rah,
Would you propose that females would have to achieve the same level of fitness and expertise as their male counter parts? And would they serve in the same roles as male soldiers? Say as Seals or infantry.
An unfortunate reality is that women prisoners would most likely be at risk for different physical treatment that men.
I don't have any problems with it and actually think it's a good idea, but those would be the issues in my mind. It also seems sort of silly that women are exluded from the technical non-combatant roles that you mentioned. Sounds like the rules were made by men or even good ol boys.
She-Rah,
Would you propose that females would have to achieve the same level of fitness and expertise as their male counter parts? And would they serve in the same roles as male soldiers? Say as Seals or infantry.
Yes. I think they should be held to the same standards as males in all areas.
I guess I think it odd that we talk about wanting a female for President but still ban them from many military jobs. er... Commander and Chief ? ;-)!
I served in Vietnam in another time that would not allow women to be in the jungles and unmentionable situations that many were forced to live but this is the 21st century, and not the the same Armed Services of yesteryear.
From what I see and hear from my nephew (who is currently in Iraq and has served in Afghanistan) more and more of our "conflicts" are based upon technology rather than boots on the ground. Not to say that at some point in any conflict it would require "real soldiers" but it is pretty apparent to me that we are almost at the point of waging war from cubicles. Drones, satellite control with real time information, weapons with pinpoint accuracy, etc.
Are women equal in combat? I would say that for the most part probably so with one caveat - physical combat, which for the most part is the responsibility these days of the Marines (hoorah). I personally think that our nation would be well served if we required some sort of public service from everyone at the age of 18 years of age. I think it would go a long way in stopping the politicians from committing our troops in these meaningless conflicts.
As a side note - I find the idea of contract mercenaries a disgusting idea and consider it nothing more that killers for hire.
Peace
loosechickens
9-15-11, 11:10pm
In Desert Storm, in this Iraq war, and in Afghanistan, the kind of war being waged is such that even people in support roles are right out there in the danger zone, and women are being killed in those wars, whether they are stock clerks, cooks or some office personnel.
In my own opinion, I believe women should be held to the same physical standards as men in the military and should be eligible for any positions they can qualify for. And not barred from any role. Face it, most MEN in the military couldn't become Navy SEALS, etc., so if some woman could manage it, more power to her.
A lot of it, in my own opinion, really IS the old boys network, with a "cover story" of protection of women. And, handily, these policies DO hamper women in achieving command positions and moving up in rank. Our son was at the Naval Academy when women were admitted there, and my god, you'd have thought that those hallowed halls were being defiled by (insert whatever horrible thing you can think of). As it turned out, women there have excelled, and our son's best friend at the academy was a woman Midshipman, who stood very close to the top of her class.
I kind of hate the whole idea of this professional military, because it becomes perilously close to mercenaries in a way that past makeup of the military, because of the draft, was not. In one sense, a volunteer military is a good thing, but it does have it's down side, and the creation of a professional military class can be very dangerous to a democracy. Especially with the alliance of the industrial complex........remember President Eisenhower's fears......
The Storyteller
9-18-11, 10:19am
Women can aim a gun and pull a trigger just as easily as a man, and I've known a number of women who could whip most of the men I know.
And it has been my experience that infantry depends more on endurance and the ability to carry your own weight. Women can handle that as well as men.
This is the next idioitic cave man rule that will fall.
The Storyteller
9-18-11, 10:29am
Ps: I can't believe all the liberals now days getting all nostalgic about the draft. My draft number was 362, so there was no way I was getting drafted. I joined the Marines. By and large, the draftees I served with were ****birds who wanted nothing more than to get the **** out of there. They hated it.
I think y'all just miss your protest days.
Ps: I can't believe all the liberals now days getting all nostalgic about the draft. My draft number was 362, so there was no way I was getting drafted. I joined the Marines. By and large, the draftees I served with were ****birds who wanted nothing more than to get the **** out of there. They hated it.
I think y'all just miss your protest days.
Tell that to all of the draftees who died in Vietnam. I was a drafted in 1965 and can say you have no idea what you are talking about.
Ps: I can't believe all the liberals now days getting all nostalgic about the draft. My draft number was 362, so there was no way I was getting drafted. I joined the Marines. By and large, the draftees I served with were ****birds who wanted nothing more than to get the **** out of there. They hated it.
I think y'all just miss your protest days.
Nobody's "nostalgic" about the draft, however there is some discussion that if there were a draft, politicians would not be so cavalier about starting military conflicts since right now military deaths can be brushed aside with a "well, they CHOSE to join the military."
As to women in combat: Functionally, they already perform many combat duties. If any woman or man is physically, emotionally or mentally unable to fulfill a combat duty, they should be excused.
I am sure that there are a handful of women out there who would meet the requirements and this is a different world. The military has changed, a lot of the old arguments have already been resolved by the presence of women in formerly forbidden areas.
They should probably lift all restraints and take it on an individual basis. They should NOT eliminate standards that have practical applications.
Ps: I can't believe all the liberals now days getting all nostalgic about the draft. My draft number was 362, so there was no way I was getting drafted. I joined the Marines. By and large, the draftees I served with were ****birds who wanted nothing more than to get the **** out of there. They hated it.
I think y'all just miss your protest days.
I do miss the days of protest and youth involvement in the 60's and 70's. Much more fun and meaningful than "facebooking" or "tweeting". >8)
I think the young people are getting the shaft these days simply because they are not paying enough attention to issues that will dramatically affect them later in life.
I was drafted and I'll admit I thought the military was mindless and I hated the war. I did my time but was glad when I got out. I got an free education for my service and did make a lot of lifelong friends from those days but I always thought the war was stupid. Still do. (I haven't heard the term ****bird in years :laff:)
Peace
The Storyteller
9-18-11, 2:24pm
Tell that to all of the draftees who died in Vietnam.
Who wouldn't have even been there without the draft unless they wanted to be like me. A draft is involuntarily servitude.
The draft ended during my stint in the corps. I saw a marked difference between the Marines I started with and those I ended with. Today, now that the military has fully adjusted, the difference is huge. Today's military is vastly superior in quality of personnel. It isn't even close.
All volunteer is better for people and better for the military, and much better for the country.
There were not enough volunteers during Vietnam. I was almost a Marine. They were also drafting and every other person in line became a Marine. You miss my point the draftees served their country and died for it just like the volunteers.
To Storytellers point, we are much better served by an all voluntary military, especially now that we don't depend entirely on warm bodies on the front lines.
As for women in combat, I think gender shouldn't play a role in duty assigned, as long as the requirements for the role can be met, but let's not kid ourselves, there are organizational headaches associated with it.
The Storyteller
9-18-11, 3:03pm
There were not enough volunteers during Vietnam. I was almost a Marine. They were also drafting and every other person in line became a Marine. You miss my point the draftees served their country and died for it just like the volunteers.
No, I got your point. I think you missed mine. Too busy getting offended.
loosechickens
9-18-11, 3:22pm
I don't think there is really any doubt that the possible effectiveness of an all volunteer force might be superior. But for other considerations, such as having more of a cross section of American citizens with "skin in the game", the dangers of collaboration between a professional mercenary type military with the corporate industrial complex to a democracy, etc. not so much.
Before we denigrate draftees, perhaps a moment of silence for people like my father and father-in-law, who were drafted in WWII, one of whom served in the South Pacific, and the other in combat in Italy and North Africa. We owe our freedom to the many, many thousands of draftees in WWII, and when the enemy killed our troops, draftees and volunteers bled exactly the same blood.
It's like anything else....you have to choose the parameters within which you are going to assess something. For purely putting together the most efficient, professional fighting forces, surely a volunteer military might be better. For providing defense and support of our democracy, involving our citizenry in a cross section of America, making the people who decide to go to war a bit more careful about their decisions, and helping prevent what many have begun to see as an unholy alliance between a professional military class and the corporations who make billions on war.....perhaps not so much.
I wouldn't get too hung up on "class" of our military, whether it's a valid cross-section of society or whether they're simply tools of corporations, as all of that has nothing to do with the boots on the ground reality of the average military member.
The draft only provides bodies. In the absence of overwhelming need, a professional, voluntary military is much more efficient. During my time in the Air Force, those who joined attempting to avoid the draft (where they would end up as Army or Marine grunts) spent more time and effort trying to avoid their duties than they were worth. Of course there were exceptions to the rule, but they were few and far between.
The Storyteller
9-19-11, 11:26am
Before we denigrate draftees,
Spare me.
For purely putting together the most efficient, professional fighting forces, surely a volunteer military might be better.
There is no question it is better. It is better for us, and better for them. Since the military acts at the behest and command of the citizens, I would say that is all that matters. It is the volunteers who always tended to make it a career, anyway. The draftees never had any power to speak of, so I don't see that it changes anything politically.
I should also add that it is unquestionably better for those who do not wish to serve in the military. What, we are going to force some kid who just wants to live a civilian life, go to school, get a job, whatever, to fight when they have no desire to do so, just to make some cynical political point?
Absurd.
but let's not kid ourselves, there are organizational headaches associated with it.
As well as those...er...ah...practical logistics. Nothing worse then gearing up and then realizing you gotta pee :-)! Maybe women need different uniforms or astronaut style diapers. Nothing says brave warrior then annoucing it's time to change your diaper :-)! Or they could just join the sea services and would have a "bathroom" near by all the time - is spartana rescuing someone or is it just a bathroom break :-)
http://www.simplelivingforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=530&d=1316542979
Storyteller said: "Since the military acts at the behest and command of the citizens" This is not true the President is the commander an chief of the military. He gives the orders all military people know this and follow his or her orders.
Storyteller said: "Since the military acts at the behest and command of the citizens" This is not true the President is the commander an chief of the military. He gives the orders all military people know this and follow his or her orders.
Come now, Free, you are splitting hairs, the President is the citizens' representative.
Come now, Free, you are splitting hairs, the President is the citizens' representative.
I don't have any hair to split.
iris lily
9-21-11, 12:12am
I don't have any hair to split.
oh, ha ha! well then.
Are women equal in combat? I would say that for the most part probably so with one caveat - physical combat
Well we've both probably served with a few barely 18 year boys who weight 95 lbs soaking wet who can barely carry a rifle - even a light weight M-16 (and remember the old M-1's from boot camp). I, and most women I know - especially those gym going soccer moms - could probably bench press that kid with one hand :-)! And I think most women who are actually interested in going into the military in combat conditions are probably going to have a greater interest in keeping themselves in great shape physically, maybe training in martial arts and other fighting techniques. My SIL was a Marine and did several tours on the front lines in the first Iraq war. She was very fit, very strong and definetely combat ready. She got totally discusted with her inability to advance because of cambat restrictions. She finally got out and became a deputy sheriff in San Diego - a MUCH tougher physical job as far as dealing with hand to hand stuff. I think alot of women are like her nowadays. Heck, most yoga classes are full of them :-)!So I think physical combat would probably be less of a problem for women now - especially since it seems to be less hand to hand and more close quarter firefights instead. Something any woman can do. What I get peeved about is just the way we (as a society) can live with the statistics. I mean if the Marine Corp only allowed black men into 20% of it's jobs because they felt that black men were incapable of doing the other 80% ther would be an up roar.
Also - while I do think that Alan is correct that there will be some organizational problems with opening all combat and combat related jobs to women, I think most of those have been worked out over the last 20 - 30 years. I personally was on the firat ship in the CG that had mixed gender crews (the Morgenthau) and never experienced any of the "much expected" organization problems. Same with any other unit I went to were I was the first - or one of the first - women assigned. I think this is true of of all the services. It's been going on for years now and most problems have probably worked themselves out by now.
Hey, guess what! Submarines are actually no longer closed to women. They opened that up...earlier this year? A good friend of mine from the Navy (who is still IN the Navy), is taking command of one of the first subs to be integrated (obviously a "boomer", though I guess they aren't called that any more!)
I've always thought that women should be allowed on subs, space permitting (which it often doesn't).
Looks like the first 24 women will be through with sub training and ready to report in December.
Hey, guess what! Submarines are actually no longer closed to women. They opened that up...earlier this year? A good friend of mine from the Navy (who is still IN the Navy), is taking command of one of the first subs to be integrated (obviously a "boomer", though I guess they aren't called that any more!)
I've always thought that women should be allowed on subs, space permitting (which it often doesn't).
Looks like the first 24 women will be through with sub training and ready to report in December.
Yay Yay and Yay!! Having spent long periods of time aboard ships with no port calls (and no "man in every port" either :-)!) I can attest that, while a sub would be MUCH MUCH more confining, crews of mixed gender probably won't have any more problems than on a ship - once they get use to it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.