Posted on Feb 16, 2015
Should we compare Women Soldier integration with desegregation of African American Soldiers?
10.2K
60
39
3
3
0
There seems to be some frustration over the integration of Women being integrated into the Combat Arms MOS’.
I am sure there were similar fears with the desegregation process which started in the late 40’s.
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/
It seems very similar from what I have read so far. It must be embraced as it is already decided that it shall happen.
http://www.army.mil/article/105814/
I hope to get some friendly debate out of this and possibly deep insight on changes throughout Military history.
I have inserted two links for informational purposes.
I am sure there were similar fears with the desegregation process which started in the late 40’s.
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/
It seems very similar from what I have read so far. It must be embraced as it is already decided that it shall happen.
http://www.army.mil/article/105814/
I hope to get some friendly debate out of this and possibly deep insight on changes throughout Military history.
I have inserted two links for informational purposes.
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 14
Depends from which perspective you look at it from. Ethnicity factor is TOTALLY insignificant when came to integration, and should've NEVER been one (a very sore spot in our country's segregated past history).
Gender factor however is quite a bit different. I don't discount many females out there ready to handle full grunt aspects better than male counterparts, but I've seen countless implications evolving in the process of integrating them into combat arms even on the Navy side.
They're still not allowed into hot spot specialties such as SEAL and SWCC, but I heard door has opened up for EOD, Divers, and SAR swimmers for females.
My final ruling: open the door for them into every MOS/rating/training/submarine, build some real-life evidence to work with, and then make calls based on FACTS and DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE. Equal opportunity, right?
Gender factor however is quite a bit different. I don't discount many females out there ready to handle full grunt aspects better than male counterparts, but I've seen countless implications evolving in the process of integrating them into combat arms even on the Navy side.
They're still not allowed into hot spot specialties such as SEAL and SWCC, but I heard door has opened up for EOD, Divers, and SAR swimmers for females.
My final ruling: open the door for them into every MOS/rating/training/submarine, build some real-life evidence to work with, and then make calls based on FACTS and DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE. Equal opportunity, right?
(9)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see), you're right in resisting women to be integrated as full-fledged spec ops OPERATORS for many reasons. However they have provided a vital role particularly making their ways through indigenous villages in the middle east and extracting information from civilian female populus
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
PO1 (Join to see) SSG (Join to see). There are many places women operators can pass through with minimal effort either armed and/or unarmed that would be far more difficult for any men to pass without detection and the application of significant force. Also women tend to make better snipers because their fine motor control tends to be far better than most overly muscular male operators. Finally, we often miss the point that peak and/or average statistics tend to totally obscure individual variability across male operators . . . women may perform as well on physical tests as male operators. I don't want to stir up a hornets nest but women are smarter and better at covert stuff. Warmest Regards, Sandy
Suspended Profile
SSG (Join to see). I see no real substantive difference . . . other than it has been a rather long time coming.
Warmest Regards, Sandy
Warmest Regards, Sandy
There are Philosophical comparisons, and there are Functional comparisons.
Sure, we can make this is as a philosophical comparison. But we can do the same with DADT. What we cannot do, is make this as a Functional comparison.
Ignore the fact that we are talking about "people" for a moment. Let's work under the assumption we are talking about two similar "machines." Pieces of equipment. One piece of equipment (on average) is better suited for some roles than the other. That's really what the debate is about. That doesn't say the other piece isn't also good for other roles, just that the requirements of a specific role, require a specific piece of machinery.
As we go through the MOS, the vast majority can be filled by either gender. Even the Combat Arms MOS. However it's a return on investment question. The cost tends to be much higher on some of the physical based MOS, so it just doesn't make sense. Why break a tool, when they would be better suited somewhere else?
On the Marine Corps side, every enlisted Marine goes through Marine Combat Training at the School of Infantry, so we can call ourselves Riflemen (Not Infantrymen), men & women alike. We've had 4~ women make it through Infantry Training Battalion as well. They're test bedding women in Infantry Officers Course, without success, however everyone still goes through The Basic School.
So it would be disingenuous to say women can't cut it. We've got over a dozen years showing exactly how women can cut it "to a degree." It's just a case of finding out exactly where that line is.
Everyone that is fighting this, yelling about this, forgets one simple fact. Congress writes the checks. They make decisions. They have the Constitutional obligation to maintain a Navy & raise an Army. The President may command, but Congress "controls" the military in a very real fashion. Integration is coming, like a boulder down a hill. It may be slowed, but it won't be stopped.
Sure, we can make this is as a philosophical comparison. But we can do the same with DADT. What we cannot do, is make this as a Functional comparison.
Ignore the fact that we are talking about "people" for a moment. Let's work under the assumption we are talking about two similar "machines." Pieces of equipment. One piece of equipment (on average) is better suited for some roles than the other. That's really what the debate is about. That doesn't say the other piece isn't also good for other roles, just that the requirements of a specific role, require a specific piece of machinery.
As we go through the MOS, the vast majority can be filled by either gender. Even the Combat Arms MOS. However it's a return on investment question. The cost tends to be much higher on some of the physical based MOS, so it just doesn't make sense. Why break a tool, when they would be better suited somewhere else?
On the Marine Corps side, every enlisted Marine goes through Marine Combat Training at the School of Infantry, so we can call ourselves Riflemen (Not Infantrymen), men & women alike. We've had 4~ women make it through Infantry Training Battalion as well. They're test bedding women in Infantry Officers Course, without success, however everyone still goes through The Basic School.
So it would be disingenuous to say women can't cut it. We've got over a dozen years showing exactly how women can cut it "to a degree." It's just a case of finding out exactly where that line is.
Everyone that is fighting this, yelling about this, forgets one simple fact. Congress writes the checks. They make decisions. They have the Constitutional obligation to maintain a Navy & raise an Army. The President may command, but Congress "controls" the military in a very real fashion. Integration is coming, like a boulder down a hill. It may be slowed, but it won't be stopped.
(4)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Agreed Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS, it is going to happen so instead of resistance Leaders need to either assist with the process or leave the Military. We just need to manage it well to ensure a smoother transition.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SSG (Join to see) & SGT (Join to see) I really think the Marines are doing it the right way with IOC. Keep pushing women through the course. They will pass or fail under their own merits. They aren't fighting, or even talking about the policy, just giving an "Aye, Aye, Sir. The Course is open to all genders. If they can pass." I have a feeling, sooner or later someone will, but it will be after MANY folks who didn't.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next