View Full Version : Women combat ban lifted
I know you all are waiting for me to start this thread :-)! Do you think lifting the combat ban for the 4 armed services that have it in place (Coast Guard lifted it back in the 1970's and all jobs and units have been open to women since then) is good or bad? I have been a very strong advocate of lifting the combat ban for a long time now so am happy to see it happen. Now more women will have equal opportunity in job specialties and promotions and units that were limited to men.
As far as required fitness and training levels, I feel that women must meet the same qualifications as men do (be it boot camp, infantry, weapons, etc..) to even be in the armed forces let alone combat duty. I don't believe they should lower the standards in any area to accomadate women. I went to a co-ed bootcamp (4 women and 40 guys) as well as a bunch of very hard training courses (rescue swimming, firefighting, tactical law enforcement, etc...) and all the females had to meet the same standards as men. The only place that was slightly different (and something I strongly disagreed with) was in bootcamp. Women have to do the exact same thing as the males in everything except in 2 areas - push-ups and pull-ups. Where they were allowed to do fewer or different (push ups from the knee) to pass the fitness tests. Us 4 women all did the same as the guys and I know that most women can do the same. I mean have you seen those yoga moms :-)!!
To date servicewomen are still restricted from serving in the following positions: These positions, and the many benefits they allow women, will become available once the combat ban is lifted from the other 4 services:
Army: Infantry, armor, special forces, combat engineer companies, ground surveillance radar platoons, and air defense artillery batteries.
Air Force: Pararescue, combat controllers and those units and positions that routinely collocate with direct ground combat units.
Navy: Submarines, coastal patrol boats, mine warfare ships, SEAL (special forces) units, joint communications units that collocate with SEALs, and support positions (such as medical, chaplain, etc.) collocated with Marine Corps units that are closed to women.
Marine Corps: Infantry regiments and below, artillery battalions and below, all armored units, combat engineer battalions, reconnaissance units, riverine assault craft units, low altitude air defense units, and fleet anti-terrorism security teams.
Coast Guard: None.
I agree with you--especially the part about not lowering requirements. Women are already in combat, just not getting credit for it.
I agree that women should be given the full range of opportunity that their male counterparts enjoy.
I agree with all you posted.
I agree as well. I actually chuckled out loud when I read someone saying that he was against it because he was worried about "unit cohesion" being damaged by this. I seem to remember that same argument regarding gays in the military and had to wonder, do the opponents of equality have something like a magic 8 ball with a few canned answers and they just look to it every time an issue comes up with which they disagree?
Seriously, though, one question that I did hear brought up was one which I wasn't sure of my thoughts, so I'll be curious to hear other's thoughts. If we ever need to implement the draft again would we then be willing to send drafted women into these combat positions?
If they can do the job, I'm fine with it.
There are two women in my class of 24 at the fire academy, and they are both performing above the 50th percentile, and I'm quite happy to buddy with or have either of them on my team. Firefighting isn't combat, true, but it is teamwork in a high stress, strenuous, immediately hazardous to life environment, and so may provide some analogy.
It's funny because I served and received "combat" pay yet I wasn't allowed. :) I was just as confused.
I really WAS interested in what you had to say about this. I don't know. humm. I will leave these decisions to my betters.
Just for the sake of discussion, what role does combat effectiveness play in your evaluation, including unit cohesion and physical combat ability? Do you think there are no negatives, or that the military negatives are outweighed by social justice concerns?
Just for the sake of discussion, what role does combat effectiveness play in your evaluation, including unit cohesion and physical combat ability? Do you think there are no negatives, or that the military negatives are outweighed by social justice concerns?
I believe there will be negatives since ultimately, social justice concerns will prevail, to the detriment of combat ability. I suspect that long held standards which may stand in the way of attaining the properly proscribed mix of gender will be reviewed for effectiveness (not combat effectiveness, but rather integration effectiveness), which will result in a lowering of standards for field personnel.
Alan - my hope is that standards are set that are meaningful for job performance, and that all candidates for that position meet the standards.
Standards can be a problem though - you can set them arbitrarily high to exclude undesired groups, or you can set them too low to be useful as a qualification mechanism if your goal is purely "social justice" or inclusion.
The female firefighters in my class are held to the same standards the males are. It would be easy to cook up standards none of them could meet, that would probably flush out 50% of the male recruits as well, so if your goal was to exclude women you might go that way when designing the standards.
If your goal though is simply to sort out "the best of the best" from a physical performance standpoint because your unit's mission *requires* that level of performance, and you set the standard so only the top 10% of male applicants can pass, you will probably exclude almost all of the women, but in that case your goal wasn't to discriminate against women, so I don't see a problem.
For me, again, it's all about the person being able to do the job.
At our station-house, we have co-ed bunk rooms, and bathrooms, and it doesn't seem to cause issues.
I think the weakest link in making this work is not whether women can perform in combat, but whether men can deal with this effectively. Will men be overly protective of women's safety in harm's way, will this increase the opportunities for the sexual harassment that is already an issue, will men be able to establish a level of trust in the competence of women in critical roles? I would like to think that these are all possible adjustments to established cultural roles. I also wonder about the treatment of women prisoners captured as combatants, but suppose in relative terms it would be no worse than the treatment of men.
happystuff
1-30-13, 7:06pm
I think the weakest link in making this work is not whether women can perform in combat, but whether men can deal with this effectively. .
I was in one of the last Marine Corps women platoons that did not receive ANY combat training in boot camp at all (exception was the gas chamber. And once out of boot camp, I did receive *some*.) But even back then, the biggest difficulty I personally faced in the service was with dealing with the attitudes of men who basically couldn't deal with women in ANY military role. I can imagine there will be men who would not be able to deal with even the idea of women in combat roles.
Just for the sake of discussion, what role does combat effectiveness play in your evaluation, including unit cohesion and physical combat ability? Do you think there are no negatives, or that the military negatives are outweighed by social justice concerns?I don't think that it will make any difference (eventually) to unit cohesion or combat effectiviness at all. Those were the same arguments people made 35 years ago when women started serving on ships, and then a few years later when they became pilots - and eventually combat figter pilots, or served in front line combat roles in many units (including the Marines which my SIL served several tours in the Gulf war back in 1990's).Women haven't effected unit cohesion in those areas any more then men have. So, like those areas - and the other's military and civilian traditionally male jobs - I imagine women in combat roles (boots on the ground infantry) will become excepted like they have in other fields. And IMHO as long as the person - male or female - can qualify physically and mentally for a combat role, then they should be just as effective doing that job. As I said above, I went to a co-ed bootcamp (as well as other schools) and we lost about 15 guys due to their inability to preform the PT tests - but none of the females, I know that it is common for men to flunk out of bootcamp or other military training school and not just women. Those men would have been the weak link in a combat unit compared to the females. So skill, fitness, etc.. should be the gold standard, not gender.
Alan - my hope is that standards are set that are meaningful for job performance, and that all candidates for that position meet the standards.
Standards can be a problem though - you can set them arbitrarily high to exclude undesired groups, or you can set them too low to be useful as a qualification mechanism if your goal is purely "social justice" or inclusion.
The female firefighters in my class are held to the same standards the males are. It would be easy to cook up standards none of them could meet, that would probably flush out 50% of the male recruits as well, so if your goal was to exclude women you might go that way when designing the standards.
If your goal though is simply to sort out "the best of the best" from a physical performance standpoint because your unit's mission *requires* that level of performance, and you set the standard so only the top 10% of male applicants can pass, you will probably exclude almost all of the women, but in that case your goal wasn't to discriminate against women, so I don't see a problem.
For me, again, it's all about the person being able to do the job.
At our station-house, we have co-ed bunk rooms, and bathrooms, and it doesn't seem to cause issues.I agree Bae. Determine the qualities you need of a "person" to perform the job, then set the realistic standards based on those qualities and take the best people for that job.
Here's the firefighting school I went to (besides the basics at bootcamp). It was pretty basictoo but fun! Had to carry a "unconcious" guy who weight about 250 lbs up a steep ladder and thru a hatch while wearing all my gear to pass the school. Even got me a "photo op" in a recuitment TV ad amd flyer (Uncle Sam wants you!) when I was putting out a boat fire a few years later. www.coastguardchannel.com/24_7_vid/FirefightingSchool.php
I was in one of the last Marine Corps women platoons that did not receive ANY combat training in boot camp at all (exception was the gas chamber. And once out of boot camp, I did receive *some*.) But even back then, the biggest difficulty I personally faced in the service was with dealing with the attitudes of men who basically couldn't deal with women in ANY military role. I can imagine there will be men who would not be able to deal with even the idea of women in combat roles.My SIL was in the Marines in the early 1990's and did a few tours in the Gulf in some kind of support position on the front lines (setting up camp basicly), She joked about the gas chamber and the "class" on how to put on lipstick! I couldn't believe it! She got very tired of the lack of promotional opportunities in the Marines and got out and became a deputy sheriff in San Diego. Much more opportunities for her and just as dangerous :-)!
I Seriously, though, one question that I did hear brought up was one which I wasn't sure of my thoughts, so I'll be curious to hear other's thoughts. If we ever need to implement the draft again would we then be willing to send drafted women into these combat positions?
I am pretty much 100% against a draft for almost any reason except a direct and imminent threat to the USA - and only then if there are not enough volunteers to serve. But I do think that it is the responsibility for all citizens to protect each other and their country if such a threat happened on US soil. So if a draft was implemented for that, then yes, I think women should be drafted as well asmen since they reap the benefits of being citizens of the USA. Duty to country and all that crap :-)! I do feel that, whether you are male or female, if you have children to consider (take care of) or are a conscientious objecter, then you can be drafted into a non-combatant role close to your home if at all possible and let those who volunteered do combat duty first before "objectors" and those who have a hardship. The military has hardship duty for those who can't do other things like combat or move far away or have a disability, the same could be available to the men and women who met those hardship or objector criteria. Lots of jobs in the armed forces that aren't combat related.
It's funny because I served and received "combat" pay yet I wasn't allowed. :) I was just as confused.That's great - not common though. There are so many other things - like getting free treatment at VA hospitals for combat related injuries and illnesses as well as tons of combat related things that are available to men but not women who have been doing the exact same job. I can't imagine being in any job where I don't have the same job opportunies (and benefits and responsibilies) if I am qualified. Just baffles my mind!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.