Riiiiiiiiight. Science be damned!

How long did you serve in the military?

rickyp wrote:fate

Riiiiiiiiight. Science be damned!

Science always is tested by practical application.
The Afghan war served as a practical test of women in combat roles. They passed.

I assume that you would agree that practical experience by actual soldiers would trump any theoretical standards or hypothesis.

Fate

How long did you serve in the military?

Does this matter ?

If you asked that question of a lot of women they could answer: for years.
If you asked that of a lot of women in regards to their combat experience they could say Plenty.
And yet you don't seem to think they or their experience is proof ...

As the U.S. military prepares to open most, if not all, infantry, armor and special operations units to women, activists often point to the IDF as an illustration of a military in which women are thriving in ground combat units.

But a closer look shows Israeli women are not in direct combat special operations such as the Green Berets. Nor are they in front-line combat brigades mobilized to engage in direct heavy combat.

In the infantry, virtually all of Israel’s female combat soldiers are confined to two light battalions — the Caracal and the Lions of Jordan — which are assigned to guard the borders with Egypt and Jordan, the only Arab countries that have peace treaties with Israel.

“Uniformed Israeli women patrol the borders or help to train men for combat positions, but these important missions do not involve direct ground combat, meaning deliberate offensive action against the enemy,” said Elaine Donnelly, who heads the Center for Military Readiness. “None of America’s allies, much less potential adversaries, are treating women like men in the combat arms.”

Israeli women’s assignments are far more restrictive than the roles envisioned by advocates in the United States who anticipate an American military that opens all ground combat units to women, be they Navy SEALs or Army Green Berets or the Marine infantry or Army Brigade Combat Teams. All are deployed to engage in tough, close-in fighting for hours and days at a time.

Most career soldiers and officers I know believe the integration of women into Special Forces teams, and into SEAL, Ranger and Marine infantry platoons, is already a forgone conclusion. From their perspective, politicians in uniform (namely, top brass) don’t have the intestinal fortitude to brook the vocal minority in Congress – and the country, really – who think mainstreaming women into ground combat units is a good idea.

As for the other three problems, the first is that every sentient adult knows what happens when you mix healthy young men and women together in small groups for extended periods of time. Just look at any workplace. Couples form. At some point, how couples interact – sexually, emotionally, happily and/or unhappily – makes life uncomfortable for those around them. Factor in intense, intimate conditions and you can forget about adults being able to stay professional 24/7. Object lesson for anyone who disagrees: General Petraeus.

Problem number two: Those who favor lifting the combat exclusion ban engage in a clever sleight of hand whenever they equate women serving in combat with women serving in combat units. Given women’s performance over the past decade in Afghanistan and Iraq, who but a misogynist would doubt their capacity for courage, aggressiveness or grace under fire at this point? But battles are like exclamation points. They punctuate long stretches when there are no firefights. Spend time around soldiers when they are coming down from adrenaline highs, or are depressed or upset; they are prone to all sorts of temptations. Alternatively, under Groundhog Day-like conditions, troops invariably grow bored and frustrated. How quickly we forget Charles Graner and Lynndie England, and the dynamic between them that helped fuel the sadism at Abu Ghraib.

Problem number three involves a different elision. Proponents of lifting the ban love to invoke desegregation and the demise of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Their intent in doing so is to suggest that all three are of a piece: Blacks now serve in combat units, as do (at least in theory) openly homosexual soldiers, and there have been no untoward effects. It is therefore past time to let women be all that they can be as well. Except that attraction between the sexes is nothing like the denigration of another race or the disinterest (or disgust) heterosexual men feel when it comes to the idea of one man pursuing another.

Indeed, racism and bigotry lie at the opposite end of the spectrum from attraction. Lumping all three together is a canard.

There is no clearer way to put it than this: Heterosexual men like women. They also compete for their attention. This is best captured by the Darwinist aphorism: male-male competition and female choice. Or, try: no female has to leave a bar alone if she doesn’t want to, whereas at ‘last call’ lots of men do.

If they were here, I would ask them. Since we have no women, I'm asking you.

Hundreds of thousands of women have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of them in combat. As of last year, more than 800 women had been wounded in the two wars and more than 130 had died

rickyp wrote:fate

If they were here, I would ask them. Since we have no women, I'm asking you.

Your (sic) an idiot.

Tell these women they haven't been in combat.

http://nation.time.com/2013/01/29/women ... een-there/

Bumgarner had deployed to Iraq, where she had served as a convoy gunner in a unit that came under fire.

Hundreds of thousands of women have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of them in combat. As of last year, more than 800 women had been wounded in the two wars and more than 130 had died

.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/20/us/fr ... aries.html

I did not say women have not been in combat.

That's not quite the same as hiking 8 miles with an 80 lb. pack, digging an entrenchment, and staying there for a week.

Sassenach wrote:Ricky, I think the issue is that in order to pass through basic training for the army you do have to do an awful lot of hiking with heavy loads on your back. The question then becomes do we allow women to qualify as a combat soldier despite having been held to a lower standard ? I definitely think there are potential issues with team cohesion if you have some recruits who are simply unable to pull their weight.

Ricky, I think the issue is that in order to pass through basic training for the army you do have to do an awful lot of hiking with heavy loads on your back. The question then becomes do we allow women to qualify as a combat soldier despite having been held to a lower standard ? I definitely think there are potential issues with team cohesion if you have some recruits who are simply unable to pull their weight.

rickyp wrote:fate

I did not say women have not been in combat.

No. You've said they shouldn't be combat troops.
Your like the German officer at teh end of the movie "The African Queen" who explains to an exhausted Katharine Hepburn that the Zambezi river is impassible and the journey she says her boat has taken is impossible.
She Answers," nevertheless."

Fate

That's not quite the same as hiking 8 miles with an 80 lb. pack, digging an entrenchment, and staying there for a week.

First, if you have any knowledge of the Iraqis occupation you'll know that the convoy and the urban foot patrol was the most common combat experience.
And even including the Afghan conflict the days when troops, in any great degree, made 80 mile hikes ... are gone. Helicopters?

But if hiking long distances and camping are what you consider essential combat requirements there are plenty of women who are capable...
And a lot of men in uniform who aren't.

freeman3 wrote:This is a complex issue which is not quite as simple as Ricky is trying to make it but is something that we should be trying to make work rather than simply assume that it can't be done based on outdated gender assumptions. As Ricky notes women bring different capabilities to the table and excluding them from combat roles deprives the military of that. There is also the issue of equality--women who can do the job deprived of their ability to compete. And on a gender-wide basis not allowing women in combat puts them in a lesser, subsidiary role in the military and also in society. Having men exclusively fight and defend the country puts women in a dependency role and control over the use of authorized violence is always a very important role in society.

That being said, there are challenged to having women in combat units. Remember, however, there were stereotypes about African-Africans too , that they would not be poor soldiers who would not fight.

And Ricky notes cohesion arguments were used against integrating the armed forces and allowing gay soldiers to serve.

On the other hand, there are differences between men and women that cannot be swept aside without analysis. This is why in the United States there is strict scrutiny analysis for classifications based on race and intermediate scrutiny for those based on gender.

Physical requirements have to be examined to make sure they are necessary. Part of the issue is that the armed forces strip away individuality by having recruits wear uniforms, cut their short, and in general be formed into a homogenous group. The military might already losing men who can't meet physical requirements but can contribute in other ways .

Everyone needs to pull their weight in an army unit-- but it isn't necessarily done by carrying 80 pound packs. I admit that I have a visceral reaction against allowing women in combat . But it's a matter of equality and I think we have to try to see if it can be done.

This is a complex issue which is not quite as simple as Ricky is trying to make it but is something that we should be trying to make work rather than simply assume that it can't be done based on outdated gender assumptions

Again, what is your expertise for making these assumptions? Why should we, in other words, take your word for it?

rickyp wrote:Three women passed the physical training for the Seals last year... Only a small percentage of men serving in combat units could actually do so... If anything the Seals and other elite units should continue to maintain the highest physical training. But since women are passing it ... Women are passing it.
Again(barn door/cows).