Is the US military ready for women on the frontline?
The Guardian UK ran this article 29th of April, which personally I find confusing: they are in - they are not in - they are on the front line unofficially-?
Is the US military ready for women on the frontline?
Since the American revolution, women have toiled alongside men in America's armed forces. Their jobs, however, remained entirely outside the realm of combat. Women in earlier wars served as nurses, civil service pilots, cooks and mechanics, among other positions. Since 2001, the roles of women in the military have changed. More than 225,000 women have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and women now comprise 15% of America's armed forces. Many of these women served unofficially in combat roles. Women in the navy have, for the first time, served aboard submarines. An estimated 144 women fighting in these two wars have died."
"This week's two-pronged marine corps announcement is of a similar nature: women (who comprise a mere 10% of the marines) can now participate in its gruelling infantry officer course, a three-month programme that's the necessary precursor to joining the infantry. But there's a catch: once women complete the programme, they still won't actually be allowed to join the infantry. Another 40 women will be assigned to roles previously held exclusively by men. But again, none of those roles will entail combat service."[/I]
"An astounding 3,192 women reported a sexual assault in 2011, according to a Pentagon report issued last year. Even worse? That figure is only 13.5% of the total assaults on women that likely occurred. Regardless of combat exposure, recent studies have concluded that deployed women in Iraq and Afghanistan are more than twice as vulnerable to post-traumatic stress disorder than their male peers. Women are also much less likely to qualify for disability benefits related to physical injury or trauma. Why? Because "officially" they aren't exposed to combat."
Read more:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-women-marines
The issue with women in combat isn’t women in combat it’sthe men serving with women.
Personally I say throw out the entire argument as to weather or not women are physically capable of getting the job done. If you look at the over all health of the individuals enlisting these days... Well let me just suggest you type the words "To fat to fight" into any search engine and I hope my point will be made for me.
Soo setting aside the who's got bigger muscles, the individual who trains the most, there are a few other points to consider; Training, psychological stability, societal gender roles, sleeping arrangements, and SEX. I’ll just say a little on each and try not to get all ranty. And before I do so let me just say that this is my take on the issue nothing more, nothing less.
Training: There’s no reason why women shouldn’t be receiving the same training as men do. By setting a double standard for women we are doing a disservice to everyone involved. I believe that the real argument show be weather or not we maintain the same standards for fighting soldiers as we do for non-combatant soldiers. *but that goes back to the issue of conditioning and physical fitness.* Man, woman, or hermaphrodite it really doesn’t matter. In the field you all have to get over the same obstacles and cover the same ground so it doesn’t make sense to have different expectations in training. I say lets get rid of Gender-Norming!
“The more you sweat and bleed in training the less dead you’ll get in the field. Always treat training like it’s the real thing and the real thing will become another training exercise.” Unnamed soldier.
Psychological stability: No one is ready for the horror that comes with taking the life of another person. If anything society makes it more socially acceptable for women to seek out the psychological help to deal with the stress and trauma associated with combat.
Societal Gender Roles: This and sex are the real issues faced with women in combat. (In my opinion.) The real issue with women in combat is how men react to women in combat. If a man and a women are injured the medic is more likely to check the woman first and to spend more time treating a women that they will a man. In a rescue situation take the injured, take the children, take the women, then take the men. Apply that logic to combat in reverse and you’d never see a single woman carrying a gun.
Sleeping Arrangements: When you’ve got limited or no tents in the field, bunks, rooms, ect. do you place women in the same barracks as men or do you need to have speical housing arrangments for them? Same goes for showers and the head. Well do you let openly gay men sleep in a room full of straight men or do you put them in the women’s barracks? Can’t we all be adults and keep it in our respective pants?
SEX: Sex is always an issue and you always have to deal with it front lines or not. As long as everyone is smart about things and no one gets pregnant lets just treat it with a giant rule of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. And throw in a Don’t let it fuck up your ability to do your job any more so than is humanly unavoidable.
Let me just close this out with passing along someone else’s thoughts on the subject.
“When the bullets start flying I want and need two things from the person next to me and one of them sure as hell isn’t a swinging cock. Trust, in the individual and in the training they’ve received, and that training, oh and that they've got the cojones to use said training. I want the best trained, most experienced person for the job at my side. I don’t need to be worrying about them fucking up and I sure as hell won’t be thinking about pussy when someone’s got a gun pointed in my general direction and is pulling the trigger.”
