Panetta Opens Up Combat Duties to Women - Bad or Good?

Started by RubySlippers, January 23, 2013, 03:39:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RubySlippers

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/2013/01/23/panetta-opens-combat-roles-women/yb6F6FSVXHCBerWiJ8EiFN/story.html

I will be honest I'm all for this, on three grounds.

1. Its an honor to serve the nation in uniform regardless of gender.

2. Women having half of the population and more likely to have High School Diplomas and College Degrees make prefered assets if there is a draft.

3. They can finally selective service everyone not just men a disparity I find offensive since women have as much a duty to serve if called up during time of war as men, if not more seeing point two.

Lets be honest this is also good for the ones serving your more likely to get promoted and into officer positions that matter if your a combat soldier or officer, and faster. For those joining and going career they have now the same options it seems men have to advance.

Question Mark

I've always been of the opinion that the military/government/corporation/whatever should judge a person based on their ability to fulfill the position.  If you dismiss someone from a position because of some basic quality of their identity, whether it be sex, race, educational background, etc., you're an idiot.  It doesn't matter if only 1% of women can complete the fitness requirements for battle.  If they pass the test, they go on the front lines.  Simple as that.  Keeping someone from a position just because of who they are, even if they are perfectly capable, is plain stupid.

The bulk of the arguments coming against this decision were of the "women are not natural warriors" and "women are not as strong as men" variety.  Both are true.  On average, women are significantly weaker than men.  Men tend to be more physically fit, and are generally better at enduring the physically demanding environments in battle.  That's why men have chiefly been the warriors in historical societies (that and women were often pregnant, replenishing the depleting population).  In modern times, when physical strength is less of a factor in combat, and when qualities such as marksmanship, leadership, intelligence, and tactics are more valuable than brute muscle, these arguments hold less water.

In other words, it's about damn time America.  One small step towards rejoining the rest of the modern world.

itsbeenfun2000

This has been a long time in coming. With a volunteer army it makes no sense to eliminate half your population from enrollment and advancement.

Question Mark

Quote from: itsbeenfun2000 on January 23, 2013, 09:29:57 PM
This has been a long time in coming. With a volunteer army it makes no sense to eliminate half your population from enrollment and advancement.

AFAIK, this ban was only for assigning women to "front-line" combat units.  Now, I've never been in the military, so I don't know how much this happens to impact advancement (maybe a veteran on E could shed some light?), but women could enroll in the military if they met the requirements.

Callie Del Noire

The Navy..with a few exceptions, have been coed most of my time in service. I entered in '95. They had just opened up most vessels to females and I was on the first co-ed cruise of the Nimitz..

It's..educational. Non-Judicial Punishement entries on the plan of the day were six legal pages long (front and back). LOTS of fraternizing involved. I learned a lot. Like how locking a door can keep you from losing rank.. or if you spot a Seaman with a 125,000 car and making five figures in allotments from other (male) sailors, she might be more than she seems.

As for full opening up of the forces. I wish any woman who goes for the 'special units' such as the various Special Forces units the same as the guys in my boot camp company and on.. good luck. You're going to need it.

I'm perfectly willing to allow women into the front line units, special warfare units and even the subs.. assuming it doesn't impact performance I'm all for it.

That is my only issue. Will it effect unit performance. My gut tells me .. no.

itsbeenfun2000

You are right it was only a ban on front line units but that is the quickest way to advancement in the military from what I have been led to believe.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: itsbeenfun2000 on January 23, 2013, 10:06:37 PM
You are right it was only a ban on front line units but that is the quickest way to advancement in the military from what I have been led to believe.

Yeah.. within their ratings.. the Special Forces units get some advantages.. but part of it, for example using SEALS, is that they do NOT work in their ratings that often. How often will a Quartermaster in the Teams get to study/work in his rating, how often will he be piloting a vessel or standing a watch on the Quarterdeck of a carrier? Not too damn often. And most of those guys I've seen are Class A overacheivers anyway. We're talking massive Class A personalities that work well in a team.

Outside the teams, odds are most of the ones I met would be doing just as well. I knew a few who had to leave the teams, due to injuries, and cross rated to other things (it's the only way you'd ever see a guy in my rating wearing a 'six pack'.) and without fail most of them were already 'ahead of the curve' from their work efforts.

RubySlippers

I know right now they will require women to volunteer for combat duties but it does again suck the Supreme Courts support of the biase in the Selective Service law since men were in fact the only ones that could serve anywhere in the armed forces, and women not. If women prove as a gender to be as good as men in combat and in the special forces then the courts have to then support a biase in violation of Federal law on gender to keep the women out of the Selective Service not likely to happen if the law is challenged in a few years.

My father thinks this might make the service better women he found think differently than men and in his case its a huge plus in the intelligence work he does, he relies on women a great deal it seems.

I don't agree long term with volunteer only however for basic combat roles if a woman is tested and can fill a needed role at some point the lack of a penis should not bar her from required service. My fathers only issue is pregnancy he said any woman in the service in a military combat unit should be required to use longer term birth control either shots or implanted devices, under the military code it could be demanded during wartime since we are talking combat assets and readiness can outweight personal liberty.

Callie Del Noire

I personally agree on that point Ruby.. but it's a twitchy point in the service. Particularly when you consider a woman's fertile period is along a large point of her career. It's already bad when a woman gets pregnant even on shore duty. Depending on your duty station and job.. it can shuffle folks around. I had lots of airmen get sent to me towards the end when I ran the 1st LT. Division. Not that I could always use them, no paint, limited chemical exposure.. often they wound up working in Admin positions and some of them HATED it.. they weren't trained for it.

RubySlippers

I would assume that would be under a drafted to serve situation, volunteers are volunteers and I would hope women serving in combat roles would use maturity to stay productive in their duties. But one could consider making this a commander directive if your in a battalion and the commander says any woman getting pregnant unless granted permission is in violation of their duties and subject to failure to abide by a direct command (insubordination subject to court martial) would be enough.

But if we do draft women choice is not likely to be an option they fight or we could lose a war.

Chris Brady

If they can do the job just as well?  Why ever not?  You can do the job, you get the job.  That's what I always believed in.
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

Sasquatch421

I don't think the only issue will be pregnancy in combat... I'm a Marine Vet and if you have heard the saying "Every Marine is a basic rifleman", which means all of us got basic infantry training.... Weeks without a shower and shaving with cold water. Women have a time of every month that men do not and what if they can't clean up properly? You might be in a situation where you have only a canteen for how long and it just happens to coincide with a period? It does deal with blood, so would there be a health risk if the woman can't clean up or would it just be an annoyance?

If there is no problem, then sure why not?

Moraline

Quote from: Sasquatch421 on January 24, 2013, 06:51:08 AM
<snip>
...happens to coincide with a period? It does deal with blood, so would there be a health risk if the woman can't clean up or would it just be an annoyance?

If there is no problem, then sure why not?
Just to answer that:

No big deal. I can wipe myself clean just as easily as someone can wipe their backside clean. Only my period poses less of a health risk then leaving feces all over themselves. Plus, pads are extremely small/thin and heavy menstruation only lasts for a couple days. I don't see any problems.



I'm all for women on the front lines. Just keep the physical fitness standards(and all the rest) the same and if a woman can meet the demands then welcome aboard!

From my personal experience, I'm in a lot better shape and far physically stronger then an average male office worker. I'm faster, stronger, and tougher(and I don't even weight train for that purpose, I just work out regularly.) I'm fully confident in my ability to meet the physical demands of military life on the front lines. I'm not saying that some big badass spec ops guy couldn't kick my ass but give me a bit more training and I could at least make him wish he'd not tried it - win or lose.

There might be more men then women that are capable of things like the physical demands found in special units. However, for basic front line stuff I think there are loads of women ready for the task and a surprising number that can meet the more physically demanding roles too.

Sorry this is the part where I cheer, "Go Girl Power!"

Callie Del Noire

The only problem I see is this.. will the services have to adapt standards for women.. or hold women to the same standards as men. I ask because in front line units it's not TOO big a deal.. but for the special warfare units, physical toughness (not strength..but 'I can run forever and still shoot' toughness) and sheer mental fortitude are what they look for in a SEAL/Ranger/ect.

I recall two types of women in the early days of my community going co-ed. There was the worker/supervisor who took the lead, asked questions and DID things. Sometimes they weren't as knowledgable as the old salts..but damn they worked. I never had a problem with them. More than one of my mentors were women coming in from other communities that had been co-ed longer. The other was the worker who worked EXACTLY her shift -not a minute more.. not a minute less- who might not who the division officer was but KNEW exactly who was the equal opportunity officer was. (And the hours, phone number and other duty stations of same), who knew to the OUNCE what was a two man lift but couldn't be bothered to learn the maintenance manuals. The slick one who would dime you out for 'fraternization' while wooing Senior Chiefs. And knew every discrete way to slip a knife in your kidney after you've helped her learn her job.

You know who usually lit them up the most? The other women. When I got out.. there were more gun-ho ready to go female workers than the second type..because the first types weren't above doing the work needed to put them in their place. Not to mention most of the senior folks they are trying to game these days..are the same ladies their predecessors stepped on back in the day.

And truthfully, aside from the EO angle.. they play the same games the slackers with a 'coin purse' use. You just have to be able to handle them. I learned, I taught my airmen that I thought would be better shop politicians than me. (I was too blunt to 'play games' when I was trying to get the planes off the pointy end of the ship)

Biology aside.. a soldier(sailor or airmen or marine) are all the same. Some will do the job great, some will do it okay..and others will be a waste of space. I don't see this change effecting the services too much now.

Moraline

Quote from: Callie Del Noire on January 24, 2013, 11:16:11 AM
The only problem I see is this.. will the services have to adapt standards for women.. or hold women to the same standards as men. I ask because in front line units it's not TOO big a deal.. but for the special warfare units, physical toughness (not strength..but 'I can run forever and still shoot' toughness) and sheer mental fortitude are what they look for in a SEAL/Ranger/ect.
<snip>

Any woman can match a man for physical and mental toughness.

Strength and size logistics are the only obstacles.

Example:  I'm in great shape but even in great shape, I can't hoist a 200 lb man onto my shoulders and there are 2 reasons for that:

1) Strength:  I would struggle with the weight of it. I can't bench press 200 lbs but I can dead lift it easy enough and I can carry a 160 lb man on my back and still manage a short 10 yard run(never tried for further). (PS: I've known plenty of regular army guys fresh out of bootcamp that would struggle with it too.) So, a bigger woman with more emphasis on physical strength could most likely manage it.

2) Logistics:  This is the main one. My size limits me. My shoulders are too narrow and my stature is too small to manage it. It makes the weight awkward for me to carry (5'6" slim build.) However, there are a select few women that have the broad shoulders and builds to support the weight and can.

Physical toughness isn't an issue. Woman are every bit as tough as men and mental fortitude has never been a gender specific. Just look at any triathlon(requiring phenomenally high levels of endurance and mental fortitude) - The distances are the same for men as they are for women and current world records are within minutes of one another. Also mens times aren't changing much but women are getting faster and faster all the time. 

Some studies actually show that women are better suited for endurance type athletics, the longer the distance the more suited our bodies are for it.

Running Doc: Are Women More Suited For Endurance Than Men?

BCdan

I am just going to throw this question out there about the selective service.  For it to be equal and fair under the 5th amendment, women need to be registered for the selective service.  This is based of the supreme court decision  Rostker v. Goldberg in which women were exempted from the selective service because the draft is only used for recruiting people for combat roles.  Because women were banned from combat roles, it was constitutional for the government to draft men, but not women.  Now with women being allowed into combat roles, the 5th amendment is quit clear and I expect a court challenge in coming months that will force women to register with the selective service.

So my question is, how is a woman (or man for that matter) being drafted not similar to rape?  You are basically forcing that person to do something with their body (in this case, kill in defense of the country) that they may not be comfortable with doing.  Maybe its non-sexual, but if its non-consensual how is it not similar morally to the government forcing people to procreate. 


~I enjoy random PM's~

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Moraline on January 24, 2013, 11:49:25 AM
Any woman can match a man for physical and mental toughness.

Strength and size logistics are the only obstacles.

Example:  I'm in great shape but even in great shape, I can't hoist a 200 lb man onto my shoulders and there are 2 reasons for that:

1) Strength:  I would struggle with the weight of it. I can't bench press 200 lbs but I can dead lift it easy enough and I can carry a 160 lb man on my back and still manage a short 10 yard run(never tried for further). (PS: I've known plenty of regular army guys fresh out of bootcamp that would struggle with it too.) So, a bigger woman with more emphasis on physical strength could most likely manage it.

2) Logistics:  This is the main one. My size limits me. My shoulders are too narrow and my stature is too small to manage it. It makes the weight awkward for me to carry (5'6" slim build.) However, there are a select few women that have the broad shoulders and builds to support the weight and can.

Physical toughness isn't an issue. Woman are every bit as tough as men and mental fortitude has never been a gender specific. Just look at any triathlon(requiring phenomenally high levels of endurance and mental fortitude) - The distances are the same for men as they are for women and current world records are within minutes of one another. Also mens times aren't changing much but women are getting faster and faster all the time. 

Some studies actually show that women are better suited for endurance type athletics, the longer the distance the more suited our bodies are for it.

Running Doc: Are Women More Suited For Endurance Than Men?

that is what I'm saying.. I know that a lot of critics throw out the 200+ soldier (and gear) argument. There is a lot of those.

I have talked to guys on the teams.. they say the BUDs 'Hellweek' isn't about raw physical strength. Never was. it's about forging a Team Member. Someone who can and will push him (or her) self past any conceivable limits.  I've seen the trainees run up and down the beach in San Diego at ALL hours of day and night, I recall one night coming back from ID4 at like 3:50 AM seeing six guys (of varying heights) run down a beach with a raft (and a SEAL in it yelling at them)

My concern is the 'PC' culture that insists that 'adjustsments' be made for those fields. I don't think that will fly in the Special Warfare community.

Me? I'm curious to see how the Sub community reacts to a co-ed boat. That is a very ..insular community from what little contact I've had.

I'm also curious to see how the Selective Service fallout comes about. I think, personally, it's a non-issue..but on the poiltical front it's got to be high rad toxic waste pro or con.

Oniya

Quote from: Moraline on January 24, 2013, 11:06:46 AM
Just to answer that:

No big deal. I can wipe myself clean just as easily as someone can wipe their backside clean. Only my period poses less of a health risk then leaving feces all over themselves. Plus, pads are extremely small/thin and heavy menstruation only lasts for a couple days. I don't see any problems.



I'm all for women on the front lines. Just keep the physical fitness standards(and all the rest) the same and if a woman can meet the demands then welcome aboard!

From my personal experience, I'm in a lot better shape and far physically stronger then an average male office worker. I'm faster, stronger, and tougher(and I don't even weight train for that purpose, I just work out regularly.) I'm fully confident in my ability to meet the physical demands of military life on the front lines. I'm not saying that some big badass spec ops guy couldn't kick my ass but give me a bit more training and I could at least make him wish he'd not tried it - win or lose.

There might be more men then women that are capable of things like the physical demands found in special units. However, for basic front line stuff I think there are loads of women ready for the task and a surprising number that can meet the more physically demanding roles too.

Sorry this is the part where I cheer, "Go Girl Power!"

There are also alternatives to pads/tampons.  I'll spare on the details, unless people really want to know (I'm not talking hormonal treatments, either.)

And I seem to remember reading somewhere that the average female can withstand higher G-forces before blacking out.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Skynet

I for one support this decision, for similar reasons that RubySlippers laid out.  Although I disagree with her about the draft: nobody should be forced into fighting a war.

Back on topic, women already serve in many useful capacities in the military, from technicians to air force pilots.  Other countries have front-line female combatants already, and it's time that the US caught up to them.

RubySlippers

Quote from: BCdan on January 24, 2013, 12:22:21 PM
I am just going to throw this question out there about the selective service.  For it to be equal and fair under the 5th amendment, women need to be registered for the selective service.  This is based of the supreme court decision  Rostker v. Goldberg in which women were exempted from the selective service because the draft is only used for recruiting people for combat roles.  Because women were banned from combat roles, it was constitutional for the government to draft men, but not women.  Now with women being allowed into combat roles, the 5th amendment is quit clear and I expect a court challenge in coming months that will force women to register with the selective service.

So my question is, how is a woman (or man for that matter) being drafted not similar to rape?  You are basically forcing that person to do something with their body (in this case, kill in defense of the country) that they may not be comfortable with doing.  Maybe its non-sexual, but if its non-consensual how is it not similar morally to the government forcing people to procreate.

Well my view being a military brat ,Go Army, is you are never forced to serve I had relatives in WW2 get drafted and refused to undergo the training for combat. Two became medics no biggy. One was just a coward and flatly refused to fight and sucked up the response and was eventually sent to military prison for a year even though he said if he didn't get sent to fight he would serve, as in nowhere near a battlefield.

In Vietnam the same thing save the relative openly went to prison clearly on the grounds he will not risk his life in combat and refused training, but did take the oath and all.

Seems to me not rape though its more forced servitude that has been upheld by the courts. If there was a draft and both genders counted, a big if we would need to be in a general war footing rather unlikely right now, both sides might have issues. Most would serve, some protest in some way and some run. I for one think the draft is a stupid idea to do since I trust professional volunteers to do their duty and be good at what they do, draftees would not be as commited unless a WW2 scenario is in effect a defense of our nation from a clear direct threat.

Caela

Sounds like a good idea in theory, certainly it sounds more "fair" than not letting women fight on the front lines. I don't think we'll really know how good, or bad, an idea it will turn out to be for several years though. There will be an adjustment period as women volunteer for open positions and then to get them fully trained and integrated. In the end, I don't think it will be an issue, so long as they are held to the same standards as the men. It's a personal pet peeve of mine, but I get tired of women saying they are equal to men at something, and then demanding standards be changed because they're women! If you can't pass the same tests as the boys you're going up against, then you aren't equal in this area, get over it. Any woman that can pass the tests though...more power to them!

band in the rain

Anybody that actually wishes to should be able to serve, so I definitely think this is a good thing. Still personally think the draft is B.S. though.
gone for more spontaneous surroundings. bye to those that showed interest.

Zeitgeist

Quote from: RubySlippers on January 23, 2013, 11:53:03 PM
I would assume that would be under a drafted to serve situation, volunteers are volunteers and I would hope women serving in combat roles would use maturity to stay productive in their duties. But one could consider making this a commander directive if your in a battalion and the commander says any woman getting pregnant unless granted permission is in violation of their duties and subject to failure to abide by a direct command (insubordination subject to court martial) would be enough.

But if we do draft women choice is not likely to be an option they fight or we could lose a war.

Bolded emphasis mine.

I'm pretty certain that will not go over well with either feminists or the Christian right. Just saying.

RubySlippers

Quote from: Zeitgeist on January 24, 2013, 11:07:34 PM
Bolded emphasis mine.

I'm pretty certain that will not go over well with either feminists or the Christian right. Just saying.

Rules of war ar different if the woman is a draftee, tested and assigned after boot camp to say a tank crew and trained as a driver or a weapons operator they become a vital combat asset which if lost to pregnancy would hurt that crews ability to kill the enemy. They would have to limit pregnancy and under the military code the can be ordered onto birth control no soldier can usually refuse an order on personal or religious grounds if the military demand is considered superior.

And shall we do the math here 25% of men are military fit if the draft was started again, add in women that doubles the number of bodies and more women than men have the coveted High School Diploma and College Degreees sought by the services for those technical jobs that are there. That for me is better for our defense planning.

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: RubySlippers on January 25, 2013, 09:43:53 AM
Rules of war ar different if the woman is a draftee, tested and assigned after boot camp to say a tank crew and trained as a driver or a weapons operator they become a vital combat asset which if lost to pregnancy would hurt that crews ability to kill the enemy. They would have to limit pregnancy and under the military code the can be ordered onto birth control no soldier can usually refuse an order on personal or religious grounds if the military demand is considered superior.

And shall we do the math here 25% of men are military fit if the draft was started again, add in women that doubles the number of bodies and more women than men have the coveted High School Diploma and College Degreees sought by the services for those technical jobs that are there. That for me is better for our defense planning.

Actually, religious ground ARE an excuse to circumvent some regs. Known religious standards like Roman Catholic Church's stance on birth control IS an issue.

A while back there were discussions on mandatory birth control implants for ALL women on Sea Duty. It was finally deemed a BAD IDEA to do so and quietly shelved. For a SLEW of reasons

RubySlippers

I did mention this would apply on if we had the draft and women were in the Selective Service System and drafted for military duty I would assume in a major war scenario since doing so would be unpopular to say the least.

During wartime there are still regs you can be excluded from service for personal convictions as a CO but that would demand you be opposed to war not opposed to being forced if ordered into a combat role on birth control. They can order soldiers who are devout Jews to fight on the Sabbath and could order a Chaplain to marry two men or women if needed you don't get the same rights in a war. I agree since we are talking volunteers joining in combat and in military service the choice should be there but say China decided to go to war with us and were moving to invade at some point do you think they would allow women in combat the luxury of choice? Or we invade Iran and crap hits the fan and they need to draft to fight a broader war its the same thing your drafted, selected for combat duty and deployed to the front your rights largely are secondary to the needs of the service. Its always been like that.

Trieste

It's about damn time.

Point the first: Selective service is bull; it would currently be political suicide to bring up a draft, and will continue to be for the forseeable future. Countless studies have been published on the fact that drafted militaries serve poorly as compared to volunteer militaries. I think we should do away with the requirement for registration entirely. However, if there must be a registration, there should be a registration for both men and women. I just personally think, myself, that the "women should have to register, too!" movement is going the wrong way with the selective service. Nobody should have to register.

Point the second: Women have been competing in sports on the same level as men for a long, long time. As Moraline pointed out, women can train and work out to the point where they can do pretty much anything a man can do. Just as there are men with narrow shoulders and broad shoulders, so too are there women. There are many people with different capabilities out there, it's very true. However, those capabilities have little to do with gender specifically and more to do with muscle mass, dedication, and individual genetics.

Point the third: We have these things called hormonal treatments that do away with the necessity for looking after one's menstrual cycle. They are not that difficult to carry, they are easy to administer, and their health risks are individual. Granted, some individuals react very poorly to hormonal treatments, but that is another thing that has to be addressed on a case by case basis. And, again agreeing with Moraline here, menstruation is not more difficult or less sanitary than many other bodily functions that men have.

However, I'm having a hard time supporting this decision personally. The part of me that's a feminist is all "Fuck yeah, betcher ass!", but the part of me that's more humanitarian is asking why the military is taking this step when there is rampant sexual abuse among its ranks. By the statistics, women are more than twice as likely to face sexual assault while serving their country than they are when in the general population. What is the military doing about that? How are they going to protect our women in uniform whether they are in combat situations or non-combat situations? I feel like there has been a lot of attention on sexual assault and the role of women in the military lately, and a jaded part of me wonders if this move is being made so the military can point to it and say "See? We're not sexist!". Call me skeptical. :/

gaggedLouise

#27
Good points, Callie and Trie. This is an issue where lots of people will want to claim it's their victory, and appearances and real reasons could prove hard to unravel.

I think this measure could only have been passed at a time when wars are no longer fought with mass armies, the actual big numbers of people a country can throw in and keep on the front, or in reserve, isn't the key issue it was from Napoleon to Vietnam. Yes, the U.S. has one of the world's biggest armed forces but actual bloodletting among your own for months and years isn't the factor that decides a war anymore, not for the US and similar advanced countries anyway. The fatalities on the US/coalition side in the Gulf war and the invasion phase of the 2003 Iraq war were minimal compared to Vietnam or (still more) the European west front in '44-45. None of the pilots who bombed Iraq in early 1991 expected to get fired at by enemy aircraft or ground cannon, there was pretty much no such thing around. The ground offensive in 2003 was strenuous but the immediate risk of getting killed from one hour to the next for U.S. soldiers was nothing like the war in Belgium and Germany duirng the winter of 1944-45.  If signing up for military service had carried the expectation of risk that one could be among a hundred thousand killed in combat - on one's own side - no one would have wanted to let women into the combat ranks. It would have been political and moral suicide, and would risk kicking out the population recoup after a war: "do you want to kill our mothers-to-be by the tens of thousands?"

(Okay, Israel has long had female combat soldiers and female draft, but they're a special case: the threat to their existence has been immediate sometimes, and they have a large immigration that could make up to some extent- but even the Israelis are not comfortable with women getting killed in action)

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Zeitgeist

Quote from: RubySlippers on January 25, 2013, 09:43:53 AM
Rules of war ar different if the woman is a draftee, tested and assigned after boot camp to say a tank crew and trained as a driver or a weapons operator they become a vital combat asset which if lost to pregnancy would hurt that crews ability to kill the enemy. They would have to limit pregnancy and under the military code the can be ordered onto birth control no soldier can usually refuse an order on personal or religious grounds if the military demand is considered superior.

And shall we do the math here 25% of men are military fit if the draft was started again, add in women that doubles the number of bodies and more women than men have the coveted High School Diploma and College Degreees sought by the services for those technical jobs that are there. That for me is better for our defense planning.

I'm not even really agreeing or disagreeing strongly with your points. All I am saying there isn't a chance modern day feminists or religious right advocates would, draft or no, stand for the military rule against pregnancy, irrespective of their function or the current mil-pol situation. Just won't happen. The stink raised would be smelled from here to Timbuktu. Given the type of language and voracity given the status-quo as it stands? Not a chance.

Silk

If I remember correctly the main cause for banning women from front line duties is due to the psychological stress put on males of the team and the reprecussions thereof, if a comrade is wounded, it's just sheer human instinct to help them, when the wounded is a woman, it becomes even more so and the objective becomes skewed, Males will just go out of their way so much more for a hurt woman than a wounded man, and it jeapodises the mission a great deal if the woman was to be hurt in some way. Think like a sniper, you would target the woman first, and when her squad see's her injured, it is just pure instinct to go help, and that's just ripe pickings for said sniper.

It's not the weakness of the woman that has the ban in place, but the moral effect it has on missions and on the squad.

Chris Brady

Quote from: Silk on January 26, 2013, 02:20:45 AM
If I remember correctly the main cause for banning women from front line duties is due to the psychological stress put on males of the team and the reprecussions thereof, if a comrade is wounded, it's just sheer human instinct to help them, when the wounded is a woman, it becomes even more so and the objective becomes skewed, Males will just go out of their way so much more for a hurt woman than a wounded man, and it jeapodises the mission a great deal if the woman was to be hurt in some way. Think like a sniper, you would target the woman first, and when her squad see's her injured, it is just pure instinct to go help, and that's just ripe pickings for said sniper.

It's not the weakness of the woman that has the ban in place, but the moral effect it has on missions and on the squad.
Something like this was the real reason for why women were 'bad luck' on sailing ships.  It had nothing to do with the women themselves, but rather the effect they had on the men.  We get pretty stupid when a woman is involved.  The 'bad luck' thing was likely something overhead by some superstitious sailors and it went downhill from there.
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

gaggedLouise

#31
Zeitgeist is right on the money. If matters came to a head over the pregnancy (or an STD) of a female soldier, directly in a combat unit or not, vs her right to keep her job but get taken out of reach from the front for the time being, I'd expect to see a lot of efforts to explain that she must be given special (preferential) treatment but still keep her rank and her chances of career advance. That's the way this kind of debate works today. I don't think anyone who carries weight within feminism these days would advocate that "either she is compelled to have an abortion, stays in her unit, fights and is gagged about the case as a matter of discipline and morale, or she is discharged from her unit for good: she's a soldier and must submit to the rules of soldiers".

(And of course not the christian right either - goes without saying.  ;) )

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Zeitgeist

#32
Just conjecturing and thinking off the top of my head largely here:

Would it make sense as perhaps an interim step to have female only combat units. Makes some sense. The camaraderie, the proportional size and weight of each is comparable to one another (i.e. better chance dragging their buddy out of the line of fire and to medical treatment). Would allow everyone to observe and learn how this dynamic would work.

I don't think it should be a rule but rather a stepping stone. Might make sense to do rather than throwing men and women together in a squad and hoping for the best, you know? Just a thought.

TheGlyphstone

Quote from: Silk on January 26, 2013, 02:20:45 AM
If I remember correctly the main cause for banning women from front line duties is due to the psychological stress put on males of the team and the reprecussions thereof, if a comrade is wounded, it's just sheer human instinct to help them, when the wounded is a woman, it becomes even more so and the objective becomes skewed, Males will just go out of their way so much more for a hurt woman than a wounded man, and it jeapodises the mission a great deal if the woman was to be hurt in some way. Think like a sniper, you would target the woman first, and when her squad see's her injured, it is just pure instinct to go help, and that's just ripe pickings for said sniper.

It's not the weakness of the woman that has the ban in place, but the moral effect it has on missions and on the squad.

From a raw sociological perspective, it's beneficial because of - as mentioned upthread - the loss of potential mothers. If two equal-sized tribes went to war against each other, one using a 100% male army and the other a 50% male/female army, the one that only sent males to fight would be able to recoup its losses twice as fast.

Oniya

Quote from: Zeitgeist on January 26, 2013, 08:44:33 AM
Just conjecturing and thinking off the top of my head largely here:

Would it make sense as perhaps an interim step to have female only combat units. Makes some sense. The camaraderie, the proportional size and weight of each is comparable to one another (i.e. better chance dragging their buddy out of the line of fire and to medical treatment). Would allow everyone to observe and learn how this dynamic would work.

I don't think it should be a rule but rather a stepping stone. Might make sense to do rather than throwing men and women together in a squad and hoping for the best, you know? Just a thought.

And when they all synchronize, the enemy flees in terror.  ;D
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Zeitgeist

Quote from: Oniya on January 26, 2013, 11:31:46 AM
And when they all synchronize, the enemy flees in terror.  ;D

You know it! Hell hath no greater fury. And what fabulous irony would it be, an all female squad taking out a house full of rabid fundamentalists who think of women as nothing more than property? That would seriously rock.

Trieste

The enemy flees? Hell, I think most sympathetic forces would flee, too. >.>;;;

As far as mixed units being less effective because guys can't ... concentrate or whatever, take 'em out. If a guy can't stop thinking with his pecker long enough to do his job, it's not anyone else's issue but his own. He can go to the naughty corner or whatever the military does with other people who can't do their jobs.

Speaking of.

Quote from: gaggedLouise on January 26, 2013, 04:09:13 AM
Zeitgeist is right on the money. If matters came to a head over the pregnancy (or an STD) of a female soldier, directly in a combat unit or not, vs her right to keep her job but get taken out of reach from the front for the time being, I'd expect to see a lot of efforts to explain that she must be given special (preferential) treatment but still keep her rank and her chances of career advance. That's the way this kind of debate works today. I don't think anyone who carries weight within feminism these days would advocate that "either she is compelled to have an abortion, stays in her unit, fights and is gagged about the case as a matter of discipline and morale, or she is discharged from her unit for good: she's a soldier and must submit to the rules of soldiers".

(And of course not the christian right either - goes without saying.  ;) )

What do they do with folks who are seriously injured? I mean, I'm sure that there will be a bunch of people who are all "Pregnancy is a blessing, not an injury!" but the fact remains that it is a medical condition that makes someone unable to fight, although I would question the idea that a woman can't continue to do her job during the first trimester or so. What do they do with someone who gets a leg injury and can't run or whatever, and will need a year of PT to recover? 'Cause it seems to me that if that dude loses rank, then it's pretty much fair that a woman who falls pregnant also loses rank. If the injured guy wouldn't lose rank, then neither should she. I would be shocked if the military didn't already have a system in place for that, so ... follow it?

Zeitgeist

Quote from: Trieste on January 26, 2013, 01:55:46 PM
The enemy flees? Hell, I think most sympathetic forces would flee, too. >.>;;;

As far as mixed units being less effective because guys can't ... concentrate or whatever, take 'em out. If a guy can't stop thinking with his pecker long enough to do his job, it's not anyone else's issue but his own. He can go to the naughty corner or whatever the military does with other people who can't do their jobs.

Speaking of.

What do they do with folks who are seriously injured? I mean, I'm sure that there will be a bunch of people who are all "Pregnancy is a blessing, not an injury!" but the fact remains that it is a medical condition that makes someone unable to fight, although I would question the idea that a woman can't continue to do her job during the first trimester or so. What do they do with someone who gets a leg injury and can't run or whatever, and will need a year of PT to recover? 'Cause it seems to me that if that dude loses rank, then it's pretty much fair that a woman who falls pregnant also loses rank. If the injured guy wouldn't lose rank, then neither should she. I would be shocked if the military didn't already have a system in place for that, so ... follow it?

This may just be semantics but losing rank as a result of being injured or pregnant, would be extraordinary. Being reassigned to another job detail would be more likely. Losing rank means losing a pay grade.

Trieste

Quote from: Zeitgeist on January 26, 2013, 02:11:13 PM
This may just be semantics but losing rank as a result of being injured or pregnant, would be extraordinary. Being reassigned to another job detail would be more likely. Losing rank means losing a pay grade.

Thanks for the correction. I don't know the terminology or whatever and I think someone had mentioned losing rank previously, so that's what I went with.  :-)

Zeitgeist

Quote from: Trieste on January 26, 2013, 02:14:13 PM
Thanks for the correction. I don't know the terminology or whatever and I think someone had mentioned losing rank previously, so that's what I went with.  :-)

For sure, I kind of figured that was the case.

Were a serviceman or woman to become injured violating orders, or say theoretically, becoming pregnant against direct orders not to, then perhaps they could lose rank. But not for being injured or pregnant but for violating orders.

gaggedLouise

#40
Quote from: Trieste on January 26, 2013, 01:55:46 PM
The enemy flees? Hell, I think most sympathetic forces would flee, too. >.>;;;

What do they do with folks who are seriously injured? I mean, I'm sure that there will be a bunch of people who are all "Pregnancy is a blessing, not an injury!" but the fact remains that it is a medical condition that makes someone unable to fight, although I would question the idea that a woman can't continue to do her job during the first trimester or so. What do they do with someone who gets a leg injury and can't run or whatever, and will need a year of PT to recover? 'Cause it seems to me that if that dude loses rank, then it's pretty much fair that a woman who falls pregnant also loses rank. If the injured guy wouldn't lose rank, then neither should she. I would be shocked if the military didn't already have a system in place for that, so ... follow it?


Pregnancy isn't a disease, but it affects the female body powerfully and over a much longer time than a sprained ankle or a few broken ribs. It lasts much longer than most quick, temporary diseases, too.  And you can lighten some of the effects, some of the time, but not the main ones - the body growing bigger, increased needs for food, drink and sleep, stomach unease (in many pregnant women) - the only way to really bring an end to those are to end the pregnancy by abortion.

Plus it takes time for most women to get back to their earlier shape and full level of fitness after a pregnancy. Some just find it impossible to push all the way - it's no accident that many women elite athletes stop competing after they had their first child. The body has been through changes that make it that bit less supple, it loses that extra edge. And in some war zone conditions, it really counts if you are able to endure for days and nights on end, with dodgy sleep and insufficient food, carrying eighty pounds of burden through a wasteland for sixteen hours and so on.

I agree male and female soldiers who serve in the same kind of (mixed) units should be treated the same way, by the same principles and to the same standards. A male soldier who was through something as lengthy and physically challenging and draining as pregnancy, well, he'd probably have to be moved to another unit, for 1½ years or for good. If he had put his signature on a promise not to enter into said condition as a basic precondition of getting into the unit, then he could have been in breach of discipline. Same event, same treatment. But I don't think that  line - serve according to the rules or accept to be moved out - would be accepted in good cheer by some of the people who will hail this as a big victory for women (though I agree that with female soldiers who are heavily pregnant, the first and reasonable thing to do would be to move them some way behind the front at once: a five or six months pregnant woman can't be a fighting G.I. or marine in a frontline sense, that's plain enough...)

Quote from: Zeitgeist on January 26, 2013, 02:20:23 PM
For sure, I kind of figured that was the case.

Were a serviceman or woman to become injured violating orders, or say theoretically, becoming pregnant against direct orders not to, then perhaps they could lose rank. But not for being injured or pregnant but for violating orders.

I'll have to admit to the same blurriness as Trie here. When I was talking about keeping or losing rank, I was thinking of moving them to another job within the same force - and perhaps losing a pay grade., Someone pointed out early in the discussion that even for military people who spend most of their careers behind a desk, frontline service (in "combat units") has often been the place where you're promoted the fastest: it's where the real talents are often recognized. That's another reason why the drive to get into the fighting units has been so hot: it's not just about "I wanna fight!" but "I want the same options to make a career as the guys".

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Zeitgeist

#41
I think it is important even as people are pumping their fists, hoo-raying and shouting: "Yeah! It is about time!" we remember that women have served admirably and capably for a long, long time. Be they as nurses, truck drivers, etc. I dare say wading into a hospital tent full of wailing, bleeding and wounded humanity took at least as much courage as say charging a hill. Untold numbers of women lent their skills and comfort to masses of wounded and dying men, men that could be their husbands, fathers, brothers, lovers, whoever. This was true of women all around the world on both sides of conflicts. Russian women known to the Germans as Night Witches flew bombing raids, at night and with no or very rudimentary radar.

And so celebrate, be glad, but do so with the knowledge women have been risking their lives and giving all they had throughout history. They surely should be recognized for it.


Oniya

Quote from: Zeitgeist on January 26, 2013, 02:54:09 PM
I dare say wading into a hospital tent full of wailing, bleeding and wounded humanity took at least as much courage as say charging a hill.

Considering that in 'Nam and Korea, the 'front line' was very poorly defined (occasionally, 'the enemy' was just as poorly defined), some of those nurses were wading into hospital tents that were probably a lot closer to combat than modern field hospitals.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Zeitgeist

Lieutenant Lane received the Gallantry Cross with Palm and the Bronze Star for Heroism. She was the only American servicewoman to die under direct fire from the enemy in Vietnam.

http://www.virtualwall.org/dl/LaneSA01a.htm

Who knows what she would think about this ruling. In the tradition of service she'd likely forgo any accolades to her own meritorious service. Yet she was a warrior in her own right. What is the definition of a warrior but someone who pushes on, though they've already given everything they had?

So my point is let's not act as though some long held egregious wrong has been righted, for it overshadows the sacrifices already made by these women.


Trieste

I don't think it overshadows their sacrifices at all. Up until now, there has been essentially an institutionalized view that women couldn't be in combat. The institution didn't necessarily say whether it was a physical thing, whether it was due to others' behavior, or what - but up until now the official stance of the military has been that women shouldn't be in combat. I think that, in part, this change in policy is celebrating those women who have seen combat, have seen awful conditions, and who have acted bravely and served their country well. They have been the exception that proves there should not be a rule. I think that it celebrates those women, and future women no longer have to feel like they have to stumble into combat almost accidentally or approach it sideways. It's no longer "Oops, I got lost on the way to the hair salon and there was a war going on!"

Not to mention the aforementioned opportunities for advancement now available to women that were not previously open to them.

Zeitgeist

Quote from: Trieste on January 26, 2013, 06:03:47 PM
I don't think it overshadows their sacrifices at all. Up until now, there has been essentially an institutionalized view that women couldn't be in combat. The institution didn't necessarily say whether it was a physical thing, whether it was due to others' behavior, or what - but up until now the official stance of the military has been that women shouldn't be in combat. I think that, in part, this change in policy is celebrating those women who have seen combat, have seen awful conditions, and who have acted bravely and served their country well. They have been the exception that proves there should not be a rule. I think that it celebrates those women, and future women no longer have to feel like they have to stumble into combat almost accidentally or approach it sideways. It's no longer "Oops, I got lost on the way to the hair salon and there was a war going on!"

Not to mention the aforementioned opportunities for advancement now available to women that were not previously open to them.

The new opportunities for advancement, commendation and combat pay is indeed something over due. I just feel like taking an angle that overly celebrates this change threatens to overshadow what is well known, that women have served well and given much already. I hope that makes sense. At the end of it I would just hope people took a second look at how women have served historically and not forget it, even as we look forward to a new normal.

Trieste

It probably comes down to the definition of 'egregious'. Is it a wrong? Yes. I don't think that anyone (except maybe my great-uncle Lamar, who has thankfully shuffled off this coil or he would have an apoplectic fit at the idea of condoning women in combat while they could be making babies and taking care of their man - god rest him, but he was definitely from a different generation) would debate the fact that a wrong has been righted. It's definitely up to the individual, however, to determine whether it's an egregious wrong. For me - I don't think it is. I have never had aspirations to the military. For the young woman whose childhood dream it was to grow up and be in that sort of role, though, it probably does feel pretty egregious. It depends, like most things, on your perspective. But again, I don't think that my hypothetical young woman with those aspirations would forget the sacrifices that other women have made before her. In fact, she's more likely to idolize those women.

Does that make sense?


RubySlippers

My father and his peers did have one huge issue with this - women get to choose whether or not to enter into combat heavy specialties and if that is the case its still an unfair biase against men who enlist or serve as officers.

Seriously say John Doe enlists he unlikely will have a say in what he is trained in her can put in for one and if he is very capable as in tested well and there is a demand likely might get that but he could also get trained in anything where its filling a need - this now often includes combat specialties like Rifleman. If his sister Jane Doe does the same thing she will not be placed in a combat speciailty unless she requests it even if there is a need for say more Rifleman infantry troops and she tested well for that.

You have to see the issue one rule for men and one for women is not equal!

Trieste

Are you seriously arguing that women are the privileged group in the U.S. military? Like, did you seriously just imply that? I mean, really?

Zeitgeist

Quote from: RubySlippers on January 26, 2013, 07:40:53 PM
You have to see the issue one rule for men and one for women is not equal!

Your presumption may stem from the idea that equality is sought for. It isn't and never was. Fairness and equality are not the same thing. It is almost comical how our modern society tries to bend over backwards to make things equal when the evidence it can never be is staring us in the face.

RubySlippers

No I'm saying the fact they can currently under the new policy choose whether or not they get channeled into combat heavy training is a biase that hurts men, if they can choose then men have to be allowed to choose. If they cannot choose then its a policy that is fair. Its not fair the way they have it set up.

Trieste

Not sure where this concept of 'fair' enters in...

Ninja'ed by Zam.

RubySlippers

Lets see if you get this.

Women can choose whether to enter a combat specialty or not. Men cannot do that under the new policy.

So the new expansion still is unfairly biased to women who can opt in or out of these combat roles and men cannot which is not fair. If women are to be in combat roles threat them the same as any other enlistee or officer place them where the need is if they are considered fit for the duty.

Trieste

The fact that I don't agree with your point doesn't mean that I don't understand it. I understand it just fine, but - life's not fair. It's not equal. It's a fact - get over it, compensate for what you can, and move on.

Zeitgeist

Quote from: RubySlippers on January 26, 2013, 08:09:39 PM
No I'm saying the fact they can currently under the new policy choose whether or not they get channeled into combat heavy training is a biase that hurts men, if they can choose then men have to be allowed to choose. If they cannot choose then its a policy that is fair. Its not fair the way they have it set up.

As it stands now and has stood since the expiration of the Vietnam draft, men can choose whatever military profession they want and are qualified for. They are not forced into combat roles by virtue of their maleness.

I've seen mentioned earlier in this thread word of drafts. While yes it is conceivably possible in the future, it is so far removed from likelihood as to be almost pointless. We in fact have the world's most professional and competent military force because, for one, it is voluntary. The situation around the world would have to go seriously off the rails for the US to consider a draft. Even war with Iran or North Korea would not precipitate a draft. It didn't with either war in Iraq or Afghanistan and those were pretty hefty undertakings.

So with the understanding military service in the US is voluntary and what course you seek in the military is up to the individual and their qualifications, I see no issues of unfairness or inequality.

Look how quickly gays in the military has become a non-issue. It has for me at least and I only rarely hear it mentioned. Any prior misgivings I may have had about it were unfounded. I also think women in combat roles will be a non-issue. The number of women who seek those roles out will not be large and of that small set not all will qualify, that is just the numbers. And this in no way discredits the service they have and do offer currently.

Where there is potential for issues is, were some to argue the standard for combat readiness is somehow 'unfair' to women and that the standard should be lowered in some misguided attempt to correct a perceived wrong. I could see some rabid Fluke-like advocate foaming at the mouth on capitol hill insisting the physical requirements needed to be a successful combat soldier is unfair and bars women from achieving their aspirations in life.

I am certain there are women out there that can do it and frankly I cant wait for the first report of a sassy blond ferocious woman capping some fundamentalist who thinks no more of women than his cache of cattle. I'll be the first in line to see that movie when it comes out!

Trieste

Quote from: Zeitgeist on January 26, 2013, 08:55:20 PM
I've seen mentioned earlier in this thread word of drafts. While yes it is conceivably possible in the future, it is so far removed from likelihood as to be almost pointless. We in fact have the world's most professional and competent military force because, for one, it is voluntary. The situation around the world would have to go seriously off the rails for the US to consider a draft. Even war with Iran or North Korea would not precipitate a draft. It didn't with either war in Iraq or Afghanistan and those were pretty hefty undertakings.

Quote from: Trieste on January 25, 2013, 04:53:22 PM
Point the first: Selective service is bull; it would currently be political suicide to bring up a draft, and will continue to be for the forseeable future. Countless studies have been published on the fact that drafted militaries serve poorly as compared to volunteer militaries. I think we should do away with the requirement for registration entirely. However, if there must be a registration, there should be a registration for both men and women. I just personally think, myself, that the "women should have to register, too!" movement is going the wrong way with the selective service. Nobody should have to register.

Man, you've gotta stop agreeing with me so much or I'm going to start thinking you're kissing my ass. ::)

Zeitgeist

Quote from: Trieste on January 26, 2013, 08:59:03 PM
Man, you've gotta stop agreeing with me so much or I'm going to start thinking you're kissing my ass. ::)

But its such a pretty ass!

If it helps: I don't believe it would be wise to banish the option of a draft altogether and I don't believe women should be drafted alongside men, were the almost incomprehensible option of a draft needed. For if the shit hit the fan that bad we'd need to dust off Rosie the Riveter and exhume Greta Garbo. A protracted war with China might precipitate this, yet the likelihood of war with China goes beyond the scope of this thread.

RubySlippers

Quote from: Zeitgeist on January 26, 2013, 09:07:43 PM
But its such a pretty ass!

If it helps: I don't believe it would be wise to banish the option of a draft altogether and I don't believe women should be drafted alongside men, were the almost incomprehensible option of a draft needed. For if the shit hit the fan that bad we'd need to dust off Rosie the Riveter and exhume Greta Garbo. A protracted war with China might precipitate this, yet the likelihood of war with China goes beyond the scope of this thread.

The fact is over half the population are women, women have more high school diplomas and college degrees the gold standard of military recruitment is a high school diploma it opens up the military to recruits a GED doesn't and if there is a draft and women can serve in combat fully - its fair to draft both genders. Come on things get that bad we need all the warm bodies we can get in a uniform and women are more likely better for the technical specialties.

As for a reason to overextending ourselves in the Middle East would if we get bogged down in a serious shooting war with Iran ,who can and will fight and this includes insurgency tactics, and it gets out of control we will not have the soldiers to do the job. They did draft for Vietnam and this could be a far more serious situation if it happens.

Zeitgeist

So if we got ensconced into a protracted war who pray tell do you think would assemble all the material, equipment and machines of war? Shall we indenture our children and grandchildren? Our grandmothers and grandfathers?

Fact is, with the exception of other major Nato powers like Britain, France, etc. our soldiers are worth ten of any others, certainly most of our combative detractors like North Korea and Iran.

Doing something for simply the sake of fairness isn't always the best course of action. You fight a war to win and you don't (with some exceptions) fight it all that fairly. You do it to end it quickly. To do it otherwise is just inhumane.

Callie Del Noire

Actually Zam.. they don't ALWAYS get that choice. I know a lot of guys who were pushed to high turn over ratings despite scores that made them qualified for other thing (Such as my own rating of Avionics Tech..we had one guy stop by our shop to ask about it.. he had a bachelors in electronics and the Navy refused to put him in a tech rating despite everything the guy tried..the recruited lied to him.. and he wound up as a Mess Specialist attached to my command.. I got chewed out by the Chief in charge of his galley for pointing him towards the command career councellor and telling him to strike for my rating when he got back to shore with us. Apparently the chief was preparing him for the Flag Mess and was pissed off the guy didn't want to stay in a rating with a 1.2% promotion rate when he was qualified for one that (at the time) had a 100% advancement rate to E5.)

I know a LOT of Marines who wound up being riflemen and I know two friends who only got sent to their schools at the END of their first tour. One spent 5 of his 6 years of duty in the Army walking the DMZ in Korea.. and only got his schooling at the END of his posting..and then they tried to get him to re-up after it. (For another drop in Korea)

Zeitgeist

#61
You are correct that there are a exceptions. My own experience in the Navy was such that while I had choices they were limited to a handful of ratings due to the nature of the assignment I was posted. I could be a Boatswain Mate, an Engineman or a Torpedoman. I could have pursued another rating, say Electronic Warfare Technician, but since there were none assigned to the base I was at, it would have been difficult.

As the Marine Corps is the smallest of the forces and that their mission is far more focused than the others, it wouldn't surprise me if Infantrymen out number any other rating in the Marine Corps. That is their function. One doesn't really join the Marines with being a personnel clerk in mind. Don't know if this is still the case but Navy Hospital Corpsmen were assigned to Marine detachments because it wasn't a rating Marines offered. It just isn't their focus or forte.

But it would not be fair to characterize the experience men and women have in the military is that men are thrown into dangerous combat details and that women have an exceptional freedom of choice to choose their own career path that men are not afforded. That just wouldn't be accurate in my opinion. For sure the brass have the ultimate say in what the forces need but in these modern times you'll likely have some reasonable choices laid before you.

Sasquatch421

Quote from: Zeitgeist on January 27, 2013, 08:04:04 AM
As the Marine Corps is the smallest of the forces and that their mission is far more focused than the others, it wouldn't surprise me if Infantrymen out number any other rating in the Marine Corps. That is their function. One doesn't really join the Marines with being a personnel clerk in mind. Don't know if this is still the case but Navy Hospital Corpsmen were assigned to Marine detachments because it wasn't a rating Marines offered. It just isn't their focus or forte.

But it would not be fair to characterize the experience men and women have in the military is that men are thrown into dangerous combat details and that women have an exceptional freedom of choice to choose their own career path that men are not afforded. That just wouldn't be accurate in my opinion. For sure the brass have the ultimate say in what the forces need but in these modern times you'll likely have some reasonable choices laid before you.

Every Marine goes through Marine Combat Training... And I had a fellow Marine in boot camp that had joined to be a clerk, but the DI kept trying to have him change his mind and go artillery because this dude was built and had to get a waiver because he was kinda tall. They had to special order his cammies, because everything else was too small for him. Great guy to hang around with as well. Navy Corpsmen still get assigned to detachments, we had two that followed our squadron everywhere... I'll have to dig out my one book to remember their names though.

I went in to the Marines trying for Crash, Fire, Rescue and ended up Aviation Ordnance... Wasn't what I wanted, but I had fun and met new people and I wouldn't trade that experience for 14 million in gold coins. Although I'm a little off topic so let me get back on...

I read on MSN news possibly Thursday or Friday morning they had talked a bit more and I guess that for now Special Forces and infantry are still out of shot for women. I imagine that how things go will change that. 

Zeitgeist

Thank you Sasquatch for your personal perspective.

As I've dug into more of this I found something I thought to be interesting.

http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=119098

From all appearances this was a directive that was initiated by Panetta and by the Pentagon and not from on high by Obama. Sure, it is in the same spirit as doing away with the ban on gays in the military, but I think it behooves people to reflect on that this came from inside the military and that they should be lauded for this move. It is a step in the right direction and the military culture still has some issues needing to be dealt with but I think it is fair to applaud them for the move.

RubySlippers

Well my father is a very capable warrant officer and had lots of experience his view if we draft is this. Most women will not be deemed fit for hard combat duties not to their gender but to the required bodily abilities needed to do that work with exceptions. But since a woman could still do much of the other duties including those near combat as he calls them as in driving trucks, medics and others where they are now and those out of combat it frees up a man to serve in combat.

For every woman who drives a truck or is a medic or can work at a base or at home doing something non-combat a man can serve in combat and men with training are more likely more suited to combat. It in the long run allows for double the bodies and more bodies for hard combat regardless of gender and where they go. And in a general war if its not nuclear we may need every body we can get and its sheet numbers adding women to the pool is vital.

Zeitgeist

Quote from: RubySlippers on January 28, 2013, 11:02:55 PM
Well my father is a very capable warrant officer and had lots of experience his view if we draft is this. Most women will not be deemed fit for hard combat duties not to their gender but to the required bodily abilities needed to do that work with exceptions. But since a woman could still do much of the other duties including those near combat as he calls them as in driving trucks, medics and others where they are now and those out of combat it frees up a man to serve in combat.

For every woman who drives a truck or is a medic or can work at a base or at home doing something non-combat a man can serve in combat and men with training are more likely more suited to combat. It in the long run allows for double the bodies and more bodies for hard combat regardless of gender and where they go. And in a general war if its not nuclear we may need every body we can get and its sheet numbers adding women to the pool is vital.

Your father is indeed correct. As I am sure he knows, and you know there were women aplenty during WWII and later who signed up willingly and to their credit, to take on those non-combative tasks. A draft that included women wasn't needed, was it? I suspect it wouldn't be in the future either. If by chance enough women didn't sign up, then maybe, just maybe a draft would be called for. I don't see any reason why we need not cross that bridge if and until it presents itself.

Don't think I completely disagree with you. It does on the surface seem fair and reasonable to draft both men and women if we are to open the ranks to women for combat. But we'd need to allocate resources intelligently and in time of total war 'fair' isn't in my opinion a foremost consideration. Ending it as efficiently possible is.

Teo Torriatte

Having lived with two women who could have easily bench pressed me, I am inclined to say that if someone is physically capable of the job and wants to do it, they should be able to do it no matter what their gender. It is probably true that there are fewer women that have the physique to be, say, a Navy SEAL, but for those that are, I say let them join. The ones who aren't will be weeded out just like men who aren't physically capable are weeded out.