[Valkyrie]

No doubt about it, the last 20 years have seen a great deal of advancement.

Back in the 90's, AIDS was up there with the boogeyman. Now, we're getting closer to a cure.

In the 90's, the LGBT community was practically in hiding. Now, albeit only very recently, acceptance is becoming more and more widespread, with the "don't ask, don't tell" rule finally getting repealed.

In the 80's and 90's, having women in combat roles was looked down on - and in 1994, a ban was placed against it. Now, that ban is being lifted.

Needless to say, this is a big deal. The military will be considering which positions and areas will remain closed off to women (such as submarines and Special Forces) with respect to our physical needs and differences, but it has been mentioned that the draft (should it ever be enacted) will now apply to women as well.

So forumites - what do you think? (Let's keep this nice and clean and civil.)

This post has been edited by Valkyrie: 24 January 2013 - 03:42 PM

[Steam_Loli216]

Actually, three female officers were just commissioned to be on submarines.
I say if a female can handle the physical and emotional demands, then there should be no reason she should be held back. Women have been on the front lines this whole time, just in different jobs (or slipping under the radar)

Source: I'm in the military.

[Valkyrie]

Steam_Loli216, on 24 January 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

Actually, three female officers were just commissioned to be on submarines.

Really? That's awesome!

I totally agree with you, too. My husband has a few reservations on the subject - most of them legitimate, and he was in the Air Force - but I figure, if a woman is physically and mentally capable, why not let her?

[Von]

Pssh, Get in the kitchen and make some pie Valkyrie!! J/K!! Seriously though, way to push the political hot-button on this one />

As a serving officer who has experienced combat I can't really say whether the lifting of the ban is a good thing or not honestly. The fact that nearly every battlefield/space for the foreseeable future will be asymmetric gives credence to the conclusion that woman have already been in infantry type combat on land and they have been dropping bombs from USAF and USN fighters for some time makes whether they SHOULD be "allowed" a moot point really.

In my mind the truly important issue is one of capability i.e. if women want to be in combat, fine, but they had better be able to meet the EXACT SAME requirements as men. On the surface that seems an unfair requirement given the different bio-chemical properties of our respective bodies but the fact is the military is VERY task oriented and if you cant actually perform the physical task, and lets be clear that IS what we are talking about, the physical not the mental aspect) you have no business being in that place at that time on purpose. If I'm a Abrams commander I need to be able to count on my loader being able to feed the gun every one of its rounds if we find ourselves in an prolonged action and they weigh a lot. People's lives depend on it. If I'm wounded I need to know that my female medic can drag me out of there. People's lives depend on it. The physical requirements do not change because of the gender of the person doing them. If women can meet the same requirements then have at it.

I think all the stuff about degradation of unit cohesion and morale with/because of mixed gender units is about who you talk to and finding out why they think the way they do. Earlier in my career I was embarked on a Nimitz class carrier that was one of the first surface ships to have a mixed gender crew. The biggest gripe I heard relating to women was that they could not perform the tasks they were given physically. Another gripe was pregnancy, and to be fair this was as much a systemic problem with how the navy moves personnel as a individual problem, the men in a given division were irritated that all three women in their work center had gotten pregnant and would be transferred to shore duty before the deployment was over without replacement. In essence it meant that they would have to that much more work shorthanded. Now before you say "well tough cookies that happens in the civvy world all the time" let me just say in the military you cannot just go hire some temps and if the bureau of personnel won't / can't send a replacement you're SOL. In this particular instance it just so happened that this was the air traffic control division and a vastly higher rate of mistakes started happening because people were standing markedly longer watches for an extended period. Within the male personnel of that division it lead to a great deal of resentment of female personnel and it did affect the morale of those guys. By contrast I remember talking to one Senior Chief that didnt much care that his division officer was female because she was "a lot smarter than the last guy" lol. My personal experience has been it comes down to both capability and motivation. If women do their jobs like everyone else without asking for or expecting special treatment because they're female, no one gives a sh*t they're female. The one thing I can say from a combat perspective is that it is different, psychologically, seeing the dead body of a woman or child opposed to a male and most of my buddies agree with me, although we couldn't offer a rational explanation for it honestly.


Anyway, might be way more than you wanted Valkyrie but there you have my opinion.


Von

PS Congrats on the baby Steam!!

This post has been edited by Von: 24 January 2013 - 08:12 PM

[Dark Stranger]

Finally! It's about bloody time. What sickens me is the people oppossed to this who literally say a womens "place" isn't on the battlefield. WTF? If a women wants to fight on the frontlines for our country why not let her? And for the people that would say that, "it's because we will act differently on the front lines with them around" (like taking more risks to save a female camputred officer as opposed to a male) then the problem is with YOU and not being able to treat a female soldier like a soldier.

[sentinel28a]

I came here to say something profound...

...but Von said it all first.

All I can add is "I agree," because we haven't fought a war with a solid front line since 1953. Nowadays you're at almost as much risk in the "rear" than you are in the "front."

Ben Da Mad Irishman
"Hello, asymmetric warfare"

[Steam_Loli216]

Dark Stranger, on 25 January 2013 - 11:39 PM, said:

then the problem is with YOU and not being able to treat a female soldier like a soldier.

As a human and a sailor and a female I salute this statement.

[Dark Stranger]

Steam_Loli216, on 27 January 2013 - 07:59 PM, said:

As a human and a sailor and a female I salute this statement.

*salutes back* Thank you Steam.

[Kii]

Well, obviously some areas of the military need to remain off-limits to us ladies because it's a lot more dangerous for a woman to be unclean for a long period of time than a man. A woman can't really sit in a foxhole for a month thanks to our anatomy.
But other than that, cool.

[KirbyFanOne]

Kii, on 28 January 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

A woman can't really sit in a foxhole for a month thanks to our anatomy.
But other than that, cool.

>Implying trench warfare style fighting is still the norm

[Dark Stranger]

KirbyFanOne, on 28 January 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

>Implying trench warfare style fighting is still the norm

I think she might be refering to snipers rather then regular trench warfare.

[sentinel28a]

Dark Stranger, on 28 January 2013 - 10:18 PM, said:

I think she might be refering to snipers rather then regular trench warfare.

Some of the best snipers of WWII were women. The Russian female snipers (and medics, and pilots) endured some pretty damn bad privations during the war. Almost no allowance was made for the fact they were female. (Of course, a lot of them got killed, too.)

Kii makes a good point, though. I have a book on my shelf called Sisters of War, about American servicewomen in Iraq. One female Marine describes just how tough it is to take a leak in a war zone, when you're wearing 60 pounds of gear. A guy, if you'll forgive the crudity, can just whip it out. Girls, not so much.

Also probably not a good idea to have women in the SEALs or UDT divers, unless you want them out of action for one week a month.

Ben Da Mad Irishman
"One word: sharks"

[Steam_Loli216]

Here's an idea: birth control.

Anyways, I saw the worlds most asinine comment on Facebook about women in combat. The guy said "women aren't qualified in combat. why would they send them?" of course this was a civilian talking out of the side of his head.

Let me put those 'fears' to rest.

I work on helicopters. I have pages and pages and pages of qualifications to keep up with, and if they aren't up to date, down to a valid copy of my drivers license and a recent physical, I am NOT allowed to touch a helicopter or equipment. If someone tells me to go load a missile onto a helo, I can't. I'm not trained to. They aren't going to send people out that aren't qualified, whether you're male or female.

[Dark Stranger]

Steam_Loli216, on 29 January 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

Here's an idea: birth control.

Anyways, I saw the worlds most asinine comment on Facebook about women in combat. The guy said "women aren't qualified in combat. why would they send them?" of course this was a civilian talking out of the side of his head.

Let me put those 'fears' to rest.

I work on helicopters. I have pages and pages and pages of qualifications to keep up with, and if they aren't up to date, down to a valid copy of my drivers license and a recent physical, I am NOT allowed to touch a helicopter or equipment. If someone tells me to go load a missile onto a helo, I can't. I'm not trained to. They aren't going to send people out that aren't qualified, whether you're male or female.

Ask him what the "qualifications" are for combat? lol. Loved to see him respond that someone wont come off as just striaght up sexist. And honeslty I debate alot of people when they keep throwing out the word "sexist" espcially when it comes to the work place, and pay and other stuff like that. There are many factors for simple things like that. But people saying a women can't be in combat BECAUSE she's a women (regardless if she can pull or do the same weight as the guys can) THAT is what sexisim really is.

[TheStrongJaeger]

As long as they have to meet the same standards as the combat serving men in the same position then I'm all for it.

[YoungBirdcall]

TheStrongJaeger, on 29 January 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

As long as they have to meet the same standards as the combat serving men in the same position then I'm all for it.

this

[Kii]

KirbyFanOne, on 28 January 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

>Implying trench warfare style fighting is still the norm

I don't really know much about modern warfare, you caught me!I just remembered my professor talking about the military all the time and why women aren't suited for war, and that's the only thing he said that made me think, "Oh yeah, that might be a problem."