24
24
0
Women are now allowed to join some combat MOS’s. I have heard the argument that this is a crazy idea and that it’s just not going to work - all the macho talk that says women are too weak, mentally and physically, to handle the high stress environment of a combat situation. Let’s not forget the all too familiar: “They are going to get someone killed. “
I feel as if to fully grasp and accept the decision, one has to dig deeper into the situation. Look at prehistoric times when men and women were hunters and gatherers. Why were men the hunters? Was it because the woman gave birth and had the means to feed the baby? And therefore she was obligated to stay and take care of the child in the early stages of being a human, thus freeing up the man of responsibility so he could go out and forage and hunt for food? And then because of this, we evolved with our assigned roles as males and females. Or was it because women were inherently weaker? I think that the prehistoric argument holds more weight. If you take a look at history, there are a number of famous examples of women in combat.
There was Joan of Arc, who not only proved her mettle in combat, but proved herself as a leader of an army and set the example of fighting from the front. She was wounded more than once in battle. More recently, there was Mary Hays, more commonly known by her nickname Molly Pitcher. During the Revolutionary War, she was a camp follower of the American 7th Regiment. During the Battle of Monmouth, she took her husband’s spot on a cannon after he collapsed and began loading and firing it. She heroically rallied the troops by her side. A century or so later, during World War II, the Russians used women as fighter pilots and snipers to great effect.
I personally witnessed exceptional performance of women in combat situations in Iraq on more than one occasion - not only as subordinates in supposedly “non-combat MOS’s,“ but as leaders. To be quite honest, there are more than a handful of male soldiers whose performance levels were not even close to comparable to those of some of the women.
In regards to power and leadership, are these men opposed to women in combat really naïve enough to think that male leaders throughout history were not influenced by women? I think men in positions of power, whether they are supervisors for a few individuals or if they are presidents of large corporations, consult with their wives regularly. Think about it. A great example, regardless of how you feel about her politically, is former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. During her tenure as First Lady, do you really believe that President Bill Clinton was making decisions without consulting her? To think so, in my opinion, would be naïve.
It’s easy to go with the currently commonplace thought among male comrades that women just “can’t hang.” I feel that history dictates the opposite. And in reality, women are just as capable as men. Only time will prove me right.
I feel as if to fully grasp and accept the decision, one has to dig deeper into the situation. Look at prehistoric times when men and women were hunters and gatherers. Why were men the hunters? Was it because the woman gave birth and had the means to feed the baby? And therefore she was obligated to stay and take care of the child in the early stages of being a human, thus freeing up the man of responsibility so he could go out and forage and hunt for food? And then because of this, we evolved with our assigned roles as males and females. Or was it because women were inherently weaker? I think that the prehistoric argument holds more weight. If you take a look at history, there are a number of famous examples of women in combat.
There was Joan of Arc, who not only proved her mettle in combat, but proved herself as a leader of an army and set the example of fighting from the front. She was wounded more than once in battle. More recently, there was Mary Hays, more commonly known by her nickname Molly Pitcher. During the Revolutionary War, she was a camp follower of the American 7th Regiment. During the Battle of Monmouth, she took her husband’s spot on a cannon after he collapsed and began loading and firing it. She heroically rallied the troops by her side. A century or so later, during World War II, the Russians used women as fighter pilots and snipers to great effect.
I personally witnessed exceptional performance of women in combat situations in Iraq on more than one occasion - not only as subordinates in supposedly “non-combat MOS’s,“ but as leaders. To be quite honest, there are more than a handful of male soldiers whose performance levels were not even close to comparable to those of some of the women.
In regards to power and leadership, are these men opposed to women in combat really naïve enough to think that male leaders throughout history were not influenced by women? I think men in positions of power, whether they are supervisors for a few individuals or if they are presidents of large corporations, consult with their wives regularly. Think about it. A great example, regardless of how you feel about her politically, is former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. During her tenure as First Lady, do you really believe that President Bill Clinton was making decisions without consulting her? To think so, in my opinion, would be naïve.
It’s easy to go with the currently commonplace thought among male comrades that women just “can’t hang.” I feel that history dictates the opposite. And in reality, women are just as capable as men. Only time will prove me right.
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 28
Posted >1 y ago
Agree with you, SFC Jim Mergott. Have seen and met the young women of today's Army, and they are competitive beasts, (they played soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, etc.) and can out PT some of the males around the base. If they are fit, and have a general stick-to-it-iveness mentality, why not allow them to "be the best that they can be?" Would rather see a STRAC motivated female rather than a lackadaisical male, who is not invested in his men and women he leads. BLUF: If she can complete the training, have at it.
(4)
Comment
(0)
Posted >1 y ago
I'm on the fence with this. My friend just got accepted into the Navy SPEC OPS and while I'm excited she got through, there are some people who need to have a complete understanding of what entails with combat; the front lines. Honestly if someone is able to deal (bad choice of word) with what entails in combat then I say go for it but there needs to be other guidelines and tests done to make sure this is the right person for the job.
If that has been done for the candidate, then let them serve. If there one small spec of a issue, then it needs to be full investigated and if it causes them to not be able to serve in combat, then there are other means to serve.
If that has been done for the candidate, then let them serve. If there one small spec of a issue, then it needs to be full investigated and if it causes them to not be able to serve in combat, then there are other means to serve.
(4)
Comment
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
>1 y
You don't think the bad guys would do the same things on women to guys? Also, people are free to choose what jobs they want. If I am not mistaken, plenty of males have developed PTSD from combat. This isn't new, combat stress, shell shock, whatever they want to call it.
(1)
Reply
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
>1 y
When you are saying SPEC OPS are you saying EOD or do you mean NSW. They are trying to get away from the term SPEC OPS and when used could mean a verity of jobs that have been open to women for over 20 years the only job left in the Navy is SEAL that is it. The only job that does not have women in positions. If it is NSW that is fine but I have a feeling you are talking about EOD or some other special program.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SFC Jim Mergott
6 y
SFC (Join to see) The military needs to figure out a way to measure an individuals resilience capabilities. Man or woman if they don’t have a high threshold for stress they should not be allowed to hold a combat arms MOS. I think this would result in fewer cases of PTSD.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
6 y
SFC Jim Mergott - Only if they can come up with a metric to measure resiliency. It is like coming up with a metric measuring maturity. Maybe everybody should pass the SERE school in order to go into a combat arms MOS? Then again, I have heard that some people who exclusively staying inside the wire in deployment get PTSD also... and no, not SHARP related.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Read This Next