Women in Military Service & Combat (not just USA)

[Granite_State]

The opposition to women in combat arms is based on an antiquated, patriarchal, and romantic view of the 'right place' for the sexes - a view that is quickly being dismantled by the necessities of the modern era's demands on society. Wars are no longer won by personal courage and individual strength (ah blasphemy!) but by the cold calculation of the massing of combat power on the enemy. What about the genders makes one better than the other at pulling the trigger of an assault right, flying a drone, or driving a tank? And as technology continues to find new means of automation and miniaturization, like exoskeletons, the 'justifications' for excluding women from combat arms become increasingly irrelevant to modern warfare. The military - given its importance for the national security - is no place to stake the last stand of dying male machismo in American society.

Never mind that the physical concerns with integration pale in comparison to those of cohesion, fraternization, pregnancy, and injury. Tell your tale of exoskeletons and miniaturization to:
-A soldier from the 101st Airborne in the Korengal.
-A Marine from 3/1 in Fallujah.
-Any soldier or Marine jumping or climbing up a canal with a 25 pound ECM on his back.

This revolt against reality will end about one week in to a real war.

[120mm]

Never mind that the physical concerns with integration pale in comparison to those of cohesion, fraternization, pregnancy, and injury. Tell your tale of exoskeletons and miniaturization to:
-A soldier from the 101st Airborne in the Korengal.
-A Marine from 3/1 in Fallujah.
-Any soldier or Marine jumping or climbing up a canal with a 25 pound ECM on his back.

This revolt against reality will end about one week in to a real war.

You mean, a "real war" like the Eastern Front in WWII?

Yeah. Gotta have a dick to kill Germans with an 11 pound rifle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko

Your apocryphal soldier and Marine were handicapped by a system where their physical size and strength were more important than their war fighting ability. It astonishes me how people who've served can work up the motivation to oppose females being "allowed" to serve in combat units, yet cannot get worked up about the chain of leadership failures that led to the above mentioned scenarios.

Note that the NVA didn't burden it's infantry with crap. Neither did the Japanese in WWII. Nor do the guys killing our guys in Korengal or in Fallujah.

[Red Rat]

Note that the NVA didn't burden it's infantry with crap. Neither did the Japanese in WWII. Nor do the guys killing our guys in Korengal or in Fallujah.

Because societies go to war in a manner which reflects both the society and their aims in the conflict. You cannot expect a society to fight in a way that is foreign to that society. At the very least the former delineates in part what they regard as risk, the latter how much risk they are prepared to accept. Comparing apples and Volkswagens therefore seems a strange way to make a point about supposed leadership failures.

[davidbfpo]

Found this on an email round-up from 'The Conversation', a commentary blogsite based on UK university writers and the article maybe of interest. I have no position on the issues.

It starts with:

Many myths, based on stereotype and perpetuated by a minority of “old and bold” military personnel, are historically unfounded. However, the findings do not seem to be filtering though – and popular opinion still believes that women are incapable of serving in ground close combat roles. It is time to put these myths to bed once and for all:

Link:https://theconversation.com/eight-myths-about-women-on-the-military-frontline-and-why-we-shouldnt-believe-them-55594?

[Red Rat]

They might be arguments, but they certainly do not reflect my concerns.

1) Women are physically inferior to men. Not a serious argument that I have heard put forward. Women are however different to men, and no consideration has been given therefore to the impacts and effectiveness of either allowing for these differences or incorporating them. The argument about exoskeletons is surreal, presumably because exoskeletons allow children to fight we should therefore let them fight?

2) Women lack violent tendencies. Just because some women are capable of violence neither means that all women are as violent as men nor that we should encourage women to be as violent as men.

3) Women lack the self-discipline required. If anything, everyone I know would say that women on average brings an advantage in this area. One only needs to look at the roles where women in the military are carving out the greatest successes at the moment to see this.

4) Women are not as emotionally stable as men. Really? I do wonder where the author gets this from? It is like a parody of misogyny.

5) Women will be sexually assaulted by male peers. The author proves the point here in her own findings (the argument was never that this was a woman only issue). This is not an exclusively female problem, but it is much more of a problem for women than it is for men. here I caveat with the fact that sexual assault is not a reason to stop women taking up more roles in the military - it is simply a discipline problem to be addressed.

6) Women will jeopardise unit cohesion. I've heard it said and I don't believe it. They do however change the dynamics of a unit and I do not think the ramifications of this are fully understood. It could be good, it could be bad.

7) Female military units will not work. Really? As far as I know no western militaries are considering introducing all female combat units. I am not quite sure why this issue is raised.

8) Women can't perform as well as men in the special forces. Again, not an argument that I am familiar with. I personally know of UK Special Forces operators (female). In fact this whole paragraph highlighted a distressing amount of ignorance about SF selection, roles, the current operating environment and the difference between being 'badged' and operating with. It summed up the whole piece for me: it was pseudo-academic.

[Granite_State]

Behold the OPAT:

http://weaponsman.com/?p=35670

[Granite_State]

singh.s
singh.s 2 days ago
Just had a division gender integration brief. Some SGM from SMA Dailey's office came in and tried to sell the Pentagon Kool-Aid on its efficacy. Two Company Commanders had the moral courage to stand up and ask under what circumstances they would be within their authority to deny a female entry into the combat arms. Short answer: If they pass the OPAT, rejecting a female applicant who has passed the OPAT is grounds for an IG visit.
Then the division retention folks gave a presentation on the OPAT itself. Platoon Sergeants sat with a stiff upper lips and Platoon Leaders barely contained their laughter. It is abundantly clear these standards are designed to pay lip service to the needs of specific MOS's and therefore give fake credence to non-combat Soldiers (male or female) who end up in the combat arms upon passing it

.

As those of us opposed to this lunacy have long claimed, lower standards were always going to be part of the deal.