Posted on Mar 28, 2015
Why should women be excluded from professional "contact" sports, and yet be considered for the profession of "combat arms?"
40.9K
92
74
12
10
2
Women in Combat Arms/Contact Sports; Serious Questions For Army Leadership:
02 February, 2015
As Super Bowl, XLIX settles into the record books, what contemporary lessons might be applicable to those in leadership within the combat arms branches, and for the Infantry specifically to reflect on, in the highly politicized and fiscally constrained atmosphere that the U.S. Army finds itself in today. I first pondered the pending sociological/physiological dilemma for the Infantry Branch while reading an article in the Army Times two years ago (HEADLINE: “The New Rules On Women In Combat” 04 Feb. 2013).
Of course, as a former Infantryman (MOS 11B), the front page caught my attention, as I’m sure it was meant to. This article came out not long after the former Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, made his “infinitely wise” and timely (on his way out) decision to open up “all” combat positions to women, across the entirety of the U.S. Armed Forces. This proclamation was imposed on those in the highest positions of leadership, whether the civilian armed service secretaries, the Joint Chiefs, or down to my fellow rank and file NCOs. We were to implement this new policy, or come up with reasons why it could not be done feasibly, by FY 2016.
The question I pose here is whether professional sports have any bearing on this issue? For those who have served in the Armed Forces, the comparisons between the profession of arms and professional sports are obvious. The soldier/marine, and or “special operator” must keep him or herself in a high state of physical readiness, and at all times, for when the proverbial “balloon goes up.” However in professional sports, there is one glaring difference. Men and women’s events are gender exclusive!
No sport makes this as obvious as professional football. We might have a Women’s National Basketball Association, and all female semi-pro softball, or pro-soccer, but a female football team (despite ill fated attempts) seems to be all but laughable, conjuring up misogynist scenes of cheerleaders in lingerie and shoulder pads. But American Football, that’s serious business, that’s a “man’s sport!”
I then thought to myself, why do we now, not take the defense of this country (as it relates to the “Combat Arms”), as “serious” as we do professional football?! Why is it permissible, and even reasonable to exclude women from one institution and not from another? Is it merely tradition, unfounded discrimination, the “physicality” of so-called “contact” sports, pure unmitigated sexism, or just a lost sense of perspective or proportion?
Should the “combat arms” be considered a “contact sport” after all?” This, not just due to the prospect of “closing” with the enemy hand to hand, but even in garrison, now more than ever, as mixed martial arts (MMA) are the current template for combatives training! Even the Octagon has yet to sink so low as to allow coed MMA (it’s coming though, to be sure, if only for the shock factor, and profit motive)
Women serving in our armed forces are also serious business. Like their “brothers in arms,” they must keep themselves physically fit, and train regularly as athletes, ready for the physical demands potentially placed upon them, when deployed into a combat zone. However, the difference is that they will be faced with a predominantly male enemy!
Why are professional women in sports given a special dispensation, in deference to their differing physiology, so as not to be confronted with male opponents? Our “sisters in arms” are not to be shown similar consideration? Is it a class distinction, or outright sexism that makes provision in the public consciousness, and the public space, for such a glaring difference between the high society of “proper” professional female athletes, and women in the military, soon to be faced with the prospects of direct combat, serving in the Infantry or the other combat arms (Armor, and Artillery)
The policy makers are quite serious about pushing “willing” women into these rolls. The two most recent and obvious examples/experiments, evidently designed to sanction, if not validate this concept, was the recent class of the United States Marine Corps’ Infantry Officer’s Course (IOC), and now the premier combat arms professional development course in the U.S. Army, namely Ranger School (the first class with female students/observers now underway, at the time of this writing).
They say common sense is not so common anymore. Perhaps everything we do or say now is based on political expediency. This is especially obvious as it is the politicians making these decisions (almost always, with no experience in the field), that we in positions of responsibility are expected to implement and enforce (despite what may be our personal opinions, and the better judgment of those with relevant experience).
After all, we must by necessity, ask if this new policy strengthens, or even enhances our capabilities in a time of increasing threats, and instability across the globe. The obvious and unquestionable applicability and effectiveness of “Female Engagement Teams” aside, are we just returning to another perceived period of “peace-time mentality,” when we can afford to cut our defenses, and conduct social engineering experiments? Not if the actions of ISIL/ISIS have a say in the matter!
As an Army health care professional and National Registry Emergency Medical Technician, and in this era of data and information saturation, I am compelled to ask, “where’s the science” in this decision? What studies have been conducted and where is the empirical data supporting the new policy? So far one experiment, the Marine’s IOC, has been telling. We have yet to see if the women in Ranger School will be so challenged, and fare as well.
What Army leaders need to ask, at a minimum, is how this new policy is going to affect our sisters in the service, especially among the enlisted ranks. We hear from many in the officer ranks who believe that not being in the combat arms, and in a command billet, is a sort of “glass ceiling,” an impediment to their advancement. In reality, promotion rates for women in the military are now in fact, comparable if not better than their male counterparts.
However, it will be the (up to now, mostly voiceless) women in the enlisted ranks that will endure the greater burdens, the new levels of austerity, lack of hygiene, or privacy as required at the small unit (Platoon/Squad/Section/Fire Team) level, in the field. Those individuals potentially faced with this prospect, who have spoken out in opposition, such as Gunnery Sergeant Jessie Duff, have been for the most part, ignored.
The US Army’s Physical Training manual, (FM 21-20, 1992 Edition) had an appendix in the back describing the “physiological differences” between male and female soldiers. It was to be used as a leader’s guide to effectively plan physical training, manage expectations and maximize outcomes. It were these very differences between males and females that we were told, justified the different scoring standards for male and female soldiers respectively, on the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT).
“Appendix A,” went into detail describing biological and physiological factors for female soldiers such as, their average smaller frame size having an effect on workload capacity, fat distribution and accumulation points anatomically, resulting in what amounts to greater drag to weight ratios. Bones being less dense (an added musculoskeletal injury factor for women on active “jump status” for example), wider pelvic structure, smaller heart size and lung capacity, limiting overall physical efficiency and endurance, relative to training. There were circulation issues, response to heat, and pregnancy considerations as well. Women having up to 50% less total muscle mass by weight, are thus limited to at best, 80% of overall strength conditioning potential as compared with their male coleagues.
To quote the manual, “men usually have an advantage in strength, speed and power over women.” These facts were not meant to in any way disparage women soldiers but rather to allow for realistic "train the trainer" goals and objectives (will our potential enemies “play fair,” and only allow their women to fight ours?).
What the manual does not mention however, as a concern in combat, is that with up to a liter, less total blood volume, and coupled with an elevated heart rate, a seriously injured woman would also be at risk of bleeding out faster on the battlefield. Knowing this, and the unavoidably inherent protective instinct that “real” men are supposed to have for women (that is, if we are still teaching that to our boys anymore, as they punch, kick and hack away at female video game opponents), might be a determining factor in whether or not, you give life saving aid to her, or your mission essential patrol leader, likewise injured (then again, I suppose we'll just have to suppress that instinct). It might surprise you to know (or not) that this appendix has since been omitted, and no longer appears in the most recent version (TC-22.20, Aug 2010).
Regardless of whether or not a woman could do the job, the question is, should she have to? This does sound cold and callous, but facts are facts. These are hard economic times, especially on the DOD. Given the pending budget limitations for finite training dollars, one might also logically ask, why spend that same training dollar and get a less efficient “product” for the combat arms? If we were talking about professional football, these factors, even choosing among the male "players," would be obvious. Army leaders have much tougher decisions to make than football team owners/managers; because lives are literally "on the line." For instance, ball players are not expected to pull each other off the field when injured (much less with the heavier equipment, and body armor of a soldier, I might add). What should be obvious is that these factors ought to be all the more significant, in the combat arms.
Some might argue that physical strength is no longer a factor because we are riding around into combat now, in up-armored vehicles. That does not preclude a future (or present) conflict from not being fought that way exclusively, if at all. And, in the all too often absence of rotor -wing support, ground combat as in times past, would require extremely long distance foot movements, “forced marches” if you will (with no time to “pop a squat”), slogging through some jungle hell somewhere, or in the frigid mountains (as in Afghanistan today) for days if not weeks at a time, with little to no rest, privacy or personal hygiene.
Since when has being in the combat arms become a “right” all of a sudden? There are many physical standards which might prevent one from being in the military, much less the combat arms. These standards typically include, but are not limited to, visual acuity, height, weight, and physical disability. These standards may be “discriminatory” by definition, but they are not prejudiced in their motivation or intention. To serve in any particular branch of the Army is not based on “rights,” but rather on the “needs of the Army,” and that in this case, most dramatically!
At the end of the cold war, there was a common misperception of future wars being fought “at the push of a button.” Well, war has a funny way of being unpredictable, as to where, when, how, and the conditions and resourses one might expect to have once there. Is anyone at the highest levels of Army leadership being proactive enough about this policy to ask what the second and third order of effects might be, the unintended consequences, or the ripple effect into the greater American society? The politicians aren’t going to ask the hard questions; that is our responsibility as Army leaders.
Another consideration is the classic “two theaters of operations simultaneously” conflict scenario, or a “super power” conflagration that has justified the continued registration for the draft. This is now the proverbial “elephant in the room!” A conflict of this magnitude has always theoretically required a rapid expansion of “man power” to meet the threat. It would also require the bulk of personnel resources (at least initially), be channeled into the combat arms. Will this remain a “freedom of choice” issue for women only (reference the, “They should be allowed to, if they ‘want’ to,” egalitarian argument)? Would that not be a sexist policy by design? And, If they’re going to start registering our daughters for the draft, out of “fairness,” the public ought to demand that it had better not be, before every congressman’s son, and every professional ball playing athlete/entertainer, is a part of the “big green machine!”
As an anthropological issue, how does this affect our young men in the American society/culture at large? Around the world most indigenous cultures have initiation rights (or "rights of passage") into “manhood.” The only one still left (besides football and the Infantry) in the U.S. apparently, for young men (that sets them apart, as anything different or special), is registration for the draft. As we continue to devalue any special contribution that men in general, and young men in particular can make in today’s society, as men; should we be surprised with a corresponding rise in the numbers of young urban males looking for “manhood” in a youth gang?!
I couldn’t help but find it ironic that in the President’s 2013 State of the Union message, after having just touted the merits of having previously passed the “Violence Against Women Act,” that mere minutes later he virtually said that it was time our women faced “combat!” That is to say, it’s time we pushed our women out in front, and closer to the enemy (not his daughters of course), granting them in the process, the greater likelihood, or “equal opportunity” one could say, of being captured as well! One might ask Jessica Lynch about her experiences, and whether or not that should be considered “violence against women!” Although supportive of this dubious agenda, BG Rhonda Cornum, is usually rather “close hold,” and even dismissive, about her similar experiences in captivity.
Can we really justify this added specter of trauma that future female combatants would have to endure? And would their suffering at the hand of their captors (torture being back in vogue, these days) place unnecessary pressure on their fellow male prisoners “to talk,” thus inviting the added potential for mission compromise! Oh, and by the way, they won’t be using the GITMO or CIA Interrogation handbooks; they’ll do it the “old fashioned” way, where you may not come out intact, physically or mentally, if at all.
The Israelis discovered that during their 1948 War for Independence, that Arab units facing co-ed IDF units, were incited to greater “acts of valor!” As it turned out, they fought harder as if being insulted, and trying to save face. Thus they had given their enemy an unintended boost to their fighting morale! The IDF has been reluctant to put their “women in combat,” ever since. I guess it’s a good thing we’re winding down in the A-stan. We shouldn’t have to face another enemy in the Islamic world any time soon, right?
There are seemingly few issues upon which military leaders place emphasis and priority on today, as is the prevention of sexual assault. It begs the question that since the dissolution, and disbanding of the Woman’s Army Corp in the '70s, has moving military women into a closer working/living proximity to their male counterparts resulted in more, or less instances of sexual assault statistically? This, despite all the mandatory training to the contrary, designed to curtail it; will putting women into the combat arms improve these statistics, or just the opposite?
The previous Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps was allegedly prepared to “fall on his sword” over this issue, in order to save his Women Marines the indignity of serving as Infantry (MOS 0311). That is what I would call ”moral courage” on behalf of, and in the best interests of his people. One wonders if that was a factor in his having been replaced. The mission of the US Army’s Infantry is identical, namely to close with and engage the enemy directly, and in hand to hand combat as necessary.
Is putting our women in direct combat really an accomplishment to be applauded in a State of the Union address, is it truly an act of women’s ”liberation,” and equal opportunity? Or, is it the ultimate act of disrespect, in effect devaluing our mothers, sisters and daughters, bringing them "down," for all intents and purposes, to our level?! I thought we were better than that as a culture, alas no more.
Of course, this may be intentional, as there are those on the extreme left side of the political spectrum that may intend for this scenario to sap the will to fight, from the American citizenry, as the see their sisters, daughters, wives, and mothers come back “closed casket” with “members missing” stamped on the top. At that point the public may just be willing to accept “peace at any price.”
What else are we trying to prove with this policy in the end? That we can tolerate women being killed and maimed with impunity , along side our men (why, it's just like in the video games, right?). Is this really a “progressive” sign for our society/civilization? Haven't we already seen enough of that with OIF/OEF? It is as if it’s not bad enough that we have more than enough men suffering that fate, that we must continue getting “used to” or “desensitized” to seeing our women as double, triple, or quadruple amputees in our veteran's parades. No disrespect intended, but that certainly sounds fair to me (or fair at least in the eyes of the policy makers). Obviously there is no sacrifice too great for equal opportunity, in this case.
When we honor these aforementioned heroic female veterans (one has only to see such a self sacrificial sister once, as it makes a lasting impression), is it merely the fault of the terrorist, or should the so-called "women's movement" be willing to accept part of the blame, having put her there in that position, in the first place.
In conclusion, the issue is not “could she,” but “should she!” Does “she” really “need” to be there? Or is this merely, as I would contend, the ultimate act of Political Correctness, to the inevitable detriment of our sisters in uniform. Obviously the “needs of the Army” are not relevant to the argument. After all, where is the “honor” in it, by the way?
The different scoring of the Army Physical Fitness Test based on sex, must come to an end, or it belies the justification of common standards, whether in Ranger School, or in the Combat Arms, as being just as arbitrary and subjective as the hygienic “crew cut” for males only. Of course if there is no deference to our women in the military, then as the military reflects the values and morays of the society it is meant to serve, it truly portends the final death of chivalry, at least in the US Army!
But, what are the unintended consequences potentially, to the greater society and culture? With no concept of chivalry, can there correspondingly be the so-called “gentleman” any longer?! Will there be a man willing to step in, and confront another, engaging in sexual harassment or assault, in defense of a woman? Or will it be every man/woman for themselves? As if we are not narcissistic enough now, as a people, we may actually be regressing as a society when men loose their sympathy/empathy for the suffering of women (seemingly, a popular theme in Hollywood these days).
So, if the “Band of Brothers” era is truly at an end in the combat arms, I fear the consequences whether intended or not, will be more dire than the “policy makers” or those in positions to implement these changes, could possibly realize.
Opinion humbly submitted,
SFC Ernest Hoppe
Okinawa, Japan
02 February, 2015
As Super Bowl, XLIX settles into the record books, what contemporary lessons might be applicable to those in leadership within the combat arms branches, and for the Infantry specifically to reflect on, in the highly politicized and fiscally constrained atmosphere that the U.S. Army finds itself in today. I first pondered the pending sociological/physiological dilemma for the Infantry Branch while reading an article in the Army Times two years ago (HEADLINE: “The New Rules On Women In Combat” 04 Feb. 2013).
Of course, as a former Infantryman (MOS 11B), the front page caught my attention, as I’m sure it was meant to. This article came out not long after the former Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, made his “infinitely wise” and timely (on his way out) decision to open up “all” combat positions to women, across the entirety of the U.S. Armed Forces. This proclamation was imposed on those in the highest positions of leadership, whether the civilian armed service secretaries, the Joint Chiefs, or down to my fellow rank and file NCOs. We were to implement this new policy, or come up with reasons why it could not be done feasibly, by FY 2016.
The question I pose here is whether professional sports have any bearing on this issue? For those who have served in the Armed Forces, the comparisons between the profession of arms and professional sports are obvious. The soldier/marine, and or “special operator” must keep him or herself in a high state of physical readiness, and at all times, for when the proverbial “balloon goes up.” However in professional sports, there is one glaring difference. Men and women’s events are gender exclusive!
No sport makes this as obvious as professional football. We might have a Women’s National Basketball Association, and all female semi-pro softball, or pro-soccer, but a female football team (despite ill fated attempts) seems to be all but laughable, conjuring up misogynist scenes of cheerleaders in lingerie and shoulder pads. But American Football, that’s serious business, that’s a “man’s sport!”
I then thought to myself, why do we now, not take the defense of this country (as it relates to the “Combat Arms”), as “serious” as we do professional football?! Why is it permissible, and even reasonable to exclude women from one institution and not from another? Is it merely tradition, unfounded discrimination, the “physicality” of so-called “contact” sports, pure unmitigated sexism, or just a lost sense of perspective or proportion?
Should the “combat arms” be considered a “contact sport” after all?” This, not just due to the prospect of “closing” with the enemy hand to hand, but even in garrison, now more than ever, as mixed martial arts (MMA) are the current template for combatives training! Even the Octagon has yet to sink so low as to allow coed MMA (it’s coming though, to be sure, if only for the shock factor, and profit motive)
Women serving in our armed forces are also serious business. Like their “brothers in arms,” they must keep themselves physically fit, and train regularly as athletes, ready for the physical demands potentially placed upon them, when deployed into a combat zone. However, the difference is that they will be faced with a predominantly male enemy!
Why are professional women in sports given a special dispensation, in deference to their differing physiology, so as not to be confronted with male opponents? Our “sisters in arms” are not to be shown similar consideration? Is it a class distinction, or outright sexism that makes provision in the public consciousness, and the public space, for such a glaring difference between the high society of “proper” professional female athletes, and women in the military, soon to be faced with the prospects of direct combat, serving in the Infantry or the other combat arms (Armor, and Artillery)
The policy makers are quite serious about pushing “willing” women into these rolls. The two most recent and obvious examples/experiments, evidently designed to sanction, if not validate this concept, was the recent class of the United States Marine Corps’ Infantry Officer’s Course (IOC), and now the premier combat arms professional development course in the U.S. Army, namely Ranger School (the first class with female students/observers now underway, at the time of this writing).
They say common sense is not so common anymore. Perhaps everything we do or say now is based on political expediency. This is especially obvious as it is the politicians making these decisions (almost always, with no experience in the field), that we in positions of responsibility are expected to implement and enforce (despite what may be our personal opinions, and the better judgment of those with relevant experience).
After all, we must by necessity, ask if this new policy strengthens, or even enhances our capabilities in a time of increasing threats, and instability across the globe. The obvious and unquestionable applicability and effectiveness of “Female Engagement Teams” aside, are we just returning to another perceived period of “peace-time mentality,” when we can afford to cut our defenses, and conduct social engineering experiments? Not if the actions of ISIL/ISIS have a say in the matter!
As an Army health care professional and National Registry Emergency Medical Technician, and in this era of data and information saturation, I am compelled to ask, “where’s the science” in this decision? What studies have been conducted and where is the empirical data supporting the new policy? So far one experiment, the Marine’s IOC, has been telling. We have yet to see if the women in Ranger School will be so challenged, and fare as well.
What Army leaders need to ask, at a minimum, is how this new policy is going to affect our sisters in the service, especially among the enlisted ranks. We hear from many in the officer ranks who believe that not being in the combat arms, and in a command billet, is a sort of “glass ceiling,” an impediment to their advancement. In reality, promotion rates for women in the military are now in fact, comparable if not better than their male counterparts.
However, it will be the (up to now, mostly voiceless) women in the enlisted ranks that will endure the greater burdens, the new levels of austerity, lack of hygiene, or privacy as required at the small unit (Platoon/Squad/Section/Fire Team) level, in the field. Those individuals potentially faced with this prospect, who have spoken out in opposition, such as Gunnery Sergeant Jessie Duff, have been for the most part, ignored.
The US Army’s Physical Training manual, (FM 21-20, 1992 Edition) had an appendix in the back describing the “physiological differences” between male and female soldiers. It was to be used as a leader’s guide to effectively plan physical training, manage expectations and maximize outcomes. It were these very differences between males and females that we were told, justified the different scoring standards for male and female soldiers respectively, on the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT).
“Appendix A,” went into detail describing biological and physiological factors for female soldiers such as, their average smaller frame size having an effect on workload capacity, fat distribution and accumulation points anatomically, resulting in what amounts to greater drag to weight ratios. Bones being less dense (an added musculoskeletal injury factor for women on active “jump status” for example), wider pelvic structure, smaller heart size and lung capacity, limiting overall physical efficiency and endurance, relative to training. There were circulation issues, response to heat, and pregnancy considerations as well. Women having up to 50% less total muscle mass by weight, are thus limited to at best, 80% of overall strength conditioning potential as compared with their male coleagues.
To quote the manual, “men usually have an advantage in strength, speed and power over women.” These facts were not meant to in any way disparage women soldiers but rather to allow for realistic "train the trainer" goals and objectives (will our potential enemies “play fair,” and only allow their women to fight ours?).
What the manual does not mention however, as a concern in combat, is that with up to a liter, less total blood volume, and coupled with an elevated heart rate, a seriously injured woman would also be at risk of bleeding out faster on the battlefield. Knowing this, and the unavoidably inherent protective instinct that “real” men are supposed to have for women (that is, if we are still teaching that to our boys anymore, as they punch, kick and hack away at female video game opponents), might be a determining factor in whether or not, you give life saving aid to her, or your mission essential patrol leader, likewise injured (then again, I suppose we'll just have to suppress that instinct). It might surprise you to know (or not) that this appendix has since been omitted, and no longer appears in the most recent version (TC-22.20, Aug 2010).
Regardless of whether or not a woman could do the job, the question is, should she have to? This does sound cold and callous, but facts are facts. These are hard economic times, especially on the DOD. Given the pending budget limitations for finite training dollars, one might also logically ask, why spend that same training dollar and get a less efficient “product” for the combat arms? If we were talking about professional football, these factors, even choosing among the male "players," would be obvious. Army leaders have much tougher decisions to make than football team owners/managers; because lives are literally "on the line." For instance, ball players are not expected to pull each other off the field when injured (much less with the heavier equipment, and body armor of a soldier, I might add). What should be obvious is that these factors ought to be all the more significant, in the combat arms.
Some might argue that physical strength is no longer a factor because we are riding around into combat now, in up-armored vehicles. That does not preclude a future (or present) conflict from not being fought that way exclusively, if at all. And, in the all too often absence of rotor -wing support, ground combat as in times past, would require extremely long distance foot movements, “forced marches” if you will (with no time to “pop a squat”), slogging through some jungle hell somewhere, or in the frigid mountains (as in Afghanistan today) for days if not weeks at a time, with little to no rest, privacy or personal hygiene.
Since when has being in the combat arms become a “right” all of a sudden? There are many physical standards which might prevent one from being in the military, much less the combat arms. These standards typically include, but are not limited to, visual acuity, height, weight, and physical disability. These standards may be “discriminatory” by definition, but they are not prejudiced in their motivation or intention. To serve in any particular branch of the Army is not based on “rights,” but rather on the “needs of the Army,” and that in this case, most dramatically!
At the end of the cold war, there was a common misperception of future wars being fought “at the push of a button.” Well, war has a funny way of being unpredictable, as to where, when, how, and the conditions and resourses one might expect to have once there. Is anyone at the highest levels of Army leadership being proactive enough about this policy to ask what the second and third order of effects might be, the unintended consequences, or the ripple effect into the greater American society? The politicians aren’t going to ask the hard questions; that is our responsibility as Army leaders.
Another consideration is the classic “two theaters of operations simultaneously” conflict scenario, or a “super power” conflagration that has justified the continued registration for the draft. This is now the proverbial “elephant in the room!” A conflict of this magnitude has always theoretically required a rapid expansion of “man power” to meet the threat. It would also require the bulk of personnel resources (at least initially), be channeled into the combat arms. Will this remain a “freedom of choice” issue for women only (reference the, “They should be allowed to, if they ‘want’ to,” egalitarian argument)? Would that not be a sexist policy by design? And, If they’re going to start registering our daughters for the draft, out of “fairness,” the public ought to demand that it had better not be, before every congressman’s son, and every professional ball playing athlete/entertainer, is a part of the “big green machine!”
As an anthropological issue, how does this affect our young men in the American society/culture at large? Around the world most indigenous cultures have initiation rights (or "rights of passage") into “manhood.” The only one still left (besides football and the Infantry) in the U.S. apparently, for young men (that sets them apart, as anything different or special), is registration for the draft. As we continue to devalue any special contribution that men in general, and young men in particular can make in today’s society, as men; should we be surprised with a corresponding rise in the numbers of young urban males looking for “manhood” in a youth gang?!
I couldn’t help but find it ironic that in the President’s 2013 State of the Union message, after having just touted the merits of having previously passed the “Violence Against Women Act,” that mere minutes later he virtually said that it was time our women faced “combat!” That is to say, it’s time we pushed our women out in front, and closer to the enemy (not his daughters of course), granting them in the process, the greater likelihood, or “equal opportunity” one could say, of being captured as well! One might ask Jessica Lynch about her experiences, and whether or not that should be considered “violence against women!” Although supportive of this dubious agenda, BG Rhonda Cornum, is usually rather “close hold,” and even dismissive, about her similar experiences in captivity.
Can we really justify this added specter of trauma that future female combatants would have to endure? And would their suffering at the hand of their captors (torture being back in vogue, these days) place unnecessary pressure on their fellow male prisoners “to talk,” thus inviting the added potential for mission compromise! Oh, and by the way, they won’t be using the GITMO or CIA Interrogation handbooks; they’ll do it the “old fashioned” way, where you may not come out intact, physically or mentally, if at all.
The Israelis discovered that during their 1948 War for Independence, that Arab units facing co-ed IDF units, were incited to greater “acts of valor!” As it turned out, they fought harder as if being insulted, and trying to save face. Thus they had given their enemy an unintended boost to their fighting morale! The IDF has been reluctant to put their “women in combat,” ever since. I guess it’s a good thing we’re winding down in the A-stan. We shouldn’t have to face another enemy in the Islamic world any time soon, right?
There are seemingly few issues upon which military leaders place emphasis and priority on today, as is the prevention of sexual assault. It begs the question that since the dissolution, and disbanding of the Woman’s Army Corp in the '70s, has moving military women into a closer working/living proximity to their male counterparts resulted in more, or less instances of sexual assault statistically? This, despite all the mandatory training to the contrary, designed to curtail it; will putting women into the combat arms improve these statistics, or just the opposite?
The previous Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps was allegedly prepared to “fall on his sword” over this issue, in order to save his Women Marines the indignity of serving as Infantry (MOS 0311). That is what I would call ”moral courage” on behalf of, and in the best interests of his people. One wonders if that was a factor in his having been replaced. The mission of the US Army’s Infantry is identical, namely to close with and engage the enemy directly, and in hand to hand combat as necessary.
Is putting our women in direct combat really an accomplishment to be applauded in a State of the Union address, is it truly an act of women’s ”liberation,” and equal opportunity? Or, is it the ultimate act of disrespect, in effect devaluing our mothers, sisters and daughters, bringing them "down," for all intents and purposes, to our level?! I thought we were better than that as a culture, alas no more.
Of course, this may be intentional, as there are those on the extreme left side of the political spectrum that may intend for this scenario to sap the will to fight, from the American citizenry, as the see their sisters, daughters, wives, and mothers come back “closed casket” with “members missing” stamped on the top. At that point the public may just be willing to accept “peace at any price.”
What else are we trying to prove with this policy in the end? That we can tolerate women being killed and maimed with impunity , along side our men (why, it's just like in the video games, right?). Is this really a “progressive” sign for our society/civilization? Haven't we already seen enough of that with OIF/OEF? It is as if it’s not bad enough that we have more than enough men suffering that fate, that we must continue getting “used to” or “desensitized” to seeing our women as double, triple, or quadruple amputees in our veteran's parades. No disrespect intended, but that certainly sounds fair to me (or fair at least in the eyes of the policy makers). Obviously there is no sacrifice too great for equal opportunity, in this case.
When we honor these aforementioned heroic female veterans (one has only to see such a self sacrificial sister once, as it makes a lasting impression), is it merely the fault of the terrorist, or should the so-called "women's movement" be willing to accept part of the blame, having put her there in that position, in the first place.
In conclusion, the issue is not “could she,” but “should she!” Does “she” really “need” to be there? Or is this merely, as I would contend, the ultimate act of Political Correctness, to the inevitable detriment of our sisters in uniform. Obviously the “needs of the Army” are not relevant to the argument. After all, where is the “honor” in it, by the way?
The different scoring of the Army Physical Fitness Test based on sex, must come to an end, or it belies the justification of common standards, whether in Ranger School, or in the Combat Arms, as being just as arbitrary and subjective as the hygienic “crew cut” for males only. Of course if there is no deference to our women in the military, then as the military reflects the values and morays of the society it is meant to serve, it truly portends the final death of chivalry, at least in the US Army!
But, what are the unintended consequences potentially, to the greater society and culture? With no concept of chivalry, can there correspondingly be the so-called “gentleman” any longer?! Will there be a man willing to step in, and confront another, engaging in sexual harassment or assault, in defense of a woman? Or will it be every man/woman for themselves? As if we are not narcissistic enough now, as a people, we may actually be regressing as a society when men loose their sympathy/empathy for the suffering of women (seemingly, a popular theme in Hollywood these days).
So, if the “Band of Brothers” era is truly at an end in the combat arms, I fear the consequences whether intended or not, will be more dire than the “policy makers” or those in positions to implement these changes, could possibly realize.
Opinion humbly submitted,
SFC Ernest Hoppe
Okinawa, Japan
Women in the Military
Combat Arms
Leadership
Infantry
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 28
6
6
0
This is a complex issue so I have complex thoughts on it. When it comes to women in the military I tend to have a very libertarian viewpoint. Good standards should be set that adequately equate to the job/issue at hand. If a female can meet the standards set forward for an infantryman then I would have no issue with her on my fire team.
I'd also take it further and remove all sex based standards and instead move to a unified MOS based standard. If that standard happens to preclude women or at the very least put a disproportionate amount of strain on them due to their sexual dimorphic differences then so be it. War is not equal, and we should not be playing games acting like it is. Again, if this translates to fewer women meeting the standard and being qualified to wear the uniform then so be it. Let the ones that make the grade serve, but those that can't cut it shouldn't be carried by political correctness.
I'd also take it further and remove all sex based standards and instead move to a unified MOS based standard. If that standard happens to preclude women or at the very least put a disproportionate amount of strain on them due to their sexual dimorphic differences then so be it. War is not equal, and we should not be playing games acting like it is. Again, if this translates to fewer women meeting the standard and being qualified to wear the uniform then so be it. Let the ones that make the grade serve, but those that can't cut it shouldn't be carried by political correctness.
(6)
(0)
SSgt Boyd Herrst
What those p.c.oriented social engineering types are trying to take over career fields in the military and the civilian market and they don’t know diddley squat about and it’s throwing the military and civilian fields into a “clusterflop”! Trying to make openings and re-engineer equipment.... re-name to be gender-neutral.. <-(can just imagine the costs of manuals that had to be rewritten to reflect those
Changes. ) Marines did it best when doing theirs and just saying marine..
(Not saying whether male or female marine).. Instead of going into the social engineering Willy-billy.. do the studies and costs-benefits /negatives what needs done, not just saying it has to be because it has to meet pc stds. !
Changes. ) Marines did it best when doing theirs and just saying marine..
(Not saying whether male or female marine).. Instead of going into the social engineering Willy-billy.. do the studies and costs-benefits /negatives what needs done, not just saying it has to be because it has to meet pc stds. !
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
That is the longest post ever... Or at least that I have seen here. Two things.
1. What women can do in the Army is a topical issue...
2. As far as sports, I have the same feeling as I do on women combat arms, Ranger School, SEALS etc... "If you can make it a the single (current male only) standard, then have at it.I can't ever see larger numbers of women in the NHL, NFL, MLB, or NBA...
1. What women can do in the Army is a topical issue...
2. As far as sports, I have the same feeling as I do on women combat arms, Ranger School, SEALS etc... "If you can make it a the single (current male only) standard, then have at it.I can't ever see larger numbers of women in the NHL, NFL, MLB, or NBA...
(6)
(0)
SGT Allison Churchill
To quote Betty White: "Why do people keep saying grow some balls? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you really wanna get tough, grow a vagina. Those things take a pounding!"
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
It is typical that our military is ahead of everyone else in the civilian sector. The opening of jobs to female Soldiers is an example for the civilian businesses that there is value in having a woman in key critical positions, including leadership positions. Professional sports are much different than the culture of respect and equality within our military.
SFC (Join to see), your post was well laid out and well thought through.
SFC (Join to see), your post was well laid out and well thought through.
(4)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
These are the ripple effects, the 2d and 3d order of effects that I was referring to, affecting the greater society as a whole. And, not for the better, I might add...
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google