Posted on Jan 4, 2014
Is a feminist agenda derailing national security?
34.9K
324
194
18
16
2
This article's thesis: the US government has recently spent absurd amounts of blood and treasure on two failed counterinsurgency efforts lasting over a decade. Those failures' causes are debatable (unclear objectives from civilian policymakers, perhaps?), but in the face of back-to-back failures and giant budget cuts, we seem far more intent on using this nation's warfighters as guinea pigs to test the plausibility of utopian feminist ideas than we do on sharpening their combat skills. With a shrinking force, standards should be *increasing,* not being cherry-picked for "relevance" by lobbyists with agendas potentially harmful to units' combat effectiveness.
In short: if you're a woman and you want to be in a combat unit, that's fine. Meet the standards. Period.
But for the love of Washington, can we please refocus on how to win asymmetric wars? We haven't done that successfully since before Vietnam, and somehow I don't think adding women to combat units is the
missing link.
Can anyone point out a weakness in this line of thinking?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/1/providing-for-common-defense-a-lower-priority-as-p/?page=all
In short: if you're a woman and you want to be in a combat unit, that's fine. Meet the standards. Period.
But for the love of Washington, can we please refocus on how to win asymmetric wars? We haven't done that successfully since before Vietnam, and somehow I don't think adding women to combat units is the
missing link.
Can anyone point out a weakness in this line of thinking?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/1/providing-for-common-defense-a-lower-priority-as-p/?page=all
Gender
Combat
Women in the Military
Edited 11 y ago
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 39
21
21
0
Sir<div>It feels like the entire military generally feels the way you do, yet no one on Capital Hill seems to be listening to us. It is very discouraging and in all honesty, it's making my gender look bad and that pisses me off! </div>
(21)
(0)
PV2 (Join to see)
Well said sister! I'm in agreement that if a female wants to go infantry then she should meet the same standards as her male counterpart. In short, ONE standard for all. PERIOD.
I would agree that it's all making females look bad and it also pisses me off.
I would agree that it's all making females look bad and it also pisses me off.
(7)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
I've said it myself ....if a female wants to and can meet the male standard, so be it. And I'm sure there are some who can. As for me, no thank you.
(8)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I agree with all the comments, but I will say this: women know their body better than males do and if they can meet the the male standard and want to put their body through all the physical, psychological and emotional pain than they should be afforded that opportunity. There's more to ranger school than just the RPFT.
(1)
(0)
20
20
0
We have never "won" an "asymmetric" war. Our problem with Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq was we kept wanting to superimpose our will on an autonomous nation state. When we do that, we generate ill will faster than good will. We also lack the national will for total warfare or blatant imperialism which is ultimately what is wanted, but can't be admitted.<br>Social dynamics with in the military has always been the focus for social scientists. Problem is, so few of them actually understand the "control" environment that they are injecting the new theory of human behavior into. Integration of blacks and whites in the 70s, acceptance of homosexuality in the ranks in the 90s, women in combat in the 2000s... <br>
(20)
(0)
CW2 Joseph Evans
TSgt J.D. Hall
I'm thinking that was more or less my point. Everyone of these issues, people spent a lot of time "overthinking" the process and its effects. After the mandate was made, the service members just did and everything was more-or-less fine with far less disruption than everyone was expecting.
You are correct, I missed the date of the integration by 20 years.
I'm thinking that was more or less my point. Everyone of these issues, people spent a lot of time "overthinking" the process and its effects. After the mandate was made, the service members just did and everything was more-or-less fine with far less disruption than everyone was expecting.
You are correct, I missed the date of the integration by 20 years.
(1)
(0)
CW2 Joseph Evans
Some apples aren't allowed to fall far from the tree, some apples still hit the ground rotten. End rant.
(0)
(0)
17
17
0
This is another "if we let ____ into the military, it will ruin us" argument, with a sprinkle of "now is a bad time" thrown in. It's been said since the Civil War.<div><br></div><div>You want to complain about the money being spent on integrating women into the infantry while ignoring the money spent over the last 30-40 years on pointless studies and lobbying to keep women out. Pretty illogical.</div><div><br></div><div>And then, the attempt to link standards with the military's win/loss record in asymmetric warfare is puzzling. Our inability to think outside of our own cultural confines is a big part of the problem (both as a military, as a government, and as a nation). We didn't win with the status quo and your solution is more of the status quo, but with women. </div><div><br></div><div>On several threads, the issue of women and standards comes up and the knee jerk reaction is to say that women have to meet the same existing standards as men. But where is your evidence that those exact standards are the make or break mark for our success or failure as a military force? Over the last 12 years, the standards you are demanding were met, no women were let in...and guess what...we didn't win. Common sense would dictate it's time to try something else, but what I hear a lot here is a strong palpable fear of trying something else. Ok, but then expect the same results.</div>
(17)
(0)
SFC Nikhil Kumra
Wow. This thread is a bit scary when you look at it. If you don't follow a specific agenda you're considered "toxic leadership". And being able to pull yourself up "once" is somehow equivalent to the upper body endurance of multiple pull ups.... Since when did the exchange and argument of ideas become toxic? Since when did we become able to rationalize lower standards? I get the agenda and how much of a "win" it would be for a political feminist agenda, but wow. It almost sounds more dictatorial than valuable.
If we make everything equal, then why not just make men and women's standards absolutely equal to the current male standard then. Honestly, I know women could do the male standard, so if a female says there should be different standards across the board, let's be honest, they're sand bagging, and just want to ride the wave of an easier standard. -- which is actually more pro-female than any agenda out there.
If we make everything equal, then why not just make men and women's standards absolutely equal to the current male standard then. Honestly, I know women could do the male standard, so if a female says there should be different standards across the board, let's be honest, they're sand bagging, and just want to ride the wave of an easier standard. -- which is actually more pro-female than any agenda out there.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SGT Ira Smith As ill-phrased as my post was, I guess I should clarify: I have no problem with women in combat MOS's. I have a problem with a lowered standard. When it comes down to it, the soldiers to my left and right need to be able to perform at or above a certain level to not only make sure they get out alive, but the person to their left and right. I should be able to carry any other soldier out of harms way if they get hit to render aid. Statistically speaking, the majority of males can do that. You always get those few who are smaller, or who are bigger, but they are the exceptions and not the rule. Can that be said for women? I want to be 100% certain that if I go down, my buddy can get me to cover.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Capt (Join to see), the research you provided fails to correlate to military skills. It just points out that men and women are different muscularly. Duh! There are tons of guys who max PT, but would lose a hand-to-hand fight...different skill set. There are tons of guys who can run sub 12:00 2 miles, but struggle to get 30 out of 40 at the range...different skill sets. We let that go. As long as it's a guy we are talking about. I get it. You want to be sure that the Soldier next to you that can do the job. Believe it or not, none of us are different here. No one. There is a vast delta between making sure everyone is mission capable and setting up bullshit requirements/rules that are simply intended to keep one group out.
(0)
(0)
Capt (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see), as long as there is an athletic component to combat, women will be at a distinct disadvantage when participating in it when compared to men. It is a direct ramification of the muscular differences which you seem determined to filter out of this discussion. Your inability/unwillingness to acknowledge that disadvantage is truly frustrating. Execution of combat skills doesn't occur in isolation. Hand-to-hand combat happens DURING maneuver. Weapons manipulation happens DURING maneuver. A combatant's ability to use his muscles to exert force in precisely-coordinated combinations over time is a core component of combat capability. The athletic exertion over time that happens in combat prior to and during the execution of the tasks you're attempting to examine in abstract degrades combatants' ability to perform those tasks. People with less muscular strength and endurance will suffer faster, more intense degradation compared to a control group with a baseline capacity. In this case, women represent a population with precisely that weakness when compared to an all-male control group.
In short, no one cares how well you can shoot on a one-way range on a windless day after 8 hours of sleep and fresh off a bus. What matters in combat is how well you can shoot/fight after 30 hours without sleep during which you've humped 10 km over rugged terrain with 80 lbs of gear, and sprinted an additional total 2 km uphill, from cover to cover, to outflank an adversary who would otherwise have engaged you in defilade from a superior position.
As to "setting up bullshit requirements/rules that are simply intended to keep one group out," it's ethically defensible when the excluded group is "people who make the team weak." When standards are set at a certain level, women simply won't be able to keep up without chemical assistance. Neither will most men. Elite groups filter out *everyone* who isn't both predisposed and motivated to be good at the group's job. When a certain level of combat performance is required, women (as a demographic) will be placed at such a disadvantage due to muscular dimorphism that they'll never be able to make it up with skill and motivation alone. That isn't sexism. It's simply the result of a pragmatic effort to maximize combat capability and survivability, which are twin moral imperatives of the profession of arms.
In short, no one cares how well you can shoot on a one-way range on a windless day after 8 hours of sleep and fresh off a bus. What matters in combat is how well you can shoot/fight after 30 hours without sleep during which you've humped 10 km over rugged terrain with 80 lbs of gear, and sprinted an additional total 2 km uphill, from cover to cover, to outflank an adversary who would otherwise have engaged you in defilade from a superior position.
As to "setting up bullshit requirements/rules that are simply intended to keep one group out," it's ethically defensible when the excluded group is "people who make the team weak." When standards are set at a certain level, women simply won't be able to keep up without chemical assistance. Neither will most men. Elite groups filter out *everyone* who isn't both predisposed and motivated to be good at the group's job. When a certain level of combat performance is required, women (as a demographic) will be placed at such a disadvantage due to muscular dimorphism that they'll never be able to make it up with skill and motivation alone. That isn't sexism. It's simply the result of a pragmatic effort to maximize combat capability and survivability, which are twin moral imperatives of the profession of arms.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google