Non-military woman butts in
There were a lot of interesting thoughts on this subject that were all over the spectrum.
First, aside from Hester, you would be surprised how many women have been in fire fights and have medals that you never hear of. I think there are two issues here:
1) The military does not promote it because they want to avoid having to keep defending the subject of women in "near combat" roles.
2) If you want equality, you don't necessarily promote one over the other. You make them like the other. Like the men who are quietly going about their jobs without fanfare who do plenty of things every day that would be noteworthy. But the media attention is very distracting. Much better to treat it like an every day thing.
since I am someone that is interested in the subject, I actually look for it and know of several women that have CABs and silver stars.
I think that the military is going about it the right way in terms of slowly integrating forces through different field operations. There are plenty of units in both Afghanistan and Iraq doing CMOC or CAP that have at least one or more women attached. women are doing "convoy security" or actually driving a truck in hostile territory. The Army corps of engineers have women doing much and so do several of the civilian elements attached to PRTs in these theaters.
To me its the "quiet, quiet" approach. One day, you're going to wake up and find this discussion moot and you won't even know when it happened.
I always liken it to the struggle of integrating blacks and other minorities in the military. Except, of course, some of that occurred during much more turbulent times so its history is a little more intense. Still, you can bet that there was plenty of discussions in the open and within barracks. Plus bad behavior. but that is how we work things out until we are satisfied its resolved. At least until the next issue.
In regards to the abilities of women or what issues they cause in a unit, what its really about it "personalities" and "character". I have worked in female dominated offices (health care is full of women) and ones that were relatively integrated. I've also worked in offices and situations where I was the only woman.
Women in a group can be equally "off color" as men. In the "female dominated" office, I had two men who worked there and had to routinely tell the women to "tone it down" because they would be talking about subjects that are not appropriate for mixed company.
I've worked with "integrated" offices where there is always at least one guy and one girl that don't know how to behave themselves in "mixed" company.
And, in the male dominated area, there is always at least one guy that forgets his manners. I actually was hit on - I mean, hand on the leg, making remarks about body parts, asking what I was doing later, and he was married - by a brand new salesman that I had only met two hours previously at a "working dinner"; the rest of the men in the group all stopped talking when I picked up his hand and stuck it back on the arm of the chair. That guy was gone in two days because my boss, a man, told him that was wrong and chose to set the tone.
The point I'm trying to make here is that, yes, the military actually reflects male/female relationships and working issues outside. While it may not be "deployment", you understand that people spend a lot of time together, sometimes more than with their family, in the work place. In my experience, I actually flew around with a team that was all men and me, staying at hotels, long working hours, eating together, going to "fun" times, etc.
While no one was shooting at us and death was not eminent, it certainly was "living in each others pockets". none of these men made on-toward advances or attempted anything inappropriate. Neither did I freak out when they told jokes that were slightly off color. On the other hand, if things were getting out of line, I would signal that through either word or I would simply make my excuses and leave their company. It usually worked to pull everyone back in line.
The issue here is, as one said, who sets the tone? Leadership sets the tone and so do the people. I have mentored young professional women. My advise to them is that, if they say nothing to the person that is making them uncomfortable, then they have missed the opportunity to set the tone. In my experience, most people are receptive to "gentle rebukes" that let them know where other people's lines are.
Men or women have a responsibility, not just to behave appropriately, but to signal their own comfort levels. Any woman that has made it through boot camp and received a few stripes or bars ought to be comfortable enough to set it. Failure to do so is partly their responsibility. That is why most offices have a policy where they ask the "complainant" what action they took before making a formal complaint. Some think that is making women a victim "again", but I don't see it. This policy helps to re-enforce that part of the responsibility for the tone of the office is up to the people that work there. I would say that goes for a military unit.
However, those that don't accept direction or correction of inappropriate behaviors are discipline issues, inside or outside of the military. In the office, it can be just as detrimental to the work atmosphere and accomplishing goals if you are distracted with internal "relations" issues. However, the office has been integrated and so have many work situations that are long hours, difficult and even labor intensive simply by not accepting that the problem is the integration, but individuals.
I think that is the appropriate tone for the military to set. It doesn't take power points, it takes people who are willing to accept their responsibilities, up and down the chain of command.
Three women I can think of in the military who have done what is barely covered in the media even for men are Sgt Hester, SSgt O'Hara and a Sgt whose last name escapes me but her first name, Lauren, sticks with me (she is army, received the CAB and a silver star for combat). Each of these were either MPs or convoy security. I can't remember their names, but five women have bronze starts for their actions under fire (they were medics). however, all of the women have eschewed most of the publicity because, as Hester said, it would be detrimental, not helpful. They are like the rest. That is the tone they are setting.
When the shooting starts, by the way, I don't think that there is a lot of time to be worrying about the "women" in the unit and their protection. As far as I can tell, it winds up at the age old situation that all male units always talk about: when the stuff hits the fan, you're worried about living, dying, protecting everyone and going home to tell about it.
I will make a final point. I am a big history buff. Reading diaries of women pioneers, they would probably find some of the arguments about women's roles and capabilities amusing. They worked in the fields, fought fires, staved off threats with fire arms and did many other things, sometimes without a man, that would make some combat situations seem like a day at the park. all this angst is really not about women, its about culture. Since we reverted back to largely urban dwelling people, we have also reverted to some stereotypical categorization of gender roles.
All discussed on the academic side, far away from reality. Somewhere, as I type this, a female officer is taking down a criminal. Right down the street, a woman is finishing her twelve hour shift at the Ford plant, welding car parts. Somewhere in Afghanistan, a woman captain is leading a patrol (I know, I read about it). Somewhere in Iraq, a woman is standing guard at the gate of a camp with her rifle while, down the road, another "mans" the .50 pulling convoy security.
And, yeah, somewhere over there, some chuckle head is making an off color comment to a female soldier who is either putting him in his place or is thinking that's the third time and she's not sure whether to report him or kick him in the 'nads.
yet, somehow, the army goes rolling along, combat patrols happen and the world has not fallen apart.
Go figure.
Cold and Clammy...The Navy Shake ?
Hi Maggie !
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Maggie
My daughter is 25; when I was her age women had just been admitted to the service academies and this was NOT what I was hearing then, I have at times wondered if things had changed at all for my daughter's future. My son is 29, when he was 18 he was accepted into the Officer's Candidate pool for the Naval Academy. While he did not ultimately get an appointment he did spend a weekend at the Academy during the application process. I watched as the female naval officers there shook the hands of female candidates--but not the male candidates. I hope your sentiments and those of kehenry1 are becoming the norm, not the exception.
Maggie
All I have to go on is my 23 years in the Army, and we never had problems shaking hands with collegues, male or female. That was some time ago, but I haven't noticed any serious changes.
Oddly enough, there's some Navy folklore regarding males and females shaking hands (the old man was Navy til death....that's why I went Army :D):
Quote:
Shake Hands With Women - According to old Naval etiquette, a man should never extend his hand to a woman first. A smile and a nod will do. If she wants to shake, a gentleman takes her hand as if to kiss it and shakes it by holding it (not gripping it).
Hmmm, I kinda like that just a smigin :)
Honestly, I have no idea what happened at the Naval Academy. Perhaps just graduates separating themselves from the pledges, male or female.
It's different in an infantry battalion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rex Brynen
Since 2002—when we acquired the larger, Victoria-class submarines that allowed for adequate berthing—the last restrictions on women in combat roles were lifted in the Canadian Armed Forces.
It is true that there are relatively few women serving in combat arms (about 2% of the total), due to the physical requirements, retention issues, and a degree of self-selection. But they are there, and they do
fight and die with bravery and honour, like the guys.
There are, of course, some guys in the combat arms who continue to grouse about the effect of women on combat cohesion and performance, and those retrograde attitudes have contributed to retention problems. However, the question is essentially settled and closed both within the Armed Forces/DND and within society as a whole. No significant politician of any stripe in any party raises the issue.
I did my (brief) reserve service in a mixed gender unit, and I can honestly say I can't remember the issue of women in the military came up once. This may have been due, on reflection, to the most competent, efficient, and at times frankly terrifying NCO in the unit being a woman! (I also had a grandmother who served as an officer in the Free Dutch forces during WWII, who was also quite formidable.)
I think it was around '91 when the first women were permitted to go into the Royal Canadian Infantry Corps. I think the introduction of women into the Combat Arms in general, and the Infantry in particular, could and should have been done a lot differently. As one of the generals who was in charge of the CF's own study and planning group on the matter said, the Army could (theoretically) have had a few hundred women in battalions across the Corps if the Human Rights Commission and the courts hadn't directly intervened themselves and simply impposed it on the Military. The swift result of course was a few women in a few battalions who while, having passed the same standards of their male counterparts (theoretically at least, in my battalion all the females were given red medical chits, in effect an exemption, because they could't pass the battle fitness tests), those standards had been dropped considerably.
The old standard, for example, had been the 2x10: a 10-mile forced march ith full kit performed in under two hours followed immediately by a live shoot on a 300m range (Falling Plates), followed the next day by a 10-kilometre (little over 6 mile) jog (with webbing, helmet, rifle, etc.) in 1 hour, 6 minutes, and I think an assault course.
The new standard that both men and women came under had been a 13.2-km (8-mile) route march with full kit in 2 hours, 26 minutes, and a 3.2-km (2 mile) "forced march" in 22 minutes with webbing, helmet, rifle, etc. I've been out for some years now, but this year a friend of mine who is in a abattalion told me that the 2x10 was back.
The net result was a shoddy introduction both for the women entering the infantry, and the infantrymen who were receving them, and it tended to poison the units so affected. Aside from a fair bit of minor (so far as I know) sexual harassment, there was no rape or assaults. But there was was a serious break-down in discipline, as officers (and some NCOs) were pretty sensitive about something going wrong, and for any number of reasons. I saw at least one young women, with an entire rifle company present, talk back to and swear at an NCO, a chargeable offence and somethign that would have had a man doing the hatless dance in front of the CO.
With women in the battalion, the strict discipline that had previously existed quickly evapourated, men (including married ones) fooled around with a couple of the women, and generally those men who may have been otherwise favourably disposed towards integration of the sexes, were turned off. I have to admit being one of those. Of course, there were those who would not have accepted women under any circumstances, and they quietly made their views known and felt (especially after the battalion's displine unravelled). I think that had the officers not been afraid of repercussions from above, the women would not have been treated with kid gloves, and the men would not have loss respect for the women, the officers, and the Army. A lot of guys left; after my Platoon Warrant left (2 tours in Northern Ireland, was in the SAS in the Falklands), I began considering leaving myself -3 months later I was gone.
One other observation about women in the infantry, and I thought it was very strange, and this occurred ex after ex: none of the women in the battalion lasted for more than 3 days in the field before going "squirrely" and having to be sent to the infirmary for the rest of the ex; I had thought that maybe the women were just slackers, but the last one to invariably join them most definitely was not a slacker, and I saw at least one of the NCOs who would not accept women in the infantry give her a bit of a hard time once. I still have no clear answer as to why the women went "squirrely" after no more than 3 days in the bush.
Generally speaking, I strongly suspect that women in the infantry is not a good idea, even if proper standards are enforced; and it is a disaster waiting to happen if they are trained to lowered standards (even if those are the same for the men, that just makes things even worse), especially when the officers (and NCOs) are afraid to enforce discipline out of fear of political retaliation from above.
Interesting, perplexing topic.
Rex, You may be correct but I'm not at all sure it's
that simple. :confused:
Been my observation that about 25% of the males in Infantry units, peace or war -- possibly a slight rise in wartime in all volunteer units, larger rise in those with draftees -- don't really want to or need to be there. They are a tad too sensitive psychologically speaking to enjoy what they're doing. Most cope but they do not ever really adapt well. They also tend to sustain long term psychological damage at a higher rate than their more sociopathic peers.
That percentage was slightly lower 60 years ago but has increased as our western society has gotten wealthier and more and better -- or, at least, more lengthily -- educated. It may even be slightly higher today but I think that serves as a broad average figure.
My belief is that the females I have seen in the CS and CSS units in the US Army that routinely serve in a field environment at least double that percentage.
I think I'm saying that the physical and psychological stresses of the Armed Forces in a field environment are inimical to the more sensitive among us and logically, combat exacerbates that. I have seen females of all ranks in a field environment that were ever bit as well adapted as many -- even most -- males and there is no question that women can sustain combat stress. I'm suggesting that where they sustain that stress has an impact that might be difficult to measure and that the percentage of females susceptible to ground combat stress is higher than is the not insignificant male number.
There have been numerous examples of outstanding female aviators, in and out of combat. Most female naval types are as good as or better than their male counterparts. Same goes for those in the ground forces.
That there have been and will be a number of female infantry-like fighters that are as tough as anyone is not questioned; nor is the fact that, so long as its voluntary, not that many females will opt for the infantry and those that do are likely to have a psychological profile that adapts to the role.
That, IMO, does not address the desirability or utility of having them there not does it address the impacts on the nearby male creatures. :wry:
The issue of field living -- and I mean in an austere environment, not on an FOB in an air conditioned trailer -- is not pleasant to contemplate for anyone, sex immaterial. Add to that the blood, sights, sounds and smells of close combat and you have an environment not attuned to emotional sensitivity, male or female. My perception -- and that's all it is -- is that a higher number of females are not attuned to it.
I think the infantry combat environment assists in creating a "you're on trial here" mentality in Troops; they apply it to every male that serves and the females get closer scrutiny due to a lot of cultural baggage. Possibly also to a lot of genetic and gender baggage.
Long way of saying what we all know; it's not a job for everyone -- and that, IMO, it's a lot more complex than a simple leadership issue... :(
Lest I be accused of being opposed to females in service or even in the infantry, I'm not; have no problems at all with that. All for it in fact -- I just think it is not a simple question and I'm unsure we know nearly as much we think we do about the answers.
And that also gives me a chance, yet again, to beat my 'psychological selection is necessary for a professional force today' drum... :D
At the risk of double-posting...
The Regular Battalions were faced with much the same problems as the Reserve Battalions, as the 2x10 was officially dispensed with for infantry regardless of component. You may recall Rex, a young female infantry officer from the Royal22e in the mid-nineties, of whom pictures of her blindfolded, gagged, and tied to a tree while in SERE training were given by someone to the national media. The Infantry was accused of beastliness in general, and trying to subject women infantry candidates to standards that were dieliberately high in order to keep women out of the infantry (ie. the 2x10 et al).
The result was that for most of the '90s, the Infantry School at Gagetown enforced only the 13.2km (8 mile) route march and the 3.2km (2 mile) "forced march" for Regular Force infantry officer trainees. In 2000 or so, even that standard was not enforced; in fact the infantry officer candidates were not formally tested at all on the BFT/CFT. Sad but true. As I said in a previous post, a friend of mine who is in my old battalion (4RCR) told me in the spring that the 2x10 is back. None too soon.