Posted on Feb 4, 2016
With physical, emotional, physiological issues, how can equality really be fully manifested in the services?
13.4K
101
85
7
7
0
Not much has altered our military like the advancement of women into jobs that were male only: ship duty, subs, infantry, tank crews, pilots. The female draft is coming. What about Rangers and SEALs? How about LGBT issues? What about titles/ranks? What will the broadest context and physical manifestation of full gender equality look like? Is it as mundane as separate bathrooms and sleeping areas?
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 14
Equality isn't a function of physical sameness. It's an equality of opportunity. On average females and men have very different strength levels, for example. But amongst men, there is also a wide variation of strength levels as well. But all men are given the opportunity to demonstrate whether they have the abilities to meet the standard. Many fail, but they were given the opportunity to try. Yet female soldiers until recently were not given the opportunity to demonstrate that they could meet the standard. They were excluded as a blanket policy. So women who do possess the capability to meet the standards are denied even the chance, while any man can get the chance to tryjust because he's a man.
That's the heart of this issue. It's not about lowering standards, it's about giving every soldier the opportunity to show that they meet the standards. As far as LGBT issues go, in 10-20 years, as the older servicemembers move on and today's young people become the senior leaders, they will wonder what all the fuss was about. Multiple surveys have shown that a large majority of young people today do not share the prejudices of their parents generation, and support LGBT rights. They have grown up side by side with openly gay friends, and each year more and more young people will enter the service with that experience.
After WWII, the Army surveyed white soldiers about their feelings on integrated units. A large majority were opposed. 80% said they did not want to have to be forced to live with or eat in the same mess halls as blacks. They said the Army should retain separate service clubs for blacks and whites. The senior generals opposed it as well. Today, those seem like ridiculous concerns to anyone but avowed racists and bigots. But those concerns were very real to those soldiers at the time. They didn't consider themselves anything but normal Americans, and thought society was losing its bearing.
I have no doubt that within a couple of decades, soldiers will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about, and those who so vehemently opposed LGBT integration today will look as out of place as those who opposed racial integration in the 40s and 50s.
That's the heart of this issue. It's not about lowering standards, it's about giving every soldier the opportunity to show that they meet the standards. As far as LGBT issues go, in 10-20 years, as the older servicemembers move on and today's young people become the senior leaders, they will wonder what all the fuss was about. Multiple surveys have shown that a large majority of young people today do not share the prejudices of their parents generation, and support LGBT rights. They have grown up side by side with openly gay friends, and each year more and more young people will enter the service with that experience.
After WWII, the Army surveyed white soldiers about their feelings on integrated units. A large majority were opposed. 80% said they did not want to have to be forced to live with or eat in the same mess halls as blacks. They said the Army should retain separate service clubs for blacks and whites. The senior generals opposed it as well. Today, those seem like ridiculous concerns to anyone but avowed racists and bigots. But those concerns were very real to those soldiers at the time. They didn't consider themselves anything but normal Americans, and thought society was losing its bearing.
I have no doubt that within a couple of decades, soldiers will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about, and those who so vehemently opposed LGBT integration today will look as out of place as those who opposed racial integration in the 40s and 50s.
(12)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
GySgt John Olson - I started service 1974 when we still had WACs, saw women in 10 SFG, faced female guerrilla fighters Colombia 1985, deployed with women on CA teams 04-06 and 08 and well trained and armed females are deadly.
(0)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
GySgt John Olson - Women and guns are lethal, that why my ex-wives and I reside 1200 miles away. And remember that it was a woman that help bring the down fall of a Roman Caesar. Careful the women don't make you bait.
(0)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
GySgt John Olson - I am curious why men quote their past life and not the present one. In this life, I learned that armed Colombian Women Guerrilla Fighters were deadly and would even shoot their own men that tried to surrender.
(0)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
GySgt John Olson - Our women have the necessity to fight, mostly because it in their nature as you pointed out; recalled I have deployed with women on our teams. Nature; That is why it is mostly women that shop on Black Friday, savage.
(0)
(0)
Senior don't think I'm playing the race card. There's a point I'm going to try and make. In the Civil War blacks were seen as less than White men and their fighting abilities were thought to be of a lesser standard. Now the movie Glory sought to show it wasn't true by using a unit 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment, led by a white man who went on to distinguish themselves in many battles. Moving forward to WWI and II, and more of the same, if you're not a White male, your abilities were doubted so you got to do jobs like porters, truck drivers (Red Ball Express), and after a LOT of doubts the Tuskegee Airmen proved anything is possible. The intent of this IS NOT to say "white man bad", or anything like that. It's to show that folks doubted the abilities of someone UNTIL they're placed in a particular position and THEN they find out those are some of the baddest mofo's out there. Women are in the same boat. Relegated to nurses, S1, factory workers in support of the war effort, yet there are some women pilots with more flight hours than their male counterparts. They don't get the "glory" being they flew the planes to their male counterparts so they could go forward and fight. Now with the GWOT(or whatever it's called today), women are no longer relegated to the "rear". There is no front lines anymore, no more standing Armies with "Honor Codes" to keep them in line. It's a complete free-for-all. I know of a few MP's that were in savage firefights, but since they're not grunts, their accomplishments are taken down and downplayed being a woman squad leader was in charge or the gunner was a woman. It's time to stop finding reasons why someone CAN'T and give them the tools so they CAN. Give them the tools, don't lower standards and should they fall, pick em the hell up, dust them off and say you got this. A video last year made the rounds on FB about a woman finishing a road march(I think it was for EFMB). The part that was shown was her falling at the end, but not across the line, and she had folks yelling at her to get up and go. It's not widely known that she BEAT a lot of her male counterparts in that march. Women CAN do it just like she did, just like the Rangers, just like the Blacks when they were doubted....the same way the most decorated unit in the Army is a Japanese American Unit who's families were in camps. Give the ladies the tools, the training, and the belief we have their back in anything they do and they will succeed.
(11)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
Gunny, I stand by what I said. Saving IS harder being that in training for deployment, every inch, every moment, and every briefing is centered around the prospect and possibility to kill. We even try to dehumanize the enemy to make it easier to do. The Taliban all have names, but none are fit to put here, but they're used to take the "feeling" out of the equation. Now your numbers in regards to who actually does the killing could be true or high, but that doesn't change the fact there are quite a few who are willing and very able to kill. Unfortunately if they are leaders that "trait" will trickle down to their subordinates. I had a Ranger under me, and I had to keep him on a TIGHT leash. This Soldier was shit hot on all of his battle tasks, all weapons systems, land nav or whatever. But when we went out, he was looking for his next kill, and he didn't care how he got it. I was happy to have him, he was a treasure trove of information on properly maintaining weapons, how to employ them effectively, and so much more. His one fault was his determination to kill. As a leader I want men who are able when required to shoot to kill, but as a leader, I need that attitude tempered, not running wild. Nothing good comes out of that. When doing train up for deployment, the little time spent learning how to save a life is MUCH shorter, focused on saving your battle buddy, and I'm not talking about medics. Line troops. So yes it is harder to save a life when you have the chance to take it, rather than just straight up firing and allowing Allah to sort em out. Gunny I won't debate you in the sense of it being hard; i know it is very well. We might have to agree to disagree on this one, and it's fine.
Gunny, I don't know where you're from, but my upbringing wasn't like that. I was taught not to back down from a fight with anyone (minus women), and to win by any means necessary. I was also taught that if I loose don't come home.....I will be sent back out until I win. Needless to say I spent a lot of time out of school, and so did my brother. There was no turning the other cheek. There was no forgiveness. If you have to fight, by hook or crook you win. Now imagine if my parents actually allowed me to turn the other cheek.
Gunny, I don't know where you're from, but my upbringing wasn't like that. I was taught not to back down from a fight with anyone (minus women), and to win by any means necessary. I was also taught that if I loose don't come home.....I will be sent back out until I win. Needless to say I spent a lot of time out of school, and so did my brother. There was no turning the other cheek. There was no forgiveness. If you have to fight, by hook or crook you win. Now imagine if my parents actually allowed me to turn the other cheek.
(0)
(0)
SCPO (Join to see)
SSG Warren Swan - Hey, my good friend, no apologies are necessary at all. I fully and completely understand the issue of the black man as he struggled for equality in the military. I loved GLORY and I loved SERGEANT RUTLEDGE, and so many other wonderful movies and books like them. I, too, believe that everyone, regardless of gender, race, creed, or religion should be given the same chances to do any job, just as long as the tried and true, long held standards to perform that job ARE NOT altered in any way, shape, or form. But I hasten to add: you can mix peanut butter and jelly, you can mix rum and Coke, you can mix waffles and maple syrup. The truth is you can mix millions of things and they stay mixed. But if you pour some water into a jug, and add some olive oil, and shake it as hard as you can, for as long as you can...it will never mix. Somethings will never mix. Is American combat infantry one of them, is being a real live SEAL one of them? Only tons of time will tell. It takes YEARS for a SEAL team to become completely cohesive. There is a monumental difference between being able to qualify for a job and successfully prosecuting that job overy a period of ten, fifteen, thirty years. That's the part nobody mentions. SEALS and Rangers, and several specific combat roles are, almost exclusively, made up of lifers, an issue itself for women of childbearing ages and desires. More importantly, it's a critical issue for those special ops units.
Speaking honestly, there's no doubt in my mind there are some women out there who can perform as good as the best of the best men doing those jobs now. But I also believe that, given all the physical, emotional, psychological, and physiological differences between American men and American women, and given the almost inhuman difficulties and dangers of the specific duties performed, the number of women in our military right now who can meet those challenges head on are incredibly small. So, if we add a few women to a few combat or a few Special OPS roles, what have we actually proven? Only that a few women can actually do those jobs. Bravo Zulu to all of them. But, there will not be two or ninety-two thousand of them, that I know beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Speaking honestly, there's no doubt in my mind there are some women out there who can perform as good as the best of the best men doing those jobs now. But I also believe that, given all the physical, emotional, psychological, and physiological differences between American men and American women, and given the almost inhuman difficulties and dangers of the specific duties performed, the number of women in our military right now who can meet those challenges head on are incredibly small. So, if we add a few women to a few combat or a few Special OPS roles, what have we actually proven? Only that a few women can actually do those jobs. Bravo Zulu to all of them. But, there will not be two or ninety-two thousand of them, that I know beyond any shadow of a doubt.
(1)
(0)
Just like Starship Troopers, communal barracks and showers. We are all the same. Nothing bad could possibly happen, right.
(7)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
Capt Seid Waddell - The heavy numbers are caused by commanders having too much say so on investigations and prosecution and not enough prosecutions with heavy punishment, I would give knives to the women.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
CPT Pedro Meza - here is what is going on where I live in Canada on the same issues.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/maclean-s-alleges-disturbing-levels-of-sexual-assault-in-canadian-military-1.2621333
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/maclean-s-alleges-disturbing-levels-of-sexual-assault-in-canadian-military-1.2621333
Top military commander orders probe into report on 'disturbing' levels of sexual assault
The country's top military commander has ordered an internal review of programs and policies to combat sexual violence following a report published in Maclean's magazine that says assaults in the Canadian Forces have reached epidemic levels.
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
MSgt Marvin Kinderknecht - now days, you don't know who's going to pick it up over your shoulder.
(0)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
LTC (Join to see) - Same bullshit as before, went through this in 1994, I reported a rape to a member of my instructor team that occur when she was in boot camp, for two years in was big news then nothing, history repeats.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next