<p>golani, there are plenty of female soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan already! Your views boggle the mind.</p>
<p>Hmmmm…I posted Rangel’s earlier statements about this before the election. People poo-poohed it as being only a political move. </p>
<p>Anyone need stock tips? My rates are fairly reasonable. ;)</p>
<p>But alwaysamom those females CHOSE to be there. And I doubt they’re in primary,front line combat roles - I could be wrong, but I suspect they are primarily serving in supporting, intel, or medical service roles.</p>
<p>Expressed differently, I’m in top condition, work out every day, even compete nationally in a sport. But at 5’2" and 110 pounds, there is simply no way in the world I can build the same percentage of muscle, quality of endurance and degree of speed of a man the same age who is 6’ and 180 pounds. It’s just not biologically possible. No matter how hard or often I train, it’s just not going to happen. And physical strength, endurance and speed are critical requirements for combat soldiers, obviously. </p>
<p>Beyond that, what Golani says about the mix is very true - have you met many military men with combat experience? It’s very, very hard for them psychologically to NOT move to protect women, even on the battlefield. And that’s just one problem among many.</p>
<p>What about my views boggles your mind, alwaysmom?</p>
<p>It’s a cultural issue, not a biological one. Countries like Israel that have women in combat positions don’t find them to be incompetent in those roles or they wouldn’t continue to keep them in that role. </p>
<p>But men, at least Western men, tend to linger a longer over the bodies of women who have died in combat then men, and to engage in other protective behaviors that could place them at greater risk than necessary. </p>
<p>However, the over-arching issue with excluding women from combat positions isn’t about protecting women; it’s about limiting them. It’s pretty clear that in today’s war, the lines between front-line combat and rear support are increasingly blurred. There hasn’t been any particular outcry in this country about the women who have been wounded, killed, and taken as POWs. What really bothers people is the idea of women being authorized to use lethal force. Outside of Sally’s friends and family, no one really cares if Sally (vs. Roger) gets killed by a roadside bomb. Letting Sally go out with Roger on a mission to kill the enemy is where we draw the line; instinctively, we recoil at the idea of her getting the enemy in her gunsights and pulling the trigger.</p>
<p>Overshadowing the protection issues, is the issue that people in this country feel threatened and repelled by the idea of women having the same access to violence that men do. I think it’s also pretty clear that combat service becomes a rallying point for civil rights; it’s done so for immigrant and minority groups throughout our history. The last thing that the people who would like to reverse the gains that women have made over the last twenty years or so, is to have to give them more equal treatment in even more arenas because they “earned” it on the battlefield.</p>
<p>Does Israel put its women on the front line? If so, does it actually keep them active in those positions in genuine combat engagements? </p>
<p>If so, I stand corrected. </p>
<p>However, I do not think modern society limits women; I think women limit themselves.</p>
<p>Its certaintly a biological issue as much as it is a pycological issue. Men are stronger. Not much else to it.</p>
<p>As for pyscological reasons women in combat will ruin unit cohesion and create unnecessary romances that will result in impregnation, where you will have to take a women off of the front lines.</p>
<p>As for Israel, Conyat, you obviously do not understand the dynamics of the IDF. Israel NEEDS as much manpower as they can get. Simple as that. They cannot afford to not take women. Even so, mean serve 3 years, women 2 or less depending on thier job. Most of them do not serve in combat units. And after thier compulsary service they rarely serve in the reserves. And those that do are in combat units and they serve for only a few years. There are only 450 women combat soldiers.</p>
<p>Most of these 450 by the way, according to wikipedia, are in the Border Police which is very different from regular IDF. Israeli society undersatands the problem of having women in combat units, and it has failed them NUMEROUS times in the past.</p>
<p>“However, I do not think modern society limits women; I think women limit themselves.”</p>
<p>I can guarantee you that when women are denied access to promotions because “they might get marry, pregnant and quit” it’s not the women who got passed over doing the limiting. When juries acquit rapists because they found the woman’s clothing or location at the time of the rape unacceptable, it’s not the rape victims doing the limiting. When doctors send women home to die from cardiac symptoms they didn’t recognize because they weren’t taught about them, it’s not the women patients doing the limiting. It’s not women who decided that airbags should only be tested on standard adult male sized dummies–resulting in the decapitations of short women and children–that limit came from our male-dominated culture.</p>
<p>I stand corrected, a bit, about the role of women in combat in Israel. But I stand by my assertion that in the US we accept women dying from enemy action with no real problem; it’s the idea of women killing the enemy that disturbs us.</p>
<p>I disagree. Its not about us. Its about the soldiers and by having women in combat units you are putting not only the women in danger, who will have to go up against men stronger than them, but other men in the unit who might be too protective of a women he likes and make a wrong decision. Or there could be a romance in a unit that ruins the “male bonding” of the army and breaks unit cohesion. That stuff can sound kind of stupid, but in reality its extremely important. This is an interesting article that gives an insight into the pyscology of Israelis. It has nothing to do with women, but you can see why a draft in Israel means something differnt from a draft in America.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3330203,00.html[/url]”>http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3330203,00.html</a></p>
<p>Note the last line of the article about what he says concerning his sons.</p>
<p>Please. You can’t convince me that women soldiers have been killed, wounded, and taken POW in Iraq without ever being in danger.</p>
<p>I’ll agree with you that part of the basis for excluding women from combat is reducing danger to men. Personally, I support excluding women from combat for just that reason. But it’s nothing to do with danger to women. In the kind of war we are fighting in Iraq, anyone in the theatre is in danger.</p>
<p>And it’s everything to do with “us”. If we made public policy on the basis of what would benefit the soldiers, issues of importance to veterans and military families wouldn’t have taken such a beating in Congress lately. Sad, but true, that in public policy matters, soldiers are treated as instruments to benefit society, and not vice versa. As long as society is threatened by the idea of women using lethal violence as opposed to men, women will be excluded from combat, whether it’s a good thing for the soldiers or not. </p>
<p>Look at how long women in our culture were excluded from the workplace, from practicing medicine, from owning property, from voting. It wasn’t about biology; it was about preserving the power of men relative to women in society.</p>
<p>lts, reread the second paragraph of golani’s post just prior to mine. I will be very surprised if as a mom of a daughter, you aren’t as offended as I by the inane comments he made. I was not commenting on whether or not they chose to be there. He thinks they shouldn’t be, because in his mind they are weak and will cause nothing but problems for the men there. Rubbish!</p>
<p>About 1 in 7 of the soldiers in Iraq are female. Although they are not considered to be on the ‘frontline’, dozens have been killed and hundreds injured. No surprise to anyone but this is not a typical war. There is no ‘behind the scenes’ as there was in WWII, where the women were typically kept. They are often under direct enemy fire. Several have been captured and taken hostage. Many of the women serving in Iraq are members of the military police and regularly take part in raids on Iraqi houses. I saw an interview not long ago of a group of both young men and women who had served together in Iraq in the military police. The men were nothing but effusive in their praise of the bravery, competence, stamina, and performance of their female comrades. They complained that those who were against women in the military were those who had never served next to them. I prefer to listen to them and appreciate their experiences, rather than to a 17 year old on a message board who would rather belittle females and the dangers they face everyday in Iraq and Afghanistan.</p>
<p>Conyat, there are no victims, only volunteers. If women aren’t getting promotions, in this country today, mostly likely it’s because of a personal failure to build relationships, failure to earn the trust and respect of peers, failure to cultivate skills, and failure to behave in a professional manner. Most likely, the woman passed over for promotion has a chip on her shoulder, and she’s well known around the office water cooler whining about being treated unfairly, gender limitations and the like. </p>
<p>If women require greater consideration from car manufacturers, medical professionals and the like, then, perhaps they should educate themselves, and become doctors, air bag engineers, and the like. Or at a minimum communicate opinions, suggestions and requirements to those persons in decision making roles in those markets. Look for a helping hand at the end of their own arms, so to speak. </p>
<p>Having never served on a jury or been a crime victim, I won’t try to address the rape example, but unfortunately stories of false accusations of rape leave me sort of unsympathetic to this particular point of view, and, while I do not believe that any person, male or female, deserves to be a crime victim, and while I also do NOT believe that any person has the right to hurt any other person, given the fact that there is a healthy population of criminals in the U.S. and that some of them commit rape, there is something to be said for “don’t advertise what you don’t intend to sell”.</p>
<p>As long as women pass the requirements necessary to be in combat, they should be allowed to fight. I don’t care if there are stronger men available to take their place. As long as they pass the treshold, they have to go.</p>
<p>Alwaysamom, my viewpoint is simply that women do not have the same biological makeup as men, and, quite frankly, cannot possibly be expected to execute with the same degree of competency as a man in a combat situation. I don’t consider that insulting, it’s rather a fact that a female cannot build muscle, speed, endurance, etc. the way that a man can.</p>
<p>If I’m wrong, and someone here knows more about female physical capabilities compared to men, and can document that there is an equality of physical capabilities required for combat, then, I’ll consider myself corrected.</p>
<p>Latetoschool, what are the physical requirements to be in the army (and furthermore to be in combat if these standards are different)?</p>
<p>Are women physically capable of passing the standards?</p>
<p>If so, are there enough women who pass the standards and should therefore be allowed to enlist?</p>
<p>If the Rangel bill is passed, and all physically qualified women of age are required to enlist, shouldn’t the percentage of women in the combat army roughly reflect the percentage of women among the enlistees physically qualified to be in combat?</p>
<p>Conyat, since we agree that they are adanger to the males in a unit by runing unit cohesion, breaking morale, cloudying male’s judgement etc lets focus on the physical aspect of war-that is physical strength. Put a women up againsta typical hezbollonchik and she will just “lose the fight”, and in war you need physical strength not so much for hand to hand combat but to move faster, to carry 100’s of pounds on your back some times. </p>
<p>As for alwaysmom post here is the 2nd paragraph of the post she refers to.</p>
<p>“However, I completely agree with you women are plain weaker and they should not be allowed in combat units, and in addtion you do not want soldiers developing romances, impregnating other soldiers, it would ruin unit cohesion, there could be male protectionism, and poor judgment on the battle field because of women combat soldiers.”</p>
<p>First off I want to start by saying that the army has violated Congress’s laws on women in the army and combat numerous times and thats a big problem. 2nd no one is diminishing their accomplishments. I was merely laying out what is true and is accepted by actual soldiers fighting in the war. It is accepted by a friend of mine at West Point, his brother who is in the marines etc…</p>
<p>So lets look at what I said.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Women are physically weaker. This not true alwaysmom? You will dispute that. And please spare me the “not all women are weaker then all men” because as great as that is, its not gonna help when you need to mobilize a million men in one day. In which case if you really do believe women are just as strong as men, then you would advocate changing the physical requirments for women in the military to meet those that men have?</p></li>
<li><p>You do not want soldiers developing romances. If you have a combat unit, out on the front lines for days, weeks, months. You are going to have some sexually starved men. Now throw women in the equation. What happens the males in combat units will start developing physical and emotional relationships with the women. Do you somehow dispute that?</p></li>
<li><p>Those romances would be dangerous. As Rick Tyler pointed out before, the army is supposed to be full of professionals. An army of professionals must work on judgment. Having sex with females in the same unit can lead to poor decision making during a battle. This can include risking your life and the lives of other people to save a woman you are emotionally attached to. It can include being a male protectionist to keep the women from getting hurt. Then you have the issue of women getting pregnant. If women get pregnant in combat you are going to have to pull her out, and the fact is women do get pregnant at very high numbers in certain branches of service. Do you, alwaysmom, dispute any of that?</p></li>
<li><p>Women can ruin unit cohesion and morale. In the army there is a huge male bonding experience, where friendships are made that are really unmatched by anything else. Just ask any soldier about that. You through a women into the mix and you can have jeoulsy, you can have many men competeing to get with one woman. All of that is a problem as it will ruin cohesion and morale.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Having said that, it is not the fault of women that all of this occurs, its just biology and pyscology. The alternative would be to completely switch the roles where women are the only ones allowed in combat, and men shouldnt be. But then arises the overlying issue of female’s strength. </p>
<p>As much as you may not like any of this, its simply the truth. I am not belittling females and the dangers they face. They can be great soldiers. But because they are weaker it can create problems. There have been many recorded cases of women driving trucks in Iraq that have been shot at, and the women just breaking down and making mistakes. Combat Units are simply not a place for women.</p>
<p>Perhaps, Alwaysmom you were offended by this line “… and poor judgment on the battle field because of women combat soldiers.” I did not mean women will make poor judgment calls, I meant that men will make poor judgment calls because of the women.</p>
<p>tisthetruth, they are different depending on what unit you are. And then they are even different within those units for men and women</p>
<p>"tis, I really don’t know. </p>
<p>I’m operating on the rather reasonable assumption that the front-line combat soldier has to be very, very strong, fast, accurate, have excellent endurance, etc. I’m furthermore assuming that testosterone plays a huge role in such a degree of physical development, and, women tend to not quite have so much testosterone. </p>
<p>I’m perfectly willing to be proven wrong. I don’t have a personal preference one way or the other, except that as I have already posted, I don’t wish to see women lose out on the career opportunities that military service can offer.</p>
<p>I very much DO want my tax dollars to fund a military that, if it must engage in combat, has at least an even chance of winning, and, somehow, I don’t think the average American woman is physically suited for a combat role: I do not believe that populating combat troops with women gets us to a winning militia, considering that, for starters, the average American woman is, what, 5’4"…</p>
<p>Wow. Latetoschool, you honestly believe that no gender bias exists in the workplace? That all employers are uniformly conforming with the anti-discimination laws? That’s absolutely ridiculous; no matter what the law or standard is, there is always someone who will break it. </p>
<p>I think it’s very significant though that you think that any woman in this country who is passed over for a promotion must somehow be less deserving; it says a lot about your attitude toward women, though not as much as this does:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow, I have to say that it’s been a long time since I have seen anyone so blatent about their hostility toward women. Rape victims are just unwilling prostitutes now? </p>
<p>Rape is about power and control, not sex, and attitudes like yours contribute to the problem.</p>
<p>When it comes to research funding, women aren’t asking for “greater consideration.” We are asking for equitable consideration. It’s ridiculous for medical schools not to have taught about the symptoms of women’s heart attacks when they taught about men’s. And now that the differences are well known, it’s inexcusable for physicans not to take it into account when they make treatment and triage decisions. It’s based on the outmoded idea that the standard human being is male, not on anything that women have failed to do.</p>
<p>It may surprise you to know that women have become doctors, engineers and so forth. And women have “communicated opinions, suggestions and requirements to those persons in decision making roles in those markets.” Unfortunately, all too often we run into people who tell us that our concerns aren’t important or who simply refuse to hear us. To say that all inequitable decisions made by male-dominated bodies are the fault of women for not being more effective advocates is like saying that the “patients” in the Tuskeegee sphyillis study were to blame for not better communicating their desire not to have a fatal, contagious illness go untreated. Until quite recently, women were routinely excluded from clinical trials of new medications, even though it’s known that some medications affect women differently from men. </p>
<p>I suppose in your world, the denial of the vote to women was all women’s fault too; every battered women who is murdered by her husband deserved it for not being more submissive, and if people didn’t want to be slaves in antebellum America, they wouldn’t have put up with it.</p>
<p>To suggest that every inequity in society that negatively affects women is somehow women’s fault for not being more assertive…and then to condemn women for whining about gender issues…well, it’s illogical and mean-spirited, at best.</p>