Lori: I've been sharing thoughts from my recent adventure with other sites and now here is one for yours:
One of my hosts was a women officer, a full Commander who recently was an XO on a surface combat ship and was waiting for her own command. She is an impressive person.
So, now the situation. The Commander is disappointed that the USMC will not allow women in combat zones. Women Marines go through the same trainig as the men and should be aforded the same opportunities. She also thinks all females should register for the draft as males do and be called up along with the men for all duty.
Now, at a meal with a few of us 'men' she posed the question. Why can't women serve in combat in the USMC? Personally, I do not want my daughter drafted for combat. It goes against my 'gentleman' upbringing.
In a bad situation I immediately am concerned first for the ladies in the area. This would rule my thought process. Also, Marines judge others by the question "would you want to share a foxhole with that person"? If I was wounded, would I want a 5'6" tall, 130 pound female or a 6'2" 200 pound male there to drag me away? All things being equal, I'd go for the biggest and strongest person around.
So forum persons, how do you vote? What are your thoughts?
Should women be allowed in the foxholes with men?
Should women register and be drafted for combat duty?
Rich
------------------
"Pain is Weakness Leaving the Body." (Spoken by a Marine DI at Parris Island 6 September 2000.)
Women in the foxhole
Moderator: Available
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
Women in the foxhole
Ticklish question. This might help:
“Allowing women into these units would damage the military's hard-earned effectiveness and, for the first time in U.S. history, deliberately expose women to enemy fire and extreme risk of death and capture.
West is expected to announce a revised policy later this summer but, in the meantime, is sticking by his original proposal.
An appropriate forum for review of these and other findings of the Presidential Commission would be joint hearings by the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, during which West and other senior Pentagon Officials should be required to answer a number of troublesome questions:
Question #1: Are women physically suited to the rigors of ground combat?
Answer: The evidence suggests that they are not. In weighing the ability of women to perform under combat conditions, the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces heard testimony from Army Lieutenant Colonel William Gregor, Chairman of the Department of Military Science at the University of Michigan, who conducted a test of Army officer candidates and found that:
The top 20 percent of women at West Point achieved scores on the Army Physical Fitness Test equivalent to the bottom 20 percent of male cadets.
Only seven percent of women can meet a score of 60 on the push-up test, while 78 percent of men exceed it.
A 20- to 30-year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50-year- old man.
Only one woman out of 100 could meet a physical standard achieved by 60 out of 100 men. Gregor concluded that going through this process would mean that "I have just traded off 60 soldiers for the prospect of getting one. The cost considerations are prohibitive." (Lt. Col. William Gregor, USA, testimony before the Presidential Commission, September 12, 1992, cited in the Presidential Commission's Report to the President, November 15, 1992, p. C-42.)
Soldiers under fire must have confidence in the physical abilities of their comrades. Before allowing women to face the stress of combat, Congress must hear from Lieutenant Colonel Gregor and other experts to determine whether women are physically suited for it.
Question #2: How will bearing and raising children affect a woman's readiness to deploy on short notice, as is frequently required of military units?
Answer: Because of pregnancy and family responsibilities, many women cannot be shipped out to a foreign crisis as quickly as men. During Operation Desert Storm, for example, enlisted women in the Navy were unavailable for overseas deployment nearly four times more often than men. At any given time, between 8 and 10 percent of women in the Navy are pregnant; (Department of the Navy, Navy Personnel Survey, 1990 Survey Report, Volume 2.) for the Army, the figure is 10 to 15 percent. (Michael Levin, Feminism and Freedom (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1988), p. 235.) Because Navy regulations require pregnant sailors to be within six hours of a medical facility, each of these women must be replaced before a ship can sail. This could lead to sudden gaps in a small unit that depends on the presence of all members to complete its mission. Such gaps would damage the cohesion of a tightly knit combat team.
Moreover, this effect will be magnified as the military continues to shrink under the Clinton Admini-stration's defense budget cuts. Because it is getting more difficult to attract qualified candidates, military recruiters are trying to appeal to women with promises of career advancement. The result is a higher number of women as a percentage of the total force; while women accounted for only 14.5 percent of Army recruits four years ago, for example, they will comprise 20.5 percent this year. (Rowan Scarborough, "Military Recruiters Increasingly Rely on Women to Fill Ranks," The Washington Times, February 28, 1994, p. A1.) Lower unit readiness caused by the absence of child-rearing women inevitably will get worse as the military continues to attract a higher percentage of women its ranks.
Question #3: What are the potential consequences of women and men fighting alongside one another?
Answer: Combat is a team activity which brings people closer together than any other profession. A small number of women may possess the physical and mental toughness to perform some combat duties; but teamwork matters more than individual capabilities in combat, and this teamwork generally is undermined by the presence of women.
On one support ship during Operation Desert Storm, 36 of the 360 women on board -- ten percent -- became pregnant. (Alecia Swasy, "Shipboard Pregnancies Force the Manly Navy to Cope With Moms," The Wall Street Journal, October 3, 1991, p. 1.)
In a Roper survey conducted during the Gulf War, 64 percent of military personnel surveyed reported that sexual activity had taken place in their unit. (The Roper Organization, "Attitudes Regarding the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces: The Military Perspective," September 1992.)
Mixing men and women in military units invites sexual attraction and special relationships, and these relationships -- or even the perception that they exist -- destroy the morale and cohesion which any fighting force must have to win wars.
If more women join combat units that become open to them as a result of the Administration's new policies, this problem will only worsen.
Question #4: How do women serving in the armed forces feel about being assigned to combat units?
Answer: In a 1992 survey of Army women, between 70 and 80 percent of respondents favored allowing women to volunteer for combat. Yet, among the same respondents, 90 percent of female noncommissioned officers and 88 percent of enlisted women indicated that they would not volunteer; only 14 percent of the Army officers surveyed indicated that they would volunteer for combat assignments.
And fully 52 percent of Army women claimed they would leave the service if women are compelled to serve in combat. (Laura Miller and Dr. Charles Moskos, "1992 Survey on Gender in the Military," Northwestern University, September 1992.)
The charge that barring women from combat units inhibits their career advancement is groundless. According to Department of Defense statistics, even with the combat exclusion for women, the services are promoting females at similar or faster rates than males. (Department of Defense, "Military Women in the Department of Defense," Volume VIII, July 1990, pp. 30, 73.) Expanding combat "opportunities" places the aspirations of feminist activists ahead of the wishes of most military women, who have expressed consistently strong personal resistance to being assigned to combat.
Question #5: What has been the experience of nations that have mixed men and women in combat units?
Answer: History shows that the presence of women has had a devastating impact on the effectiveness of men in battle. For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be.
The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit.
The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield. (Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, International Trip Report, September 14-27, 1992.)
These findings will come as no surprise to most Americans; in a recent national survey, two-thirds of those who favored the current policy barring women from ground combat cited the potential loss of mens' effectiveness as a reason. (The Roper Organization, "Attitudes Regarding the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces: The Public Perspective," September 1992, p. 41.)
CONCLUSION
The American people know that the purpose of the armed forces is to fight and win the nation's wars, not to serve as a laboratory for social "progress." While the military attempts to provide servicemen and women with rewarding careers, it must not do so at the expense of its readiness for war.
Most Americans understand that the majority of men are physically stronger than the majority of women and that the risk of sexual attraction can undermine the cohesion and discipline necessary for success on the battlefield.
Most are also uncomfor with the deliberate exposure of women to violence.
Unfortunately, their common sense is not shared by the Clinton Administration, which already has shown a lack of sound military judgment regarding the assignment of known homosexuals to the armed forces, the use of force in Somalia, and the military build-up around Haiti.
when their very existence was threatened, many nations -- Israel during its 1948 war for independence, and both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany near the end of World War II -- used women in combat, removing them when the crisis passed.
The U.S. faces no such threat today; moreover, thousands of qualified men and women are leaving the military as it gets smaller. The facts demonstrate that placing women in or near combat units will damage military effectiveness.
Weakening America's military might in this way and at this time is particularly troubling. The U.S. armed services already are suffering from deep budget cuts and declining morale. (For a discussion of the military budget crisis, see John Luddy, "Stop the Slide Toward a Hollow Military," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder Update No. 209, January 14, 1994, and Baker Spring, "Fixing The 1995 Defense Budget," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder Update No. 227, June 22, 1994.)
By holding hearings to examine the wisdom of the Clinton Administration's change in policy, Congress can stop the Administration from using the military as a laboratory for social engineering.
John Luddy
Policy Analyst
------------------
Van Canna
“Allowing women into these units would damage the military's hard-earned effectiveness and, for the first time in U.S. history, deliberately expose women to enemy fire and extreme risk of death and capture.
West is expected to announce a revised policy later this summer but, in the meantime, is sticking by his original proposal.
An appropriate forum for review of these and other findings of the Presidential Commission would be joint hearings by the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, during which West and other senior Pentagon Officials should be required to answer a number of troublesome questions:
Question #1: Are women physically suited to the rigors of ground combat?
Answer: The evidence suggests that they are not. In weighing the ability of women to perform under combat conditions, the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces heard testimony from Army Lieutenant Colonel William Gregor, Chairman of the Department of Military Science at the University of Michigan, who conducted a test of Army officer candidates and found that:
The top 20 percent of women at West Point achieved scores on the Army Physical Fitness Test equivalent to the bottom 20 percent of male cadets.
Only seven percent of women can meet a score of 60 on the push-up test, while 78 percent of men exceed it.
A 20- to 30-year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50-year- old man.
Only one woman out of 100 could meet a physical standard achieved by 60 out of 100 men. Gregor concluded that going through this process would mean that "I have just traded off 60 soldiers for the prospect of getting one. The cost considerations are prohibitive." (Lt. Col. William Gregor, USA, testimony before the Presidential Commission, September 12, 1992, cited in the Presidential Commission's Report to the President, November 15, 1992, p. C-42.)
Soldiers under fire must have confidence in the physical abilities of their comrades. Before allowing women to face the stress of combat, Congress must hear from Lieutenant Colonel Gregor and other experts to determine whether women are physically suited for it.
Question #2: How will bearing and raising children affect a woman's readiness to deploy on short notice, as is frequently required of military units?
Answer: Because of pregnancy and family responsibilities, many women cannot be shipped out to a foreign crisis as quickly as men. During Operation Desert Storm, for example, enlisted women in the Navy were unavailable for overseas deployment nearly four times more often than men. At any given time, between 8 and 10 percent of women in the Navy are pregnant; (Department of the Navy, Navy Personnel Survey, 1990 Survey Report, Volume 2.) for the Army, the figure is 10 to 15 percent. (Michael Levin, Feminism and Freedom (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1988), p. 235.) Because Navy regulations require pregnant sailors to be within six hours of a medical facility, each of these women must be replaced before a ship can sail. This could lead to sudden gaps in a small unit that depends on the presence of all members to complete its mission. Such gaps would damage the cohesion of a tightly knit combat team.
Moreover, this effect will be magnified as the military continues to shrink under the Clinton Admini-stration's defense budget cuts. Because it is getting more difficult to attract qualified candidates, military recruiters are trying to appeal to women with promises of career advancement. The result is a higher number of women as a percentage of the total force; while women accounted for only 14.5 percent of Army recruits four years ago, for example, they will comprise 20.5 percent this year. (Rowan Scarborough, "Military Recruiters Increasingly Rely on Women to Fill Ranks," The Washington Times, February 28, 1994, p. A1.) Lower unit readiness caused by the absence of child-rearing women inevitably will get worse as the military continues to attract a higher percentage of women its ranks.
Question #3: What are the potential consequences of women and men fighting alongside one another?
Answer: Combat is a team activity which brings people closer together than any other profession. A small number of women may possess the physical and mental toughness to perform some combat duties; but teamwork matters more than individual capabilities in combat, and this teamwork generally is undermined by the presence of women.
On one support ship during Operation Desert Storm, 36 of the 360 women on board -- ten percent -- became pregnant. (Alecia Swasy, "Shipboard Pregnancies Force the Manly Navy to Cope With Moms," The Wall Street Journal, October 3, 1991, p. 1.)
In a Roper survey conducted during the Gulf War, 64 percent of military personnel surveyed reported that sexual activity had taken place in their unit. (The Roper Organization, "Attitudes Regarding the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces: The Military Perspective," September 1992.)
Mixing men and women in military units invites sexual attraction and special relationships, and these relationships -- or even the perception that they exist -- destroy the morale and cohesion which any fighting force must have to win wars.
If more women join combat units that become open to them as a result of the Administration's new policies, this problem will only worsen.
Question #4: How do women serving in the armed forces feel about being assigned to combat units?
Answer: In a 1992 survey of Army women, between 70 and 80 percent of respondents favored allowing women to volunteer for combat. Yet, among the same respondents, 90 percent of female noncommissioned officers and 88 percent of enlisted women indicated that they would not volunteer; only 14 percent of the Army officers surveyed indicated that they would volunteer for combat assignments.
And fully 52 percent of Army women claimed they would leave the service if women are compelled to serve in combat. (Laura Miller and Dr. Charles Moskos, "1992 Survey on Gender in the Military," Northwestern University, September 1992.)
The charge that barring women from combat units inhibits their career advancement is groundless. According to Department of Defense statistics, even with the combat exclusion for women, the services are promoting females at similar or faster rates than males. (Department of Defense, "Military Women in the Department of Defense," Volume VIII, July 1990, pp. 30, 73.) Expanding combat "opportunities" places the aspirations of feminist activists ahead of the wishes of most military women, who have expressed consistently strong personal resistance to being assigned to combat.
Question #5: What has been the experience of nations that have mixed men and women in combat units?
Answer: History shows that the presence of women has had a devastating impact on the effectiveness of men in battle. For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be.
The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit.
The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield. (Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, International Trip Report, September 14-27, 1992.)
These findings will come as no surprise to most Americans; in a recent national survey, two-thirds of those who favored the current policy barring women from ground combat cited the potential loss of mens' effectiveness as a reason. (The Roper Organization, "Attitudes Regarding the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces: The Public Perspective," September 1992, p. 41.)
CONCLUSION
The American people know that the purpose of the armed forces is to fight and win the nation's wars, not to serve as a laboratory for social "progress." While the military attempts to provide servicemen and women with rewarding careers, it must not do so at the expense of its readiness for war.
Most Americans understand that the majority of men are physically stronger than the majority of women and that the risk of sexual attraction can undermine the cohesion and discipline necessary for success on the battlefield.
Most are also uncomfor with the deliberate exposure of women to violence.
Unfortunately, their common sense is not shared by the Clinton Administration, which already has shown a lack of sound military judgment regarding the assignment of known homosexuals to the armed forces, the use of force in Somalia, and the military build-up around Haiti.
when their very existence was threatened, many nations -- Israel during its 1948 war for independence, and both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany near the end of World War II -- used women in combat, removing them when the crisis passed.
The U.S. faces no such threat today; moreover, thousands of qualified men and women are leaving the military as it gets smaller. The facts demonstrate that placing women in or near combat units will damage military effectiveness.
Weakening America's military might in this way and at this time is particularly troubling. The U.S. armed services already are suffering from deep budget cuts and declining morale. (For a discussion of the military budget crisis, see John Luddy, "Stop the Slide Toward a Hollow Military," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder Update No. 209, January 14, 1994, and Baker Spring, "Fixing The 1995 Defense Budget," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder Update No. 227, June 22, 1994.)
By holding hearings to examine the wisdom of the Clinton Administration's change in policy, Congress can stop the Administration from using the military as a laboratory for social engineering.
John Luddy
Policy Analyst
------------------
Van Canna
Women in the foxhole
Rich-san:
Excellent topic - thanks for bringing it up. Interesting to hear from the "inside" how some of the women military personnel feel.
Van: Thanks for the background material. I always love it when "serious" studies or papers back up my personal feelings - which - in answer to the query in Rich's post - are right along the same lines.
Now - before women start getting all riled - I support 100% a female's right to fight if she wishes - but not in mixed company where it would demean the cohesiveness of the unit. Why not have a special "female" fighting unit - call them Amazons or something - I'm not kidding - I'm SERIOUS - and let a select group of combat ready - highly trained - elite and fit and physically able women form such a combat unit. They would have to of course agree not to be trying to start a family and any pregnancy would be grounds for dismissal from combat. It would take a serious committment and of course there ARE women out there with this kind of committment. Why deny it to them?
But to mix men and women in combat units? For all the reasons outlined in Van's post above - I concur - not a good idea.
I also don't believe women should be drafted. Combat by choice, fine - female units as I stated above. But forced to give up their reproductive rights and be drafted? No way. Don't want it for me, for my daughter or any other female.
Draft for men? Yes. Again as outlined many times - men are more equipped STATISTICALLY to defend, fight, pull people out of foxholes, etc. I'd rather have a group of forced men out there defending my rights than a group of WOMEN chosen at random! Cripes! No insult intended but we are more likely to get a few fighters out of a draft of men then women - this is a fact of nature, reality, statistics, gender conditioning, behavioral conditioning, I could go on!
Just my lil ole NSH opinion.
Lori
Excellent topic - thanks for bringing it up. Interesting to hear from the "inside" how some of the women military personnel feel.
Van: Thanks for the background material. I always love it when "serious" studies or papers back up my personal feelings - which - in answer to the query in Rich's post - are right along the same lines.
Now - before women start getting all riled - I support 100% a female's right to fight if she wishes - but not in mixed company where it would demean the cohesiveness of the unit. Why not have a special "female" fighting unit - call them Amazons or something - I'm not kidding - I'm SERIOUS - and let a select group of combat ready - highly trained - elite and fit and physically able women form such a combat unit. They would have to of course agree not to be trying to start a family and any pregnancy would be grounds for dismissal from combat. It would take a serious committment and of course there ARE women out there with this kind of committment. Why deny it to them?
But to mix men and women in combat units? For all the reasons outlined in Van's post above - I concur - not a good idea.
I also don't believe women should be drafted. Combat by choice, fine - female units as I stated above. But forced to give up their reproductive rights and be drafted? No way. Don't want it for me, for my daughter or any other female.
Draft for men? Yes. Again as outlined many times - men are more equipped STATISTICALLY to defend, fight, pull people out of foxholes, etc. I'd rather have a group of forced men out there defending my rights than a group of WOMEN chosen at random! Cripes! No insult intended but we are more likely to get a few fighters out of a draft of men then women - this is a fact of nature, reality, statistics, gender conditioning, behavioral conditioning, I could go on!
Just my lil ole NSH opinion.
Lori
Women in the foxhole
Hm, this is a thorny problem. In some respects I agree with Van's post (noting that he was quoting another person) and Lori's, but in others I disagree.
It's true that women and men have different average capabilities, but in my mind that doesn't mean we should break our treatment of men and women along gender lines. Rather I think we should have a single set of standards for combat duty, and an easier set of standards for non-combat. Then all persons regardless of gender go into the highest capability bracket they can make.
If it turns out that most women in the military can't meet those standards, then fine, they stay as they are in non-combat positions. If it is as rare for a woman to be equally capable to men, then it seems likely that the highly motivated women who want to be in combat will succeed, while those who would rather not, won't. The fair corolary to this would be that men failing to make the requirement would also be assigned to non-combat positions. I think this solves the basic problem of who is allowed into combat at all.
The next question is whether men and women should serve together. One key issue seems to be unit morale. There are a few seperate aspects to this, namely, the issues of trust, men's dislike of seeing women hurt, men's general displeasure at having to serve in combat with women, and the issue of sexual relationship within units.
As for the trust, it seems to me that if men can be made to trust smaller men in combat, it seems to me simply that if the women have to pass the same standards to be in combat, then the men should just be forced to deal with their own demons. Anybody who passes the tests is good enough, and that's that. Yeah, you'd rather have a hulking ape to carry you out of a ditch, but the tests should be hard enough that everbody who passes them is able to drag others out of a ditch, if that's judged to be an important capacity.
As for men's dislike of seeing women hurt, I'm not sure really what can be done about that. All I can offer is that men probably think this way, in part because they perceieve innocent, weaker, or as children to be protected. None of the women in combat are any of these things, so that should help to alleviate the problem. Other than that,all I can suggest is to train the men to just get over it, the way they're trained to leave their male friends behind if they are forced to.
As for men's general loss of morale, this seems to me as no better than racism, and also applies to the homophobia issue. We mix races in a unit, and expect that people will just have to get over any racist tendencies they have. Who would accept the idea of having seperate black and white units because the white soldiers would lose morale if forced to serve with black soldiers? I bet some soldiers do feel that way at first. And I bet that back when units were first integrated, morale went way down. But you kow what, we decided that it's not acecptable to be a racist in the army. On these grounds I don't see why i's any more acceptable to be sexist.
The issue of sexual relationships seems very difficult to solve. The only thing I can think of would be disallowing it, but I doubt the discouraging effect would be effective. People will go through any lengths to be with whatever random person they set their heart on (Ala Romeo & Juliet). This said, I don't think it's possible to have two effect soldiers who are in love with eachother, either one will liekly become useless if the other is killed, regardless of other considerations. Basically, I have no idea, except to prohibit, and hope.
Another issue is readiness for duty because of being occupied with children. In my mind, a general solution is appropriate. Soldiers should either be allowed to stay home and take care of their kids, or not. Women would need a leave of duty during their pregnancy, but beyond that, I think men have just as much right to raise children as women do. Sorry if this sounds unduly harsh, but if men have to give up ther right to raise children, then so should women. If the armed srevices declare that serving your country has to be your first priority, then that's the only way they should accept people. Otherwise they should recognize that people can make other choices at certain times.
As for the issue of drafting, I do think women should be drafted on an equal basis with men. Smaller, wearker men aren't exempt, thus neither should women be. Sure, maybe a higher percentage fail to meet the standards, and so they don't actually end up serving. I don't think anyone's trying to suggest that equality is forcing people to do things they can't, just requiring that everybody who is capable, does, regardless of sex, creed, color etc.
Well, that's my opinion. I have no delusions that it's based on anything more than my own extrapolations, rather than direct evidence or experience.
P.S. Sorry this is so long, and (quite possibly) boring.
[This message has been edited by Valkenar (edited September 22, 2000).]
It's true that women and men have different average capabilities, but in my mind that doesn't mean we should break our treatment of men and women along gender lines. Rather I think we should have a single set of standards for combat duty, and an easier set of standards for non-combat. Then all persons regardless of gender go into the highest capability bracket they can make.
If it turns out that most women in the military can't meet those standards, then fine, they stay as they are in non-combat positions. If it is as rare for a woman to be equally capable to men, then it seems likely that the highly motivated women who want to be in combat will succeed, while those who would rather not, won't. The fair corolary to this would be that men failing to make the requirement would also be assigned to non-combat positions. I think this solves the basic problem of who is allowed into combat at all.
The next question is whether men and women should serve together. One key issue seems to be unit morale. There are a few seperate aspects to this, namely, the issues of trust, men's dislike of seeing women hurt, men's general displeasure at having to serve in combat with women, and the issue of sexual relationship within units.
As for the trust, it seems to me that if men can be made to trust smaller men in combat, it seems to me simply that if the women have to pass the same standards to be in combat, then the men should just be forced to deal with their own demons. Anybody who passes the tests is good enough, and that's that. Yeah, you'd rather have a hulking ape to carry you out of a ditch, but the tests should be hard enough that everbody who passes them is able to drag others out of a ditch, if that's judged to be an important capacity.
As for men's dislike of seeing women hurt, I'm not sure really what can be done about that. All I can offer is that men probably think this way, in part because they perceieve innocent, weaker, or as children to be protected. None of the women in combat are any of these things, so that should help to alleviate the problem. Other than that,all I can suggest is to train the men to just get over it, the way they're trained to leave their male friends behind if they are forced to.
As for men's general loss of morale, this seems to me as no better than racism, and also applies to the homophobia issue. We mix races in a unit, and expect that people will just have to get over any racist tendencies they have. Who would accept the idea of having seperate black and white units because the white soldiers would lose morale if forced to serve with black soldiers? I bet some soldiers do feel that way at first. And I bet that back when units were first integrated, morale went way down. But you kow what, we decided that it's not acecptable to be a racist in the army. On these grounds I don't see why i's any more acceptable to be sexist.
The issue of sexual relationships seems very difficult to solve. The only thing I can think of would be disallowing it, but I doubt the discouraging effect would be effective. People will go through any lengths to be with whatever random person they set their heart on (Ala Romeo & Juliet). This said, I don't think it's possible to have two effect soldiers who are in love with eachother, either one will liekly become useless if the other is killed, regardless of other considerations. Basically, I have no idea, except to prohibit, and hope.
Another issue is readiness for duty because of being occupied with children. In my mind, a general solution is appropriate. Soldiers should either be allowed to stay home and take care of their kids, or not. Women would need a leave of duty during their pregnancy, but beyond that, I think men have just as much right to raise children as women do. Sorry if this sounds unduly harsh, but if men have to give up ther right to raise children, then so should women. If the armed srevices declare that serving your country has to be your first priority, then that's the only way they should accept people. Otherwise they should recognize that people can make other choices at certain times.
As for the issue of drafting, I do think women should be drafted on an equal basis with men. Smaller, wearker men aren't exempt, thus neither should women be. Sure, maybe a higher percentage fail to meet the standards, and so they don't actually end up serving. I don't think anyone's trying to suggest that equality is forcing people to do things they can't, just requiring that everybody who is capable, does, regardless of sex, creed, color etc.
Well, that's my opinion. I have no delusions that it's based on anything more than my own extrapolations, rather than direct evidence or experience.
P.S. Sorry this is so long, and (quite possibly) boring.
[This message has been edited by Valkenar (edited September 22, 2000).]
Women in the foxhole
Valkenar,
First of all - a warm welcome to the forum - and thank you for your thought provoking post! It is not boring - it is well written and clearly outlines a position that I'm sure is held by more than just yourself.
You may not wish to divulge it - but I'm sure some may be wondering whether your perspective is from a female or male point of view - if you care to share that - fine - if not - no problem! Your views and opinions are welcome regardless!
Please continue to contribute - I enjoyed reading what you have to say.
Peace,
Lori
First of all - a warm welcome to the forum - and thank you for your thought provoking post! It is not boring - it is well written and clearly outlines a position that I'm sure is held by more than just yourself.
You may not wish to divulge it - but I'm sure some may be wondering whether your perspective is from a female or male point of view - if you care to share that - fine - if not - no problem! Your views and opinions are welcome regardless!
Please continue to contribute - I enjoyed reading what you have to say.
Peace,
Lori
Women in the foxhole
Thanks, Lori. I've been lurking for a while on most of the forums, just haven't really posted till recently.
I'm content to disclose pretty much anything people want to know. Just ask. In response to your question, I'm male.
I'm content to disclose pretty much anything people want to know. Just ask. In response to your question, I'm male.
Women in the foxhole
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doctor X:
Men uncomfortable seeing women bent, folded, spindled, or mutilated? I have heard that argument and understand it. The problem, it seems, is with men.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Women I know who have taken the "all voluntary, all equal" armed forces stand have been quick to point out that it is no less traumatic and/or "uncomfortable" for a woman seeing a man subjected to the tortures of war.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Soldiers of every race, creed, color, cultural/national backgrounds, sexual orientation and sex have contributed to the cause of freedom by serving in our armed forces. I humbly give thanks to each and every one of them for their sacrifices... whether they volunteered or were drafted.
I think you made a reference to the War for Southern Independence however... and I must point out for the record that there was a big difference in the blacks that fought for those two nations in that war. The black soldiers of the CSA were all volunteers (documented) while the black soldiers of the USA were largely conscripted (also documented)... That conscription was enough to cause riots in various parts of the USA at the time!
As far as different sexes in the military... The Israelis, for one example, haven't seen it as a problem. And neither do I.
It must be pointed out, however, that the female downed flyer during the Gulf War (with both wrists broken) was quiet during her entire ordeal to keep her male soldiers from knowing her plight. It was only significantly after her return and the end of that war that she finally informed of the fact that she had been repeatedly raped in various ways.
Men uncomfortable seeing women bent, folded, spindled, or mutilated? I have heard that argument and understand it. The problem, it seems, is with men.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Women I know who have taken the "all voluntary, all equal" armed forces stand have been quick to point out that it is no less traumatic and/or "uncomfortable" for a woman seeing a man subjected to the tortures of war.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
yes, I'm here... and only responding to the this interesting thread because of your query.Returning to the racial history, both the North and the South--are you there Panther?--expressed suprise that black troops fought. The achievements of the all black fliers in WWII must be honored particularly since they occured in a hostile military.
Soldiers of every race, creed, color, cultural/national backgrounds, sexual orientation and sex have contributed to the cause of freedom by serving in our armed forces. I humbly give thanks to each and every one of them for their sacrifices... whether they volunteered or were drafted.I think you made a reference to the War for Southern Independence however... and I must point out for the record that there was a big difference in the blacks that fought for those two nations in that war. The black soldiers of the CSA were all volunteers (documented) while the black soldiers of the USA were largely conscripted (also documented)... That conscription was enough to cause riots in various parts of the USA at the time!
As far as different sexes in the military... The Israelis, for one example, haven't seen it as a problem. And neither do I.
It must be pointed out, however, that the female downed flyer during the Gulf War (with both wrists broken) was quiet during her entire ordeal to keep her male soldiers from knowing her plight. It was only significantly after her return and the end of that war that she finally informed of the fact that she had been repeatedly raped in various ways.
Women in the foxhole
My good medical friend...
Since we are in mutual agreement about the salient points of the thread, I have no reason to debate other facts that, at the present time, are beyond the scope of significance.
However, I will endeavor to provide proper citations for my assertions if the opportunity and/or need arises in the future.
<blockquote>"All that the South has ever desired was that the Union, as established by our forefathers, should be preserved; and that the government, as originally organised, should be administered in purity and truth."
-General Robert E. Lee</blockquote>
[This message has been edited by Panther (edited September 27, 2000).]
Since we are in mutual agreement about the salient points of the thread, I have no reason to debate other facts that, at the present time, are beyond the scope of significance.
However, I will endeavor to provide proper citations for my assertions if the opportunity and/or need arises in the future.
<blockquote>"All that the South has ever desired was that the Union, as established by our forefathers, should be preserved; and that the government, as originally organised, should be administered in purity and truth."
-General Robert E. Lee</blockquote>
[This message has been edited by Panther (edited September 27, 2000).]
