Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
I think, provided they are able to physically and mentally perform the role in which they are trying to obtain, why not? Will there be uncomfortable moments/situations--not unlike any combination of a previously segregated group? Sure--I think, as a species, we can grow past that. At least--I hope!

Most cannot.

 Seaward wrote:

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
I think, provided they are able to physically and mentally perform the role in which they are trying to obtain, why not? Will there be uncomfortable moments/situations--not unlike any combination of a previously segregated group? Sure--I think, as a species, we can grow past that. At least--I hope!

Most cannot.

And this is based on?

I'd like to point out that the issue isn't so much on being able to fight or not. It's about getting promotions. Because of women not being able to be in combat groups meant they could not get certain promotions. For years they were denied promotions because of it.

 blood reaper wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
I think, provided they are able to physically and mentally perform the role in which they are trying to obtain, why not? Will there be uncomfortable moments/situations--not unlike any combination of a previously segregated group? Sure--I think, as a species, we can grow past that. At least--I hope!

Most cannot.

And this is based on?

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single woman in my unit who can meet the minimum standards of the male physical fitness test.

 Seaward wrote:

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
I think, provided they are able to physically and mentally perform the role in which they are trying to obtain, why not? Will there be uncomfortable moments/situations--not unlike any combination of a previously segregated group? Sure--I think, as a species, we can grow past that. At least--I hope!

Most cannot.

In that case, sounds like the best course of action is to make the tests available to everyone and judge each on their ability to pass qualifying tests...rather than excluding or including an entire population based on their gender (Including the ones that can seemingly pass the test based on your "Most cannot" assumption)?

 CDK wrote:
I'd like to point out that the issue isn't so much on being able to fight or not. It's about getting promotions. Because of women not being able to be in combat groups meant they could not get certain promotions. For years they were denied promotions because of it.

Really? Would you like to explain that one, taking into account that competion for enlisted promotion is within MOS, (a mechanic does not compete with an infantryman) and for officers it is within branch and groupings based on function (a guy in the Operations career field doesn't compete against those in Operational Support).

You COULD state that some specific job positions are harder to get without being combat arms (for example a Division Commander), BUT males not in combat arms are also not competitive for those jobs. One of my wife's female friends is an assistant division commander right now by the way. She is an aviator, which is considered combat arms. Females can also be engineers, air defense artillery, and filed artillery which are all combat arms.

So which promotions are females NOT currently able to get?

This pass a qualifying test business seems to be considered a good measure of fitness. It isn't. Being able to meet the minimum on a PT test just means you can meet a minimum. There is far more required to being in a combat unit. The ability to walk 12 or more miles at a time with 100lbs of gear. Staying awake for, literally, days with little food. These are just a couple. Just because you can do a few push ups and sit ups in 2 mins doesn't mean you can do that. And to anyone who thinks male soldiers are allowed to skate on the minimum, they aren't. At least not a Bragg.

 blood reaper wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
I think, provided they are able to physically and mentally perform the role in which they are trying to obtain, why not? Will there be uncomfortable moments/situations--not unlike any combination of a previously segregated group? Sure--I think, as a species, we can grow past that. At least--I hope!

Most cannot.

And this is based on?

Experience, for one.

Why would we have separate physical fitness standards if the majority of females were able to hit the male ones?

I have no doubt there are some women on this earth who could make it through, for example, SFAS or BUD/S. Considering most men cannot, they would be exceptions rather than the rule, and I'm not entirely sure what they'd bring to the table to begin with.

Even looking at just standard 11B stuff, it's not exactly a walk in the park.

CDK wrote:I'd like to point out that the issue isn't so much on being able to fight or not. It's about getting promotions. Because of women not being able to be in combat groups meant they could not get certain promotions. For years they were denied promotions because of it.

Actually there is an over representation of women in the officer corps of the military based on overall percentage of females vs percentage of commisioned females. This is somewhat due to affirmative action, as the military academies are required (in Canada, and I would assume the states as well) to have 15% women while women make up less than 15% of total operational strength.

40kFSU wrote:I'm probably going to be hammered for this opinion but here goes. I graduated from Airborne school and Ranger School. I served at Ft Bragg in the 325th AIR. I want to specify I have not fought in the wars. I don't think it's a good idea for women to serve in combat. We can talk about standards but the reality is the standards will not be the same. One cannot prevent the natural interactions between men and women from happening. That will cause problems as well. Having been at Bragg I interacted with other non infantry units which had female soldiers so I saw it. Right or wrong, good or bad, the infantry is a boys club. It's like a high school. God bless these brave women who want to serve America, there are too few of us these days who are willing to be selfless. But I don't think the infantry is the place.

This is one of the larger issues actually. Mixed sex units have lower discipline across the bar due to fraternization between the sexes. Also, the American military's expenditure on maternity leave from women getting pregnant while deployed is suspected to be rather high, as the number of women who conceive during a tour is beleived to be upwards of several thousand. Don't have that problem with males.

AgeOfEgos wrote:

 Jayce_The_Ace wrote:
I'm non military myself, so my opinion is not based on any experience, but I don't think it's wrong that women should have combat roles, just so long as they come up to the standards required for that role. No way should the safety of other unit/squad members be put in danger by a soldier not up to the standards required, be that male or female.

My one concern would be what would happen to a female captured by the enemy, especially, lets say, an insurgent / non regular force - I hope I don't have to draw diagrams here, but surely the R word is something that has to be considered.

If rape were a consideration in terms of exposing women to front line duty, then we would have to rethink the entire notion of women serving in any branch of the military--as in our current war footing---it appears to be far more likely they will be raped by a fellow soldier/comrade than be caught behind enemy lines;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/27/leon-panetta-military-rape_n_1919393.html

http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/109083/why-wont-the-military-take-troop-troop-rape-seriously#

http://servicewomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Final-RSASH-10.8.2012.pdf


Of course, not to mention sodomy and sexual deviance to prisoners is not limited by gender. The Stanford Prison experiment (along with abu Ghraib--which it is very spooky how much the earlier experiment mirrored the Graib incident)---have both shown for sexual torture, all you need is sleep deprivation, lower educated individuals and a 'loose' administrative policy on what questioning should consist of. Zimbardo wrote a great book, that while it did not focus on the Stanford Prison Experiment or his helping in defense of the Graib personnel--illustrates that sexual torture might be as natural to us in certain settings as breathing (regardless of gender);

http://www.lucifereffect.com/lucifer.htm



I think, provided they are able to physically and mentally perform the role in which they are trying to obtain, why not? Will there be uncomfortable moments/situations--not unlike any combination of a previously segregated group? Sure--I think, as a species, we can grow past that. At least--I hope!

The reason for barring them entry is that even if they can physically and mentally perform the role their presence hampers the ability of their comrades in arms to complete their duties to optimal efficiency. See the part where mixed sex units have lower discipline and the propensity for females to become pregnant while on duty.

On an interesting side note about he Abu Ghraib/Stanford prison experiment, if memory serves one of the participants in the Stanford experiment, a guard to be exact, was actually one of the guards in the Abu Ghraib prison during those periods of illicit going-ons.

Oh man...here we go...

We had ONE combat unit that allowed women in the IDF, and it was for a very specific reason. It didn't effect the quality (i.e., standards) of the rest of the military because it was confined to this unit. They handle some really cool operations, but they are placed in that role for a specific reason. Opening all units to females is going to be a cluster feth of epic proportions. And, by the way, this unit has lower physical requirements (health profile) requirements than any other combat infantry unit, for men AND women. In other words - they reduced the standards of the UNIT, not the GENDER. This makes operational sense. Why? Because the operational requirements fit the unit, NOT the gender.

Unless there is some specific reason why women should be allowed in certain combat units, this is a disaster on all levels waiting to happen.

 Ratbarf wrote:


The reason for barring them entry is that even if they can physically and mentally perform the role their presence hampers the ability of their comrades in arms to complete their duties to optimal efficiency. See the part where mixed sex units have lower discipline and the propensity for females to become pregnant while on duty.

On an interesting side note about he Abu Ghraib/Stanford prison experiment, if memory serves one of the participants in the Stanford experiment, a guard to be exact, was actually one of the guards in the Abu Ghraib prison during those periods of illicit going-ons.

I imagine similar arguments were made to mixed race units back in the day--which like then, this is likely due to the growing pains of a formerly segregated population being introduced into a population where sexual harassment (at least according to the above referenced studies) is back about 20 years.

That is interesting if true about prison experiment guard---although I would find it hard to believe, as the prison experiment was in the very early 70's and included young college males.

In the British army women find them selves in combat frequently. Female medics go out with infantry patrols, female dog handlers search for IEDs, Female ATOs disarm those IEDS etc

Provided that the standards for female soldiers are exactly the same as those for their male counterparts there isn't much of an issue aside from the propaganda value if they are captured. To be honest though women are already in situations where they can be captured or killed, I knew 2 women who have been killed on OPs.

At the end of the day there is no valid reason why women can't serve with teeth arms. The truth is though that they will always be the minority simply because most women will not be able to consitently meet the physical standards required.

CptJake wrote:

 CDK wrote:
I'd like to point out that the issue isn't so much on being able to fight or not. It's about getting promotions. Because of women not being able to be in combat groups meant they could not get certain promotions. For years they were denied promotions because of it.

Really? Would you like to explain that one, taking into account that competion for enlisted promotion is within MOS, (a mechanic does not compete with an infantryman) and for officers it is within branch and groupings based on function (a guy in the Operations career field doesn't compete against those in Operational Support).

You COULD state that some specific job positions are harder to get without being combat arms (for example a Division Commander), BUT males not in combat arms are also not competitive for those jobs. One of my wife's female friends is an assistant division commander right now by the way. She is an aviator, which is considered combat arms. Females can also be engineers, air defense artillery, and filed artillery which are all combat arms.

So which promotions are females NOT currently able to get?

I Don't really know to be honest. I just heard a piece on the radio about this issue. Some women complained that they could not get the promotion because combat was not open to them. It just made me think that there's more to it that just being able to fight or not. Some issues are not so black and white.

I doubt it's gonna be an issue cause I doubt the ladies are gonna be trying out in droves for the infantry.

From my personal experience managing a 1000 Marine HQ unit's training including physical standards, we had maybe one female that I'd put against the basic male physical fitness test with confidence.

I'll also say that mixed gender units directly screw with unit discipline and over all effectiveness. Dating and sex alone *facepalm* so many NJPs and so much butthurt flying around the barracks.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

I'll also say that mixed gender units directly screw with unit discipline and over all effectiveness. Dating and sex alone *facepalm* so many NJPs and so much butthurt flying around the barracks.

Not my experience at all and I have served all my time in mixed units. There are some issues of course but they are minor for the most part.

Palindrome wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

I'll also say that mixed gender units directly screw with unit discipline and over all effectiveness. Dating and sex alone *facepalm* so many NJPs and so much butthurt flying around the barracks.

Not my experience at all and I have served all my time in mixed units. There are some issues of course but they are minor for the most part.

From the perspective of someone in a fully integrated branch of the US military, yeah I've seen it cause lots of problems with unit cohesion. I've seen spouses abusing their powers to help others (such as a PTL ensuring his hugely overweight wife continually passing), I've seen drama of relationships falling apart affecting the whole unit. I've seen leave games played, where other people get screwed out of their leave because of "couples" messing around with their leave. All in all, in-shop relationships have done nothing but create problems for everyone else. I've seen this in EVERY unit I've been assigned to.

Thank god the Army or at least Ft Hood has kicked integration into awesome mode. There are two stairwells in the barracks I'm in. One is marked females only the other males, the stoats have a camera, as do all the doors that lead to female rooms. Fraternization is strictly prohibited between males and females and after hours a young soldier on CQ has to let you into the stairwell with a key. If this is what integration has led to since I got out, you can fething keep it.

 djones520 wrote:

From the perspective of someone in a fully integrated branch of the US military, yeah I've seen it cause lots of problems with unit cohesion. I've seen spouses abusing their powers to help others (such as a PTL ensuring his hugely overweight wife continually passing), I've seen drama of relationships falling apart affecting the whole unit. I've seen leave games played, where other people get screwed out of their leave because of "couples" messing around with their leave. All in all, in-shop relationships have done nothing but create problems for everyone else. I've seen this in EVERY unit I've been assigned to.

We must have much more disciplined soldiers then.

Palindrome wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

From the perspective of someone in a fully integrated branch of the US military, yeah I've seen it cause lots of problems with unit cohesion. I've seen spouses abusing their powers to help others (such as a PTL ensuring his hugely overweight wife continually passing), I've seen drama of relationships falling apart affecting the whole unit. I've seen leave games played, where other people get screwed out of their leave because of "couples" messing around with their leave. All in all, in-shop relationships have done nothing but create problems for everyone else. I've seen this in EVERY unit I've been assigned to.

We must have much more disciplined soldiers then.

We can get into a pissing match about this, but I'm going to avoid that and just operate off the thought that your experience with the matter is limited, or you just didn't pay attention to the affects of having fellow soldiers in relationships with each other, and the impacts to the unit.

I'd love for you to share some of the pro's that can come of it. Especially in relationship to a combat environment.

Let'em serve. Gooooooo ladies!

 djones520 wrote:

I'd love for you to share some of the pro's that can come of it. Especially in relationship to a combat environment.

Perhaps it is your own experience that is lacking.

Here is a shattering thought, don't deploy couples together or post them into the same chain of command. If a relationship forms on deployment they form but the exact same thing can happen with homosexual soldiers.

Palindrome wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

I'd love for you to share some of the pro's that can come of it. Especially in relationship to a combat environment.

Perhaps it is your own experience that is lacking.

Here is a shattering thought, don't deploy couples together or post them into the same chain of command. If a relationship forms on deployment they form but the exact same thing can happen with homosexual soldiers.

My experience is through multiple units ranging from the 8 man units, to 150 man units, from a Flight (Platoon) to MAJCOM HQ across 11 years of service.

None of that at all addresses the concern of couples in the same unit, which was being discussed.

Well my experience is similar, 3 major units and a deployed hospital. All of which were mixed (in fact a couple were heavily weighted towards women). I can only think of one issue and that involved an affair within the chain of command.

Sensible management will, and does, significantly reduce any likely problems.

As a fan of equality I'm glad. More blood for the blood god.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:


The reason for barring them entry is that even if they can physically and mentally perform the role their presence hampers the ability of their comrades in arms to complete their duties to optimal efficiency. See the part where mixed sex units have lower discipline and the propensity for females to become pregnant while on duty.

On an interesting side note about he Abu Ghraib/Stanford prison experiment, if memory serves one of the participants in the Stanford experiment, a guard to be exact, was actually one of the guards in the Abu Ghraib prison during those periods of illicit going-ons.

I imagine similar arguments were made to mixed race units back in the day--which like then, this is likely due to the growing pains of a formerly segregated population being introduced into a population where sexual harassment (at least according to the above referenced studies) is back about 20 years.

That is interesting if true about prison experiment guard---although I would find it hard to believe, as the prison experiment was in the very early 70's and included young college males.

There is a large difference between the integration of coloureds and females. Tensions between mixed ethnicities, while possibly disruptive at first, can be socialized away. You can't socialize away a guys drive to be horny, and the only way to get rid of it is castrate him either physically or chemically.

Secondly, there are only two pros for having women in the military; greater manpower pool, and political correctness propaganda. If the greater manpower pool is needed severely enough then let women into non combat non in theater roles so that they can free up men to go fight/be deployed in theater. Those are the only pros out of an idea that has a significant number of cons some of which are important to a military's ability to do it's job with greatest efficiency and cohesion possible.

I saw the Abu Ghraib/Stanford thing in a doc on the Stanford experiment. The last 8 minutes or so went over how fethed up it was that one of the prison guards ended up doing this in real life even after having gone through it in the experiment when he was a young adult. (I think he was 50ish during the abu ghraib thing.)

I heard a really interesting interview about this on the way home, with a member of the legal team representing one of the soldier's currently taking the government to court over it's current policies about women in the army.

The lady didn't expect many women could meet the current standards of front line infantry units. Nor did she believe that standards should be lowered so that women could qualify. The point to her case, and to these reforms, was that presently women in support roles are already exposed to combat. And many of the existing support roles, namely engineers and combat medics, are already exposed to combat. And so commanding officers, when they set up operating units, either attach women specialists and break the 1994 restriction against women in front line roles, or send out men who may be less qualified or already overworked due to other commitments.

The point, basically, is to recognise that women exposed to front line combat is already happening, and to bring some sanity into that.

This whole thread, myself included earlier on, missed the point of these reforms entirely, and lurched off in to debating about women in front line something that isn't happening.

 sebster wrote:
I heard a really interesting interview about this on the way home, with a member of the legal team representing one of the soldier's currently taking the government to court over it's current policies about women in the army.

The lady didn't expect many women could meet the current standards of front line infantry units. Nor did she believe that standards should be lowered so that women could qualify. The point to her case, and to these reforms, was that presently women in support roles are already exposed to combat. And many of the existing support roles, namely engineers and combat medics, are already exposed to combat. And so commanding officers, when they set up operating units, either attach women specialists and break the 1994 restriction against women in front line roles, or send out men who may be less qualified or already overworked due to other commitments.

The point, basically, is to recognise that women exposed to front line combat is already happening, and to bring some sanity into that.

This whole thread, myself included earlier on, missed the point of these reforms entirely, and lurched off in to debating about women in front line something that isn't happening.

I'll buy that... I did some google-fu just now and there are military blogs that are stating this...

I don't think there are many people who don't recognize that women have been in combat. There are plenty of women who have received combat action ribbons, combat action badges, and awards for valor in combat.

Canada had something of an "Oh my gosh!" moment when Cpt Goddard was killed, the first Canadian women to be killed in combat.

But then again, Canada has no restrictions whatsoever on what roles women can take in the military, as long as they can do their 3 knee pushups they're in!

 Hordini wrote:
I don't think there are many people who don't recognize that women have been in combat. There are plenty of women who have received combat action ribbons, combat action badges, and awards for valor in combat.

Yeah it's a good thing we will always have someone to look at when we talk about women in combat.