Women banned from direct combat roles in US army

[CarlyA]

I've only just found this out, so it came as a bit of a shock to me, although i dunno if its been floating around in the public domains or not in america for some time;

House Republicans retreated from a sweeping ban on women in combat support and service units, and instead approved legislation backing the Pentagon’s policy barring women from direct ground combat in a bill passed overnight.

The House Armed Services Committee approved the narrower provision after the Army and Democrats said the amendment, rammed through a subcommittee last week, would close nearly 22,000 jobs to women, undermine morale, and hamper operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“We want women to serve everywhere, except in ground combat,” said Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y. McHugh, chairman of the personnel subcommittee, said the amendment would require Congress to vote before women would be allowed in direct combat units.

I was quite shocked by this, i would have thought the US army would want as many people in its armed forces as it wants, instead of closing down jobs to people. What do you all think? should women be used in direct combat roles? i'd especially like to here what the women on this board thought.

Also, what happened to that rumour that there may be conscription in the usa, has that been disproven yet?

 

[codger]

I think women should be in any role are in.

 

[MuffyM]

I personally don't believe the reasons are good enough to ban women from combat, but the reasons stated are: 1. Having women at the front would distract from the mission as men are taught culturally to protect women. 2. The sexual relationships that would result could result in problems in the combat team (think about the stress that can occur when you date someone you work with).

Again, not saying they are right, but just giving the two most common arguements against women at the front line.

 

[pumax112]

Women cannot serve in combat capacity.

Conscription? No way. Hasn't even made it out of committee to be heard by Congress. No way will our rich leaders risk putting their kiddies at risk.

oh, yeah, here's a link to MSN:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7909442/

 

[ReIePDimebagDarrell]

Don't believe everything the BBC tells you. Weren't we supposed to have invaded Iran, too?

 

[poobreath]

No, the BBC didn't tell me that, i just remember reading it online somewhere, probably on this forum.

I don't remember the BBC saying you were going to invade Iran either to be honest.

 

[ICanHearTheOceant]

I think we should ban everyone from combat. Why can't we all just get along?? Maybe we should ban everyone who is not related to a politician from combat. That'd sort a few wars out quick.

 

[PhanCsn]

I think it makes good sense. How many women squaddies do you guys have anyway? Would it make that much of a difference to numbers.

 

[Esai]

I think women shouldn't be in combat because its a distraction to men, and hurst morale. Women are also not going to be able to perform as well as a man can in combat. Men are also meant to be protectors; they are better designed for the physical and mental strain when in combat. In the end you would have better morale, and a better quality army. I don't think they should just fire them though since they joined under premises of being able to stay. I think they should let contracts expire, and not recruit any more women, but just firing them isn't the way to handle that. Though they do recieve considerable financial compensation.

 

[delboysback08]

as sexist and pig headed as it might seem, when it comes to things like war you can't afford to be PC. It is a simple fact that women would be a huge distraction to the male soldiers who would make up 95% of the fighting force anyway. Now if they were in a dire situation it would make sense to get as many recruits as they could- but that time hasn't arrived yet.


And I cannot WAIT for shotokan warrior to see this thread

 

[jouster85]

Don't forget that men are better designed for combat.

 

[TheCaptain]

It's a pile of poo. It's not a matter of being PC or not, it's a matter of the fact that women are still being treated as inferior. If we run by some (and I admit, vastly innacurate and probably outdated) statistics from the Singapore government there is roughly 1 gay man per 10 men. Now, if you factor in that in a country like Singapore, where it's much more frowned upon to be gay than say, in America or just about anywhere else in the world, the numbers are going to be conservative. Should we bar gay men from the military because it might hurt morale to have sexual relations in combat? No. It's ridiculous because the morale difference is a pittance compared to the need for competent soldiers.
And never, ever give me the crap that a woman is worse in combat than a man. I can shoot a gun just about as well as anyone I know, I can use a knife better than most people, and I can punch and kick better. I can also carry heavy loads =P Would I be a worse soldier than a man? I sure hope not.

As for being able to withstand greater mental strain than a woman, I've never seen that to be true at an innate level. The only times I've seen it are when those women have been culturally programmed to be less solid in the face of physical peril. Conversely, I've seen men get hit with some sort of weapon and freeze up mentally and physically and become unable to act.

And considering the sorry state the U.S. military finds itself in, in terms of active personell in combat, I find it preposterous that they would enact legislation to limit the amount of bodies they could have on the ground.

 

[PajamaQueen]

and you are an experienced martial artist. of course there are going to be exceptions but the army cant afford the time nor money to go through each case in such a way.

 

[Shuyin]

The bbc is never wrong.
dO n3V3R tEST tHE bbc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


As for women in combat, there are obvious physical differences between men and women, but its mainly about maintaining operational efficiency. Most young squaddies are still learning about the opposite sex and they need to split their lives up into little boxes to handle the pressure of combat. As society moves on this might change, but the military is always the last to adapt, due to its extreme conservative nature.

British armed forces have always used women in covert operations from the first world war through to Northern Ireland. They have worked in extremely dangerous situations, sometimes being captured and tortured. The powers that be have few qualms about using women as a means to an end, just as they do with men, its just that infantry soldiers don't work that way.

 

[zephyrwind]

comming from a person who has been in direct combat. i would have to say i dont believe in women in combat. im sorry but i think seeing a womans guts spilled all over me or my rig would make me flip out. having a wife and daughter also adds to my belief. beleive me, ive met a few tough ladies that could hold their own, but i doubt they could handle true combat. plus theres no toilets in iraq

 

[JulianK]

LOL if only the UK population followed your advice.

 

[Coreyd]

funny you mention that. in the states? BANNED

 

[JessM]

If military training can make a man ready for combat, it can make a woman ready for it too.

"im sorry but i think seeing a womans guts spilled all over me or my rig would make me flip out"

Whether those guts were man or woman, most people would still be emotional and/or flip out.

Quite interesting is Frank Herbert's writing in the Dune series (legendary sci-fi!)

The following exctract is taken from http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=84145 I've added my edits in bold just for clarity.

"Why does Leto choose only women for his army?"

This question posed by Duncan Idaho in book four of the Dune Sextet, piqued my interest, and the answer has stayed in my mind for quite some time. I will trim most of the conversation devices from the text in order to convey the theory put forth and into practice by The Worm, Emperor Leto Atreides the Second.


An all male army is too dangerous to its civilian support base. The male army is a survival of the screening process function delegated to the non-breeding males in the prehistoric pack. It was a curiously consistent fact that it was always the older males who sent the younger males into battle. It is these males who were always out on the dangerous perimeter protecting the core of the breeding males, females and the young. The ones who first encountered the predator.

How was this dangerous to the civilians?

When denied the external enemy, the all-male army always turned against it's own population.

Always.

In part they are contending for the females, but things are not that simple with people. The all-male army has a strong tendency toward homosexual activities which are fed by issues of sublimation, deflected energies, jokes designed purely to cause pain, loyalty only to ones pack mates and the like.

"I remind myself of something which he Leto has said and which I am sure is true. He is every soldier in human history In the book, Leto is Emperor of the universe who has powers whereby he is the colletive conciousness of all humans dead and alive . He has offered to parade for me a series of examples - famous military leaders who were frozen in adolescence. I declined the offer. I have read my history with care and have recognized this characteristic for myself."

The homosexual, latent or otherwise, who maintains that condition for reasons which could be called purely psychological, tends to indulge in pain-causing behavior - seeking it for himself and inflicting it upon others. This goes back to the testing behavior of the prehistoric pack. When it breaks out of the adolescent homosexual restraints, the male army is essentially rapist. Rape is often murderous which is not survival behavior. Rape was always the pay-off in male military conquest.

"Then tell me Atreides, how are women better soldiers than men?"

"They find it easier to mature."

Rape is foreign to women and they have a compelling physical way of moving from adolescence into maturity. Carry a baby within you for nine months and that changes you. The loyalty in a male army fastens onto the army itself rather than onto the civilization which fosters the army. Loyalty in a female army fastens on to the leader. Men are susceptible to class fixations. They create layered societies. The layered society is the greatest invitation to violence. It does not fall apart, it explodes. Women make common cause based on their sex, a cause that transcends class and caste.


In recent years there has been much public speculation as to whether or not woman are fit for combat duty. This is the best argument/theory I have heard for or against the idea. Can you convince me otherwise?

 

[honky275]

so only women who have had babies should go into the army due to their maternal instincts? if that is what the author of your article is saying then i disagree. should they not be looking after their own babies? is that not where primary instincts of mothers lie?

 

[CutesyCindy]

you know, using bits from a science fiction novel to support your case is... well, not really supporting your case