Women to be drafted?

[HBK]

Women are well-suited to flying airplanes. They may be better built for that than men. However, combat on the ground is a totally different situation. Mainly because, if you didn't know (and apparently you didn't) women and men are different. Women in general have smaller frames and are not as strong. Their bone density is also less. If you put women in combat and the firefight starts, the mission ceases to be what it was and becomes "rescue the women." It's just the way guys are wired (honorable ones, that is) to want to protect women. I thought this was common knowledge.

 

[Gewehr98]

What evidently isn't "common knowledge"...

And this approaches dangerous thread veer, btw - combat qualified aircrews like myself and the lady A-10 pilot, as well as ground-pounders of the female persuasion, all undergo some serious POW training. I'm not going to get into specifics, but those online who have undergone both the basic and graduate courses can relate with me. Let me just say this - upon completion of these DoD courses, nobody, neither male nor female, has any illusions that they will be left unmolested, both physically and mentally, if taken captive by enemy forces. And as part of the training, that molestation is played off against the male POW's when the female POW is made to suffer, to work on the ingrained American social value of protecting females from all things evil. "Honorable" is but a social value in this particular country, a remnant of chivalry, and as other countries adopt female combat troops, it sticks out like a sore thumb. Guess what? When held captive, it's neither a male nor female, it's a fellow POW. That's it, we all work together to survive and return with honor. Period. Whether man or woman, on entering military service, you raise your right hand, sign on the dotted line, take the training, and press on with the offensive.

Are women physically slighter of build? I'm sure they are. I'm also certain that men are built in different dimensions and bone densities. Heck, as folks progress in rank and age, their physical configurations change. The old sergeant major may not make the fast hike with a heavy pack in as quick a time as the young boot. If he's a little bit slower, I doubt anybody's going to give him a ration of you-know-what about it. So why discriminate against women who have the drive and motivation to join the armed forces and risk their lives in our nation's defense? And I'd love to see concrete evidence that mission objectives were delayed due to rescuing the female troops. Who's to say those same mission objectives weren't delayed by a slower male troop?

Maybe my point of view is skewed from that same POW training, and flying with fellow aircrew who just happen to be female. Or maybe it's because Wife #2 is a Marine Brat, and a former Marine herself. She can still load up and move out like nobody's business, and delights in proving it. Her retired Gunnery Sergeant dad gave her holy hell for marrying an Air Force puke, high-altitude remote-control administration of war and all. (Although I had to remind him, as a B-52 crew-dog, that high altitude meant 400 feet to me on most of my sorties in that platform.)

 

[fix]

The lesson learned G98 talks about should be that the acronym is wrong. SERE should rightfully be SEER, because resistance is definitely the option that one should save for last. One might argue that it should be SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEER! And it don't matter what you have between your legs.

 

[CannibalCrowley]

Gewehr98

combat qualified aircrews like myself and the lady A-10 pilot, as well as ground-pounders of the female persuasion, all undergo some serious POW training

First off, I'm unaware of any U.S. branch of service which utilizes female combat troops. It's pretty rare for normal infantry to get SERE training, and I wouldn't be surprised if people in supporting units don't even knew what it is.

"Honorable" is but a social value in this particular country, a remnant of chivalry, and as other countries adopt female combat troops, it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Which countries have adopted female combat troops?

Are women physically slighter of build? I'm sure they are. I'm also certain that men are built in different dimensions and bone densities.

Yes, a small number of men have less muscle than a very small number of females. But the average male still makes a better soldier than the average female.

I'd be willing to accept female combat troops if:
1. All females had to follow the same standards as the men.
2. They were made to take depo shots to reduce the chance of pregnancy and solve period issues.
3. Severe punishments for both parties if they become involved in a romantic relationship while in the same unit.
4. Severe punishments if they become pregnant while in a job that would be hindered by such.

 

[Gewehr98]

Cannibal, have a looksie...

Italian rifle company:

http://www.nato.int/sfor/indexinf/142/p04a/t02p04a.htm

Israeli combat troop:



I love the preconditions you put on female military combat service.

I get the feeling that some posters here on THR would feel more comfortable if women were instead kept barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. Must really chap them that women were granted voting rights in 1920, too.

 

[Barbara]

My favorite is still "claim we're equal."

Newsflash, dude..no claims..statements..and not even of mere equality. I'm a damn sight better than a lot!

 

[CarlS]

The old sergeant major may not make the fast hike with a heavy pack in as quick a time as the young boot.

I resemble that remark!!

 

[CannibalCrowley]

Gewehr98
Here's the story related to the pic: http://www.washtimes.com/world/20031230-112834-9968r.htm It's key points: "For the past three years, female ground troops from Israel's Carcal company have patrolled the quiet desert borders with Jordan and Egypt, freeing up their male counterparts for duty in more dangerous areas." AND "Most work far from the battlefield and serve as little as half the time required of men."

I love the preconditions you put on female military combat service.

Well, what regulations would you put in place to deal with the current problems related to females in the military (which would increase with women being allowed into more units)?

1. All females had to follow the same standards as the men.
Is there something wrong with making women meet the same standards as the men they serve beside?
2. They were made to take depo shots to reduce the chance of pregnancy and solve period issues.
Female pregnancy is an issue, even in combat zones. Depo shots would be a prevention measure that could be administrated with supervision. It would also solve performance issues related to women's periods (ie no more debilatating cramps, bleeding issues, etc).
3. Severe punishments for both parties if they become involved in a romantic relationship while in the same unit.
Romantic relationships within a unit only breed favoritism and jealousy.
4. Severe punishments if they become pregnant while in a job that would be hindered by such.
If they intentionally become afflicted with a condition that removes them from duty status, why shouldn't they be punished?

 

[Barbara]

Actually, I wouldn't have a problem with any of them..except possibly the last one..hard to prove and not easy to punish both guilty parties. How about we compromise on them taking the required time off but its tacked onto the end of their tour, with the understanding that the baby gets shipped somewhere until Mom and/or Dad's job is done.

(My typical smart-&@# answer: make it clear that the father of the child *must* take the 9 months following the birth off to care for said child himself..that'll cut down on unintended pregnancies.)

I would have a problem with Depro for draftees but not as a condition of enlistment. There are health risks that may be acceptable for a volunteer but that I don't think anyone should be forced to undergo.

 

[Gewehr98]

Cannibal, you got some pretty smug answers there, don't ya?

Tell you what, and this ain't from my near 20 years active duty - you graduated from high school what, 5 years ago? So you probably know by now it takes two to tango, or make a baby. If a pregnancy causes mission degradation, why punish just the mother, hmm?

And I wouldn't force a Depo-Provera shot on anybody. You take one yet? My first wife tried it. She ended up in the hospital as a very sick young woman, thought I was going to lose her for a while there. Make that a condition of enlistment? I think not.

Never mind the fact that you'd be forcing birth control on Americans who may have a religious objection to it, like Catholics and Mormons.

Adult relations between military members have been going on as long as there has been a co-ed military. Nothing new there. Fraternization is one well-known relationship no-no. Even when fraternization isn't the main issue, if the relationship is prejudicial to an organization's good order and discipline, the UCMJ is brought into play. That's the Uniform Code of Military Justice, by the way. And I can tell you how it would be played out. Nobody in their right mind would be put up on courts-martial for getting pregnant - that's just asinine. Administrative discharge, under honorable conditions.

And I'd be real curious to see the numbers associated with pregnant women being a problem for the military. Maybe a problem for men who don't want women in the military and are looking for an excuse to drum them out of the service...

Barbara, I agree. I've been quite vocal about paternity leave for military members for a long time. It may indeed happen, state and federal governments are already doing it for non-military employees. Unfortunately, I retire in just over a year and a half, so it may be a moot point for my cause. At least I got to attend the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute. Some other folks really should go to it, or a similar civilian course.

CarlS, no disrespect meant. I can't run my 1.5 miles as fast as I could 18 years ago, either.

 

[Oleg Volk]

Good article about the draft: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/04/draft.html

 

[CannibalCrowley]

Pregnancy (even in combat zones) is a problem. From a recent article: "But while we don't know what the overall pregnancy rate is among female soldiers serving in Iraq today, in Operation Desert Storm it reached 15 percent and was the single largest cause of evacuation from Bosnia during U.S. deployments there."
(link)

A statement on military pregnancy from GMU: "Each year, between 10 and 17 percent of servicewomen become pregnant. In certain posts the rate is higher. In 1988, James Webb, Secretary of the Navy, said 51% of single Air Force and 48% of single Navy women stationed in Iceland were pregnant. During troop deployment in Bosnia, between December 1995 and July 1996, a woman had to be evacuated due to pregnancy every three days."

As for punishing those who becom pregnant, they are well aware of what causes pregnancy. If a man injured himself in order to escape a combat zone, he'd be punished, why not hold women to the same standards? It would also help discourage prostitution (which is another existing problem).

I can understand that some might be averse to Depo, but it should be clear to those that don't take it that no special concessions will be made for any complications caused by their periods.

Barbara

How about we compromise on them taking the required time off but its tacked onto the end of their tour, with the understanding that the baby gets shipped somewhere until Mom and/or Dad's job is done.

Actually, this should be used in conjunction with a lighter sentence (provided that she can name the father). Of course, I'd want their leave days to be used first. After that every day of missed service would equal 1.25 days of time added onto their contracts.

One of the main problems with this is those who want to run the military like a civilian institution. It isn't one, and the sooner people realize this the better.