Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- MrsMGoodwin
- I'm a mother, a wife, and a strong opinionated woman. I work as a therapist and have 11 years experience in the field. I strive to help broaden cultural awareness and stand up for those who are not given a voice.
I speak from much experience when I say that women already have been fighting in combat. What you're referring to is whether women should be allowed to hold combat arms jobs in the military. See, in the Military, every job you could have is broken down into what is called an MOS or Military Occupational Specialty. Now the ban has been in place since women were allowed to serve that they were not allowed to hold combat arms positions (Infantry, Artillery, Special Forces, SEAL, etc). The reason for this is unclear. I know that it stems from a time when women were not viewed as physical equals to males, and those jobs they are banned from require physical strength that most women cannot match. Things have changed over the years, but the issue of physical inequality still exists. The line is no longer black and white, but has blurred quite a bit. Females can be assigned to a unit that is classified as a "hard" unit ("hard" is used to differentiate combat from support MOSs. Anything not combat arms is a type of "soft" MOS.) but are restricted to headquarters elements in clerk or personnel positions and will never be subject to daily activities that a line unit would have, such as doing patrol training or firing missions, and when deployed, will probably never leave the base they are assigned to. The main argument has been that women shouldn't be allowed to serve on the front lines with men if they can't follow the same tough standards as the men.
ReplyDeleteA prime example of this is when you look at the height/weight standards and physical fitness test requirements. Because men and women are built differently physically, they have different standards. I would have no problem with a female being able to hold a combat arms position, were she able to keep up the same physical standards, and not require special treatment. The other issue with women in combat arms is evident if you've ever served. Grunts tend to be heavy on the testosterone. They are the most physically aggressive because their job demands it. And with that physical aggression comes a certain amount of alpha male mentality and with it, increased aggressive behavior towards anything. Grunts like to mark their territory and other grunts like to challenge it. Constantly. Allowing a woman to serve with them can decrease unit cohesion because focus on the mission will be lost when they decide to fight over who gets to claim Mary Jane as theirs even if she's married and has kids. And I speak from experience that the worst thing that can happen to a unit is when they lose cohesion. They need it to work as a well-oiled machine like they need to. That brings me to my next point. We aren't fighting a conventional war here. Everyone is on the front lines because the front lines our inside your base pointing out. Whether it's running supply missions, doing convoy escorts or what, women are everywhere and combat is everywhere. One of the first things they teach you in the army and the marines is that no matter what your particular job is, you are a rifleman first, everything else second.
ReplyDeleteBecause we have an unconventional war where women are medics and transportation units are running supply missions or MPs are doing patrols, women are available in all of those situations and are just as effective in combat as the man next to them. In the current wars, I see no problem with women in combat arms, because they already are. The difference between now and WW2 and Korea and Vietnam is that you return to base every night. There is never a time when you would have to camp out somewheres and begin another patrol the next morning, right where you left off. Any dismounted patrols where staying outside the base at night is being done by Special Forces and Rangers. No regular Joes are out there doing it. That wasn't the case back in those days. And the reson that makes a difference is when feminine hygene becomes an issue. The problem exists because women require feminine hygene products that cannot be easily disposed of. There are also situations where an issue with a woman's hygene can cause unwanted attention. (I speak about this becasuse it caused an issue when doing a training exercise that required extreme discipline to maintain the element of surprise. Our position and cover were compromised when the "enemy" found us by following a scent/odor the woman was giving off.) Because those kinds of missions can require being away from available facilities for weeks at a time, it becomes an uneasy task to manage. But I am not opposed to any kind of field testing to determine if this is anything that can be done. I would love to see volunteers for women to take up in a combat arms unit and roll out "like one of the guys" and see how well she does. And if field testing it works pretty well, I think they should open it up to women with the understanding that you will receive absolutely no special treatment. The should do the same thing now to males who can't keep up physically, force a MOS reclass due to inability to conform to established standards.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree. Women should be given all the same opportunities as men as long as they can prove that they can keep up. It becomes a liability if a man or a woman can't meet standards. The tricky part is, will everyone be held to the same standards? Will men get off easier than women or vice versa? I've never been in the military but I do have the utmost respect for those soldiers that risk their lives for my freedoms, no matter what the job requirements are or where they choose to fight.
ReplyDeleteThe rules should be clear and simple. Set the standards you need for the unit or assignment, and have no mention of gender or sexual orientation. Anyone who can meet the standards and requirements, man or woman, gay or straight, is eligible. If the soldiers can't be adult enough to handle themselves professionally and deal with it, then they shouldn't be in the military
ReplyDelete