Women in Military Service & Combat (not just USA)

[Fuchs]

Actually, no.

Equal opportunities are seen as a right, and a military cannot defend the freedom and well-being of its country by violating its values and rights of its citizens.


There are more possible reasons anyway; the recruitment pool is widened, thus recruitment might become cheaper, saving taxpayer money.

[jmm99]

Fuchs

We've discussed this somewhere else; but the bottom line is that Germany and the US have different values and rights re: employment and the place of the military vice general society, in their basic laws (for us, Constitution) and statutory laws.

So, neither did the older US policy (no women in the military) violate US values and rights of that time; nor does the current policy (women in limited combat roles) violate US values and rights of today.

Cheers with the rest of the debate.

Mike

[82redleg]

Actually, no.

Equal opportunities are seen as a right, and a military cannot defend the freedom and well-being of its country by violating its values and rights of its citizens.


There are more possible reasons anyway; the recruitment pool is widened, thus recruitment might become cheaper, saving taxpayer money.

So the military should have to accept the mentally retarded, the overweight and the physically handicapped? It is, after all, a right. We'd save money in recruitment, too, since we might not have to recruit so hard. Military effectiveness be damned, right?

And I am not equating the three groups, just pointing out three other groups that have even fewer options for service than women.

[Uboat509]

This same debate comes up periodically and it never really changes. PT is always the first thing that is brought up. Ignoring all the emotional issues, the simple fact is that females do not produce large amounts of testosterone which is the primary muscle builder in males. It also increases bone density. Women's bodies are simply not made for strength. That is just biology. Now, of course someone always has a story about a female he knew that that could do a thousand dead hang pull-ups and then run six minute miles for ten miles. That's great but the PT test standards aren't built toward the exceptions, they are built toward the averages. Is the average female able to physically do the same things as the average male. The answer is no.

[JMA]

This same debate comes up periodically and it never really changes. PT is always the first thing that is brought up. Ignoring all the emotional issues, the simple fact is that females do not produce large amounts of testosterone which is the primary muscle builder in males. It also increases bone density. Women's bodies are simply not made for strength. That is just biology. Now, of course someone always has a story about a female he knew that that could do a thousand dead hang pull-ups and then run six minute miles for ten miles. That's great but the PT test standards aren't built toward the exceptions, they are built toward the averages. Is the average female able to physically do the same things as the average male. The answer is no.

I have always assumed that the PT tests / Battle fitness tests I did were designed around the minimum physical requirements (through years of experience) required of a soldier to perform in the type of unit. The minimum standard would apply across the board while the better units trained against a higher (self imposed) standard.

None of this should have changed... to either make it easier or more difficult for females to join the army and any particular unit. It anything has changed - up or down - then that is a problem.

[JMA]

Its all pretty hypocritical really...

I am told that in the US this is the standard to be used:

... This they do by means of an ethos that stresses discipline, morale, good order and unit cohesion. Anything that threatens the nonsexual bonding that lies at the heart of unit cohesion adversely affects morale, disciple and good order, generating friction and undermining this ethos.

Does the introduction of females into combat units and the military in general comply with the above?

Sorry... forgot to say that that quote relates to gays in the military.

So I ask again... does the introduction of females into combat units and the military in general comply with the above?

Surely there needs a look into this following situation?

Pregnancy during Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom

Hang on a minute with 75% became pregnant after arrival in theater what ever happened to this nonsexual bonding ?

Then we have this one:

Serving U.S troops could face prison if they fall pregnant while active

And then we look at this:

US military sex attack reports up

Among the report's findings:

* There were 2,923 reported sexual assaults in the 2008 fiscal year, up from 2,688 in 2007

* There 251 incidents in combat areas, including 141 in Iraq and 22 in Afghanistan

* Investigations took place in 2,763 cases. In 832 cases, action was taken, including 317 courts-martial, a rise of 38%

* Of the 6.8% of women and 1.8% of men who indicated they had experienced unwanted sexual contact, the majority - 79% of women and 78% of men - chose not to report it.

Perhaps the following website /book will provide a point of departure for this discussion?

[Pete]

The Field Artillery Officer Basic Course after mine at Fort Sill in 1978 had its first female student. To prevent the anticipated snide remarks and rumors she was made the student class leader. If I recall correctly some years later when she was coming close to the end of her service obligation she gave an interview in which she said she was disappointed that female FA officers were then limited to missile-type systems, Lance and Pershing, and excluded from tube artillery units.

[Traveling Man]

Marines, especially grunts, have no difficulty finding trouble as it is. Realistically, women in the combat arms fields would yield more problems than benefits, physical fitness aside. Junior officers/Staff NCOs have enough discipline problems to deal with. Trying to maintain and improve a victor unit's combat effectiveness would be almost untenable with females in the picture. Just my two cents.

[JMA]

The Field Artillery Officer Basic Course after mine at Fort Sill in 1978 had its first female student. To prevent the anticipated snide remarks and rumors she was made the student class leader. If I recall correctly some years later when she was coming close to the end of her service obligation she gave an interview in which she said she was disappointed that female FA officers were then limited to missile-type systems, Lance and Pershing, and excluded from tube artillery units.

Were they... and if so why?

[Fuchs]

So the military should have to accept the mentally retarded, the overweight and the physically handicapped? It is, after all, a right. We'd save money in recruitment, too, since we might not have to recruit so hard. Military effectiveness be damned, right?

And I am not equating the three groups, just pointing out three other groups that have even fewer options for service than women.

"Equal opportunity" would be given with equal entrance requirements. You do not need to accept everyone, just treat them equal for "equal opportunity".

[Adam L]

"Equal opportunity" would be given with equal entrance requirements. You do not need to accept everyone, just treat them equal for "equal opportunity".

Equal opportunity is irrelevant here. The job of the US Armed Forces is to be combat effective. All assets are to be used where, when and if practicable. If you can argue the military is not doing so for arbitrary and capricious reasons then you have a point then you might have a legitimate grievance.

Adam L