There has been a lot of discussion lately about whether women should be allowed to serve in combat arms positions. I’ve heard all the arguments on either side of the issue. There’s the line of thought that men have a natural instinct to protect women and this inclination will put them at further risk. There’s the line of thought that most women can’t meet the physical demands required of combat unit troops. There are those who argue that women already serve in combat. Female service members have been kidnapped, injured and died on the front lines (whatever “front lines” mean these days). And finally, there’s the argument that introducing women into traditionally male units will undermine morale.
Recently, I read the perspective from a female soldier who also happens to be an Army wife and I thought it was interesting given that she wears two hats. Among other things, she took exception to the fact that some military wives were worried about sexual misconduct and rising divorce rates if combat units were opened to female service members. I see her point and I’ve read this in other forums. Automatically assuming that female service members are “home-wreckers” would be an insult to those who honorably serve their country. And while that might be the sexy angle of this story — the one that get’s the most attention, it seems to me there are more important considerations to take into account when examining this issue.
One thing that bothered me about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell debate was the rush to pick a side without rationally thinking through all the issues. If you opposed repealing DADT, you were a backward bigot who hated gays and if you favored it, you were a left-wing radical determined to push social engineering on a unique institution. I talked to people who had no aversion to homosexuality and opposed the repeal, and people who personally opposed homosexuality but had no opposition to repealing the policy. Many of the chattering classes (professional and otherwise) seemed to base their opinion on whether or not they favored homosexual rights in a civilian context. Let’s face it, the military is much more complex than the civilian workforce. In that vein, reducing the Women in Combat Arms debate to a mere gender discrimination issue (they’re not being fair to women) would be a disservice to everyone involved. There’s a lot to consider. Whatever your position, let’s hope this debate is more thoughtful than the DADT debate was.
Speaking of positions…. What’s yours? Do you oppose or support women serving in combat units? Why or why not?
About Andi
Comments
Women already are. Take combat MPs for example. I have been in three different MP units as a commo specialist and the female MPs are right there being gunners, on QRF (quick reaction force), gate duty, and breach teams. Not only do they do that in the field and on deployment but they protect us here in garrison clearing buildings, dealing with domestic calls, being prison guards and being first responders in emergency calls, which are all just as scary. So I say that I've already seen it.
nybridgy – go back and actuallu read the Heading. It says "Women in COMBAT ARMS" that is not the same as being female in an MP unit or medical unit or logistics unit. Being a GUNNER on top of a vehicle is no where near the same as being an infantry soldier humping a ruck for 5-10 miles. AND before anyone says that is not what we do now in the current wars. That is STILL a requirement to be able to do. This war may not always be the kind of war we fight. You STILL have to be able to perform that mission IF called to.
As a former Infantry soldier, I have no problem with any one joining the ranks as long as the standards do not change. The soldier should meet that standard……………no matter who you are, period!
TOO late at SWIC they are ALREADY screwing it up by having females come there for training BUT not require anything more than JUST a passing score on the PT test, and they are having SERIOUS problems with females and males being together.
I am a female and I agree with you. I do not believe the standards should be dropped not even one little bit. However, I have concerns whether the women will have the same strength-stamina the men do. I have heard horror stories about women not being able to carry their loads, aching backs, more injuries, etc. and eventually
the men having to carry their weight for them.
Excellent point, and thanks for the shout-out!
I think if the women can meet the same standards as men as far as the PT tests and I'm assuming they take weapons test too, then go for it. But right now they don't have to meet the same standards {I think, honestly I don't know much about it}
For me, personally, my husband is a big guy, and if he's shot, I want to know that if there is a woman out there with him, she's strong enough to pull him out of harms way if he can't move himself. He shares this same view.
If there is ever to be a female capable of carrying your husband his size with all his gear plus her gear out of a situation she needs to have the same PT standards. That simply means if Women want my support in Combat Arms Area of Our Military they must meet the same standards as us men have to. I feel that there should be no standard differences between male or female if they are allowed to serve in Combat Arms Occupations. Women serving in Combat Arms is also going to change the psyche of those women while deployed and more so as they return home to their families. I don't agree with allowing a female to make the front line sacrifice that men were born to embrace. God didn't create woman to be the fighter and sacrifice herself for her country and family. She is the loving and nurturing figure amongst the sexes. We as a society keep allowing men to be funneled out of their roles and responsibilities. Women don't even need to fertilized by a mate any longer to create children. Not humane if you ask me.
Most of the posts here have been about the physical aspect of combat. Cause we all know that once you start talking about the social roles of women (and, God forbid, the God given roles of women) you are stepping into a hornets’ nest. So, I'll not go there. BUT…consider this…What do we fight for? For country? What is that? Is it infrastructure, bridges and buildings? We do want to protect our cities, but we blow up buildings and bridges with impunity during war. Let me ask it a different way…What things do we fight to protect, and therefore are considered illegitimate targets? Non-combatants. That has always meant "women and children". Sure, once you're in the foxhole, noble ideals are far away, and you're fighting for your buddy. But what PUT you in that foxhole in the first place? The noble desire to protect our weaker loved ones (women and children) from the enemy. All that to say, putting women on the front lines is…strange.
I agree that IF the woman can meet ALL the standards of the men, then I'd more readily agree to allowing them in combat roles. I had the same perspective as the nybridgy, that women are already in combat. My brothers, however, who are both Marine infantry, point out that pure combat roles are different than those that run into combat or take fire. Combat roles include going for long periods of time in the field, away from civilization, bathrooms, etc., and require people to be aggressive and actively seek fighting, rather than responding when fired upon.
I can see it being an issue if it was that time of the month, and the woman having to take care of extra needs, especially when it's not very convenient. Also, women tend to be less aggressive than men, although I know there are exceptions.
The hesitation I would have is the likelihood that requirements for men/women would actually be the same. My husband is in a special ops field where women are allowed, but he has vented frustration many times that some women don't pull their weight. His job requires at times for you to lift very heavy equipment, and he's said that the guys have to lift the woman's stuff b/c she's not physically strong enough. I have seen at least one woman in his unit who was very tiny and I doubt that she could lift a person if required. However, none of that prevented her from making it through their program.
I personally do not believe that women should be in a combat situation, that is just me. However, IF a woman is qualified, pulls her weight, and can hump my 6ft 4in, 220lb husband out of harms way and wants to be there; go for it!
I highly doubt that the majority of women will be able to handle the physical demands, but see this as no reason to automatically exclude ALL women off the bat. There are unusually strong women out there, and if the standards are upheld, I see no good reason to deny them the opportunity to serve in this way.
Let me be clear: nobody who does not pull their weight should be tolerated; nobody who is not physically strong enough should be tolerated; nobody who does not have the necessary intelligence, aggression, mental stability, etc. should be tolerated. This goes for men and women, and frankly, in some jobs there will always be significantly more men that can qualify based on strength alone. If the standards are upheld, though, I see no problem.
Personally, I am a women looking into the military, and there is no way I am strong enough for a lot of combat positions, so I am not one of the exceptions, at least not based on my current fitness level. Still there are a lot of things I can do to serve.
@Kiley As for the time of the month argument, yeah that could be inconvenient. Still with birth control it might not be that much of an issue. I know a lot of women will go on birth control to stop their period for Beast at USMA and with new birth control, their is often no medical reason to have a period for quite some time.
Sorry for how long this went.
A comment on the not having to have your period every month, just how good for you do think chemically suppressing natural functions of your body are, especially for long periods. The procedure involves consuming chemicals/hormones, and is pretty much akin to males taking performance enhancing chemicals. Which is not supported by your CofC or Gov.
I guess its one of those points that you CAN do it, but just how smart is it to actually do it.
Since women demand to be treated equaly as men, they definatly SHOULD be put in MOS 11B10 –
INFANTRY!!! ( I am a disabled infantry soldier from the war in Vietnam). Enough said!!!
As Vietnam infantry grunt I cannot fathom how naive women soldiers are to the reality of combat. Let me give you one word .. bayonet.
As a military wife and a civilian that works with mostly military men, I am very concerned about the fact that sexual harrassment, rape, etc. accusations/convictions have escalated this year (from what I understand) and now we are talking about putting more women in remote, close-quarters with the men? I hear the stories that already go on about the sexual encounters and infidelities. I don't mean to dishoner anyone, male or female, that does not fit into that profile, but seriously.
It sounds a bit petty as I put it on paper but I am concerned about it. It seems that it is hard enough for both men and women to be without physical contact with the other sex, and although there are many opportunities in other places, it seems that in a remote, small unit somewhere where everyone sleeps right next to each other, that it would be quite a distraction from the jobs they need to be doing 100%.
Maybe some of the marital issues guys are having is because they are in environments with no women? If you add women into the situation, a lot of the behavior that guys do because they're "with the boys" goes away. And as to anyone that says women are less aggressive… yes. But we're also much more prone to make smart (safe) decisions and think through a situation before acting.
Also, I've never heard of an expectation where every fighter in combat has to be able to haul around a 200+ guy as part of some qualifier for admittance. This is why we work in teams, patrols, and the like. Maybe a chick can't sling a big dude over her shoulder, but she can sure as hell provide covering fire and suppression while someone else does.
I agree with the rational folks above. There are men who should be disqualified from certain jobs because they physically cannot perform. So I believe I have every right in saying the same. Women should ONLY be allowed if they can pass the SAME standard.. not a girls standard… or alternate standard.. THE.. standard. Yes I have seen female soldiers as gunners, on patrol, clearing villages, acting as ambassadors to other women from other cultures who we as men have limited to no access to. The majority of women I served with cannot physically hack what we do, however, the ones that can should be allowed to go as far as their ambition takes them. It grinds my gears to see women let into high level school/ ops jobs who do can not and do no pass the course but are allowed to pass because they were held to a lower standard than their male counterparts. To any woman who posts here saying wah wah I might not be able to drag the guy to safety but I can provide cover fire.. you do not belong. I do not want the AAR to include one of our own died because the soldiers around him were physically incapable of moving him to safety to treat him. Sorry for the length. Everyone have a great weekend.
Some of my friends and I are having a conversation and they agree with my feelings, but have said my comment was worded poorly- in the negative toward women in a way. So, here is my revised statement, which is more gender friendly and unbiased. Since there are both sexes in the services already they need to do away with all physical combat related tests separated by gender period. Before all the special ops guys come hunt me down hear me out. There should be A standard.. one.. period.. job specific. To make this easy, cost and time effective this is how it would work. The Army for example already wen to great lengths to make a separate grading system for females.. instead of throwing it out.. reuse and rename it. The current "MALE" standard would be combat related jobs. If you can pass this test regardless of gender you can be combat operations. The current "FEMALE" standard would be non-combat jobs. If you choose to take and pass this test whether you are male or female you would be barred from combat arms. Likewise. Currently the tests to become special operations are even harder than the regular male combat arms tests. Prior to women in the military there was one standard. Combat arms. Then there was a harder standard to be special operations. I say leave it that way. Whether you are male or female, if you want to be combat arms, you have to be able to do/perform/execute XYZ. If you want to be support, records, cook, personnel actions, legal, etc you once again with NO gender bias whether you are male, female, green, martian, zebra.. you have to be able to do/perform/execute ABC. If you want to be special ops you have to pass the combat arms tests.. AND THEN.. pass the HARDER… special operations requirements.. there will no longer be a "female" column on ANY test. Remove gender from the debate ALLTOGETHER. No more b*tching, complaining, and whining. EVERY one regardless of sex is given a truly equal opportunity to excel. :)