Women In Combat, fueling the debate in the US

[Big Orange]

Never mind that this hasn't stopped prison rape from being common as dirt in all-male penitentiaries the world over, or that the above "rape is a fate worse than death" meme is part and parcel of the same societal structures that lead to rape victims being shunned and blamed for their misfortunes.

Eh? I only thought it was Middle Eastern/Southern Asian types that have that spiteful, ignorant and hilariously self-contradictory mindset about female rape, nowhere near encouraged in the West - only emotionally stunted psychopaths blame victims.

And the US Military has a pretty archaic attitude towards barring women from combat, since time immemorial women have actively participated in wars in varying degrees, although the biggest factor to males having a disproportionate role in warfare is largely due to reproduction not getting in the way (rather than a inherent difference in intelligence and physical ability between the two sexes).

[Coyote]

I have no way to prove this, but I also fear that in the US at least, allowing women to serve means opening the pesky issue of relationships developing among soldiers, male soldiers fighting over females within the ranks, and male soldiers taking excessive risks in combat to shield females or rescue them...

...but, once you allow sexuality between soldiers of opposite genders, and find that mission capability is not degraded, it will add momentum to the calls to allow homosexuals to serve, and this is what our Puritanical society has a hard time with.

The argument would go like this: "You let Jane serve in the army; she's 120 pounds soaking wet; so why not let big, strapping Bruce serve? He's 200 pounds of muscle, he can do it! Oh, is it because he's gay, and you're worried he'll mess up the mission by hooking up with some guy? Well, little Jane over there is getting it on with Corporal Steve every night, and the mission isn't affected..."

There are probably other arguments as well-- commander will say "I need to deploy and half my platoon is out pregnant". The military would face uncomfortable issues such as "do we hand out condoms? Isn't that promoting sex? Do we force the women to get Norplant? That doesn't stop disease..." There's still a lot of higher-ups that are, to this day, squeamish about having females around; they do not want to confront these issues if they can avoid it...

[Eleas]

Eh? I only thought it was Middle Eastern/Southern Asian types that have that spiteful, ignorant and hilariously self-contradictory mindset about female rape, nowhere near encouraged in the West - only emotionally stunted psychopaths blame victims.

Not at all. The underlying mechanisms are pretty similar; they're just couched and expressed in different ways and degrees. For instance, it wasn't too long ago that the defense lawyer in the swedish court actually advanced the argument "you'll have to excuse me for saying so, but you do look like a whore." The unspoken argument was the usual blame-the-victim song and dance in which the victim by the way she looked, acted or dressed justified sexual assault. It's one unfortunate result of the demonization of rape and rapists - since rape is so heinous and therefore so unbelievable, it almost has to have been the woman's fault in the first place.

If that sounds insane at first - and it should -, I invite you to read the court transcripts in which rape was discounted on the grounds that this person "didn't have it in him" to do such a horrible thing, or similar shit. Murder, yes. But rape? Surely not. In a world where a rapist has to be an unalloyed monster, there's no room for the frat boy who just didn't take a drunken no for an answer to be a rapist... but it still has to be someone's fault, just not his. So it's trivialized, and the simpler "explanation" is that it wasn't rape at all; the girl was just a dirty slut.

As an aside, we see a similar mechanism at work in the case of Josef Fritzl, the man in Austria who imprisoned his daughter and subjected her and their children to decades of sexual abuse. Reading the papers, particularly recent ones, we are increasingly given the picture of a completely inhuman monster. The only consensus we can find is that there's nothing to connect him to the reader, at all. He's a textbook psychopath, it seems - a brilliantly evil manipulator, a genius, an unfathomable creature of pure darkness. Not at all a man with dark but all too human impulses that he acted upon, because if that were so, then the readers would have to consider the possibility that they or their friends or family might possibly have anything in common with him.

Instead, he becomes Hannibal Lecter, as frightening as any villain of a movie, and as easily dismissed at the click of a button.

And the US Military has a pretty archaic attitude towards barring women from combat, since time immemorial women have actively participated in wars in varying degrees, although the biggest factor to males having a disproportionate role in warfare is largely due to reproduction not getting in the way (rather than a inherent difference in intelligence and physical ability between the two sexes).

I believe it has a lot to do with the fact that the military fosters and in certain ways benefits from an excessively stereotypical male testosterone culture. It's self-reinforcing, competitive and physical; problem is, it also fosters

[Eleas]

Ghetto edit: I forgot to finish the post, dammit.

I believe it has a lot to do with the fact that the military fosters and in certain ways benefits from an excessively stereotypical male testosterone culture. It's self-reinforcing, competitive and physical; problem is, it also fosters intolerance of anything considered "un-manly."

[Lonestar]

There are probably other arguments as well-- commander will say "I need to deploy and half my platoon is out pregnant". The military would face uncomfortable issues such as "do we hand out condoms? Isn't that promoting sex? "

I don't know what rinky-dink outfit you worked for, but Condoms were always handed out at every command I went to.

But yeah, Females in a command add stress, what with idiots fighting over females, the Master at Arms being forced to use NVGs to make sure there's no hanky-panky on the missile deck while underway, flying sailors off because they got knocked up, seemingly always it's a sailor from an undermanned workcenter anyway....

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I don't see why mandatory birth control is problematic in a volunteer army.

[Coyote]

I don't see why mandatory birth control is problematic in a volunteer army.

"IT"S UNGODLY!!!"[/Religious fringe]

Remember, many still believe every child a blessing, even one born from violent brutal rape or incest, and that birth control is little more than pro-active abortion.

[CmdrWilkens]

I don't see why mandatory birth control is problematic in a volunteer army.

For the military itself? Nope abslutely not a problem. The problem comes in that a) The religious right will fuck all over any such attempt in the US and b) There are some legitimate concerns about the ability to become pregnant after spending extended periods on birth control medication. It could be seen as permanent damage if women were to leave the service and no longer be able to get pregnant.

[Jaevric]

Ultimately, it comes down to "informed consent." Women who want to fight on the front lines should be allowed to do so if they can meet the qualifications. That may mean accepting risks or inconveniences that the men don't--such as the possibility of rape (and unfortunately not just by the enemy, though the military should come down on anyone who rapes a fellow soldier like a ton of bricks wrapped in concertina wire!) and having to go on birth control while in the military. But serving in the military is already inconvenient and dangerous, and anyone who signs up had damn well better realize that when they do so. And any woman who goes into the military then gets upset because "it's not fair that women have to go on birth control" is deluding themselves; life isn't fair, and military life sure as hell isn't.

Admittedly, there's no such thing as really "informed consent" for military service because most people don't realize what they're really getting into until the bullets start flying--if they did, I'd imagine our volunteer army would have a lot fewer volunteers.

/ramble

[Broomstick]

While I see how you're tempering this claim with a statement about full consent and awareness, I don't see how this is obvious. Women can be beaten - men can be beaten.

It's a well established fact that, generally, women are far less stronger and durable than men. You can argue about equality all you want, but biology doesn't give a shit.

Define "durable". Women are, biologically, more resistant to starvation and cold. Since deprivation of food and adequate shelter/clothing is a common feature of POW camps (though by no means universal) this might actually aid survival.

[Broomstick]

Let's say for instance women get raped more often, and men get beaten near to death more often. Shouldn't we then only let women in, since rape is easier to survive without dying until you can be liberated or exchanged?

I agree with some of what you said but this is just fucking stupid. You seem to be implying that a woman who has been rapped repeatedly by multiple people is going to find it easier to recover then a guy who has had multiple ass kickings and this is a better scenario because rape doesn't bring a female physically closer to death?

First of all, a woman (or man, for that matter) CAN be raped to death.

Second, I doubt multiple rapes are any more or less traumatic than multiple severe beatings and/or systematic torture. A LOT depends on the woman in question. Some people are more resilient than others and we don't know why. Some people are tortured for years as POW's and go on to live decent lives. Others are never POW's yet suffer debilitating PTSD for other reasons. Unless you can provide valid statistics that women are somehow more prone to PTSD than men your argument does not hold up.

[ArmorPierce]

far less stronger and durable

I thought women were more durable in some respects. Seem to recall some tests done a few years back that showed it. Had something to do with increased endurance, at least.

As far as military training goes, they pass, they get in, they fail, they get kicked out. Such a revolutionary concept.

I have heard claims of that however all the records for endurance races and the such are higher for men than women.

[Broomstick]

As an aside, I'd agree that rape in some respects is a worse blow to a man's self-worth. Conversely however, this Western cultural spectre of rape as being the worst thing you can do to a woman may serve to make the experience that much more awful for her. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that the average woman is aware of rape in ways that most men are not.

Yes, yes we are. Let's deal with a little fact: a woman in the US has a lifetime risk of rape of something like 25%. That means 1 in 4 women are going to be raped. That's why it strikes some of us as fucking SILLY that men get up on a soapbox about women in combat and say "You might be captured AND YOU MIGHT BE RAPED!!!!!!!!". Oh, you mean like we just might be raped in civilian life? Being outside of military and combat does not protect a woman from rape.

And no one seems to mention that there is a difference between sexual abuse coming from someone you know - a spouse, relative, or supposed friend - where not only is there rape but also the pain of broken trust and betrayal, versus someone who is explicitly your enemy, a stranger, and someone you expect to do you harm. Maybe men just don't work that way. Let me explain - if my spouse lies to me it's more painful than if a stranger lies to me. If a friend does me harm of any sort it's more painful than if a stranger does me harm.

In the first Gulf War a woman was taken POW after a helicoptor crash. She wasn't raped. The worst that happened was that one of her captors fondled her tits. Holy fuck! He touched her tits! I've had to put up with that just walking through a fucking bar in the civilian world. I once had a total stranger at a comic book convention grab me, try to French kiss me, and fondle my ass (after which I slammed down on both his insteps, kicked his shins, slapped his face, and called for security). Holy fuck! What happened to the woman POW in the Big Bad Middle East was less than I've had to deal with in the civilian world. It just doesn't cut it as a reason to keep women out of combat with most women. As a matter of fact, that woman's male companion in captivity was treated FAR worse than she was, was repeatedly beaten, etc. So even in a place like the Middle East it is not automatic that women will be raped or treated worse than a man.

Unless a woman's chance of being raped in the military or combat really is greater than her risk in civilian life then raped doesn't cut it as an excuse to keep women out of combat. There may be other reasons, but honestly I sometimes think men fear women soldiers being raped more than women soldiers do.

As another example, in WWII the Japanese treated male POW's much more harshly than females. That doesn't mean anyone was treated nicely, just that men were more often abused and died much more frequently when held by the Japanese.

It's built up as the ultimate horror, a fate literally worse than anything else you could name. And when it finally happens, when the woman suddenly realizes that every horror story she has ever been told about rape is about to become real...

That really depends on the women's social context. In some cases the family/friends can be extremely supportive of the woman in question. In others, there condemnation and abandonment. Personally, I always thought being maimed to the extent I couldn't recover full function of my body would be worse than a simple rape, which I could reocver from. I'd rather be raped than shot in the head. Of course, in no way would I ever want to be raped, it's just that I can imagine things that would be far, far worse. Then again, I am confident my family and spouse would still love me and would stand behind me if I was raped. If I was equally convinced they would revile and abandon me it would be a different story.

[Sidewinder]

I have heard claims of that however all the records for endurance races and the such are higher for men than women.

This is true (at least from 2001-2005, when I served in the Army): a woman has to perform fewer pushups (same number of situps) and run two miles in more time than a man to achieve the same score in a physical fitness test. The reason the standards were lowered for women was because the Army had HUGE problems recruiting and retaining enough people to carry out missions during the 90s (this article lists higher retention rates as one advantage female soldiers have over men; I'm still trying to find the Newsweek or Time article on the recruitment problems).

[Broomstick]

I don't see why mandatory birth control is problematic in a volunteer army.

It is my understand that birth control of several varieties are available in the US military. Women stationed in the field (can't call it combat, right?) have, for many years, used birth control pills continually to not only prevent pregnancy but also to suppress their menstrual cycles which, as you might imagine, are quite the hassle in primitive conditions.

The fact is, though, that even the most diligently used birth control is not 100% effective. You WILL have failure rates. Military people are almost exclusively young and healthy people, and young and healthy people have sex. Under stress and life-or-death conditions they not only fuck, they fuck like bunnies. That, too, is biology.

I would think there are very few woman soldiers who'd refuse birth control (although it always seems there's an exception somewhere). It's not something that really needs explaining to mature, adult women. If a woman is not adult and mature you shouldn't be handing her a loaded gun.

[Alyrium Denryle]

It's a well established fact that, generally, women are far less stronger and durable than men. You can argue about equality all you want, but biology doesn't give a shit.

Are we using polearms and armor? Because last I checked the only really physical thing our troops do now is carry shit, and walk long distances. If a female can do that, there is no reason not to have her in combat.

A male may, on average, be able to do more of that, but if a bullet zings through one's internal organs, it does not matter whether a person is male or female.

As for rape, the bonds that form between enlisted will typically prevent that, officers are a problem, but they can be delt with. Not a special problem of combat, and has already been said, men are probably more likely to be raped in POW camps

[Sidewinder]

It's a well established fact that, generally, women are far less stronger and durable than men. You can argue about equality all you want, but biology doesn't give a shit.

Are we using polearms and armor? Because last I checked the only really physical thing our troops do now is carry shit, and walk long distances.

You forget running and hand-to-hand combat, which, despite the technology we have, still occurs frequently. In fact, the technology is sometimes a DISADVANTAGE because of its weight. (I'm sure you can Google or Yahoo up LOTS of details on this.)

If a female can do that, there is no reason not to have her in combat.

Did you miss my post on the lowered standards woman have for physical fitness tests, compared to men?

As for rape, the bonds that form between enlisted will typically prevent that, officers are a problem, but they can be delt with.

You're being too optimistic. Read this article about a male drill sergeant raping female trainees. This article, dealing with the same case, lists a captain and another sergeant among the accused.

[Lonestar]

Are we using polearms and armor? Because last I checked the only really physical thing our troops do now is carry shit, and walk long distances. If a female can do that, there is no reason not to have her in combat.

Spoken like someone who never had to go on a 50mile hike carrying 100lbs worth of crap on the back. No sure, physical fitness means nothing in modern warfare, nothing! It's all about pushbuttons!

[Cecelia5578]

Women already perform dangerous, combat-ish missions in Iraq, despite the fact that they can't be in combat arms MOSs. You can't get much more in harms way than manning a .50 cal turret on a humvee.

BTW, for the APFT, while women have easier P/U and run times, they use the same sit up standard. Even when I routinely scored over 270, I'd quite often get my ass kicked by women in sit ups, even female soldiers who weren't in that great of physical shape overall.

[Coyote]

Actually, we DO wear armor, heavy 22-pound IBAs that get heavier in 140-degree heat.

Add to that our wonderful leaders, who seem to have a fascination with inventing new shit for us to hang off of our gear every few months, leading wo what is dubbed "Christmas-tree syndrome". Individually, sure, a new radio or rocket or sight or explosive or detector or whatever does, indeed, weigh only about 4 or 8 pounds, but when you've got a dozen new gizmos strapped to your pack it gets cumbersome.

But, yeah, if a woman can do it, I say let her.

[Knife]

Are we using polearms and armor? Because last I checked the only really physical thing our troops do now is carry shit, and walk long distances. If a female can do that, there is no reason not to have her in combat.

Spoken like someone who never had to go on a 50mile hike carrying 100lbs worth of crap on the back. No sure, physical fitness means nothing in modern warfare, nothing! It's all about pushbuttons!

Indeed, or hump a .50 reciever around on top of all that. Not to mention, once you're there, you're expected to still be combat ready. Endurance and strength count for a lot in that.

[Knife]

But, yeah, if a woman can do it, I say let her.

I have no problem with this. As long as they ensure an actual standard instead of letting it slide for political expediency. There would be other problems, as noted but those can be solved I think.

[Coyote]

Yeah, so that means that we'll end up with those Xena Amazon Warriorette types, which is fine-- the delicate Barbie Princess types probably would not be too helpful.

(They can still go to the Air Force! )

[Knife]

Yeah, so that means that we'll end up with those Xena Amazon Warriorette types, which is fine-- the delicate Barbie Princess types probably would not be too helpful.

(They can still go to the Air Force! )

Indeed. It's a voluntary force but you don't necessarily get to outright choose what you do or else there would be 1.5 million pilots and 1 cook.

If a female can pass the physical fitness/endurance standard, let them run with the grunts. If not, the military needs cooks, clerks, admin, drivers, warehouse personel, etc....

[ArmorPierce]

I think that the "women having more endurance than men" thing comes from the all things being equal (same training, such) women start to narrow the gab in the ultra-ultra-ultramarathons (ultra marthons are over 26 mile races, what they seem to be citing are ones that get to the 100(s) mile range). Of course what it fails to mention is that in these races you are running on empty and the body starts eating itself basically. So all things being equal, a woman will last longer in a starving situation vs a man.