Historically, the U.S. military was one of the best institutions for Black-Americans to work in.Well…we’ll just have to wait and see, I guess.
But, given the military’s history…they will cave.
They’ve caved on every other social experiment they’ve introduced.
I understand what you’re saying, and I agree that acknowledging most women cannot meet the same physical requirements as men does mean there is any hatred involved. I wasn’t referring to double standards regarding pay or physical requirements. The double standard I referred to was the one proclaimed by those who criticize the feminist equality attitude in general. According to them, it is feminists who are upholding a double standard by demanding equal rights in a country and yet bypassing the responsibility of serving the country militarily. (Not that this is an issue at this point, as our military is voluntary. It only would become an issue if there were a draft imposed.)The problem is that there are no double standards.
-Promotion rates for women in the military range from just below, the same as, and above the promotion rates for men. One of the studies I read showed that the promotion rate for black female officers was the same as the promotion rate for black male officers. It also showed that women (I think white, but it could have been all women) have a 5 point percentage led in promotion from O3 to O4 (both of which are the pay grades you would want to focus on if your concern is gender diversity; Captains and Majors make up the bulk of career officers in the military, have the most interaction and influence on subordinates, and pretty much actually run the officer side of the house; the “Specialist Mafia” of the officer world).
-The “women can’t physically do the job” isn’t a “we hate women” tag line. Multiple studies have been done for at least the last 30 years and they all come out with similar conclusions. Bad idea, the female body isn’t physically designed to operate under the same conditions that the male body can.
edit- a '04 military report that I just googled lists the following
-as a whole 1 officer for every 5.2 enlisted; 1 female officer for every 5 female enlisted
-female percentage of the active duty force- 14.9; percentage of officers that are female- 15.4; percentage of enlisted that are female- 14.8
Show me the double standards being applied to women (oh by the way non-female minorities, since female is apparently a minority now, do a lot worse 36% of the force, 21.7% officer, 38% enlisted, 1 minority officer for every 12 minority enlisted)
There are other issues than physical capacity. One problem that has been observed by female Marines actually in combat is that the males rally to protect the female, thus reducing the fighting efficiency of the unit. The Israelis also encountered this, and tried to compensate with training.I understand what you’re saying, and I agree that acknowledging most women cannot meet the same physical requirements as men does mean there is any hatred involved. I wasn’t referring to double standards regarding pay or physical requirements. The double standard I referred to was the one proclaimed by those who criticize the feminist equality attitude in general. According to them, it is feminists who are upholding a double standard by demanding equal rights in a country and yet bypassing the responsibility of serving the country militarily. (Not that this is an issue at this point, as our military is voluntary. It only would become an issue if there were a draft imposed.)
To rephrase my question; if the men and women who view this current intrusion into military life as a uniquely *feminist *imperative (of which they don’t approve, as is their right), how would they react if there were a draft imposed? Would they tell the feminist to put her money where her mouth is, and serve equally, or would she be afforded the special privilege to defer service? And if she *did *defer service, would there be a complaint that she is being hypocritical by not wanting equality when it doesn’t suit her desires?
It seems the biggest concern is that women usually don’t meet the physical requirements. To me, that is not a negligible concern - it is quite a valid one. But if a woman *did *meet the same requirements that men have to, would that change things? Would she be welcome as a team player, and not be seen as a feminist, but rather as just another physically capable person willing to serve her country? It’s a tricky subject. I’m trying to see it from different points of view.
The problem is that the women won’t be “culled out”. The standards will be changed to ensure they meet them. They’ll be changed because this is a political move.Actually, I think the United States is trying to reassert itself as “The Land of the Free” and the nation that affords the most opportunity to the most people on earth. Doing this in a time when the West and America are undergoing some economic hardships. Making the U.S. look even more appealing to intelligent, ambitious homosexuals and women across the world. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.
If so… not a particularly bad image strategy. Reviving the American narrative.
Overall, I think the Obama administration has been leading the U.S. down the right trajectory into the early 21st Century. Though, I’d prefer not to see women in infantry roles, and it irks me some, but I can accept it and adapt to the change if it comes. I don’t know how women as a whole will adapt to infantry life and its demands but I suppose that will be solved simply by the infantry schools and infantry life culling out women that can’t measure up to its demands.
But more unfortunate is that injuries and tragedies will be extend from 19 year old old boys to 19 year old girls. But I suppose everyone has their path to go down in life.
If we assume that women as a whole could meet the current physical demands of combat MOSs and we assume the disruption caused by mixing the genders in combat units are minor (and yes there will be disruptions) than I’d say that most soldiers would eventually see it as a non-issue. Soldiers are a lot more adaptive to change than civilians and unlike civilians they judge someone more on that person’s merits and job performance than on their gender, race, faith, or sexual orientation.I understand what you’re saying, and I agree that acknowledging most women cannot meet the same physical requirements as men does mean there is any hatred involved. I wasn’t referring to double standards regarding pay or physical requirements. The double standard I referred to was the one proclaimed by those who criticize the feminist equality attitude in general. According to them, it is feminists who are upholding a double standard by demanding equal rights in a country and yet bypassing the responsibility of serving the country militarily. (Not that this is an issue at this point, as our military is voluntary. It only would become an issue if there were a draft imposed.)
To rephrase my question; if the men and women who view this current intrusion into military life as a uniquely *feminist *imperative (of which they don’t approve, as is their right), how would they react if there were a draft imposed? Would they tell the feminist to put her money where her mouth is, and serve equally, or would she be afforded the special privilege to defer service? And if she *did *defer service, would there be a complaint that she is being hypocritical by not wanting equality when it doesn’t suit her desires?
It seems the biggest concern is that women usually don’t meet the physical requirements. To me, that is not a negligible concern - it is quite a valid one. But if a woman *did *meet the same requirements that men have to, would that change things? Would she be welcome as a team player, and not be seen as a feminist, but rather as just another physically capable person willing to serve her country? It’s a tricky subject. I’m trying to see it from different points of view.
There are other issues than physical capacity. One problem that has been observed by female Marines actually in combat is that the males rally to protect the female, thus reducing the fighting efficiency of the unit. The Israelis also encountered this, and tried to compensate with training.
These are very good points worth considering. Thanks.A caveat to the above would be that if this turns into only a handful of women being able to meet the requirements than yes they would be looked down upon by their fellow soldiers. They’ll be looked down upon and resisted not because they will be seen as “women not knowing their place,” but because they will be seen as individuals placing their individual wants and needs (this whole thing is based on the myth that women don’t have the same promotion and career opportunities as men due to no combat positions) **above the good of the team **(the few that make it won’t be enough to justify the military wide changes and disruptions).
BRAVO…great points. Having significant contact with troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the thing I most noted was their ability to adapt to the situation, and focus on the mission not the man (or woman!). Our military is great because mission is paramount. Not that no politics or other human failings occur but it’s at a lower level than in the civilian world.If we assume that women as a whole could meet the current physical demands of combat MOSs and we assume the disruption caused by mixing the genders in combat units are minor (and yes there will be disruptions) than I’d say that most soldiers would eventually see it as a non-issue. Soldiers are a lot more adaptive to change than civilians and unlike civilians they judge someone more on that person’s merits and job performance than on their gender, race, faith, or sexual orientation.
A caveat to the above would be that if this turns into only a handful of women being able to meet the requirements than yes they would be looked down upon by their fellow soldiers. **They’ll be looked down upon and resisted not because they will be seen as “women not knowing their place,” but because they will be seen as individuals placing their individual wants and needs (this whole thing is based on the myth that women don’t have the same promotion and career opportunities as men due to no combat positions) **above the good of the team (the few that make it won’t be enough to justify the military wide changes and disruptions).
Interesting to know. Stay safe, Epan.I am a former Marine enlisted, and currently a US Navy officer in a combat zone. I will keep my own opinion to myself. However, I have been following a number of military blogs on the topic. My impression, from what I read, is that the people who are the most opposed to this change are women who have actually been in combat.
I see your stated approval is based on what a woman wants to do, rather than on what she is qualified to do. You may feel differently when your brother, husband, or boyfriend dies because he went into combat with soldiers who cannot perform at a level necessary to accomplish the mission.I applaud this move forward to equality. If a woman wants to serve on the lines, she should have every right to.
If she’s a Marine, lerapt, she’d be seen by other [male] Marines as just a Marine. I’m sure epan would agree with that.**But if a woman *did ***meet the same requirements that men have to, would that change things? Would she be welcome as a team player, and not be seen as a feminist, but rather as just another physically capable person willing to serve her country? It’s a tricky subject. I’m trying to see it from different points of view.
That’s a possibility, oldcatholicguy. That would irk me some if it happened.The problem is that the women won’t be “culled out”. The standards will be changed to ensure they meet them. They’ll be changed because this is a political move.
My impression is that while it is less likely in the Marines because of the Marines’ unique culture, the softening of standards could encroach within the other branches of service. We have all seen standards decline for first responders in order to allow women to enter these professions. I cannot imagine that once the “powers that be” have declared its fine for females to be in combat, they won’t have such a vested interest in proving THEY were right in the decision that they won’t let a few standards get in the way of a good story.But I have somewhat of a difficult time imagining the School of Infantry (SOI) will be made easier for female Marines. So, I don’t imagine too many females will end up in the Marine infantry. But maybe I’m wrong.
Soldiers “getting together” in a warzone is already an issue. No need to wait for mixed gender combat units. Prostitution rings (yes they exist on FOBs), increased sexual assaults, increased false claims of sexual assaults (actual false claims, not “not enough evidence to prove it” legit claims), and what I term “high school boyfriend/girlfriend” drama already are issues. And no, NCOs and Officers do not have the ability to stop it. They aren’t the soldiers’ parents (who also apparently can’t get their kids to stop “getting together” if we believe the scientific studies concerning sexual activities of teenagers and college age adults).If she’s a Marine, lerapt, she’d be seen by other [male] Marines as just a Marine. I’m sure epan would agree with that.
I wouldn’t be too worried about fraternization. It’s possible and if it occurs (odds are at some point some cases will occur) it would be a problem. But it’s up to the leadership starting with the NCO’s to appropriately dissuade troops from doing any of that.
Similar to raping your fellow female Marines. Something I have no tolerance for.
If I think female Marines should not be put in combat and/or infantry is irrelevant to that, especially once she’s in my unit. She doesn’t have to worry about me raping her and she doesn’t have to worry about me leaving her in combat. We came together and we are going to leave together. That’s my view.
But I’m out the Corps and my time has past. So, that’s for this new Corps to work out. I’m sure like generations past they’ll figure something out. One way or the other.
That’s a possibility, oldcatholicguy. That would irk me some if it happened.
But I have somewhat of a difficult time imagining the School of Infantry (SOI) will be made easier for female Marines. So, I don’t imagine too many females will end up in the Marine infantry. But maybe I’m wrong.
Well you need to get irked.That’s a possibility, oldcatholicguy. That would irk me some if it happened.
But I have somewhat of a difficult time imagining the School of Infantry (SOI) will be made easier for female Marines. So, I don’t imagine too many females will end up in the Marine infantry. But maybe I’m wrong.
The standards do currently differ for physical fitness. I would expect full integration to take some time. There is partial integration now. For example, there are female pilots who are performing their jobs with distinction. This is a case where fly by wire systems have reduced the strength required to fly many aircraft.The problem is that the women won’t be “culled out”. The standards will be changed to ensure they meet them. They’ll be changed because this is a political move.