Women in the Infantry

[RahilR]

Apologies in advance if somebody already addressed this...has the matter of pregnancy been discussed?

I know that people have alluded to sexual behavior among the troops but what I was thinking about was more along the lines of an individual who has a significant other and wants a family.

In the case of men in the military, if a guy is deployed the significant other takes care of the child. But in the case of a female, if that person is working to have a child and is called-up for deployment there might be the possibility of being in the early stages of a pregnancy which could be in jeapardy given the strains and stresses of a forward area.

From another POV, can a women in the Infantry be by-passed for deployment if they are pregnant or trying to get pregnant? If so, that raises the question of a man seeking to be excused from deployment because he and HIS partner are trying to have a child? And IF such reasons allow for a person being excused from deployment where do we draw the line? Help?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[SpiderPig]

Rather than jumping into the fray, here's my take on this:
(1) There clearly are women capable of serving in the infantry. How many is debatable, but it's ridiculous to suggest they don't exist.
(2) The argument that integration would mess up unit cohesion has been made before about race and sexuality. It was wrong then; what makes people think it's right this time?
(3) Integration doesn't wait until people are ready. Some people won't be ready until after it happens, no matter how long you wait.

 

[ProfessorL]

Women in the infantry?...what's next, women in the work place? What's the world coming to grandpa?

 

[Steam]

What you brought up is actually something I've heard a lot of guys complain about while I was in. Women have pregnancy to deal with which changes up certain standards that are held to them vs. men. In a non-combat environment it's not as big a problem in my opinion, but there are obvious reasons why it would be a concern on the infantry side of things. If a person becomes a vital part of a unit and its operations/dynamic, and that person drops out due to natural circumstances and can't be replaced then you end up with a loose end that other people have to make up for and that could definitely cause friction and a whole lot of extra work for others. It's a predicament that is definitely unique to women only as well.

Although I think it's a valid point, I'm not quite sure about how severe of a problem it would actually cause. I think it's something to be taken into consideration but I could see movement into another military occupational specialty (MOS) being the option they would go with if a woman becomes pregnant if integration of the infantry happens. That event itself could cause a lot of friction because the same standards and policy doesn't apply to both sexes. Or people would just realize women are different in that way and it's an appropriate thing to do. If I were serving with a locked on individual that was a female who was trying to have a family I wouldn't resent her if she became pregnant and had to go somewhere else, but I would if somebody couldn't take the infantry and became pregnant just to get out of it. If a female were to use pregnancy to get out of something it would really just be an added 'cop out' method for a female though, because I've been witness to plenty of malingering, whiny males who found their way out of the military.

On a combat deployment I think a policy providing sever consequences for allowing yourself to become pregnant (being the pregnancy came during deployment in activities that are already not permitted) should definitely be upheld.

 

[Monalisa]

Both single fathers & mothers must sign an agreement with the government stating that they have a contingency plan in case of deployment &/or working hours. Single parent refers to those with soul custody of the child.

If a female is pregnant she will not deploy do to her extra medical needs. The military doesn't have the facilities to care for pregnancies during a deployment. Men don't or can't become pregnant so they will deploy. The military doesn't care if you are working on children, children only come into play once they are conceived.

I've seen a few occasions of females becoming pregnant to skip a deployment but I've seen a much greater amount of males scam their way out. It's all relative, those who can't hack it won't & they'll find or do what ever it takes to get out of what ever it is they don't want to do.

 

[JennyV]

OwlMatt
Rather than jumping into the fray, here's my take on this:
(1) There clearly are women capable of serving in the infantry. How many is debatable, but it's ridiculous to suggest they don't exist.

I agree entirely. The woman in the video in the OP is testament to that. It would in fact be ridiculous to suggest they aren't capable of function at the same level as males in a combat environment. How many are capable (with an understanding of health, fitness, and the human body which isn't largely present in the majority I think the number would actually be pretty high), and how many are actually interested in the pursuit definitely becomes something to discuss.



I don't think they are the same at all. With race and sexuality we're tackling racism, intolerance, and bigotry from individuals which can be enforced by policy to stop and have a legal system to uphold. With this issue we're discussing something that applies to the majority of everyone (regardless of race but not necessarily sexuality) that has biological tendencies and urges that not everyone is able to handle. While I think this can be overcome and shouldn't even be a main focus on an outcome to the situation, it most certainly should be addressed. We're also talking about longevity due to physical standards and stresses and whether that could be a problem due to the structural differences of males and females as well as the physical ability to adapt to different stresses. If it were to be found that the requirements by and large cannot be met by females but integration still occurred, this would most certainly have an impact on unit cohesion if somebody weren't able to keep up (this applies for males and females). That's not a problem you have with race or sexuality.



Can't really add anything more to that. I agree.

 

[JakkiBean]

You guys ever seen an angry pregnant woman? If they were on the front lines, the war would be over 5 years early and millions of lives would be saved.

 

[cc_woman]

That's a umm . . . . interesting perspective. We should all write our congressmen/women and point this out : P.

 

[rook]

I have no patience for the argument that people can't control their biological tendencies. Controlling biological tendencies is part of being an adult. It's silly to give a person the responsibility of fighting for his country and then in the same breath suggest that he can't be trusted to control his hormones.


Wait a minute. Didn't you just agree that there are women who can handle infantry duty? No one is suggesting we put women in who don't meet the requirements. No one is suggesting we change the standards to accommodate anyone.

 

[trina_lahey]

You can have as little patience as you want but look at the problems the U.S. military is facing currently with sexual assault. It is silly though, isn't it? I'm more inclined to be of your opinion though, which is why I said I thought it was something that should be addressed but not something that is a deciding factor.

I did agree that there are women who could handle infantry duty. There are women already, including the Captain in the video who have handled themselves in combat duty already. I also mentioned my extremely scary drill master in bootcamp who could probably out due the majority of people in the infantry now, but she was a physical specimen that the world of fitness would hold up on a pedestal as well. The general question being asked is whether or not there will be a significant amount of women who are able to stand up physically in the long run as well as a man, and if there are potential health threats or issues that are associated with women that differ from men that could cause more trouble then the benefits of integration of infantry units to the organization as well as the individual.

 

[Betho]

Frank Herbert (Dune) had an interesting theory about female shock troops

He argued that weomen make superior soldiers, because they can be as technically proficient as men at the war making, but after the fight is done men have an urge to rape and pillage. This compounds the anger of the civ pop and galvinises resistance.

Females do not have the same urges so a conquered population is easier to control and less likely to resist

 

[originalquene]

I find this to be an interesting claim considering that one of the biggest military scandals of the last decade involved a woman posing in photographs with torture victims.

 

[zymentl]

A theory, not a claim

The way the prison guards tell it they were being ordered by the CIA

 

[bassoplenty]

I don't mean to be pedantic but saying that females make better soldiers is the claim/hypothesis. If that proved to be true, then the explanation why that is would be the theory.



Of course they are going to say that. Whether or not it's actually true will never be known to people who weren't involved. Moreover, I don't think that makes their(the men and women involved) behaviour excusable.

 

[MikieLikesItt]

Can't say I'm a big fan of Frank Herbert's idea. I can't recall any sort of historical battle or war that used women as the shock troops or a main force, so how does one know they wouldn't partake in similar activities. It brings you to a whole different world in your head when you go out with the objective to kill or defend people. How people deal with it is entirely different before, during, and after the event. I would find it hard to believe that men and women would be so different to that degree in how they react.

 

[JlEazy]

Standard procedure is not to deploy a female service member if she is pregnant or has just had a child. However on the male side of things it's not considered an excuse. During my last deployment to Iraq we barely had been boots on ground for two weeks before one of our team leaders' wife had their baby. He had to wait several months until he could finally take leave to go home and see him. It's all part of doing business but certainly (and understandably so) females should be entitled to that benefit for obvious reasons moreso than males.

 

[chocolatesyrup101]

Ideally that's the right idea. Realistically we don't get to see that very often. Especially considering it all depends on whose cake is baking in the oven if you get my drift.

 

[pirlo]

Isn't this just an explanation for why less women will make the cut for infantry? Something quite different from "This is why no women should be allowed to serve as infantry.". Those who can do the job, can do the job. If it was found that Scottish people fail fitness's tests regularly and under-perform in Stress scenarios, that wouldn't change anything regarding policy on recruiting Scottish people. I fail to see why it is so for women.

 

[purpletoad1]

This was actually the determining decision to maintain the ban by them. Not only due to the difficulty of them to meet the same physical standards (which they actually had to remove some of the common skills tasks typically tested as being expected of infantry so they could test fairly) but also by the incredibly high injury rates. I think it's worth some notice since they already did quite a bit of research and legwork on it and considering that the original idea of the study was to prove women could operate in the same capacity.

 

[ladykalis]

take it up with Frank