Ban on women in combat to be lifted

[Soccermom]

Do you think the chances of your daughter being raped if she's serving as opposed to just living a normal civilian life are higher, lower or about the same?

That is simply not an environment I want my daughter to be a part of.

Me either. I don't think LA Ute is wrong in his feelings. I share those sentiments myself.

[Indy Coug]

This is the exact attitude that has to change. No offense LAUte.

It has to change? I'm not sure why our attitudes about which kids we'd like to see run a significantly higher risk of violently dying needs changing.

[creekster]

When I was younger I reached the conclusion that men and women should be treated the same. I was confident that the differences we ascribed to men and women were culturally based and inculcated by environment and expectation.

I am now convinced that I was wrong to a significant degree. While any given generalization might be wrong for any given individual, the fact is that men and women are NOT the same. They do react and interact differently. They are not physically equal. To pretend that men would react to women next to them on the battlefield in an infantry situation just as they would to a man next to them is folly, IMO. So if we want to say that woman should be given the same job opportunity as men, thats fine, but to do so pretending that they are equivalent in many of the traits that are essential to being a successful soldier is silly.

This is an admittedly sexist view. But it is based on biology. There simply ARE differences between men and women and to implement the sort of changes that are being discussed we need to start with that truth. Once we accept that truth, then we can decide how to implement the policy.

[Jacob]

This is the exact attitude that has to change. No offense LAUte.

Why? Seriously, why does the attitude of a father wanting to protect his daughter from that need to change?

[smokymountainrain]

I wasn't thinking about that, but now that you mention it, you have an excellent point.

I don't think Moliere thought about that either.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't understand why this is out of line:


But this is not out of line:

SeattleUte (and others) can say the most hateful and horrific things about Mormons and we are expected to suck it up and take it, and he never gets the stinkeye. DD posts something minorly offensive about women feminists, and all of a sudden the management around here jumps all over him. All this does is make me think that around here women need to be cosseted and protected, and if someone says something that has the remote possibility of causing offense to women, then they need to be disciplined.

I'm in favor of women in combat. Real bullets. Real blood. Apparently, we are ready for bombs and bullets but not quite ready for irreverent quips and words containing douche.

KL, rest assured that my objection to that graphic had absolutely nothing to do with protecting your delicate sensibilities. You can fight your own battles. If I do consider anyone in cases like this it would be my daughter. I am still a little miffed about the recent Elaine Dalton talk so my fuse might be a little short on these issues.

As for your "SU gets away with murder" comment:

1) You are clearly not paying attention. SU gets plenty of blowback, especially from me.

2) If you believe the reaction is unbalanced, feel free to respond directly to the posts you don't like. Nobody is stopping you.

[woot]

When I was younger I reached the conclusion that men and women should be treated the same. I was confident that the differences we ascribed to men and women were culturally based and inculcated by environment and expectation.

I am now convinced that I was wrong to a significant degree. While any given generalization might be wrong for any given individual, the fact is that men and women are NOT the same. They do react and interact differently. They are not physically equal. To pretend that men would react to women next to them on the battlefield in an infantry situation just as they would to a man next to them is folly, IMO. So if we want to say that woman should be given the same job opportunity as men, thats fine, but to do so pretending that they are equivalent in many of the traits that are essential to being a successful soldier is silly.

This is an admittedly sexist view. But it is based on biology. There simply ARE differences between men and women and to implement the sort of changes that are being discussed we need to start with that truth. Once we accept that truth, then we can decide how to implement the policy.

Hopefully nobody is under any illusion that men and women have the same physical capabilities. It's not at all sexist to recognize biological facts. Where it might become sexist is if we assume that no woman could meet the standards just because the average woman can't. Then again, if women who can meet the standards are sufficiently rare, then allowing them to serve becomes somewhat symbolic.

I'm not sure what to think about this change, and the complexities and nuances of what has even been changed and what is required for this type of service are opaque to me.

That having been said, I don't think it's necessarily a terrible idea to open any type of service to women in a hypothetical fashion, kind of like how the NFL, as far as I know, is hypothetically open to female players. If they do start lowering the standards in order to allow more women to meet them, then it starts seeming a lot more problematic.

[Devildog]

Goat,

Thanks man, once again, you've earned my respect. The best leaders I've ever worked for listened to their people... not just assumed they knew what was best for everyone. They recognize that nobody has the entire accurate view.

I respect that you can walk the line between both worlds, and be able to bring perspective to different groups.

Books will never be able to convey the difficulty, pain, and the determination required to succeed in military endeavors to the outside world. Fighting a determined adversary is a challenging business, even if you hold the advantage, humans are innovative and resourceful.

Most people in our nation would feel that the realities of military service are just plain brutal and inhumane... especially within the infantry... and particularly within Special Operations. It takes someone that understands why it must be so, and can walk with a foot in both worlds, and is educated and articulate enough to explain it to the outside world.

[creekster]

That having been said, I don't think it's necessarily a terrible idea to open any type of service to women in a hypothetical fashion, kind of like how the NFL, as far as I know, is hypothetically open to female players. If they do start lowering the standards in order to allow more women to meet them, then it starts seeming a lot more problematic.

Exactly. Thats why the premise has to include the fact that most women simply arent as strong as most men. so open it up but nerver expect the women to be represented in the infantry in the same proportion they are in the population or elsewhere in the military. That has to be made clear.

In addition, I also think some of the differneces in biology may result in problems in fighting units, but that is something that can be fleshed out later, I suppose.

[Flystripper]

Hopefully nobody is under any illusion that men and women have the same physical capabilities. It's not at all sexist to recognize biological facts. Where it might become sexist is if we assume that no woman could meet the standards just because the average woman can't. Then again, if women who can meet the standards are sufficiently rare, then allowing them to serve becomes somewhat symbolic.

I'm not sure what to think about this change, and the complexities and nuances of what has even been changed and what is required for this type of service are opaque to me.

That having been said, I don't think it's necessarily a terrible idea to open any type of service to women in a hypothetical fashion, kind of like how the NFL, as far as I know, is hypothetically open to female players. If they do start lowering the standards in order to allow more women to meet them, then it starts seeming a lot more problematic.

This is pretty much where I am on the issue. GN and others have said that lower standards are inevitable if woman are allowed to serve as "front line" combatants. If this is true, we probably should not allow it, but I am not 100% convinced that it is true. There are other considerations that have been discussed, like how men would behave in combat if a woman were fighting along side of them. I believe that it is fully within the power and capabilities of our military's NCOs to properly train physically and mentally qualified soldiers in the execution of their duty such that when the time comes, gender would not be an issue. I admit that I could be wrong.

[Bo Diddley]

This is pretty much where I am on the issue. GN and others have said that lower standards are inevitable if woman are allowed to serve as "front line" combatants. If this is true, we probably should not allow it, but I am not 100% convinced that it is true. There are other considerations that have been discussed, like how men would behave in combat if a woman were fighting along side of them. I believe that it is fully within the power and capabilities of our military's NCOs to properly train physically and mentally qualified soldiers in the execution of their duty such that when the time comes, gender would not be an issue. I admit that I could be wrong.

As far as proper behavior goes, it's a two-way street. I've seen plenty of problems from both genders, both in and out of combat. I've been an NCO for many years, and there is no way to eliminate all the drama without completely separating the genders.

[Goatnapper'96]

This is pretty much where I am on the issue. GN and others have said that lower standards are inevitable if woman are allowed to serve as "front line" combatants. If this is true, we probably should not allow it, but I am not 100% convinced that it is true. There are other considerations that have been discussed, like how men would behave in combat if a woman were fighting along side of them. I believe that it is fully within the power and capabilities of our military's NCOs to properly train physically and mentally qualified soldiers in the execution of their duty such that when the time comes, gender would not be an issue. I admit that I could be wrong.

Come on think how much pride it will give all the little girls across America to just see one female wearing her Green Beret! Surely the good it will do for their self-esteem and goalsetting approach to life, knowing that they can achieve anything they set their mind to, provides far greater good than the modest impact to combat readiness for making sure just one female is represented. Think of the royalties the US Army will get from the Hollywood film and how little girls' bosoms will burn when watching that movie. The social benefit would be enormous and we all know research shows the reason kids from poor environments fail is they don't have enough role models in life.

I think it patently absurd anyone lucid in our society cannot see that the demands for female success stories will lead to decreased standards.

You will notice those that wear the uniform are all pretty much clear on this...women in combat units doing non-combat jobs is likely to not be a problem and whatever problem it is can be overcome with cultural changes. The pied piper can call me to join him but he ain't gonna change, at least not without the help of Soviet era Eastern Bloc sports "scientists," the physiological realities of the differences between men and women wrt muscle mass. Further, war at its basest level will always be sloppy, brutal and uncivilized and a task that favors folks with more muscle mass. So if we are going to do it at least have the honesty of Moliere and state: I believe in social change and I understand the negative impact this will have on warfighting readiness, but IMO the social benefits outweigh that. Weee for little girls' self-esteem!

[LA Ute]

KL, rest assured that my objection to that graphic had absolutely nothing to do with protecting your delicate sensibilities. You can fight your own battles. If I do consider anyone in cases like this it would be my daughter. I am still a little miffed about the recent Elaine Dalton talk so my fuse might be a little short on these issues.

As for your "SU gets away with murder" comment:

1) You are clearly not paying attention. SU gets plenty of blowback, especially from me.

2) If you believe the reaction is unbalanced, feel free to respond directly to the posts you don't like. Nobody is stopping you.

Has anyone ever raised a complaint about the board culture that you have found to be the least bit valid? That's not intended to be a challenge, I am just wondering. I really can't think if any, but I have not been stalking you here as well as I used to.

[Flystripper]

As far as proper behavior goes, it's a two-way street. I've seen plenty of problems from both genders, both in and out of combat. I've been an NCO for many years, and there is no way to eliminate all the drama without completely separating the genders.

Of course it goes both ways and I have every confidence in your ability to train your soldiers to follow orders and execute their duty in battle regardless of gender. Sure there would be drama. There is drama now without women on the front lines. It would probably make your job more difficult and that should definitely be a consideration.

[Flystripper]

Come on think how much pride it will give all the little girls across America to just see one female wearing her Green Beret! Surely the good it will do for their self-esteem and goalsetting approach to life, knowing that they can achieve anything they set their mind to, provides far greater good than the modest impact to combat readiness for making sure just one female is represented. Think of the royalties the US Army will get from the Hollywood film and how little girls' bosoms will burn when watching that movie. The social benefit would be enormous and we all know research shows the reason kids from poor environments fail is they don't have enough role models in life.

I think it patently absurd anyone lucid in our society cannot see that the demands for female success stories will lead to decreased standards.

You will notice those that wear the uniform are all pretty much clear on this...women in combat units doing non-combat jobs is likely to not be a problem and whatever problem it is can be overcome with cultural changes. The pied piper can call me to join him but he ain't gonna change, at least not without the help of Soviet era Eastern Bloc sports "scientists," the physiological realities of the differences between men and women wrt muscle mass. Further, war at its basest level will always be sloppy, brutal and uncivilized and a task that favors folks with more muscle mass. So if we are going to do it at least have the honesty of Moliere and state: I believe in social change and I understand the negative impact this will have on warfighting readiness, but IMO the social benefits outweigh that. Weee for little girls' self-esteem!

If a lowering of standards or double standards are truly inevitable as you believe, then I agree it should not be done. I think I have said this from the beginning.

I would expect the percentage of woman to meet and exceed the current physical standards to be much much smaller than that of men. I am not an expert on what that standard is, but there is no part of me that wants the standards changed for women. Hopefully I am clear on that.

How men behave in combat with a woman soldier next to them is a cultural issue that I feel could probably in a large degree be handled and corrected by NCO's. Maybe I am wrong, and this is beyond the capabilities of the NCO corp. I realize it would make their job easier if they didn't have this potential issue to worry about and that should be a consideration, but not a reason to outright reject the notion IMHO.