Any thoughts on women being allowed in direct combat?

idonthavethis

I know we tend to shy away from politics on this board but I'd love to hear what your opinions are on this.

KathrynMD

I'm all in favor it until someone can make a compelling arguement against it. I heard an interview w/ a female soldier at Ft. Campbell and while she was in favor of it, she was like "they will have women's issues to contend with on the battlefield and that could be very difficult" I'm not exactly sure what she meant, but I think was an allusion to menstruation. I kinda think this is what weighs on people - how to handle a woman's period when she's in the Army. That's kinda sad. ...

idonthavethis

I don't know if it's so much about women on their periods than it would be about seeing women injured. I think it would affect the men differently seeing a woman injured. Does that make sense?

KathrynMD

idonthavethis:

I don't know if it's so much about women on their periods than it would be about seeing women injured. I think it would affect the men differently seeing a woman injured. Does that make sense?

I can see that as an argument, but I also think this is something that men (and women) can work to get over a bit. I think if a woman in an all volunteer army/in a combat position lets her fellow soldiers see her as a "damsel in distress" and in need of special protections, that's an issue. But, I think most women who seek these positions out are doing it b/c they want to be tough and fight and be true soldiers, and hopefully they will win the respect of their fellow soldiers. Of course, hopefully, the women will provide cover for her comrades and vice versa. Men protect other men and sometimes choose to protect the younger/less experienced/less tough/less strong men, but when push comes to shove, they are all soldiers and they are expected to be soldiers.

SarahKate31

It was my understanding (from reading a post on another board with a comment from a solider) that women are already in combat positions and that this new thing simply gives them the job title of the job they're already doing.

I remember my dad making a comment about this years ago saying something like having women in combat would make the men feel like they needed to protect the women and that attitude could compromise a combat situation. I just hated that he was saying that women shouldn't be in combat because of how the men might handle it. Doesn't seem fair. Also, if men (or women) can't handle seeing a woman injured, maybe they shouldn't be on the front lines. I can't imagine what it takes to be in that kind of position, but if you don't have what it takes, you shouldn't be there (man or woman). I think that all positions should be open to all men and women who are qualified.

KathrynMD

SarahKate31:

It was my understanding (from reading a post on another board with a comment from a solider) that women are already in combat positions and that this new thing simply gives them the job title of the job they're already doing.

yes, exactly

they can't be promoted b/c they can't get official recognition for being in combat.

mrs. remy

i am all for it provided it is 100% voluntary. if we were ever to bring back the draft i could see it being a problem i suppose. i think the men whining about it need to STFU and get over it, much like the guys who were whining about serving with gays.

Cooper81

KathrynMD:

SarahKate31:

It was my understanding (from reading a post on another board with a comment from a solider) that women are already in combat positions and that this new thing simply gives them the job title of the job they're already doing.

yes, exactly

they can't be promoted b/c they can't get official recognition for being in combat.

 

Well they are and they aren't.  The issue is that women are in positions that directly support active combat, but not actually on the "front line."  The issue with the "front line" is that it's blury because we aren't dealing with war by the terms of the Genenva convention.  The combatants we are facing don't abide at all by the terms of the convention, so women that are in direct support of those actual out on the missions (although women are often part of convoys) are often attacked because there are no terms of war that terrorists abide by.

 

And the "issues" that woman was referring to are most likely things like rape and sexual assault.  As the military has integrated women into roles not traditionally held by women, it has dealt with staggering numbers of issues dealing with violence and assault against women, and a lot of it goes un-reported and even not dealt with up the chain of command; it's part of the military culture. 

 

I'm totally for women in combat, if they can pass the same physical requirements as men.  I know having a lower percentage of muscle mass puts women at a disadvantage, but regardless of sex, those in combat need to meet the same basic physical requirements in order to support their fellow soldier.