Women in Combat

[Gunny]

I didn't think there were, but for some reason I keep thinking that I read a report about the first female pilot in combat and she was shot down, killed. I can't seem to find a report on it though. Grah. Frustrating.

[Reika]

I found an interesting article on what one female fighter pilot had an issue with. I think this pertains nicely to the subject in question.

And here's another that is about females as fighter pilots in general, don't know how old it is though.

Thought they had some interesting insights with regards to this thread.

[Salvation122]

I found an interesting article on what one female fighter pilot had an issue with. I think this pertains nicely to the subject in question.

They are required to dress that way because - if I remember correctly, and now that I think about it, I'm not sure; I'll look - it was a provision of the treaty that lets us put the bases there. The strategic needs of the United States come before the feelings of the women in question.

[BloodHound]

you'll note that it says traveling off base - on the base, which is considered American soil - she can flip off the Saudi pres if she wanted. Off base she is now in Saudi Arabia and expected to follow the laws of that country. We do the same thing in Germany, Japan, any where we have a base. Unfortunatly, thats just the way it is - even if the Saudi's treat their women like crap.

[3278]

So first of all, what roles are women currently not allowed to fulfill in the American military?

AFAIK, it's the combat units that are up for grabs.

That appears to be the concensus. Excellent.

What will be the material and non-material cost of inclusion of females into these roles?

As far as I can tell, minimal. We've already got Jane Grunt out in the field alongside Joe Grunt, so in that area we'd need nothing special.

We do not. In fact, that is precisely the issue. Given that women are not in armed combat MOSs, accomodations will need to be made for them in those areas, including facilities - unless we're discussing coed showers, bathrooms, and so on, in which case, please specify - uniforms, equipment, standard kits, field medical training, and so on. Additionally, adding women to front line combat troops will remove them from their current positions, which is a significant expenditure in training and friction.

If I may make a suggestion, since these questions are very specific, you may wish to do as Paul did, and do some research before answering them. Certainly, "minimal," is not a specific reply.

I have no idea about tank crew accomodations, but I'd assume they'd be minimal.

Again, please do not assume. If you do not know, you can either research, or ask one of the many military personnel on the board.

What will be the sum total of the benefits of the inclusion of females into these roles?

We increase the number of frontline soldiers, without spending a red cent on new troops.

But we will have to spend money on new troops, as has been shown. Therefore, a clear benefit - or series of benefits - will need to be found to justify the expenditure of time, personnel, friction, and so on. If increasing the number of soldiers is the only benefit, then adding additional males to those front line units will have the same effect, without the accordant costs of female inclusion. More benefits must be found.

[Gunny]

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Those are the laws of that country and, as a soldier, I'm a representative of my country and I want to do my best to keep thoughts of America in a good light with the natives.

Besides, it's just clothing. It's not like she's being required to have her clit cut off if she wants to walk around off base. Yeesh.

[Cain]

We do not. In fact, that is precisely the issue. Given that women are not in armed combat MOSs, accomodations will need to be made for them in those areas, including facilities - unless we're discussing coed showers, bathrooms, and so on, in which case, please specify - uniforms, equipment, standard kits, field medical training, and so on.

With the exception of Specops teams, who are expected to survive in the field for quite a while without any facilities at all, the average grunt soldier lives in a camp shared by combat and noncombat troops. Since women are already there, we don't have to make any special accomodations.

Remember, women are already in the field, they're just not on what people think will be the front lines. Everything you suggest would only be an issue if women were not in the field at all.

But we will have to spend money on new troops, as has been shown. Therefore, a clear benefit - or series of benefits - will need to be found to justify the expenditure of time, personnel, friction, and so on. If increasing the number of soldiers is the only benefit, then adding additional males to those front line units will have the same effect, without the accordant costs of female inclusion.

But you haven't shown that females will cost us anything more than what we're already paying! Again, We Already Have Women in the Field. They live and work alongside males, and in many cases they do the exact same jobs. The benefit of a change is that we now have a larger pool of qualified applicants for the combat roles, which in turn means we're more likely to have the best people in those roles.

[3278]

That there are women in the field does not mean there are women using the same facilities as front line combat units. Certainly, in wartime, they will not be, due to simple geographics.

Cain, are you going to do any reading or research at all on this topic, or are you just playing ping-pong? Because I've seen this movie. It hits Paris. Not interested.

[Cain]

That there are women in the field does not mean there are women using the same facilities as front line combat units. Certainly, in wartime, they will not be, due to simple geographics.

Do you honestly think that there are *separate* ones?

Fighter pilots, for one, will be using the same facilites. Infantry units will be following the combat teams with quartermaster trucks, packing the shared facilites along with them. Tank crews and artillery will have to go back to supply dumps-- which are run by noncombat teams.

Look at Jessica Lynch. She was, IIRC, in a quartermaster unit that came under fire. Women are already serving in units that are getting shot at. Clearly, putting women into the line of fire isn't going to require any major adjustments, since it's already happening.

Do you really think that we'd need different facilities for fighter pilots? Do you really think that we need his-and-hers aircraft carriers in order for women to fly fighter planes in combat?

[3278]

Ah. It hits Paris. Not interested.

[Salvation122]

Look at Jessica Lynch. She was, IIRC, in a quartermaster unit that came under fire. Women are already serving in units that are getting shot at. Clearly, putting women into the line of fire isn't going to require any major adjustments, since it's already happening.

There's a difference between women serving in a non-combat MOS that the army does its best to defend with combat specialists and intentionally putting women into combat. This is not a good analogy.

Do you really think that we'd need different facilities for fighter pilots?

Is there any significant difference between catheders for men and women? Honest question. If there is, than we'll have to modify aircraft on an individual basis for women to use them.

[Reika]

Do you really think that we'd need different facilities for fighter pilots?

Is there any significant difference between catheders for men and women? Honest question. If there is, than we'll have to modify aircraft on an individual basis for women to use them.

After doing a quick search there is no difference in catheters, just in how they're inserted and even then it's the similar areas of the body. Here's info given in close to layman's terms.

[crone]

Ironically, my greatest source of information about menstrual disorders - the women on the board - will most likely remain inaccessible to me, since on the surface it appears that I'm saying women shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military because they have periods, which is not at all what I'm saying, but I doubt they'll bother to read that far into it.

I'm reading, but if that's not what you're saying, what are you saying?

What I think you are saying is that it doesn't matter what kind of person you are, or what you can do, how capable, smart, how gifted a leader, or a sniper you might be, if you are female, we can't be bothered. There is not anything you could possibly have to offer that would make it worth while to sort out the problems.

Do women as a gender have built-in superiority in some area that makes them better soldiers than men? I doubt it. Are there some women out there who would make better soldiers, better NCOs, maybe even better generals than some of the men currently serving in those positions? I bet there are. How many/much lives, equipment, money do capable, not to mention brilliant, leaders save? Yes, the military will have to buy tampons (or Seasonale, or Depo Provera). Are women worth it? How dare you say no!

(I guess that is what is up for discussion, but you won't get rational argument out of me on this, so I'll leave it for others.)

[3278]

What I think you are saying is that it doesn't matter what kind of person you are, or what you can do, how capable, smart, how gifted a leader, or a sniper you might be, if you are female, we can't be bothered. There is not anything you could possibly have to offer that would make it worth while to sort out the problems.

I'd like to make it clear that this is precisely what I'm /not/ saying. In fact, when I'm talking about cost/benefit ratios, what I am <b>specifically not saying</b> is, "There is not anything you could possibly have to offer that would make it worth while to sort out the problems." What I am saying is that the improvements must be worthwhile in order to justify the expenditure of sorting out the problems.

Do women as a gender have built-in superiority in some area that makes them better soldiers than men? I doubt it.

I think there are certain general tendencies, statistically-speaking, that make women better in certain areas of military service than men. I've heard many compelling arguments, for instance, suggesting women make vastly better naval commanders than men. I don't know enough about men and women and being a naval commander to speak to it myself, but I'd sure rather have a woman on the bridge than a man. Men are dumb. Generally. Statistically.

Are there some women out there who would make better soldiers, better NCOs, maybe even better generals than some of the men currently serving in those positions? I bet there are.

I bet there are, too.

How many/much lives, equipment, money do capable, not to mention brilliant, leaders save? Yes, the military will have to buy tampons (or Seasonale, or Depo Provera). Are women worth it? How dare you say no!

What I say is that until we know how much/many lives, equipment, and money will be saved by female inclusion, we cannot know if the expenditure in time, effort, and friction will be worth it. I dare this, because it is rational. Cost/benefit ratios are significant, particularly when dealing with military expenditures.

(I guess that is what is up for discussion, but you won't get rational argument out of me on this, so I'll leave it for others.)

Truth to tell, there's little enough rationality to go around. When I say, "I'm not sure if including women in front-line combat units is economically feasible," what I hear most often is, "How dare you say that!" It's okay; I get why. I also like that you're intellectually honest enough to be open about it.

[Cain]

Is there any significant difference between catheders for men and women? Honest question. If there is, than we'll have to modify aircraft on an individual basis for women to use them.

Reika already hit this one, but the answer is no. I'm most familiar with Foleys and Suprapubics; in neither case would sex make a difference.

What I say is that until we know how much/many lives, equipment, and money will be saved by female inclusion, we cannot know if the expenditure in time, effort, and friction will be worth it.

Considering that the military is already paying for tampons and Depo, what would be the disadvantages? Frontline troops share bivouacs with the quartermasters, and the noncoms frequently do come under fire. Further, the Isrealis have women in every combat role, and don't seem to be suffering for it-- in fact, pound for pound, they may even be a better military than our own. Clearly, having women in combat roles isn't hurting them, and may even be helping.

[crone]

Seems like I missed a bunch of posts the first time round. I'd swear this was only up to page two.

What I say is that until we know how much/many lives, equipment, and money will be saved by female inclusion, we cannot know if the expenditure in time, effort, and friction will be worth it. I dare this, because it is rational. Cost/benefit ratios are significant, particularly when dealing with military expenditures.

Oh well, as long as you are openminded about it (which you are, I am recognising that) I can't get too irate.

I don't think anyone here has this information.

[Anguirel]

What I say is that until we know how much/many lives, equipment, and money will be saved by female inclusion, we cannot know if the expenditure in time, effort, and friction will be worth it. I dare this, because it is rational. Cost/benefit ratios are significant, particularly when dealing with military expenditures.

We aren't going to get real numbers, but let's go into some hypotheticals here to see if it's worth pursuing this line of thought further.

Ok, I'm first going to make an assumption, for the sake of continuing this: where physical strength is not an issue, women can and will equal men. Sniping is about sneaking and aiming and pulling the trigger at the right time. Women can do that as well as men. Combat piloting is about skill, not strength. Women can do that as well as men. Further, just as there are skill levels and a sort of continuum from "amazingly good" to "not fit for duty" for men, the same applies to women, and let us assume that roughly the same percentages of absolute peak and absolute crap and everything in between exist.

Now, we currently have, say, the top 20% of men who applied to the airforce and who are capable of flying in combat-arena fighter craft. If we only need a fixed number of pilots, but we open it up to women, we increase our pool to pull from. Therefore, we can have the top 18 or even 15% (fewer women will apply, and we are assuming that of those who apply, equal percentages will have equal skill levels) of all applicants rather than the to 20% of men. That means we have better pilots, which means more missions accomplished without problems, less loss, greater efficiency.

What changes need to happen to the airforce to accomodate these female fighter pilots in combat? Other than allowing them in, nothing. Not one damn thing. Those jets need to land at fighter bases or on aircraft carriers. I believe the pilots are already segregated from the naval crew, for the most part, so we don't need to worry about even handling coed systems if we happens ot have a male naval crew running the ship should that be the primary base. Those bases will be far enough behind the lines that having appropriate facilities (hot water, for example) should not be an issue at all. They will, in fact, already be used for non-combat missions as well, which women already fly. If the wing is entirely comprised of women, there is no worry about "male instinct" causing problems. Not that I think it would show up anyways, but there. Women flying combat missions incur an increase in performance, and the only cost is frictional. A few extra complaints filed or whatever, and that should be only until the unit has "proven" itself and people can accept the fact that the female pilots are ace.

Let's look at submarine crews. They're literally stuck on a boat which is constantly cooling a fucking nuclear reactor. I don't think hot water is an issue. The crew is entirely female (because pregnancy on board a sub would suck ass and we don't want to risk rape or whatever with initial runs), the medical crew would be well trained in handling any additional female whatever. standard kits for females already exist, we load the sub up with the female versions. As long as all of the women are physically capable of doing whatever the hell it is the crew may be required to do physically (and I have no idea... I guess loading torpedoes or maybe some repairs might require some extra physical strength) they're fit to serve. I have personal misgivings about women not killing eachother after spending six months in close proximity, but I'm willing to say it's possible. Net cost: $0, gained effect: better crew since we choose the best to go into the subs.

Let's look at infantry. Physical requirements are higher, but let's assume we have women who can actually meet those requirements. Hygiene becomes an issue for certain deployments, but in places like, say, Iraq or North Korea or any place we are holding ground and running combat missions from established bases, I don't see any problems. Women already are deployed in these bases running non-combat missions. The gear carried for those non-combat missions already exists, and should be nearly identical to that carried by infantry (i.e. women already have body armor that fits properly, chem gear, etc...). Net cost for specific deployments: $0. Gain: better soldiers on the front lines.

What am I missing? What other costs exist?

PS. Cain - We gain precisely 0 troops for Iraq if women are allowed into combat. However, we do gain the ability to rotate troops out of combat positions more easily, which may be a benefit. I don't know how the military works in regards to having combat units always in "combat-missions" or sometimes not in combat or what when we're in a situation like this.

[paladin2019]

So first of all, what roles are women currently not allowed to fulfill in the American military?

AFAIK, it's the combat units that are up for grabs. Women in the army recieve identical training to their male counterparts, so by excluding women, we're unnecessarily excluding trained soldiers. [\quote]

No, they don't. Noone in the military gets the exactly the same training. Groups gets the same training, such as all tankers are trained to operate tanks and all clerks are trained to file the proper forms, but noone comes out of basic a combat master.

What will be the material and non-material cost of inclusion of females into these roles?

As far as I can tell, minimal. We've already got Jane Grunt out in the field alongside Joe Grunt, so in that area we'd need nothing special. We've got women polots as well, who fly fighters, so there's no need for accomodations there. I have no idea about tank crew accomodations, but I'd assume they'd be minimal.

No, Jane is not grunting. By this I mean that she is performing operations with a stable support structure. This means her commanders have no excuse for not following regulation by not providiing adequate hygiene facilities. And having more than a little experience with tanks, what, specifically, are you asking?

Further, the Isrealis have women in every combat role, and don't seem to be suffering for it-- in fact, pound for pound, they may even be a better military than our own. Clearly, having women in combat roles isn't hurting them, and may even be helping.

Ummmm, no they don't. That's the information I have from colleagues in the Israeli military.

[Cash]

Ok, I'm first going to make an assumption, for the sake of continuing this: where physical strength is not an issue, women can and will equal men. Sniping is about sneaking and aiming and pulling the trigger at the right time. Women can do that as well as men.

Hell, Dr. Ruth was a sniper...

[Eva]

I'm sorry, what?

[Cash]

Dr Ruth Westheimer, the sex therapist.

From here...

Tom Foreman: You were trained as a sniper?

Dr. Ruth: We were all trained in the forerunner of the Israeli Defense Force, and for some reason that I can't explain I'm a very good sniper. I can put five bullets into this little red circle (makes circle with her fingers). I know how to throw hand grenades. I've never killed anybody. I was badly wounded.

Tom Foreman: There was a bomb that went off in the barracks.

Dr. Ruth: Yes.

[lorg]

What a combo, sniper and sex therapist ...

[paladin2019]

I'll comment here because this is what I know...

Let's look at infantry. Physical requirements are higher, but let's assume we have women who can actually meet those requirements. Hygiene becomes an issue for certain deployments, but in places like, say, Iraq or North Korea or any place we are holding ground and running combat missions from established bases, I don't see any problems.

This is the problem. You limit where they can go with this statement. So, according to your argument, 3rd Platoon, or whatever, has four (10% for the sake of argument) of its 39 (nominal strength for a rifle platoon) troops female. The order comes to deploy somewhere the Army isn't holding ground and doesn't have facilities in place. The platoon is decimated before it even deploys due to the fact that given the situation, 10% of its combat power can't go.

Now, what response will this get from the male troops? Leaders will not want to have female troops because there is a good possibility thast they will not be available when needed, like in the initial assault. Consequently, when a requirement for personnel for a detail conflict with platoon training, who do you think will be seen as the troops who can be spared? The females (obviously, duh ) because "they won't be with us, the guys who will need this!" So now females have an unofficial second class status with the leadership.

And then the resentment of the troops who feel betrayed because "the bitches is sittin' 'dis one out!"

Women already are deployed in these bases running non-combat missions. The gear carried for those non-combat missions already exists, and should be nearly identical to that carried by infantry (i.e. women already have body armor that fits properly, chem gear, etc...).

I wouldn't go this far. I know that IBA and PASGT vests are designed for men. I have ample experience with both and first hand info from female soldiers RE: PASGT. I don't know about IBA, but I haven't had the opportunity to hear anything either way. As for combat uniforms and chem gear, they have always been unisex. The question is what the differences are in terms of quantity.

"Combat troops," those whose mission is to close with and destroy the enemy, carry considerably more equipment than support troops, combat medics excepted. Female troops have more equipment than male troops in the same job, but their jobs usually include some form of carriage other than their backs. This is not always the case with combat troops. Yes, support troops generally carry the same types of equipment as combat troops (weapons, ammo, night vision, etc,) but combat troops carry much more. At least twice as much ammo, more sustainment equipment for thier gear, and specialized equipment.

As for anything gender specific, except for feminine hygiene products (oh goody, more stuff to carry,) there are none.

[Gunny]

Cash: That kicks SO MUCH ass!!!

[3278]

It's interesting to note that, according to the DoD, "91 percent of Army billets are now open to women; 96 percent of Navy billets now open to women; 93 percent of Marine Corps billets are now open to women; 99 percent of Air Force billets are now open to women." So women are already in the military, no matter what I or anyone else has to say about it. The costs have been paid, largely, which eliminates my primary argument against inclusion. [Doesn't mean it wasn't a bad idea at the time, specifically too costly at the time, but it's been done, so...]

In the Navy, for instance, the only positions closed to women are on submarines and patrol craft, due to - and it pleases me immensely to point this out - "prohibitive habitability modification costs." What they're doing now is building all new ships with the required habitability modifications built in, which of course virtually eliminates this cost. Despite 96 percent of the positions in the Navy being available to women, only 14 percent of the Navy is female, showing the difference lies somewhere other than in positions available; options include such issues as female desire to join the Navy, and discouragement of females who join. Argue amongst yourselves which it might be. I find it interesting that while women make up 13.7 percent of active-duty Navy personnel, they make up 14.3 percent of all officers in the Navy; certainly, not an extremely disproportionate amount, but enough to suggest women are not being "kept down by the man."

Most of this information is available from <a href="http://www.gendercenter.org/military.htm">this page</a>; the remainder is available from the numerous pages listed in its bibliography, nearly all of which make fascinating reading. It is my hope that such useful reading and research can eliminate the strong shortfall between opinion and fact in this thread.

I've been reading a lot about the attendant costs of pregnancy in cohabitational deployments, but I would prefer not to discuss them for fear of turning all the women on the board against me...more. However, I do find it worthy to note that the military can no longer dismiss women who are unfit for duty because of pregnancy, but instead must fill their positions with another person - at great expense - and locate another position for the pregnant personnel, thus either creating a new position, or pushing someone else out of their position.

The UN has actually done a number of studies on women in the military, and has found that women are less aggressive and less violent than their male counterparts, and thus quite desirable for peacekeeping missions. On the other hand, this makes them less-than-desirable for missions in which being violent without restraint is a useful quality. Whatever may be said about women doing lots of damage with improvised weapons and so on, the clinical fact is that women are less prone to violence, whether because of inbuilt biological mechanisms or social factors. One is changeable; one is not.

To close, I would like to provide for discussion a large portion of Bradley Gerber's <i>Women in the Military and Combat</i>, from Family Problems and Social Change.

Many experts argue that when it comes to women in the military, there are over-riding reasons why the proverbial line must be drawn when it comes to making women part of America's combat force. Among the most strenuous objections to the proposed integration comes from male officers and enlisted men themselves, whose primary fear is that this proposed change would have the potentially cataclysmic effect of significantly weakening the effectiveness of the U.S. military. They say that this change could cause a decline in the cohesion and the effectiveness of the troops, elements that could quite literally mean the difference between life and death. Among the reasons commonly cited for their belief that the nation's defenses would suffer are: a belief that women are simply physically incapable of the tasks and strains that come along with combat, the risk of sexual misconduct that accompanies the combination in close proximity of young men and young women for long periods of time, the incalculable expense of accommodating women onboard combat vessels, and the risks and consequences of pregnancy. In a report to Congress entitled "Summary of Presidential Commission Findings and Record in Support of Alternative Views", it was pointed out that the need for a superior military, which are the needs of the nation, must outweigh any civil rights claim no matter how noble or seemingly justified. "Civil society protects individual rights, but the military, which protects civil society, must be governed by different rules, civilian society forbids employment discrimination, but lives and combat missions might be put at risk by service members who cannot meet the demands of the battlefield, the military must be able to choose those most able to survive, fight and win." (Congress 1, 75)

Most studies show that women are biologically weaker than men. They are smaller in stature and have weaker skeletons and upper bodies and cannot do as much as men. Combat not only pushes people to their emotional and mental limits, it can also be inordinately physically demanding as well. A test of Army officer candidates showed that "only one woman out of 100 could meet a physical standard achieved by 60 out of 100 men." (Congress 2,59). Likewise there is the question of whether or not women would be able to handle the physical strain of fighter planes. "Aviators on combat missions must maintain situational awareness on all sides while coping with repeated exposure to high G force; i.e., up to 9Gs in the Air Force, 7.5Gs in Navy aircraft." (Congress 1, 77). It has not yet been proven whether or not the female body can sustain exposure to this severe stress for long periods of time, but it is believed that very few women are strong enough to survive this magnitude of force.

It is also believed that women generally are less able to lift large weights than men because of their smaller upper bodies. Heavy lifting jobs onboard ship such as the transportation of bombs and missiles which previously were done by four men are now assigned to teams of five or six people of mixed gender to do the same task. (Congress 1, 176). On board ship, they say, this kind of redistribution of manpower is not only expensive, it is nearly tactically impossible. At sea, every man counts, and having two people do one man's job is not an option. Likewise in the Army, cadets and soldiers often need to carry almost 100 pounds of weight over rough terrain for several miles, both in training and in battle. People argue that the physical inferiority of women would make them costs rather than assets in the ranks of combat.

It is said that when he was asked what he thought of the Battle of the Sexes, Gerald Ford said that there could never truly be a Battle of the Sexes as long as there is so much "sleeping with the enemy". This points out what people say is a real fact of life, if you put men and women together for long periods of time, even if there is no actual sexual misconduct, the risk and implication of impropriety will always exist. A recently released science-fiction movie, Starship Troopers, portrayed a futuristic view of the Armed Forces, including a scene where men and women who were about to go into combat together even shared communal showers with no stigmatism whatsoever. While this was hardly the most unrealistic scene in the movie, it certainly implied a considerable amount of societal change between now and this time in the future when men and women can work and live together without any sexual tension. In addition to the intimate relationships that might distract from their work, mixed crews on combat ships could again cause manpower problems in an increasingly downsized military. "Several men volunteered that objections from their wives to the introduction of women aboard ship could cause them to leave the Navy. One man said that although his marriage is secure, he would feel the same way if his wife's job required her to be living in a closely confined workplace with all male workers for months at a time." (Congress 1, 179). Even in a book which examines the issue from a feminist point of view, Gender Differences at Work, outlines some of the problems integration can cause. She gives the example of how Titan missile silos require two people to work in very close spaces and as a result the Navy has adopted the policy of having only same-sex crews working at any given time. (Williams 53) Unfortunately, unlike in society where a huge labor market is at your disposal, in the military it's not always feasible to have a crew of all women working in the more specialized fields at any given time. If integrating combat vessels were to cause mass resignations and retirements in the Navy, problems with manpower and repairs, or even just serve to lower morale, the wisdom of the decision would be at best in doubt.

Also there is the risk of sexual molestation from the enemy if captured. One woman, Rhonda Cornum, was reportedly fondled and "violated manually, vaginally and rectally" (Maginnis 1) when her helicopter was shot down by Iraqis in the Gulf War. Conversely, there are no recorded incidents of male POW's being subjected to sexual violation since the Vietnam conflict (Congress 1, 79)

Another set of limitations to putting women on combat vessels are the considerable changes that would have to be made to accommodate them. They say that whether in barracks or aboard submarines, creating separate sleeping areas, bathing and restroom facilities is simply not a realistic option. Especially in the case of attack submarines, their capacity is already near dangerous limits and there is simply no place to put new facilities. Also, giving separate facilities to the few female passengers onboard and forcing all the men to divide up the remaining ones could cause serious resentment among crewmembers if the impression of unfairness is given.

The biggest perceived risk of integration, however, could be the chance that a woman in a combat role run the risk of getting pregnant. The problem here is actually twofold: the first being that men think that women on the front lines are getting pregnant to avoid having to go into combat and the second being that once a woman becomes pregnant the kind of work she can be exposed to is severely limited.

As it stands, men can volunteer for combat, but they can also be assigned to combat. If women are allowed to volunteer for combat in the interests of fairness they also would have to be subject to mandatory deployment on the front lines. For this reason, many women may be tempted to get pregnant as a way to get out of combat. "According to a Newsweek report, about once every three days a woman has to be evacuated from Bosnia to Germany because she's pregnant. That rate is less than half of the 'Love Boat', the repair ship Arcadia that lost 36 of its 360 women sailors to pregnancy during the Gulf War." (Miller 1). If a woman does not want to go into combat, all she has to do is get pregnant and she will be re-assigned. A man has no such means of getting out of the line of fire. Again the issue of loss of manpower comes up. Ships cannot always afford to lose 10% of their crew in one mission.

There is also limitations to where a woman can work if pregnant. Obviously she cannot be around any amount of nuclear radiation, toxic gases, or perform any heavy labor because of the risk of severely damaging the fetus. Onboard ship or a submarine this eliminates a number of tasks from what women can do. And though the law says that pregnant women in the military can serve up to twenty weeks into their term as long as at all times they are with in six hours of medical facilities, on a submarine this is not always an option since they may be submerged for weeks at a time. (Congress 1, 163)

There are a number of compelling reasons that people cite for women to be allowed in combat roles too, however. Among the reasons they cite are: the fact that exclusion from combat impedes their chance of advancement in the ranks, studies that show women can train to be as fit as men, the success of combined units here and in other nations, and the insistence that readiness actually increases when a new pool of applicants exists. The fact that women are not allowed in combat roles, say supporters of integration, is one of the reasons why they do not advance to the highest ranks in the military. "Another consequence of these policies is that women tend to be concentrated in the lower ranks." says Williams. "There are approximately 20% more women than men in the four lowest pay grades, and men outnumber women in the four highest pay grades eight to one." (Williams 51-52). While there is no official government policy on the matter, combat experience is certainly beneficial when it comes to being considered for promotion. A recent study actually showed that contrary to popular belief, women can train to be as strong as men. The Department of Defense commissioned a $140,000 study to see just what effects a rigorous training program would have on the average woman. "The results were impressive, " said an article in Working Woman magazine, "following the conditioning, 78% of women qualified for 'very heavy' Army jobs, versus 24% before. 'I knew they'd improve', said Everett Harman, the research psychologist who conducted the study at the Research Institute for Environmental Medicine in Natick, Mass., 'but I didn't know they could improve that much'." (Pisik 20).

This evidence supports a logical argumentà if even one woman can match the physical capacity of men, then outlawing them from combat solely on the basis of biological inferiority becomes unfair. Mixed gender military units have existed both in the United States and around the world throughout history. The most famous example of the ability of a woman to not only be involved in combat but to lead forces is that of Joan of Arc's legendary battles leading the French army when she was just a teenager. These exploits are just one of any number of stories about how women in the past have successfully served in combined forces in the past. "Russian women served in combat in World War II where they flew anti-aircraft planes made of plywood and fabric with no parachutes. They volunteered as bombers and fighter pilots, navigator-bombardiers, gunners, and support crews." (Casey 1). Similar stories of bravery come from the Israeli army where women have bravely fought shoulder to shoulder with men in that country's ongoing battles in the Middle East. Women in Israel are subject to compulsory service just as the men are and are considered a valuable asset in their army.

Similar success stories can be told of the non-combat battalions in our military. Studies were done by the U.S. Army to see if the varying "woman content" actually affected field units. Some controls in the study were units ranging from 0%-15% female, where others went from 15%-35%. Contrary to the results they expected to get, the test proved that the camaraderie, the effectiveness, the performance of combined units in America are not affected by the presence of women. Another study of combat exercises in Europe yielded virtually the same results. (Williams 49-50). It seems that for all the talk, in practical application men and women can get over their tension and work together and get their job done when they have to after all.

Probably the most convincing argument in favor of allowing women to compete for combat positions is the inherent nature of competition. This nation, our entire capitalist system, and the laws of human nature rest on one basic and fundamental truth: competition makes for better products. It is true in the marketplace, where if one company has to compete with another to get a consumer's dollar they have to put out a more appealing product ("build a better mousetrap and the world will beat down your door"). In the same vein, when the applicant pool for any given position is bigger, competition theoretically yields the best person for the job. Because of this people argue, the military is like any other field. Readiness is not decreased when more people are allowed to apply for combat, it actually benefits, say those who support desegregation.

"Readiness is enhanced when we remove unnecessary impediments to the recruitment, training, and use of people. During the past year-and-a-half, the Department has made major progress in removing such impediments. As a result, some 260,000 more jobs in the military can be filled by either men or women. This represents an increase in the flexibility that the Services need to maintain readiness. Altogether, about 80% of all jobs in the armed services and more than 90% of military career fields can now be filled by the best qualified and available person, man or woman." (Congress 2, 9). A study by RAND's National Defense Research Institute prove that readiness doesn't suffer when the genders are mixed in the military. They say that "other influences, such as leadership and training, are perceived as being far more influential." (RAND 2). It seems that in practical application, readiness and cohesion at worst does not suffer much with these changes, and indeed can actually be benefited greatly.

Other reasons for integration exist as well. The NOW issued a resolution pointing out several good reasons for allowing women into combat, saying "WHEREAS, the combat exclusion does not protect women" and that "the definition of combat is ambiguous and varies from branch to branch; armed conflicts since World War II rarely involve readily definable front-lines , rear echelon units may be a 30 second missile flight from the so-called front-line, and in modern military theory rear support troops are destroyed first before assaulting those up front" (NOW 1).

If women are to be allowed in combat, they should be made fully aware of the risks that go along with it. They can be harassed by their fellow soldier, raped by the enemy, or forced to serve on the front lines even when they don't want to. But it certainly makes more sense to use things like physical aptitude tests and field experience to tell who would make the best soldier, sailor, or fighter pilot than to automatically assume someone cannot do it. The truth is that all the debate in the world won't settle the issue of whether or not letting women and men fight together will strengthen or weaken our Armed Forces. All the models defer to one thing in the end, as the expression goes, "run it up the flagpole and see who salutes it"- basically it has to be TRIED.

America's present position on the issue is good, but it could be better. The Department of Defense recently removed its "substantial risk" clause from its definition of what exactly combat was-- that is that just because a woman will be at risk of capture does not mean she can not fill a position, and as a result today in the Air Force 99.7% of positions are open to women as are 91% of positions in the Navy are open. (RAND 2, 1). But things are nowhere near equal. Secretary of Defense William Cohen recently decided that training had to be segregated in light of the continuing sexual allegations against high ranking army commanders. The service academies have had to lower their physical standards for women, which are much lower than those for men, a fact they say is necessary in order to get any decent percentage of women cadets or midshipmen. One of the places where the most stark contrast between what is expected of men and of women upon entrance can be found on the Air Force Academy's website. Their Candidate Fitness Test Preparation Guidelines (http://www.usafa.af.mil/rr/cft.htm) has a list of what men and women should do in training to prepare for the physical exam to be admitted into the Academy. Suggestions for men and women are different for each exercise, and rightfully so since women have a much lower threshold to pass in order to gain admittance.

[Anguirel]

So, according to your argument, 3rd Platoon, or whatever, has four (10% for the sake of argument) of its 39 (nominal strength for a rifle platoon) troops female. The order comes to deploy somewhere the Army isn't holding ground and doesn't have facilities in place. The platoon is decimated before it even deploys due to the fact that given the situation, 10% of its combat power can't go.

Actually, I was intending to make single-sex units in this initial plan, or to extend the boundary of what is considered available to integrated units to include any deployment that already allows for access to appropriate hygiene, regardless of the "dangers" of the actual duties performed.

Infantry is the one place where I'm willing to see the segregation maintained until such time as enough women can reach the physical requirements (and I'd imagine that has already happened, given 32's posted report which included the part about the ability for improvement in physical development). {tangent}Personally I've never bought into this argument - I've known girls who have no problem doing chin-ups, push-ups and so on. It's because they, you know, go outside and play hard. The fact that they didn't even need to do one according to the state physical exams we had to do in school always seemed to be crap. They're perfectly capable of doing it if you, you know, make them develop their muscles a little.{/tangent} So setting aside stupid qualms about partial units being deployed, what else is there?

You mentioned armor - are there actual problems with current body armor not being designed for women? What do the women currently in roles where body armor is required wear (as far as I know, you wear this stuff, like, everywhere outside of base in Iraq, so some of those women there are in it...)? How does that work out for them? When additional armor is requisitioned, what would the cost of some being designed for a woman's body be?

32 and the article attached (and even I myself) brought up pregnancy. Why not use something like, say, Norplant? You enlist for about 5 years, right? Enlist, pass basic, get norplant as part of the conditions of being assigned into a MOS where pregnancy is not an option. It's over 99% effective, and it's an implant. Not like you can forget to take it. I'm not sure if it's compatible with other contraceptives not used during sexual intercourse (such as condoms), but if it is, perhaps multiple systems could be used. That should more-or-less eliminate the pregnancy issue. It's still a potential problem, but the chances are reduced to 1% of their former state. And it's a measurable cost, for once, to be weighed against the possible gain...

[Reika]

There are other ways besides Norplant to prevent pregnancy, one of them is tubal ligation (tying of the tubes), and it can be done so it's reversable. It's an outpatient procedure that keeps a woman to light duty for maybe 2-3 days, here's an article that gives good basics, then she's back to normal. Since it's 98% effective and costs about as much as norplant (at least from the numbers I saw when I worked for a health insurance company) it's a good alternative for those women who have adverse reactions to the pill.

Though I'll admit, it kind of sucks that the entire burden of preventing pregnancy falls on the shoulders of the women. If we do see a greater percentage of women in the armed forces, I'd like to see part of the burden to fall on the men also. After all, it does take two to tango.

With regards to women not having the physical abilities to handle grunt work...I'd suggest that you talk to pandora on irc. At one point in time she was able to give males a run for their money physically since her goal was to join the marines. Since she wasn't let in for whatever reason, she eventually let herself go, but given sufficient motivation and dedication, women could increase their physical abilities. Hell, look at female bodybuilders, granted they do it for show, but I'm sure they too can give men competition.

Honestly, I think it's mainly societal factors that keep women from the armed forces. And from my experiences, it's the similar factors I experienced when trying to take a curriculum heavy in math and science in school. That women are better off with "soft subjects" like english and history. It's attitudes like that (and not just from men, but women as well) towards scholasticism as well as athletics (most of the girls in my schools were encourage towards things like track and field, and away from contact sports. Again, both women and men made those comments, it wasn't "men keeping women down"). As I was told when I was approached by an air force recruiter, certain physical factors can be corrected, had my eyes been a tad less shitty I'd be able to give a better perspective on women in the military.

Anyway, I'll stop blathering now, but maybe it'll help with a bit of perspective that isn't too nasty. (I hope)

[paladin2019]

So setting aside stupid qualms about partial units being deployed, what else is there?

Not to be presumptive, but have you ever had to worry about this? 4 personnel is the equivalent to 2 special weapons teams, machineguns or AT missiles. And since the platoon cannot shortchange itself in its weapons squad, where these are located, that means the other three are left with the equivalent of 2 1/2 squads. Not an equitable trade off. And not a stupid qualm.

This is a current situation now. Soldiers become non-deployable all the time, and because of it, are often the first to be excluded from training when another commitment comes up. Often, this is a temporary status due to injury or illness. Other times it is permanent, for the same reason. Unfortunately, until they are gone or fixed, their billet is full. The difference is that they will become deployable again. A female in this billet, under the conditions you proposed, would always be there. And then the problems I presented could not be solved.

You mentioned armor - are there actual problems with current body armor not being designed for women? What do the women currently in roles where body armor is required wear (as far as I know, you wear this stuff, like, everywhere outside of base in Iraq, so some of those women there are in it...)? How does that work out for them? When additional armor is requisitioned, what would the cost of some being designed for a woman's body be?

In terms of PASGT and RBA, they were not designed for someone with different contours for the chest and back. Reason? The front and back plates are roughly the same length. Thus, average sized women complained to me that they either had to strap themselves down or have the vest fit uncomfortabley and offer inadequate coverage. Specifically, PASGT, a waistcoat design, left a large, bellow- or skirt-like opening in the front under the cleavage. This could be solved by cinching the armor down with the equipment belt, but that is extremely uncomfortable for anyone. RBA, a breast and backplate design, could leave the midriff exposed. Except for making oneself flat-chested, there is no way aroung this. But RBA, Ranger Body Armor, is an outdated assault armor that was never intended to be issued to women.

IBA, Interceptor Body Armor, the current style, is built with a longer front than back. The overlap on the sides is also adjustable. It appears to made for a wider variety of body shapes. But, I have not had the opportunity to ask any female soldiers their opinion of its fit, particularly vs. RBA.

You enlist for about 5 years, right? Enlist, pass basic, get norplant as part of the conditions of being assigned into a MOS where pregnancy is not an option.

5 years, no. 3 or 4 (or now 3+training time) is more common. 5 is not normally an option and 6 is the maximum and rarely used. But that's a moot point. Requiring a surgery is not allowed under military law. Suggesting this type of surgery is also borderline sexual harassment. It is definitely sexual discrimination.

Why is this sexual harassment? A woman hypothetically allowed into the Infantry is told she must have a Norplant (or current Depo shot, or whatever.) Why? Because she may get pregnant. Pregnancy requires a specific act, one that the Army mandates be consensual. If it's not, it's criminal. So, unless our hypothetical Infantrywoman engaging in sexual relations, she should not have to worry about becoming pregnant. To say that the army will mandate medical procedures to prevent pregnancy then calls into question the woman's integrity and personal responsibility. So, if this is the model used, the Army is making an unofficial statement that all Infantrywomen are wanton, irresponsible whores.

[Serious Paul]

Ohh! Are we going to get into the Militaries various vaguely worded, ambiguous codes on sex and family? Sweet!

[crone]

Hygiene. This is the bigger problem. The nature of an Infantryman's life is privation. I believe the male anatomy is a bit more unforgiving than the female's when it comes to the subject of neglected hygiene. There are pharmaceutical fixes to this, but at what cost. How much extra weight does it involve? How much extra logistical support to supply in numbers? How much should a woman carry when deploying?

A month's supply would take up as much space as a packet of cigarettes, and weighs less than 2 ounces.

The current Army standard is to provide female soldiers with hygiene facilities with hot water at a minimum every three days.

If they aren't there for a little while, I doubt it would cause many serious problems. Like when the troops on the way to Baghdad had to go on 2/3 rations for a few days when the supply lines were disrupted. Not good, but it happens. The more under control the situation is, the less likely it is to be a problem. The less under control, the more you need your best people there, male or female.

[Anguirel]

Not to be presumptive, but have you ever had to worry about this? 4 personnel is the equivalent to 2 special weapons teams, machineguns or AT missiles. And since the platoon cannot shortchange itself in its weapons squad, where these are located, that means the other three are left with the equivalent of 2 1/2 squads. Not an equitable trade off. And not a stupid qualm.

It isn't stupid because it would not present a problem if it were to be a possibility. It is a stupid qualm because it is outside of the scope I have presented. We are discussing single-sex units. At least I am. Therefore, you will have 40 people in a 40 person unit be undeployable, or 40 people all be deployable.

Requiring a surgery is not allowed under military law. Suggesting this type of surgery is also borderline sexual harassment. It is definitely sexual discrimination.

Why is this sexual harassment? A woman hypothetically allowed into the Infantry is told she must have a Norplant (or current Depo shot, or whatever.) Why? Because she may get pregnant. Pregnancy requires a specific act, one that the Army mandates be consensual. If it's not, it's criminal. So, unless our hypothetical Infantrywoman engaging in sexual relations, she should not have to worry about becoming pregnant. To say that the army will mandate medical procedures to prevent pregnancy then calls into question the woman's integrity and personal responsibility. So, if this is the model used, the Army is making an unofficial statement that all Infantrywomen are wanton, irresponsible whores.

Yeah, there is that. Unfortunately (with regards to Reika's desire that this include men) I'm considering the possibility that it isn't fellow soldiers doing the impregnating. If that were the case, I'd be just as happy to see something done on the male end - that new-fangled ionized plastic thing that shreds sperm and is reversible, for example. However, military men getting their wives who stay at home pregnant is not an issue. It's one that is only possible for women - you could say that we've already done everything necessary to prevent the men from getting pregnant.

This is a volunteer gig. This is not saying all female soldiers are irresponsible whores (actually, sluts - they wouldn't be charging), this is saying that the army cares about its personnel and understands that women are capable of desiring sexual activity. Rather than allow the system to be a voluntary choice above and beyond service - and thus a point of potential singling out and ridicule - it will simply be done in a blanket-fashion. All members of the armed forces in combat duties shall be rendered incapable of becoming pregnant as part of the terms of volunteering for and accepting a combat MOS.

Thank you for the information about armor. That would be another possible required cost, but one which needs to be addressed in any case as long as women are serving at all.

[3278]

We are discussing single-sex units. At least I am.

Single-sex units, weapons teams, batallions, platoons, companies? Which?

[paladin2019]

It isn't stupid because it would not present a problem if it were to be a possibility. It is a stupid qualm because it is outside of the scope I have presented. We are discussing single-sex units. At least I am. Therefore, you will have 40 people in a 40 person unit be undeployable, or 40 people all be deployable.

In that case, you are suggesting that the Army waste resources on a unit it cannot use. A single rifle platoon is over 2 million dollars in equipment. US$68,000 on the initial training of a rifleman. The platoon leader, a lieutenant, adds at least another US$60,000 to this figure for his (or in this hypthetical case, her) intial training, which is considered to start with his college career. Add to that the unnamed value of the sergeants' experience and the various additonal schools they attend.

Yeah, there is that.

There what is? You are proposing a violation of medical ethics and military law.

Unfortunately (with regards to Reika's desire that this include men) I'm considering the possibility that it isn't fellow soldiers doing the impregnating.

What are you considering? I was considering that it is possible that hypothetical female Infantrymen would run the gamut of sexual activities, from celibate to anything that moves. Just like the male Infantrymen I know. What you are suggesting is that they will not be responsible in activities that they will always participate in.

However, military men getting their wives who stay at home pregnant is not an issue.

My wife is reading over my shoulder and is very curious exactly what you are saying here. She is a pregnant military wife.

This is a volunteer gig. This is not saying all female soldiers are irresponsible whores (actually, sluts - they wouldn't be charging), this is saying that the army cares about its personnel and understands that women are capable of desiring sexual activity.

Yep. Female soldier probably do desire an active sex life. And they receive the same safety briefing every weekend that male soldiers receive. The relevant portion to this discussion is to practice safe (or safer) sex. If a female soldier wants to have a child, that is her business. She may be disciplined if she is irresponsible about it, ie, not having a plan to care for the child or by virtue of being out of wedlock (or long-term relationship) and not having an established plan to provide long-term care for the child in the event of deployment. But to require that a woman be sterilized, however temporary, in order to enter the service.....

Rather than allow the system to be a voluntary choice above and beyond service - and thus a point of potential singling out and ridicule - it will simply be done in a blanket-fashion. All members of the armed forces in combat duties shall be rendered incapable of becoming pregnant as part of the terms of volunteering for and accepting a combat MOS.

This is still a violation of military law. A patient always has the right to refuse medical treatment.

If they aren't there for a little while, I doubt it would cause many serious problems. Like when the troops on the way to Baghdad had to go on 2/3 rations for a few days when the supply lines were disrupted. Not good, but it happens.

The difference is, it is not a violation of regulations to put soldiers on reduced rations due to logistical necessity. Or regardless of logistical necessity. Several Army training courses (including some versions of initial entry training) include reduced rations in the Program of Instruction.

It is, however, a violation of field sanitation regulations to deny female soldiers hygiene facilities, ie, hot weater and soap, etc. This is normally acccomplished in training by transporting female to barracks every three days to shower. Yes, in the middle of a training exercise. When on a tactical deployment, where showers are not available, they must at least be provided with hot water for bathing everty three days. What does this mean for the hypothetical Infantrywoman in the bush with the rest of the platoon?

Hot water currently requires a burner. The current chemical water heaters the Army has are designed to heat sealed rations; the used water is not potable and contains several suspended and diluted by-products. What these will do to skin with prolonged contact I am not aware of. They also do not produce much. So, burners. Burners give off light and heat, so they can't be used at night. So, she has to bathe in the daylight. Does the tactical situation allow a blind of some sort or a secluded area to bathe? If not, our hypothetical Infantrywoman(en) will have to bathe in fromt of their male counterparts. The only benefit to this is that it makes it easier for their supervisor to ensure that they are takling care of themselves (yes, soldiers not bathing, male and female, is an issue. Don't make me elaborate on my current problem child.) Besides that, the PR nightmare of Jane Grunt writing home to mom about how she had to do this is the least of the drawbacks.

[Anguirel]

We are discussing single-sex units. At least I am.

Single-sex units, weapons teams, batallions, platoons, companies? Which?

I don't know. Whichever size makes me right. That is, whichever size is the minimum required to have a fully effective whatever deployed. Either they all can go, or none can go, but it isn't possible for a partial whatever to be deployed because someone was too stupid to realize there were women in the whatever and they would not be allowed to participate for extended durations beyond effective means of having the hygiene elements they require.

It isn't stupid because it would not present a problem if it were to be a possibility. It is a stupid qualm because it is outside of the scope I have presented. We are discussing single-sex units. At least I am. Therefore, you will have 40 people in a 40 person unit be undeployable, or 40 people all be deployable.

In that case, you are suggesting that the Army waste resources on a unit it cannot use. A single rifle platoon is over 2 million dollars in equipment. US$68,000 on the initial training of a rifleman. The platoon leader, a lieutenant, adds at least another US$60,000 to this figure for his (or in this hypthetical case, her) intial training, which is considered to start with his college career. Add to that the unnamed value of the sergeants' experience and the various additonal schools they attend.

How is it an unusable unit? Are all combat missions run from bases where hygiene is impossible?

Yeah, there is that.

There what is? You are proposing a violation of medical ethics and military law.

Yeah, and I don't care. Change the laws. It's a new cost. I'm proposing a possible change to the system about which I know nearly nothing and I'm asking for where the problems lie. I didn't know that it was against military law. So there is that. That's something that would need to be changed if norplant were to become a mandatory element to being placed in a combat MOS as a female.

Unfortunately (with regards to Reika's desire that this include men) I'm considering the possibility that it isn't fellow soldiers doing the impregnating.

What are you considering? I was considering that it is possible that hypothetical female Infantrymen would run the gamut of sexual activities, from celibate to anything that moves. Just like the male Infantrymen I know. What you are suggesting is that they will not be responsible in activities that they will always participate in.

I'm considering that women might go out and find some local whom they can fuck. And thereby get pregnant and need to be reassigned. Which is the whole fucking point of everythign I've posted. Have I really been that unclear?

However, military men getting their wives who stay at home pregnant is not an issue.

My wife is reading over my shoulder and is very curious exactly what you are saying here. She is a pregnant military wife.

I'm saying that men in combat units don't need to be sterilized because men can't become pregnant. When they have leave, it is perfectly acceptable for them to go home and impregnate their wives, girlfriends, random strangers, whomever happens to be around and consents. It would not be acceptable for a female soldier from a combat MOS to go home on leave and have her husband impregnate her, since that would require her to be reassigned. Now, if she applied for a transfer and acquired it, then it would be fine for that to happen (hence the reversible procedures I propose).

This is a volunteer gig. This is not saying all female soldiers are irresponsible whores (actually, sluts - they wouldn't be charging), this is saying that the army cares about its personnel and understands that women are capable of desiring sexual activity.

Yep. Female soldier probably do desire an active sex life. And they receive the same safety briefing every weekend that male soldiers receive. The relevant portion to this discussion is to practice safe (or safer) sex. If a female soldier wants to have a child, that is her business. She may be disciplined if she is irresponsible about it, ie, not having a plan to care for the child or by virtue of being out of wedlock (or long-term relationship) and not having an established plan to provide long-term care for the child in the event of deployment. But to require that a woman be sterilized, however temporary, in order to enter the service.....

Not the service - just specific units that would require extended deployment where pregnancy would otherwise require reassignment.

Rather than allow the system to be a voluntary choice above and beyond service - and thus a point of potential singling out and ridicule - it will simply be done in a blanket-fashion. All members of the armed forces in combat duties shall be rendered incapable of becoming pregnant as part of the terms of volunteering for and accepting a combat MOS.

This is still a violation of military law. A patient always has the right to refuse medical treatment.

Then in this case they would also need to have the right to refuse assignment to a combat MOS.

[Serious Paul]

I don't know. Whichever size makes me right. That is, whichever size is the minimum required to have a fully effective whatever deployed. Either they all can go, or none can go, but it isn't possible for a partial whatever to be deployed because someone was too stupid to realize there were women in the whatever and they would not be allowed to participate for extended durations beyond effective means of having the hygiene elements they require.

Generally speaking, and I do mean generally, a Company is the smallest sort of unit you'd see deployed by itself. Platoons do get deployed, so do squads and "teams" but these are usally pretty specific scenarios, and not long term rotations.

A company usually has alll the elements you'd need to be self supporting-as long as you were planning on having MRE's everyday, or food delivered, etc...

[paladin2019]

How is it an unusable unit? Are all combat missions run from bases where hygiene is impossible?

No, but any operation can take on this quality after it begins. In recent history, and you may be familiar with it from the movie Blackhawk Down, the Battle of Mogadishu went to hell in a handbasket due to an ambush and bad decisions on the part of the leadership. If we have it, we always carry night vision, water and rations. The Rangers, in this instance, made the decision to sacrifice these in order to carry extra ammo. It was not believed the mission would last as long as it did. They had gotten away with this previously. It bit them in the ass. The Army must plan for the worst and accept a certain amount of risk when the worst is less than an ideal situation. Given that you propose a unit which may not participate in the full spectrum of operations, it becomes unusable.

Yeah, and I don't care. Change the laws. It's a new cost. I'm proposing a possible change to the system about which I know nearly nothing and I'm asking for where the problems lie.

And any doctor who then performs the procedure risks losing his licence to practice medicine. He is violating basic medical ethics. Again, a patient must consent to any procedure.

I didn't know that it was against military law.

I've said it several times already.

So there is that. That's something that would need to be changed if norplant were to become a mandatory element to being placed in a combat MOS as a female. I'm considering that women might go out and find some local whom they can fuck. And thereby get pregnant and need to be reassigned. Which is the whole fucking point of everythign I've posted. Have I really been that unclear?

And why is it necessary for this soldier to not become pregnant? How does that impact her ability to perform her job in the long term? She can't play army for six months (late term plus recovery)? How is that any different from a paratrooper who breaks a leg during a jump? His physical therapy will last at least that long. Or a soldier who drops a tranny or engine on himself when removing it from his truck? He may be laid up for awhile, too. These are all risks the Army is willing to accept. Why should pregnancy's status change?

Not the service - just specific units that would require extended deployment where pregnancy would otherwise require reassignment.

You are still placing an illegal requirement on a portion of the force and the implication of this requirement, by your own words, is that this segment of the force will be irresponsible and promiscuous in their activities. How will this idea be sold to Congress, who will have to make any change to the law?

Then in this case they would also need to have the right to refuse assignment to a combat MOS.

They can't be there now. How does opening the MOS up and then putting additional requirements on it, help?

Informal poll for the ladies of Bulldrek. If you were inclined to seek a posting as an Infantrywoman or tanker (you know, the guys in tanks ), would you still still seek that job if you could not have a child/start a family?

And your male counterparts could?

Would you look to make this a career if you had to wait 15-20 years to start a family?

[WillyGilligan]

And any doctor who then performs the procedure risks losing his licence to practice medicine. He is violating basic medical ethics. Again, a patient must consent to any procedure.

I think he's saying that you make the consent a pre-requisite for signing on in a combat MOS. I don't think it's medically unethical to do that as long as the woman involved has made this decision voluntarily. But it does move the ethical problem up to recruitment. Is it ethical to require this decision in order to get this assignment?

And why is it necessary for this soldier to not become pregnant? How does that impact her ability to perform her job in the long term? She can't play army for six months (late term plus recovery)? How is that any different from a paratrooper who breaks a leg during a jump? His physical therapy will last at least that long. Or a soldier who drops a tranny or engine on himself when removing it from his truck? He may be laid up for awhile, too. These are all risks the Army is willing to accept. Why should pregnancy's status change?

It's effect is slightly different because if a paratrooper breaks his leg on purpose, it's malingering. It's harder to prove, I think, that a woman became pregnant on purpose rather than due to uh...normal activity. Most of the difference, honestly, will come from social stigma. It's more likely to be percieved that a woman who gets pregnant in a combat unit did so to get out of combat. Also, you know when you broke that ankle. Unless your my wife, most women don't know the second that they become pregnant, allowing the possibility of a pregnant woman being deployed to a mission where contact with her home unit and evacuation will be difficult if not impossible. While the same could be said of soldiers with life-threatening illnesses, deploying with cancer doesn't risk the tumor's life as well as the soldier's.

Would you look to make this a career if you had to wait 15-20 years to start a family?

Just maybe, there would be room at times of a woman's career where she could take an assignment to be an instructor or become more invovled with the administration of a unit. This isn't fleshed out, for I have a child to attend to, but I'll throw the idea germ out for consideration.

[Anguirel]

And any doctor who then performs the procedure risks losing his licence to practice medicine. He is violating basic medical ethics. Again, a patient must consent to any procedure.

I think he's saying that you make the consent a pre-requisite for signing on in a combat MOS. I don't think it's medically unethical to do that as long as the woman involved has made this decision voluntarily. But it does move the ethical problem up to recruitment. Is it ethical to require this decision in order to get this assignment?

At least I know I'm not being completely unclear. Yes, this is exactly what I mean, and as to the question of whether it is ethical or not - it is at least as ethical as not allowing it at all because women might get pregnant which is exactly what is happening now. The Army, by denying women the right ot be deployed in a combat MOS is already saying exactly what you said my plan would say. Plus that women are dirty and need to be cleansed every three days (ok, I'm exaggerating that part ). Or rather, people on this board have said that. If one reason women aren't allowed in a combat MOS (according to those on this board, along with some articles) is because they might become pregnant, then we give those women who want the opportunity to prove themselves in such a unit a method to eliminate that objection. *poof* Pregnancy is no longer a viable objection. What's left? Assume, for the sake of this question, that norplant or some other procedure is acceptable - what else is preventing women from joining a combat MOS?

And why is it necessary for this soldier to not become pregnant?

Because pregnancy, unlike say, breaking a leg in an accident, always has a prerequisite conscious decision attatched. Men can proceed without fear. Women wanting to be absolutely sure would be forced to repress their sexual side - this would, of course, still be true, given no method is 100%, but it makes the chances so slight that they would be no worse than a aparatrooper breaking a leg, and it was no longer something done purposefully to exit the combat zone. It becomes another absolute accident.

Would you look to make this a career if you had to wait 15-20 years to start a family?

Just maybe, there would be room at times of a woman's career where she could take an assignment to be an instructor or become more invovled with the administration of a unit. This isn't fleshed out, for I have a child to attend to, but I'll throw the idea germ out for consideration.

This too is implied in my above suggested course - a women desiring a family would put in for a transfer to a non-combat MOS. At that time the procedure providing contraception is reversed, and she has her family, and then may once again join the combat MOS thereafter if desired.

Andy... I'm really trying not to be antagonistic here. I honestly don't know a lot about the military. Objections to women going into combat were raised. I'm trying to eliminate them to see whether there are any insurpassable ones.

Thus far we have a Black Hawk Down situation as the only insurmountable one - however, that situation is possible for any unit, including quartermaster units in which women already participate, albeit less likely. I believe that as long as they are not explicitly thrust into a situation requiring extended periods beyond proper facilities, the objection can be noted, but dismissed. Women can certainly live without access to hot water every three days. If their unit is caught in such a situation, it may be best to hold them for medical observation a little longer than all-male units in similar circumstances to be sure there are no infections, but otherwise I think they'd be just fine in terms of being able to do their duty.

[Reika]

Okay there's one thing I'm confused about. Why do women have to have access to hot water every 3 days and men don't? I believe both are just as subject to infections in that portion of the body and you don't hear about the armed forces loosing men to rampant cases of cock rot (except for the ones who aren't particular about what holes they put them in, but that's a different issue) due to lack of proper sanitary facilities.

I've known women who have willingly gone on camping trips that were more than a week long with the only water they had access to was whatever stream/river/pond/lake was available and they certainly didn't get any infections. Granted it is different from a combat zone, but some of those hiking/camping trips were pretty rough. Your average woman knows how to keep herself clean, and I'm sure the armed forces would make sure whomever they accepted knew how to keep clean.

If a woman wants to get into a combat MOS she'd be aware of what she's getting into, including the lack of hot water and other sanitation.

[paladin2019]

I believe both are just as subject to infections in that portion of the body....

I know my sister has had problems with yeast infections if she doesn't bathe within about two hours swimming. This is the least of the problems the Army is worried about, but it is also an extreme example.

...I'm sure the armed forces would make sure whomever they accepted knew how to keep clean.

You'd be surprised. I'll leave it at that.