« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Why Hello G.I. Jane

By: Matt Vespa (Diary)  |  January 29th, 2013 at 10:40 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

As Bridget Johnson tattled this morning, polls show support for women in combat.  There has been a lot of discussion regarding Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta lifting the ban on women in combat positions.  As Fox News posted on January 24:

The change would open hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs to women. Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey both approved the change Thursday, and the White House separately said it endorsed the decision.  The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule banning women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta’s decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.

Slate had a piece from a veteran, Kayla Williams, which detailed that women have been on the frontlines for years.  In fact, 150 U.S. servicewomen in our armed forces have been killed in Iraq of Afghanistan.  It also could be to our advantage, as we try to maneuver ourselves out of Afghanistan since:

[T]hose who served in Iraq and Afghanistan came to understand that in complex counterinsurgency operations, especially in Muslim nations, the presence of women troops is a vital way to interact with the civilian population—so important, in fact, that military leaders have long been skirting the old regulations by placing women in combat units.

However, Williams is a realist about this policy shift, and noted that it’ll be phased in over the years.

Much work remains to be done to implement this landmark reform. It is likely that the military will follow a multiyear process for phasing in changes, similar to that planned by the Australian military….the U.S. military services (particularly the Army and Marines) may argue that some jobs, particularly in the Special Forces, should remain closed to women. But as women continue to prove their abilities in a growing number of positions, those exclusions will become harder to justify.

It is true that not all women can handle the physical demands of military service. However, neither can all men. In fact, only 25 percent of today’s young people qualify for military service at all—the rest are too obese, too poorly educated, or have criminal backgrounds that bar them. Today [Jan. 24] Panetta is acknowledging that to maintain the high standards of the military, assignments should be based on ability, not gender.

Key in critical aspects of counter-insurgency, helping ease the strain on our ground forces, and providing a buffer from the lack of qualified candidates to fill the ranks in the future –  it sounds rational to lift the ban, right?  Not really, in fact, some conservatives, like the editors at National Review, feel that the military isn’t the area for progressive social experimentation.  Furthermore, if we are going to do this, it needs to be comprehensive, and the standards for women in combat need to go all the way.
The Editors at National Review on January 25 had this to say about the ban lift.

The administration has promised that there will be no reduction of physical standards to accommodate women in combat roles, but that promise almost certainly is false — and Senator McCain, who has endorsed the move, should know better than to pretend otherwise. The political mandate to integrate women into the military had disastrous consequences for standards at West Point, as Walter Williams documented the last time we had this debate. The use of “gender-specific” physical standards meant that female candidates were given passing marks on tests when underperforming their male counterparts on such common benchmarks as push-ups, sit-ups, and running 1.5 miles.This repeats the experience of similar civilian agencies, such as police and fire departments, in which standards have been lowered under the guise of revising them for professional relevance. One particularly comical feature of these developments has been the authorities’ insistence that they are acting independently of political pressure while simultaneously acknowledging that they are motivated by the fear of litigation brought by feminist groups. The ideological absurdity at play here is hard to exaggerate: When members of the Los Angeles city council demanded hiring quotas for the LAPD and a consequent relaxation of standards, they argued that concerns about physical difference could be overcome by implementing a “feminist approach to policing.” We pray that we may be spared a feminist approach to national security.

Some female veterans are skeptical about the change.  Virginia Kruta, a ten-year army veteran, posted on her blog that:

The military is strong in part because it is the most discriminatory workplace in the nation. You can be kept out, fired, or barred from promotion simply for being too tall, too short, too thin, too fat, too sick, too injured,too stupid, and the list goes on. Every move it has made in the direction of political correctness has been a move away from strength.

Jazz Shaw at Hot Air quoted a female Marine, known as “Sentry,” who gave this testimony, and delved into the one area that’s on everyone’s mind: physical limitations.
 … deployed to Anbar Province, Iraq. When I was active duty, I was 5’6, 130 pounds, and scored nearly perfect on my PFTs. I naturally have a lot more upper body strength than the average woman: not only can I do pull-ups, I can meet the male standard. I would love to have been in the infantry. And I still think it will be an unmitigated disaster to incorporate women into combat roles. I am not interested in risking men’s lives so I can live my selfish dream.
[...]
Regarding physical limitations, not only will a tiny fraction of women be able to meet the male standard, the simple fact is that women tend to be shorter than men. I ran into situations when I was deployed where I simply could not reach something. I wasn’t tall enough. I had to ask a man to get it for me. I can’t train myself to be taller. Yes, there are small men…but not so nearly so many as small women. More, a military PFT doesn’t measure the ability to jump. Men, with more muscular legs and bones that carry more muscle mass than any woman can condition herself to carry, can jump higher and farther than women. That’s why we have a men’s standing jump and long jump event in the Olympics separate from women. When you’re going over a wall in Baghdad that’s ten feet high, you have to be able to be able to reach the top of it in full gear and haul yourself over. That’s not strength per se, that’s just height and the muscular explosive power to jump and reach the top. Having to get a boost from one of the men so you can get up and over could get that man killed.
 Heather MacDonald at National Review also mentioned this obstacle, and called this move is a “disastrous mistake.”
 The number of women who are the equal to reasonably well-developed men in upper-body strength and who have the same stamina and endurance is vanishingly small. Because the number of women who will meet the military’s already debased physical-fitness standard will not satisfy the feminists’ demand for representation, the fitness standard will inevitably be lowered across the board or for women alone, as we have seen in civilian uniformed forces.
[...]
If a woman is taken prisoner, will special efforts be made to rescue her to save her from the risk of rape? If so, the necessary equality among unit members will be destroyed. If, however, policy requires that she take her chances along with the male captives, we are requiring men to squelch any last remaining vestige of their impulse towards protection and appreciation of female difference.
MacDonald also noted that we should “expect a windfall to the gender-sensitivity-training industry, which will be called in both before and after the entry of women into combat units to eradicate endemic male sexism.”
Our military is the best in the world.  Our soldiers are, for the lack of a better word, killing machines – not office co-workers.  However, I still have no problem with women on the front lines for the reasons I mentioned above.  However, that’s dependent on if the Obama administration doesn’t reduce, or dumb down, the various physical standards.  Only the best of the best, men and women alike, should be out there arranging meetings with God for our enemies.  Furthermore, just because women did well in the Summer Olympics, which is still a phenomenal achievement, doesn’t mean they’re all ready for combat.  It’s a false equivalency.
Now that gender exclusivity on the frontlines has been virtually erased, will liberals, progressives, and feminists be as vociferous in their advocacy for women  joining the Selective Service at eighteen?
Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Don T.

    I really don’t care what some allied armies, like the Aussies or the Canadians or the French, are doing. I would like to know what world beating foreign armies that may be enemies of ours someday, also have women in their infantry units. None that I can see…not the Russkies, not the ChiComs, not the Norks, not the Iranians. I think maybe they might be laughing at this nonsense we have decided to waste our time on.

    • auh20catokeyahburkeburke

      agreed, although Israel includes women in their combat arms units. On the face of this issue this is about equality blah blah blah, and strategically this moves the US closer to a Total War footing. I think it’s only a matter of time before women register for Selective Service. Just doubled the size of the Army we can raise. Just doubled the number of wars we can fight. On a side note women break easier, so that’s going to cost the gov over time in both investment and medical bills. Rapes will go up adding a nice layer of bs on top of the usual work load for officers. Women will get pregnant in the combat zone thus reducing numbers. Grunts attentions will be divided between getting laid and mission first. Libtards don’t understand the effects of anything they do beyond its initial implementation.

      • Don T.

        You might want to check that about the Israelis. I think they have one female combat battalion, used for specific missions. I don’t think the Israelis have any women in their regular frontline infantry or armor units. But I agree with your other points.

        • PowerToThePeople

          Yes they do Don, women have been allowed in almost 90% of frontline combat roles in the Israeli Army since 2001 and have filled are in about 70% of those roles. The Caracal Battalion is nearly all female and have seen action and performed quite well.
          And agreeing with the idiots above sexist comments does not speak much about your character.

          • Don T.

            Cite about the Israelis? Aside from the Caracal Battalion, my information is that the Israelis have no women in the rest of their frontline infantry and armor formations. You may be right, I’d like your source.

            Is it sexist to use common sense and recognize that women and men are different and have different physical limitations and abilities? But, if this is such an all fired good idea, I would still like to know why all of our potential enemies aren’t going full bore to fully integrate female soldiers into their frontline ground combat units. Why is that, I wonder?

          • PowerToThePeople

            If you think my comments are off, look em up. A simple WIKI search, even though I detest that site, will show my comments are right. You would only have to type in women in combat roles Israel to see what I say is right.
            Now to your last paragraph, going to respond in answer form as quickly as possible as I am getting quite bored with the BS about this subject to spend much more time on it.

            Yes, it is sexist. For one to make a claim like you have, one would have to believe that women are inferior. Are there men who are stronger, yes. But I could show a ton of women who could outdo most men on any day. It all depends on the person and what their focus is. As I told another person, I could take you to a comicon event and you would see thousands of some of the weakest men in this nation, men who are an embarrassment to the rest of us.
            The military takes the best. Most men are not qualified to be there, same would apply to the women. Only the best would make it, and they would be trained in order to achieve the highest physical fitness.

            Dumb question, most of our enemies view women as subhuman. In the radical muslim community (our current enemies) Women are only fit to do what the man wants them to do. If they are ever seen as no longer wanted, they find themselves dead. So the question has no bearing here and is irrelevant to the discussion. Would be like you asking me if suicide bombing is such a good idea, why do we not strap bombs on our soldiers.

            Drop the sexism Don, women have fought and died in this country with honor long before you decided a woman’s place was up against the stove. They will continue to do so long after you are gone and forgotten.

          • Melody Warbington

            PTTP, I did some research on Israeli women in combat and found more than one source that says the numbers are inflated. Makes for good PR.

            As much as I hate to use the NYT as a source…

            After Israeli news reported a story as proof that integrating women into combat roles had been a success, the next day the story shifted:

            Another woman in the unit, the one who radioed in the attack, had
            cowered behind a bush for an hour and a half, as her comrades feared she had been kidnapped or killed.

            As the United States moves to integrate more women into combat roles, some have looked to Israel, which on paper has one of the most gender-neutral militaries in the world, starting with a universal draft (although, since many do civilian service instead, only half of women enlist, compared with 70 percent of the nation’s men). But the episode near Mount Harif in September highlighted some of the complex realities behind the policies of the Israel Defense Forces, where it remains rare for women to kill or be killed, and questions persist about their fitness.

            While more than 92 percent of I.D.F. jobs are now open to women — they are fighter pilots, infantry officers, naval captains and Humvee drivers — just 3 percent serve in combat roles.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/world/middleeast/looking-to-israel-for-clues-on-women-in-combat.html?_r=0

            Also, as I understand it, the Caracal (formed in 2000) is the only co-ed Israeli battalion and is now 70% female. I have to wonder if it was working out so well, why haven’t they integrated all of their battalions? Maybe the Caracal works well for females because they have the majority. Moreover, maybe the male only battalions work well the way they are.

          • PowerToThePeople

            Melody, you know you have my upmost respect, but on this you are wrong.
            Not going to rehash this constantly especially with someone I respect deeply as I do not care to offend you, but one story of a cowering woman does not negate their value, toughness, bravery, etc. I could list for days all the documented cases of cowardice amongst men. So you are better than this.
            As to fitness, that is not a problem that would only be with women, and in fact many men today are unfit to perform. The idea that a woman can not perform is ludicrous.
            All that matters in this country is do women want to fight. They have the right now, and as long as standards are not weakened, let them do what they feel is right. Idiots like Don may strap on his wife beater, slap his wife when she dares speak out or step away from the stove, but you as a woman should be better. This is not feminism gone crazy, this is women saying I want to serve, I signed up, I work hard, I train hard, now give me the chance.

          • Melody Warbington

            I appreciate your respect, but this is not a matter of women not being able to serve. They can and do serve, and they have my gratitude and respect. Despite posting the story of one woman, I am not questioning their bravery or their fitness to do so, but neither does the media pointing out the other story of one woman prove that women in combat works.

            As you say, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one, but I’ve seen a lot of social engineering feminist crap come down the pike since I aligned with Phyllis Schlafly to fight the ERA in the mid ’70′s. And in my opinion, that’s exactly what this is. One article I linked points out that there is not enough research to determine the lasting physical effects of combat on women, but we won’t know because they discontinued the study. Why? Because they don’t want to know.

            The link to the army fitness standards clearly show women are scored differently from men. Why? Because we’re not the same. Never will be despite some exceptions to the rule.

            This is just another example of leftist mentality that women can do everything a man can do. We can’t, and furthermore, we weren’t intended to, but that doesn’t fit into what’s being taught in colleges these days. That there are no instincts. Women have no maternal instinct, and men have no instinct to protect or fight. It’s all culture driven that must be changed. Leftists are trying to create a country of drones.

            As for Don, I read and re-read his comments. I agree with him, my husband, my dad, and other males in my family, some who served and some who didn’t. They are not sexist.

            We’ve each had our say, so maybe we’d better part ways on this one.

          • Don T.

            Wikipedia? Really, that is the best you have? I’m waiting for substantive sourcing. You made the claim, you cite the proof. Israelis have female fighter pilots. So? I have no problem with the U.S. military having female fighter pilots, helicopter pilots, MPs, sailors, truck drivers, logistics specialists, etc. Many of these women serve, and do very well, in these jobs and under combat conditions. They get in firefights, they engage in combat, in those jobs. But that is not the issue. This is about female soldiers in direct ground combat roles: infantry, armor, combat engineer, special operations. You claim that women can do anything physical that men can do? Prove it. Do you wonder why there is a male standard for physical fitness testing and a female standard that is much lower, for all the military service branches? Do you understand what it takes to be an infantryman in the Army or in the Marines? Do you get what is involved in being a member of our elite special operations units? It does not seem to me that you do.

            You suggest that there are many men who can’t cut it in some of these front line combat positions. You are correct there. So, you want to add many more unqualified women for those positions, who also can’t do those jobs, to do what? So they can get better promotions? Take up space? Get people killed?

            I’m trying to understand, with this Socratic questioning, what exactly we are trying to accomplish here, that improves our military’s effectiveness and readiness.

            No sexism here. Just common sense and a recognition of physical limitations. And we haven’t even discussed the problems of mixed sex combat units in close quarters.

            Go sell crazy somewhere else. We’re all stocked up here.

          • PowerToThePeople

            Don, Don Don, when you are done flexing your mouth muscle and have grown weary of keeping your spouse in the kitchen, we will talk. Who cares what you have a problem with. I think your problem has to do more with your own shortcomings, and yes I said short, and your own insecurities than anything else. You think women are easier to berate as they will not lash back like a man. You are a say little man bub and wrong.

            You were the one who made the statement first that Israel did not allow women in combat, you should have backed it in links. But since you are too busy working hard to keep women pregnant and in slippers, you seemed to have missed that fact bub. It is not my job to prove what you stated, I simply told you that you are a moron, a sexist, a scumbag, and that you do not know what you are talking about.

            I know you think your pathetic ass better than women, but you are really just a wimp hiding behind sexism. And I can guarantee more on this site agree with my “crazy” then they do with your scumbag mentality. I can produce woman after woman who will smack you like the, well you know what goes after that, and you would be able to do nothing. They are stronger than you, of course unless you are going to claim internet claims of great biceps and fitness, who would outrun you, out lift you, out shoot you, and serve better under fire than most men on this site. So puff up your penis size with someone who has the same backwards beliefs as you and who needs to put women down in order to feel better about their pathetic existence.

          • Don T.

            When you revert to just name calling, everyone knows you’ve run out of arguments. Too bad. You seemed halfway intelligent, too.

          • Melody Warbington

            Don T., for the record I consider PTTP a dear and intelligent friend, but as I pointed out to him, I agree with you. I don’t think you’re a sexist any more than my husband or other male family members and friends are. Further, my female friend and family members agree with us.

          • PowerToThePeople

            As I said Don, your argument is simple, you strong, woman weak, nothing more, nothing less. You are an idiot, a sexist, and that is not name calling, it is a simple fact. While I am surprised Melody agrees with you, that is her right. But your words show you to be not only uninformed, but a scumbag as well. So your opinion of me is irrelevant, insignificant, and worth as much as the man behind it which means it is worthless. You are in the minority here and everywhere, period. You just keep your wife in her “appropriate” place, the rest of civilized America will do otherwise.

          • Melody Warbington

            From an Israeli General…

            http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/146001#.UQitFmfnPF9

            and boots on the ground…

            http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2013/01/why-not-put-women-in-combat-units.html

            Every time I’ve been through an office makeover at work, the experts came in and designed our space. And every time what they thought worked didn’t. The last time, we ended up with built-in file cabinets which weren’t deep enough to fit our standard file folders. And they stuck our computers and keyboards (which couldn’t be moved) smack dab in the middle of our U-shaped desks, making it difficult to use the space for big projects if you have to constantly shift from one side to the other. The point being that in most instances, I trust the judgment of the folks who actually do the work, or in this case the boots on the ground, rather than bureaucrats behind a desk or feminists marching in the street.

          • PowerToThePeople

            Oh what the heck, promised Bill I would not be so cranky. Here is a wiki link, again have no use for wiki but do not have the time to give you much better right now, that shows what I stated. I will also paste some of the most pertinent statements.

            “Women in the Israeli Defense Forces are female soldiers who serve in the Israel Defense Forces. Israel is the only country in the world with a mandatory military service requirement for women.[1][2][3] Women have taken part in Israel’s military before and since the founding of the state in 1948,[4][5] with women currently comprising 33% of all IDF soldiers and 51% of its officers,[6] fulfilling various roles within the Ground, Navy and Air Forces. The 2000 Equality amendment to the Military Service law states that “The right of women to serve in any role in the IDF is equal to the right of men.”[3] As of now, 88% to 92%[7] of all roles in the IDF are open to female candidates, while women can be found in 69% of all positions.[1]”

            As to your infantry and armour comment, her ya go.

            ”

            Civilian pilot and aeronautical engineer Alice Miller successfully petitioned the High Court of Justice to take the Israeli Air Force pilot training exams, after being rejected on grounds of gender. Though president Ezer Weizman, a former IAF commander, told Miller that she’d be better off staying home and darning socks, the court eventually ruled in 1996 that the IAF could not exclude qualified women from pilot training. Even though Miller would not pass the exams, the ruling was a watershed, opening doors for women in new IDF roles. Female legislators took advantage of the momentum to draft a bill allowing women to volunteer for any position, if they could qualify.[2]

            In 2000, the Equality amendment to the Military Service law stated that “The right of women to serve in any role in the IDF is equal to the right of men.”[3] The amendment that female lawmakers had drafted granted equal opportunities to women found physically and personally suitable for a job. The question of who and what was “suitable” was left to the discretion of military leaders on a case-by-case basis. Women did start to enter combat support and light combat roles in a few areas, including the Artillery Corps, infantry units and armored divisions. A few platoons named Carakal were formed for men and women to serve together in light infantry. By 2000 Carakal became a full-fledged battalion. Many women would also join the Border Police.[2]”

            And here is that link, want more, feel free to look.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Israel_Defense_Forces

  • Melody Warbington

    So diversity rules. Fine. How soon are women going to be required to register for the Selective Service like my son did when he turned 18?

    Further, has anyone considered the monetary costs of women in combat? The rate of attrition is higher for women than men due to pregnancy/children. So we invest to train them and they opt out sooner than men. How about the cost of extra supplies? Thirty-seven percent of military mothers reported missing work due to a child care issue, compared to 7 percent of men.

    What about harm to the children of single mothers (rate is higher for women than men)? Do single moms get more breaks than other military moms who have a civilian husband at home? I read a comment somewhere from a military mom that single parents get priority for the few on-post daycare slots, lower tuition rates and possibly qualify for free baby formula. Also, that commanders don’t verify their family
    care plans until it comes time to deploy because they feel sorry for them. Shouldn’t their priority be what’s best for the army & the ranks rather than single moms?

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2009/11/single-mom-refuses-deployment-to-care-for-infant-son/1#.UQhVWvIsv6g

    What happens when a woman serving in combat gets pregnant? Does she just get to leave? How does that affect the cohesiveness of the unit?

    No difference in the standards? Please explain why the army fitness standards score men and women differently. http://www.army-fitness.com/index.php

    If women want all things equal, then we need to eliminate any and all special considerations for mothers unless fathers get the same. If women want all the benefits, they must suffer all the same risks without exception. http://www.jec.senate.gov/archive/Documents/Reports/MilitaryMoms05.11.07Final.pdf

    • Melody Warbington

      Feminists, who have done more to harm the family and as a result the country, are behind the push for gender equality in all facets of life. Except that we aren’t equal and never will be. No amount of social engineering can make that so, which leads then to equal results as is so brilliantly pointed out in this article.

      http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/coed-combat-units_697822.html?page=1

      • checkmate2012

        Amen Melody. I see this as a disaster waiting to happen.

        • Melody Warbington

          Indeed, checkmate. Left wing feminists want equality in all things until they don’t.

          • checkmate2012

            Yep and registering for selective service as you posed will be the first true test of their absolutism!

  • checkmate2012

    The decisions being made to transform the military are coming fast and furiously as if someone wants to wreak havoc enough to decimate it. Isn’t the military still trying to find the best way to incorporate gays and now must be forced to integrate women in combat roles?
    Why not address the issue of promotions for women without combat training as that is stated as the impetus for this decision. They can’t get promotions without combat experience. Fix that but leave women off the front line. Is nothing sacred anymore? I’m all for equality except when it’s plain stupid and may jeopardize men at battle.