GOV/MIL OPINION: Women in combat raise difficult questions

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.dailyrecord.com/story/opinion/2015/12/26/women-combat-raise-difficult-questions/77849414/

OPINION: Women in combat raise difficult questions

Carl J. Asszony 12:07 a.m. EST December 26, 2015
Comments 1

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter has announced that every branch of the military will now open all combat positions to women. “There will be no exceptions.” He expects the various branches to submit plans for women in combat roles by Jan. 1, 2016.

Apparently he has dismissed the 1,000 page report from the Marine Corps which indicated that mixed-gender combat units did not fair as well as all male combat units. Carter said he interprets the findings differently. This comes from someone who not only never served in combat, but never served in the military.

What Commander in Chief Obama and Secretary Carter have also done is now open the doors to having women register for the draft. The only restriction that kept women from the draft was that they couldn’t serve in combat. Now that restriction is gone and there is no reason that women between the ages of 18-25 should not have to register.

That, however, might be the least of the problems, because once the rule of women in ground combat takes effect it no longer becomes an issue of choice or volunteering. Carter made it clear that women can be assigned to combat roles. He stated that women who are considered fit will be assigned to ground combat positions because in the military there is no “absolute choice” for duty stations or military assignments.

Although there are those who applaud the idea of women in ground combat, there are also those who are soundly convinced it is a wrong decision. One of those dissenters is June Eden, a female former Marine (2004-08) who served in a combat in Fallujah, Iraq 2005-06. She says there are a few problems that no one wants to even talk about which can affect combat readiness, such as, days before menstruation a women loses some of her strength and can have varying emotional “ups and downs” (PMS) during that time affecting her judgment, which could be disastrous in combat. And there are logistical problems associated with the need to attend to body cleanliness during the menstrual cycle or urination which might require stripping off 80 pounds of protective military gear and clothing and doing this under extremely dangerous and filthy conditions.

Then there is the problem of sexual contact, which has often led to pregnancy and removal from their position thereby destroying unit cohesion. Miss Eden says the top priority should be military readiness and winning wars, not political correctness and artificially imposed “equality” on the military.

Agreeing with her is Robert L. Maginnis, a former Army officer and author, who said, “This decision ignores decades of solid science and thousands of years of combat history” and Congressman Duncan Hunter, a former Marine Officer who served in Afghanistan and Iraq, who stated, “This is a straight political decision. This is about small-unit effectiveness, I’m not convinced this decision will make us more lethal in close combat.”

The debate of women in front-line ground combat roles will continue for sometime. What we should remember, however, is that when Obama, Carter and others, cheer equal opportunity for women in the military by putting them in front line close combat, they are also giving them an equal opportunity to be wounded, maimed or killed. Are their decisions really made to enhance and strengthen the military since so few women will qualify for many of the front-line positions — if they truly had to meet the same qualifications as men — or is it political correctness? Carter himself acknowledges that the physical demands for some jobs are so high that only a small number of women would qualify.

One has to wonder if these armchair commanders, and paper-clip generals, who tell us terrorism was caused by climate change, and never experienced the horrors of front-line combat, really understand the consequences of their decisions.

Carl J. Asszony of Piscataway is a member of the Veterans Advisory Council at the VA Medical Center, Lyons. njveteran30@gmail.com


Comments

Bruce Eden

One question--Do Israeli women serving in the Israeli Army (IDF) have the same problems that you posit in your opinion piece. women comprising 33% of all IDF soldiers and 51% of its officers, in 2011, fulfilling various roles within the Ground, Navy and Air Forces. The 2000 Equality amendment to the Military Service law states that "The right of women to serve in any role in the IDF is equal to the right of men." As of now, 88% to 92% of all roles in the IDF are open to female candidates, while women can be found in 69% of all positions.

Israeli women are fighter pilots, do intelligence service work, and handle similar duties on the battlefield as men.

Like · Reply · 12 hrs
 

Dozdoats

On TB every waking moment
Nah.

No problem!

WyMyN get screwed up and killed by combat just like men do when exposed to it. Combat is the ULTIMATE equal opportunity employer.
 

Sentinel

Veteran Member
Former Army Officer here, one who's job involved direct actions (combat). It is amazing that the same idiots who never served a day in their lives have made this decision. All they will ultimately do is get me killed.
 

ainitfunny

Saved, to glorify God.
How are liberals selling the "you never hit a women mantra" still claim that "women are equal and can serve in combat"? Isn't that a disconnect from reality and logic??

I was in the Army when more sanity prevailed (Women's Army Corps). Average Women CANNOT consistently do what average men are able to do normally. On a GOOD day, when they DON'T have a cold, or on their period, are not lacking sleep or rest, a woman can temporarily almost match a man's performance, for a little while, BUT DON'T DEPEND ON IT.

Not only that, women who try to do heavy jobs whether military or civilian will end up with MORE INJURIES and back problems, torn ligaments, crushed disks, torn rotator cuffs, severe strains and other reality bites that will require male soldiers to cover for them and carry them out when backpacks and other equipment loaded onto a woman become obviously more than they can routinely manage and still be able to do any work or defend themselves or anyone else.

A guy may be perfoming at 75% of his total ability when under the combat demands of war, but a woman burdened with the same loads will be cranking out over 90+% of her total strength and ability to do that job, and ANY little THING can "take her under" because she has no reserve, she is using ALL her strength just to be equal to a guy using 75% of his strength, to the point where BEFORE LONG she cannot get up or even minimally do the job.
Women are free to get any civilian job they want but you can see from this chart that they do not seek heavy labor jobs! Also only 4 percent of firefighters are women. http://www.wowonline.org/ourprogram...iceshipandNontraditionalOccupationsPrimer.pdf
 

Attachments

  • women bricklayers.1.jpg
    women bricklayers.1.jpg
    64 KB · Views: 259
  • women bricklayers.jpg
    women bricklayers.jpg
    55.8 KB · Views: 257
Last edited:

Foothiller

Veteran Member
How are liberals selling the "you never hit a women mantra" still claim that "women are equal and can serve in combat"? Isn't that a disconnect from reality and logic??

I was in the Army when more sanity prevailed (Women's Army Corps). Average Women CANNOT consistently do what average men are able to do normally. On a GOOD day, when they DON'T have a cold, or on their period, are not lacking sleep or rest, a woman can temporarily almost match a man's performance, for a little while, BUT DON'T DEPEND ON IT.

Not only that, women who try to do heavy jobs whether military or civilian will end up with MORE INJURIES and back problems, torn ligaments, crushed disks, torn rotator cuffs, severe strains and other reality bites that will require male soldiers to cover for them and carry them out when backpacks and other equipment loaded onto a woman become obviously more than they can routinely manage and still be able to do any work or defend themselves or anyone else.

A guy may be perfoming at 75% of his total ability when under the combat demands of war, but a woman burdened with the same loads will be cranking out over 90+% of her total strength and ability to do that job, and ANY little THING can "take her under" because she has no reserve, she is using ALL her strength just to be equal to a guy using 75% of his strength, to the point where BEFORE LONG she cannot get up or even minimally do the job.
Women are free to get any civilian job they want but you can see from this chart that they do not seek heavy labor jobs! Also only 4 percent of firefighters are women. http://www.wowonline.org/ourprogram...iceshipandNontraditionalOccupationsPrimer.pdf

That last bit totally destroys the 'equal pay' argument doesn't it?
 

Hfcomms

EN66iq
Men and women were designed by their creator for completely different roles. Neither is 'superior' to the other but they are different. Men usually don't make good caregivers, substitute mothers or emotional dumping grounds for others. And women were not designed for the physical and emotional let alone physiological stresses of direct combat roles. Women have performed admirably in the military in various support roles but they simply are not cut out for direct combat roles.

Men and women admittedly as teenagers, boys and girls are not designed to be in close proximity in high stress conditions and be able to focus on the job at hand and not on the biological nature. The role of the military at least when I was in was to tear down the boy and build a man. That necessitated strict discipline, exhaustive training and drills, a big burly man screaming in your ear ready to put a boot in your ass or a rifle butt up against your helmet for being stupid. He was teaching you how to operate as a team and to focus on the mission despite the challenges. The politically correct hodge podge that they are going to put the military into is not going to work to produce an effective fighting force. Your not going to put very young men and very young women together into units and expect anything but chaos. But perhaps that is the design after all.
 

Dozdoats

On TB every waking moment
Men and women were designed by their creator for completely different roles. Neither is 'superior' to the other but they are different.

But the people pushing this AGENDA deny the existence of a Creator.

Even so, one thing you can bet ... if I had a little girl, she'd be doing this sort of thing...

alexis_dani_scorpion_D6A3483web.jpg


Oleg Volk photo, from http://olegvolk.net/blog/2015/12/15/pass-it-on/
 

Bicycle Junkie

Resident dissident and troll
Judges 4-5King James Version (KJV)

4 And the children of Israel again did evil in the sight of the Lord, when Ehud was dead.

2 And the Lord sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan, that reigned in Hazor; the captain of whose host was Sisera, which dwelt in Harosheth of the Gentiles.

3 And the children of Israel cried unto the Lord: for he had nine hundred chariots of iron; and twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel.

4 And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.

5 And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.

6 And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedeshnaphtali, and said unto him, Hath not the Lord God of Israel commanded, saying, Go and draw toward mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun?

7 And I will draw unto thee to the river Kishon Sisera, the captain of Jabin's army, with his chariots and his multitude; and I will deliver him into thine hand.

8 And Barak said unto her, If thou wilt go with me, then I will go: but if thou wilt not go with me, then I will not go.

9 And she said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the Lord shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh.

10 And Barak called Zebulun and Naphtali to Kedesh; and he went up with ten thousand men at his feet: and Deborah went up with him.

11 Now Heber the Kenite, which was of the children of Hobab the father in law of Moses, had severed himself from the Kenites, and pitched his tent unto the plain of Zaanaim, which is by Kedesh.

12 And they shewed Sisera that Barak the son of Abinoam was gone up to mount Tabor.

13 And Sisera gathered together all his chariots, even nine hundred chariots of iron, and all the people that were with him, from Harosheth of the Gentiles unto the river of Kishon.

14 And Deborah said unto Barak, Up; for this is the day in which the Lord hath delivered Sisera into thine hand: is not the Lord gone out before thee? So Barak went down from mount Tabor, and ten thousand men after him.

15 And the Lord discomfited Sisera, and all his chariots, and all his host, with the edge of the sword before Barak; so that Sisera lighted down off his chariot, and fled away on his feet.

16 But Barak pursued after the chariots, and after the host, unto Harosheth of the Gentiles: and all the host of Sisera fell upon the edge of the sword; and there was not a man left.

17 Howbeit Sisera fled away on his feet to the tent of Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite: for there was peace between Jabin the king of Hazor and the house of Heber the Kenite.

18 And Jael went out to meet Sisera, and said unto him, Turn in, my lord, turn in to me; fear not. And when he had turned in unto her into the tent, she covered him with a mantle.

19 And he said unto her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water to drink; for I am thirsty. And she opened a bottle of milk, and gave him drink, and covered him.

20 Again he said unto her, Stand in the door of the tent, and it shall be, when any man doth come and enquire of thee, and say, Is there any man here? that thou shalt say, No.

21 Then Jael Heber's wife took a nail of the tent, and took an hammer in her hand, and went softly unto him, and smote the nail into his temples, and fastened it into the ground: for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died.

22 And, behold, as Barak pursued Sisera, Jael came out to meet him, and said unto him, Come, and I will shew thee the man whom thou seekest. And when he came into her tent, behold, Sisera lay dead, and the nail was in his temples.

23 So God subdued on that day Jabin the king of Canaan before the children of Israel.

24 And the hand of the children of Israel prospered, and prevailed against Jabin the king of Canaan, until they had destroyed Jabin king of Canaan.

5 Then sang Deborah and Barak the son of Abinoam on that day, saying,

2 Praise ye the Lord for the avenging of Israel, when the people willingly offered themselves.

3 Hear, O ye kings; give ear, O ye princes; I, even I, will sing unto the Lord; I will sing praise to the Lord God of Israel.

4 Lord, when thou wentest out of Seir, when thou marchedst out of the field of Edom, the earth trembled, and the heavens dropped, the clouds also dropped water.

5 The mountains melted from before the Lord, even that Sinai from before the Lord God of Israel.

6 In the days of Shamgar the son of Anath, in the days of Jael, the highways were unoccupied, and the travellers walked through byways.

7 The inhabitants of the villages ceased, they ceased in Israel, until that I Deborah arose, that I arose a mother in Israel.

8 They chose new gods; then was war in the gates: was there a shield or spear seen among forty thousand in Israel?

9 My heart is toward the governors of Israel, that offered themselves willingly among the people. Bless ye the Lord.

10 Speak, ye that ride on white asses, ye that sit in judgment, and walk by the way.

11 They that are delivered from the noise of archers in the places of drawing water, there shall they rehearse the righteous acts of the Lord, even the righteous acts toward the inhabitants of his villages in Israel: then shall the people of the Lord go down to the gates.

12 Awake, awake, Deborah: awake, awake, utter a song: arise, Barak, and lead thy captivity captive, thou son of Abinoam.

13 Then he made him that remaineth have dominion over the nobles among the people: the Lord made me have dominion over the mighty.

14 Out of Ephraim was there a root of them against Amalek; after thee, Benjamin, among thy people; out of Machir came down governors, and out of Zebulun they that handle the pen of the writer.

15 And the princes of Issachar were with Deborah; even Issachar, and also Barak: he was sent on foot into the valley. For the divisions of Reuben there were great thoughts of heart.

16 Why abodest thou among the sheepfolds, to hear the bleatings of the flocks? For the divisions of Reuben there were great searchings of heart.

17 Gilead abode beyond Jordan: and why did Dan remain in ships? Asher continued on the sea shore, and abode in his breaches.

18 Zebulun and Naphtali were a people that jeoparded their lives unto the death in the high places of the field.

19 The kings came and fought, then fought the kings of Canaan in Taanach by the waters of Megiddo; they took no gain of money.

20 They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera.

21 The river of Kishon swept them away, that ancient river, the river Kishon. O my soul, thou hast trodden down strength.

22 Then were the horsehoofs broken by the means of the pransings, the pransings of their mighty ones.

23 Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of the Lord, curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof; because they came not to the help of the Lord, to the help of the Lord against the mighty.

24 Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent.

25 He asked water, and she gave him milk; she brought forth butter in a lordly dish.

26 She put her hand to the nail, and her right hand to the workmen's hammer; and with the hammer she smote Sisera, she smote off his head, when she had pierced and stricken through his temples.

27 At her feet he bowed, he fell, he lay down: at her feet he bowed, he fell: where he bowed, there he fell down dead.

28 The mother of Sisera looked out at a window, and cried through the lattice, Why is his chariot so long in coming? why tarry the wheels of his chariots?

29 Her wise ladies answered her, yea, she returned answer to herself,

30 Have they not sped? have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two; to Sisera a prey of divers colours, a prey of divers colours of needlework, of divers colours of needlework on both sides, meet for the necks of them that take the spoil?

31 So let all thine enemies perish, O Lord: but let them that love him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might. And the land had rest forty years.
 

night driver

ESFP adrift in INTJ sea
If someone wants to fix the issue, all they need to do is remove the overt AND COVERT requirements for combat arms service for 2nd and 3rd stars.....
 

fi103r

Veteran Member
Hint or clue for the non-mil about these?

It is generally accepted that to get 2nd star an officer has to have direct combat experience of course missing the fact Ike *Never* had direct combat experience

*Ditto a bunch of Reservists in WWII and Korea and Vietnam

it is referred to as 'ticket punching'

there was even a MASH episode where Potter booted an old buddy who got his unit chopped up trying to get a Combat Infanry Badge to make general

bs like that kills people usually by the dozens see the battle that caused the 'saving private Lynch'
 

Garryowen

Deceased
Men and women were designed by their creator for completely different roles. Neither is 'superior' to the other but they are different.

But the people pushing this AGENDA deny the existence of a Creator.

Even so, one thing you can bet ... if I had a little girl, she'd be doing this sort of thing...

alexis_dani_scorpion_D6A3483web.jpg


Oleg Volk photo, from http://olegvolk.net/blog/2015/12/15/pass-it-on/

I probably would also, but that pistol is too large for her hands. Get her something that fits her.
 

Voortrekker

Veteran Member
What I see about the "draft" part is that women will be selected to serve in direct combat units, but the draft board will be managed by the political party and not the local people. So newlyweds whom are pregnant will be mandatorily aborted by law to serve in combat. I see it happening. The people who normally get abortions will prolong pregnancy to avoid the draft and be voided for service because of pre-existing physical and medical conditions.

Then the freedom thinking American class will finally be decimated enough to hold the bloodless coup de etat.
 

Dozdoats

On TB every waking moment
Get her something that fits her

I usually start kids on one of my Beretta 70 series .22s. They're a good fit for smaller hands and a good overall size and weight to boot. But With good stance (as demonstrated in the photo) and the beginning of a proper grip, kids can manage even 'fat' pistol grips quite well.

Follow the link back to Oleg's site then look and see who's doing the teaching there :D. Here it is in one click - http://www.sureshotsmagazine.com/issue-11-training.html . Can't c&p from there or I would have already.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://taskandpurpose.com/its-time-...letter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tp-today

It’s Time We Require Women To Register For The Draft

By Anna Granville on December 28, 2015

Women’s legal exemption from the draft is obsolete.

Now that the Department of Defense has officially opened all combat jobs to women, the requirement for women to register for the Selective Service — the draft — is likely inevitable.

Finally.

All U.S. citizens — men and women — should be required to register for Selective Service at age 18. Currently, women are not even permitted to voluntarily enroll.

Allowing women to enroll in Selective Service would require congressional action, and has been addressed by the federal legislative and judicial branches no less than four times since 1981. Each time, the sole objection was that women were barred from combat jobs, a barrier that no longer exists.

Just as excluding qualified women from combat billets was based on antiquated sexist cultural norms, women’s legal exemption from the draft is obsolete. It implies that in the most dire of national emergencies requiring the institution of a draft, women’s military service is not valuable. Yet, women have volunteered in every conflict this country has ever faced. During the Vietnam War, when men were being drafted, more women volunteered to go overseas than the military was able to accommodate. Since then, women have grown to nearly 15% of the all-volunteer force since its inception in 1973.

Members of the federal government from both political parties — from President Obama and Republican members of Congress — have indicated that the Selective Service law should be reviewed. Since 2013, two federal cases have been filed with the complaint that the current Selective Service law is discriminatory on the basis of gender. One of the plaintiffs is a teenaged girl, while the other, ironically, is an historically anti-feminist men’s rights group.

Selective Service forces us to consider the responsibility of fulfilling civic duty. In a previous Supreme Court decision, the late Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote a dissenting opinion stating that barring women from registering for Selective Service, “categorically excludes women from a fundamental civic obligation.”

It’s only a matter of time before the law will change. And it’s unlikely to be as simple as adding “and women” or changing language to “all citizens” within the current law. Congress will have to address what will happen when married couples are drafted. Hardship deferments already exist for those who must care for dependents.

Reviewing the law would also be an opportunity to address other ways that people can serve beyond the military. According to the current law, conscientious objectors who are drafted will still be required to serve, but will be placed in noncombatant roles serving in their local communities in jobs in “conservation, caring for the very young or very old, education, and healthcare.” A new law could add additional categories of public service, and even provide exemption to those participating in other critical service programs, such as Teach for America, AmeriCorps, and the Peace Corps.

Barring women from registration with Selective Service would weaken the military in a time of war by disregarding 50% of the nation’s skills and talent. We have learned in the last 15 years that women’s presence both on the battlefield and in enabler positions is indispensable. In times of national emergency, victory relies not only on brute strength, but on the innovation, intelligence, and critical thinking of all citizens.


72 Comments

Anna Granville

Anna Granville is a Naval officer. She lives in California. The opinions in this article are her own. Anna Granville is a pen name.
 

Hfcomms

EN66iq
What's good for the goose......

Equal rights [sex makes no difference]= equal responsibilities [sex makes no difference]

For those that want the full package to be able to do everything the men qualify for in the military then the flip side is they can be drafted as well.

I totally disagree with it. The volunteer military has been a spectacular success and would be even more so if we were not involved in constant war all the time
but if they make no difference between male/female roles when it comes to the military then women have to be able to be drafted as well.
 

Troke

On TB every waking moment
Nobody gets it. The purpose is to create a combat arm that dare not go to war. And if forced, it gets killed and loses.

Why can't anybody see that? Nothing wrong with women in the military, but not the ground combat arms.
 

Dozdoats

On TB every waking moment
Troke,

When the FUSA military is turned against its own citizens, the less combat effective it is the better.
 

Rabbit

Has No Life - Lives on TB
I believe the only time women should be in active combat is if enemy troops are on our land. When it's a case of life and death do what you can.
 

Troke

On TB every waking moment
Troke,

When the FUSA military is turned against its own citizens, the less combat effective it is the better.

Huh? Fat chance of their spending 30 days in foxholes regardless of what the militia types think. All they will need to do is press the trigger on their AR 16 and they can surely do that.
 

ainitfunny

Saved, to glorify God.
I believe the only time women should be in active combat is if enemy troops are on our land. When it's a case of life and death do what you can.

Absolutely correct. When the wolf is at the door, anybody ABLE to pull the Trigger can and should shoot, man woman, elderly or child!

No WAR should be fought with ONLY "volunteer military" , Period.
VOLUNTEER military are properly military professionals, k ept as a core PEACETIME CADRE to enable the quick expansion of our military to wartime numbers WITH MALE DRAFTEES, called to defend their country, as THEIR WAR TIME DUTY.

War should never be a matter that ordinary citizens can decide "not to play" and relegated to people who "like" that experience, and can be persuaded with unemployment, propaganda, patriotism, perks, and other considerations to reduce war to merely a spectator sport and conversation topic for most of our male citizens!

I am sure in returning soldiers, that PTSD is greatly exacerbated by coming home to a nation where ONE'S PEERS were not required to go through what you did, have no real understanding of the horror of war, who suffered no personal danger, no disruption of their life and plans, and who can dismiss their duty to defend their country with proper "deference", lip service, and "honoring" vets at the appointed times and ceremonies.
Citizens don't have to be interested in politics, or what wars their political leaders are
Getting their country into when it is no skin off their nose, THEY won't be called to fight and die, let the people who volunteer, who like killing, who (privately they think) but never dare say, are stupid, violent natured, and well paid to do that dirty work. No citizen pressure arises therefore to limit the number and scale of the wars in which we become involved and politicians enjoy an unrestrained level of power and authority to go to war that they were never meant to possess under our Constitution.
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Nobody gets it. The purpose is to create a combat arm that dare not go to war. And if forced, it gets killed and loses.

Why can't anybody see that? Nothing wrong with women in the military, but not the ground combat arms.


That also sets up the increased likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons. A "Task Force Smith" or Bataan scenario would just about guarantee such an action, else a POTUS removal.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/264411-pentagons-women-in-combat-push-faces-chilly-headwinds

Pentagon's women-in-combat push faces chilly headwinds

By Rebecca Kheel - 12/30/15 06:01 AM EST
Comments 330

The Pentagon faces major challenges ahead in 2016 as it works to make good on a pledge to open all U.S. military combat jobs to women.

The toughest part of the integration, which President Obama and Defense Secretary Ashton Carter have made a priority in their final year in office, will be overcoming deep-seated opposition among many male special forces commandos.

“They feel what makes them special is being all male, and somehow integrating women is going to make them less special and less adept,” said Megan MacKenzie, author of “Beyond the Band of Brothers: the US Military and the Myth that Women Can’t Fight.”

“A lot of that is based on emotion and a lack of experience working with women.”

The four services are already taking steps to allow women to serve in all jobs. Service chiefs must submit their implementation plans to Carter by Jan. 1.

Carter made history this month when he announced that all combat jobs would be open to women, with no exceptions. The decision came despite a recommendation from the Marine Corp to keep some jobs closed.

Carter acknowledged the difficulty of implementing his order when he made his announcement.

“How we implement this is key,” he said. “Simply declaring all career fields open is not successful integration. We must not only continue to implement change thoughtfully but also track and monitor our progress to ensure we're doing it right.”

The response to Carter’s announcement on Capitol Hill was mostly positive. Still, some who praised the decision added that implementation would be crucial and focused on the need to not lower standards to get women into the newly available roles.

After Carter’s announcement, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) — the chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services committees, respectively — promised to use Congress’s 30-day review period to thoroughly examine the studies Carter used to inform his decision.

As part of that review, Thornberry and Rep. Joe Heck (R-Nev.), chairman of the subcommittee on military personnel, sent a letter to Carter with 17 questions about his decision.

Among the questions is how the Pentagon plans to implement Carter’s decision, how the services plan to maintain gender-neutral standards and whether the decision has any legal implications on women registering for the draft.

“Although the department has provided some documentation and briefed the committee, several questions remain,” they wrote in the letter, which was also signed by 16 other committee Republicans. “The issue of women serving in all previously closed positions is complex and multi-faceted, and the department’s decision must be carefully reviewed to evaluate its impact on military readiness.”

Thornberry and Heck asked for a response by Jan. 3.

An aide for McCain said Tuesday the Senate committee’s review is ongoing and that a hearing is planned for after the Senate returns from the holiday recess.

There are already indications that integration is going to be tough. A survey of special operation forces released after Carter’s announcement found that opposition to opening special ops to women was “deep-seated and intensely felt.”

In the survey, 85.6 percent of the 7,618 respondents said they were either strongly or somewhat opposed to opening their specialty to women. And 70.9 percent said they were strongly or somewhat opposed to opening their unit to women.

The survey, done by the RAND Corporation and commissioned by Special Operations Command, also included a series of 49 focus groups. RAND kept the participants anonymous in its report.

The focus group responses show concern about lower standards, unit morale, political motives and accusations of sexual assault, among other issues. The 292-page study includes statements of vehement opposition from across the military’s branches.

“It’s a slap in the face telling us that chicks can do our job,” one Army Ranger said.
“It’s not the physical aspect that bothers me. My issues are morale and retention. This wouldn’t be special to anyone anymore.”

One special operations Marine chocked the entire initiative up to Washington politics.

“This is a political thing. This is people in Congress. Because there is no grassroots movement of women saying we want to,” he argued in the survey. “It’s some congressmen trying to make equal rights for women. Whether anyone in this room wants to say it or not, that’s what I think we all think.”

But not all the responses were negative.

“I think we are selling ourselves short by not opening it up to the best individuals,” a special operations Marine said. “There are some positives. In some countries, two gorilla, tattooed men would look suspicious. But me and [a woman] walking down the street holding hands would not. It opens up new possibilities.”

MacKenzie, the author of a book on the role of women in the military, predicted that some of the hang-ups about adding women into special forces would fade away once women actually join. She cited the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, in which feared consequences didn’t become reality, as evidence.

“Just working with women will help dispel some of those myths,” she said. “They’ll realize women can pull their weight; they’ll realize unit cohesion doesn’t fall apart and the world doesn’t end when they have to have a woman in it.”

Leadership will also need to set an example for those they command, MacKenzie added. In that regard, she said, Carter has already done a good job by making his announcement unequivocal.

“Just making it clear this is no longer an option,” MacKenzie said of how leaders should act. “Making it clear this is no longer something the military is seeking feedback on, that this is a decision that’s been made.”
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/how-not-to-integrate-females-into-combat-arms

How Not to Integrate Females into Combat Arms

by Anonymous
Journal Article | December 30, 2015 - 2:25pm

How Not to Integrate Females into Combat Arms

Anonymous

So, now that the Pentagon has decided to integrate females into combat arms units, against the recommendations and opinions of the Marine Corps, 85% of Rangers and Special Forces personnel, and the majority of Army combat arms personnel, the question turns to how to do so in the best manner possible. “Best,” however, is a very interesting word. Depending on one’s views towards the purpose of the military and the greater issue of how to bring about greater equality for women, “best” can take on any number of different meanings. First, I’d like to highlight the four main groups and their opinions on this issue.

“Hyper Macho Male Combat Arms Types”

The vast majority of combat arms personnel are simply against women in combat, so their position is quite straightforward, if not always articulated very well. Women and men are different - mentally, socially, physically, sexually, and physiologically - this group’s thinking goes. Therefore putting women into close and intimately personal contact with men usually results in issues beyond the scope of mere personality. Depending on the task, women and men on the same team can have widely disparate effects, sometimes good, often bad.

Combat units, for most traditional tasks, would require such physical and emotional standards as to disqualify the majority of men and the vast majority of women. Combat unit teams and units below a certain level (normally brigade level- or any level that is closely engaged in the role of combat units: “to seek out and kill the enemy”) bond best through shared norms of the majority, which, in this case, is male. Called “hyper macho masculine culture” by advocates for female integration, this culture allows small combat units to overcome insurmountable obstacles in the heat of battle and the monotony of the “in-between” times. Attempting to change this culture and get teams to bond in other ways is at the least an untried theory that could result in the loss of combat power and small level unit cohesiveness. Added to the increased levels of reporting, monitoring, sexually related investigations, and sexually related training, the cost to combat arms units will be great compared to any theoretical gains, of which most are arguable.

“Second Wave Feminists”

The exact opposite of the combat arms personnel position is the so-called “second wave feminist” position on integration of women into the combat arms. Whereas “third wave feminists” are much more apt to disagree vociferously with each other about the ways in which women should be perceived by society (the group arguably includes Miley Cyrus fans and trans women who abhor the term “vagina” as an offensive word), second wave feminists are largely in agreement on the need to overturn social norms with regard to women. These feminists are, on average, older than the younger, third wave feminists who make up the majority of those currently in the active military. Second wave feminists are generally looking to transform society, and are convinced that most, if not all, obstacles to female equality are social constructions. Naturally, any problems associated with women being equal to men are not the fault of women, but the fault of the male-dominated system of oppression in which women operate.

Thus, second wave feminists, who make up the majority of those advocating within the Pentagon for integration, are likely to call for massive systemic change and not just for the opportunity for those who can pass the standards. They call into question all standards, want women to be specially trained to pass the standards, and want to assume that the force can reach at least 33% female representation, if not 50%. Worse, they call for very special monitoring and pressure to be placed on the leadership of the military until these percentages are reached. LTC Kate Germano and retired Colonel Ellen Haring fit into this group for the most part and say things like, “just hold everyone to the same standard, women will rise to the standard, and if there are any problems, kick the bad men out and re-educate the others.”

“Third Wave Feminists”

Third wave feminists and those of their generation argue for equal treatment as opposed to special treatment, although this largely reflects only the majority of female views within the military forces themselves. Some third wave feminists, mostly found in academia, argue for, among other things: the overhauling of the entire military system in order to allow a spectrum of genders and other identities to fully express themselves, the abolishment of the military itself (if nothing else, third wave feminists are often contradictory), and the establishment of a different society wherein the patriarchy and all of its supporting processes and systems are overthrown.

Within the military, however, third wave feminists and their allies are normally not the allies of critical theorists, but just want to be given the same opportunities as men. These I like to categorize as those who grew up on movies showing 110 pound women beating up 250 pound men. Although many seem at times to contradict themselves (as all humans are wont to do), generally they call for equal treatment, no special treatment, and nothing along the lines of systemic change of the “macho male culture” of combat arms. Indeed, most yearn to be a part of that culture, not to change it (although, arguably, by their very presence and our current PC culture, they will change it). They say things like, “I just want to be treated equally and be one of the guys.”

“Military Industrial Complex”

The only other group worth mentioning is what I will call the “Military Industrial Complex” group. This is a small group of men who operate at the highest levels of the military, academia (retired military), the contracting world, and in DoD civilian positions in which to show opposition to integration of females could jeopardize their future employment. A small portion of these men are also men who had few to no sons of their own and have pushed their daughters to do the things they would have liked to have seen their non-existent sons accomplish. A very few number of this group are actual “true” believers in the sense that they either see themselves as enlightened “progressives” and have bought into the “females equal males” dogma or just like to support those who do. Counted among their number are some higher-ranking military officers who simply harbor jealousy towards combat arms units. For the most part, this group thinks that very, very few women will make it into combat arms and, for those that do, very few of them will cause problems to the mission of the combat arms. This group says things like, “soon, things will return to normal and most of us won’t see any changes.”

The Military’s Plan

Unfortunately for the first, third, and fourth groups, the group that has the most influence on how to integrate women into the combat arms is the second group: the second wave feminists. This group has its objectives subordinate to the greater second wave feminist objective of re-working society so that women are seen as the same as men in all ways. That means, of course, that equality is measured by outcome and is a long-term effort, and much more systemic than simply an opening of jobs. Equality of opportunity is, as they have borrowed a term from academic third wave feminists, “a tool of the patriarchy” and is used to keep women “out.” Instead, the military must be transformed and none of this effort should be relaxed until the greater goal of social transformation is complete.

The signs of the second wave feminist control of the integration process are seen in the latest plans to integrate females:
• Combat arms training and selection courses will have 4 unqualified female observers assigned to them in perpetuity until a cadre of female leaders is established in their higher units
• Female observers will be assigned down to company level to ensure fair treatment of all females in training courses
• Females will be assigned to operational units in such a way- called “pooling”- as to prevent the isolation of single female combat arms soldiers (for some units this will require females to be “pooled” arguably at the team or squad level if that is the level at which interaction is “favorable”)
• Higher HQs (division level and lower) are tasked to specially manage and supervise female combat arms soldiers individually in operational units
• A minimum of 3 pooled females in training courses is required in order to ensure an adequate population for training
• Female packets for combat arms will be screened and expedited specially by HQs in order to expedite female leaders arriving to units
• 1 female infantry officer must be assigned to a company before any female enlisted are assigned to that company, in order to ensure they have the best shot at being mentored and being successful
• Commands must provide monthly reports detailing a host of measures specifically aimed at assessing female success in combat arms and units’ successes in integration
• All units will conduct special sexual harassment and sexual assault classes, will establish reporting mechanisms and processes specially for all female-related incidents, and will establish pregnancy policies that address the unique circumstances of their career fields and any detrimental effects being pregnant can have on a female officer within the combat arms

Surprisingly, or not for that matter, special operations forces such as the 75th Ranger Regiment and the U.S. Army Special Forces are being held to even greater standards in order to ensure the success of women in those two units. The amount of reporting, sexual harassment training, and planning and preparation in advance of receiving women into these units is breathtaking, taking into consideration that these units continue to experience high deployment rates into combat zones and other places around the world. The pressure from the second wave feminists and their allies within the Pentagon is perceived as too grave a threat to higher-ranking commanders throughout the combat arms, but more so within the special operations community. The commanders’ intent of these organizations is clear and has had an adverse effect on the community- a community that is 85% against this in the first place: “we do not want to be seen as dragging our feet on this issue.” That the real issue is the threat to careers of these higher ranking commanders is the de facto conventional wisdom and has deepened a feeling of late that the command cares more about field grade, general officer, and sergeants major careers than they do about their forces.

One of three things will result in this integration effort: 1) there will be a backlash and/or regime change in DC and things will go for the most part like they have for our allies who have attempted this: very few women will get into combat arms, and that will be the norm, 2) this will continue into perpetuity until we get at least 33% of combat arms to be female, or, 3) we will get at least 33% of our force to be female and those in will be promoted and find success at the same rate as their male peers.

For numbers 2 and 3, the potential degradation of our combat arms fighting spirit, the loss of the “hyper macho male” cultural bonding, and the time spent on non-combat efforts (sexual harassment training, sexual investigations, special reporting, etc.), is hand-waived by the advocates. But, they are both a very real possibility and very difficult to prove with quantifiable methods as they have both non-linear and time delayed effects. Finding something with which to get teams of people to get motivated towards doing something like closing with and killing others other than through traditional male bonding rituals will be extremely difficult, if not impossible. To keep these groups focused on remaining at a high level of mental preparedness for combat arms units missions with the added distraction of male and female relationships, the intense interest from higher headquarters on female success, and all of the extra training and reporting requirements these units will have to take on will also be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

For all three of the potential results, however, there is another issue that is very likely. That issue is that fewer and fewer men might want to go into combat arms and even fewer will want to go into the special operations units. These units, like it or not, attract a certain demographic and that demographic is solidly heteronormative, traditional male, strongly conservative and religious believing (if not practicing). If these men decide that combat arms is no longer a collection of units that allows them to fulfill what they think it means to be an American man anymore, then the very difficult job of recruiting into these units could balloon into an even worse situation, one in which entire companies have to be mothballed due to not having enough personnel to fill their positions. Ironically, THAT could be the reason standards are lowered and more females eventually become combat arms qualified: because there aren’t enough strong men who want to be combat arms anymore.

The genie is, however out of the bottle. Even a regime change in DC and a shift to a more conservative outlook in general could still result in major changes to our combat arms units by sheer dent of momentum and the difficulty in rolling back the bureaucracy once it gets going. Once women get into these units- even in small numbers- the damage to the aura of these units and the allure they have within the population and in the minds of young people could be forever changed. That is why it is very disingenuous to compare ourselves to our allies, as their forces are very different and their cultures are very different than ours in many ways. Ignoring those differences, if we had gone about this integration in the ways in which our allies had, we would not be rolling out the red carpet in the way in which we are about to do. We would not be establishing requirements in perpetuity and aiming at 33% of the force to be female. We would simply have opened the doors of opportunity and, for those interested in being a part of the “hyper macho male” culture of combat arms who could pass the physical standards, they could have joined.

But, I could be wrong and the younger generations view women differently than us old fogies and men will have no problems bonding with women and treating them the same as they do men and women will not develop relationships with men on their teams. Looking at the experiences of co-ed units in the military, the military academies, and civilian universities, however, this author doubts it.

The author is an active duty officer who is not against women in combat or in assistance of combat arms units, when the mission requires it. The author is in favor of promoting more women to general officer, since obviously our general officers have not distinguished themselves in the last decade(+) and maybe some of that was the very narrow band of experience (combat arms for the most part) in which they are drawn. The author is in favor of allowing women more opportunities to serve, but thinks that treating them like men is a non-productive effort: either standards will have to change or we won’t get many in combat arms. The answer, instead of treating women like men, is to change the personnel system- which currently has a cookie-cutter approach to personnel management that helps no-one except for the risk-averse career person who knows how to check off things on lists and stay out of trouble, but does not help those who simply want to accomplish missions.

-

About the Author »




Anonymous


The author is an active duty officer who is not against women in combat or in assistance of combat arms units, when the mission requires it. The author is in favor of promoting more women to general officer, since obviously our general officers have not distinguished themselves in the last decade(+) and maybe some of that was the very narrow band of experience (combat arms for the most part) in which they are drawn. The author is in favor of allowing women more opportunities to serve, but thinks that treating them like men is a non-productive effort: either standards will have to change or we won’t get many in combat arms. The answer, instead of treating women like men, is to change the personnel system- which currently has a cookie-cutter approach to personnel management that helps no-one except for the risk-averse career person who knows how to check off things on lists and stay out of trouble, but does not help those who simply want to accomplish missions.

-
Comments 3

by Madhu | December 30, 2015 - 10:46pm

So quotas are on the way?

In looking up what Douglas Porch had to say about second generation feminism and expeditionary population centric counterinsurgency, I came across the following:

Economy of Force by Patricia Owen

Page 268 (in response to Douglas Porch and others on the "political correctness" of studying women's issues in counterinsurgency):

"The argument is partially correct. Counterinsurgency clearly relies on systematic divide and rule. However, dismissing the focus on women as some sort of political correctness overlooks the extent to which women are the objects of intimidation in these wars, governed through patriarchal logics supposedly absent in liberal 'society' and progressive counterinsurgency...."

It's the old "can tactics save bad strategy" back-and-forth again. That what Dr. Owen calls "the household character of counterinsurgency" has been ignored in the literature may be true, but it still represents one part of a complicated picture.

What's interesting is that second generation feminism has changed from Vietnam to the wars today. Where feminists had once highlighted the harm counterinsurgents can do, some second generation feminists have embraced liberal internationalism as a form of social change. Again, nothing new for anyone reading this site, it's just a funny blind spot in some contemporary feminist argumentation. When did that change occur and why did it occur? About the same time third generation feminism developed, academic feminism became co-opted by liberal internationalism. We cannot rid ourselves of the exuberant ignorance of 90s America, it's DC in a nutshell.

Some years ago, while still working at a Harvard teaching hospital, I was invited to a large book talk--a luncheon--by Madeleine Albright. It was an academic Boston-wide thing. I can't remember who sponsored it (some women's group) but the CEO of our hospital had a table and for some reason someone had nominated me to attend the talk, along with a group of other women.

I was too naive to understand that the new chairman of our department and related factions were trying to recruit me to their side in a game of departmental politics.

Anyway, it was the strangest thing. It was a talk meant to support women and with the exception of a few men, it was a women-filled audience. All those upper middle class professional academic Boston women. When she finally spoke about her book, after introductions and lunch, she sat on a chair on a stage and was interviewed by a local anchor. It was an Oprah set up and I found it strange, as strange as that funny rubber chicken lunch that was served.

She sat at a table not far from me, and, embarrassingly, I stared at her back until she turned and looked at me. I don't think my look was very nice because I kept remembering all these things about her. It wasn't such a nice stare. Finally, I looked down at my plate, incredibly embarrassed, and thinking how I had to "get out of here, I have to quit, I have to leave. I can't do this."

So, my aversion to the Borg is a lived thing: an unhappy, visceral, 'disappointed-in-my-betters' lived thing.

The rapt look on the faces of those women, so polished and educated and comfortable and unthinking. Faces upturned, listening to every word from Dr. Albright, lining up to get their complementary books signed after the talk. I didn't wait in line to have my book signed but it is somewhere on the book shelf.

And all this time, my own immigrant diaspora background was a better lens to look at AfPak than anything written by those kind of upturned rapt "faces".

They don't really know anything because they think they have the answers already, the world is revealed to them. I'll pull up the Owen interview when I get a chance.



by Madhu | December 30, 2015 - 11:09pm Login or register to post comments

Here is the interview I was talking about:

www.e-ir.info/2015/01/31/interview-patrician-owens/

What's interesting is that she talks (in this interview or another?) about including non-western viewpoints into academic study and then she does that very British academic-setting thing of using the Northern Ireland experience as a catch all for conflict in non-European cultures. I think Shashank Joshi of RUSI (?) has an article about the British in Afghanistan that mentions the British wanted to show their diplomatic prowess off to the Americans (among other rationales for their policy in the region) and always come up with Northern Ireland.

But why is that a better format than understanding other regional insurgencies and proxy conflict, like Punjab or Kashmir or Baluchistan?

A strange "feminism of privilege" blind spot.


by Madhu | December 30, 2015 - 10:53pm Login or register to post comments

I went to one of those private liberal arts colleges in the Oberlin-Grinnell-Reed-Amherst universe back in the 80s. I only went for two years, was incredibly unhappy, and transferred to a land grant university with ROTC and a more economically varied population.

I always remember how people tried to enlighten me. On the one had, I was a South Asian-American woman and therefore a minority and worth listening to. There were always questions about, "what is India like?" Like I knew.

But on the other hand, I was taking all pre-med classes and didn't attend out of town demonstrations and protests, so I "needed to broaden my horizons." That's our AfPak policy, that's its emotional milieu, that school sends people to the State department and similar environments regularly. They are always looking to save you, even when you never asked them to do that. They mean well but they don't understand how little they really know.
 

Cohickman

Veteran Member
//Rant ON// This is really a stupid question. Women and Men are not equal. Never were, never will be. Biblically, physically, emotionally. Its just a fact.
That said. They are different and those differences play into each other. Some women may train enough to be able to lift their body weight. But no man can conceive, carry and deliver a child.
We are different. Simple as that. If you can perform in a task or job, do it. I have seen women who are great mechanics, welders, plumbers and Doctors, i have also seen guys who are awesome bakers, teachers and Nurses. Set a standard, you meet the standard you can do the job.
We as a human race have made great strides in realizing the strength of differences. Now the elites want to destroy that by forceing an unnatural "equality".
Sit down, shut up and do your job. //Rant OFF//

Ow, if anyone is offended by this too bad. Grab a bottle of reallity and come to the adult table.
 

Dozdoats

On TB every waking moment
For all the MEN who decide not to have anything to do with the new pinker special operations forces, no doubt the number of foaming at the mouth radical feminists who decide it's just the ticket for them will more than make up for the losses of MEN.

After all, "filling the force" is just a numbers game. Bodies matter by the numbers but the quality of the bodies filling those boots? Naaah. They're all the same and completely interchangeable.

These days one 20something is about the same as another...

"One hundred men we'll test today, but only three wear the green beret" is just a silly line from a silly old song anyway.
 

TerryK

TB Fanatic
For all the MEN who decide not to have anything to do with the new pinker special operations forces, no doubt the number of foaming at the mouth radical feminists who decide it's just the ticket for them will more than make up for the losses of MEN.

After all, "filling the force" is just a numbers game. Bodies matter by the numbers but the quality of the bodies filling those boots? Naaah. They're all the same and completely interchangeable.

These days one 20something is about the same as another...

"One hundred men we'll test today, but only three wear the green beret" is just a silly line from a silly old song anyway.

Didn't the Army break down and let everybody have berets a while back? :shk:
 
Top