File #1
What's your opinion on this controversial issue?
Posted: 23 May 97:
I'm a 28 y/o, female Staff Sergeant, US Army, with 8 years in. This is how I see it. The issue is not whether or not women are strong enough, or emotionally secure enough because some women are. The issue is whether or not women and men should fight side by side. I say this: Women do NOT belong in combat!
The overwhelming range of emotions found in combat situations is extraordinary. Both the male and female genders are well equipped to handle the danger and fear associated with the foxhole, but not when they are together. The natural instinct to survive and protect would take over. The natural sexual attraction would take over.
Just look what happens in co-ed barracks! How about a deployment to NTC? Look what happens in PLDC or BNCOC. Heck, we can't even put males and females together in basic training without daily rampant sex.
Bottom line: Certain women can handle anything these days, but not every woman. We are not men! Leave the Ranger Battalions, and the Special Forces Battalions, and the Infantry Battalions alone . Let them do what they do best - kick some ***. They've been doing a damn good job all these years. Leave 'em alone ladies!
Posted: 19 May 97:
Greetings, I am a 27 year old male who has spent his entire army enlistment in the 3rd Ranger battalion. I am currently, and have been for over a year now, a rifle squad leader. I have some combat experience. I am more than qualified to give an opinion on this issue because I'm the man who is currently kicking in the doors, breaching the wire, jumping and humping the heavy rucks, and clearing the trenches. Unlike most who offer their opinions.
The Army should go ahead and form a battalion of all female infantry, train them to standard, and test them on their METL tasks. They could make a comparison between their performance and their male counterparts to determine if it is cost efficient, and worthy of incorporating into the force structure. Let the performance be the deciding factor.
As far as incorporating females into male combat units, bad idea. Cohesion would be out the window. WHY????? It doesn't matter why, it just would be. Period. You don't have to LIKE it, that's just the way it IS. Combat units are NOT support units, so you can not compare the two. Our "job" is to CLOSE with and KILL the enemy, not drive a truck, shuffle paperwork, or stock a warehouse.
If the female infantry succeed in combat, great, if they get slaughtered, than I guess it was a bad idea. There's only one way to find out. -- the JED
Posted: 21 Apr 97: A Response to the 19 Apr 97 Posting:
In response to the Marine whose message was posted on the 19th of April;
I personally believe that there are many women out there who could do a commendable job in infantry positions. But I also think that in the present day, your conclusions are probably correct. There are more reasons than just biology explaining the things that you've seen regarding women in the military. Very few women, in this day and age, would actually WANT to be in the infantry, compared to the men at least. And the high drop-out rate must, to some extent, be linked to the fact that most women have had less experience at sports and physical activity in general than have men, and thus enter the military underprepared for the hardships that lie ahead.
This is changing, but it will take time to change further. Where I am in Australia, there have been incidents of sexual assault and discrimination aboard Navy ships that the subsequent reports have blamed largely upon the fact that there were only one or two women on the entire ship. It is my understanding that United States Navy policy dictates a minimum number of women on ships - as Australian Navy policy now does, I think - to prevent just such incidents from occurring. A woman in an infantry unit may be every bit as competent as her companions, but she would be very much alone among men. The Marines or Army could do what the Navy does, and open up one unit at a time, to create and maintain a minimum number of women in each, but that would create additional tensions between those units that had been opened, and those that had not.
Give it another ten or twenty years. That generation will have grown up with role models more progressive than today's, and will probably have greater physical and mental resilience because of it. And military culture will be different too, if the present trends continue - imagine; a third of ship-board Naval personnel being female. One in four fighter pilots. Ditto artillery, and associated support roles. And armor, too (the next obvious target for women, and already achieved in countries outside the USA) Ever increasing numbers of senior officers, with combat and non-combat commands. When that happens, people will see the inevitability. Now, we see only problems.
And never rule out technology, either. Those packs will inevitably get lighter, among other things. Not that physical standards should ever be compromised - all those female dropouts you observed are in fact a good sign, as it shows that the system is working, and only letting in those who've earned it. But the increasing trend in modern warfare is to place mounting emphasis upon what is between a soldier's ears, and not what is between a soldier's legs.
Posted: 19 Apr 97: Wanted: Opinions on Women in Infantry Positions:
I am a Marine with five years of active service and will be going active reserve in the next month. I have served with three different units, HQ Co., 2nd Bn 5th Mar., and last 1st Force Recon. I have been deployed three times, with five real world missions, two of which I received hostile fire. I think I am qualified for an opinion here. Presently I am writing a thesis for school on whether females should be allowed into an infantry position. A couple weeks ago I would have said "Hell No!!". My research is not going so well. The most persuasive arguments come from this web page. Now its not only hard to substantiate my thesis, but I am almost ready to reverse it. My only hesitation is that I have the firm belief that females do not belong there. Now I did it, I just opened a whole can of worms. Don't take me wrong. I have worked with some serious and dedicated female marines, soldiers, and sailors. I have no problem with female aviators, or as helicopter crew members. Even as artillery gunners (as long as they could carry the ammo). But before you tell me I am a chauvinistic moron let me go further with my experiences. In jump school, at Ft.Benning, the class was about 98% Army, with most of them just out of boot camp. I couldn't believe that the Army sent all these young people to this school. You are lucky to even get considered for this in the Marines.(but this is a budget issue). Anyway the point is the attrition rate was low, I would say about 50 soldiers could not hack it. The physical standards were very low. But of the 50 a generous guess would be 40 of them were female. The reason I know this is from watching them as they fell out of the slow shuffle pace during PT in the morning. This could be a singular instance but its not. During patrol, in Camp Pendleton, I and my team watched as a unit from HQ came out to the field and got some outdoors experience. At the end of the day something peculiar happened. The males set up tents and the females were driven off in a Hummer. They did not come back till 0800 the next morning. The only person that fell out of Comm school when I attended was a female. I am not saying anything but what I have seen. Now, how can the Marines afford in time and money, of which they have very little, to screen and push females into the grunt units. A Bn. will train for two years and then deploy. By the time they are overseas, enforcing US policy, they have become a cohesive unit. If a man has to leave because of injuries it can seriously hamper the effectiveness of his fire team, which affects his squad, then his platoon. Etc. Etc.. Can we afford the time and money to integrate females into these demanding roles? I can't speak for the Army but as for the Marines I don't think so. Again I am not sexist (or I am and just delusional) but I think I am practical. I do believe there are females that can carry the 125lb. load that was common in Force, but to find that female amongst so many would be difficult. Again I feel honored to serve in the US forces, and many of my companions were female. I am sorry if there are those who disagree with me, but its just experience and the time in the bush that I use to make my decision. -- Semper Fi.
Posted: 17 Apr 97: In response to the 27 Jan 97 post by a US Navy SEAL:
I read your response with great interest as I am sure many others did. Your response touched me so much I had to print it to share with my friends. Don't misunderstand - all of us out here greatly respect your training and what you do, but it is probably very much on the same order as our Marine Force Reconnaissance units - they just aren't so cocky about it. I don't doubt that the feelings of your SEAL team members echo your own, however let's look at your logic point for point.
1. As far as lowering the standards of training to allow women a shot at that Trident badge, I highly doubt that taking in consideration your military purpose and mission that would be a likely outcome. Also, seeing as the Commandant of the Marine Corps has just put into effect a policy change to align men and women's fitness standards and training to "eliminate possible perceptions of inequality," physical requirements are INCREASING and THEY ARE BEING MET. So when you say that current SEALS will be endangered by the addition of unqualified personnel - the truth is no one is going to put a guppy in the tank with a bunch of sharks. If a woman made it in I bet she could probably make you cry.
2. Since the thought of a woman on a SEAL team is "THE most repugnant thought any SEAL could ever have...and the potential for abuse would be certain," I would think that the training alone would mark her intestinal fortitude to withstand what you boys felt the need to dish out. But really now, how much does someone - anyone have to take. I'm not saying that there will be some mad rush to become a Navy SEAL, or even those that try will have what it takes, but there will be a few out there that can go toe to toe with you and still be willing to have your back at crunch time. Although you wouldn't deserve it.
3. Hmmm, now for the issue of pregnancy. If a woman chooses this assignment mandatory injection with Depo-Provera at regular intervals would be the understanding on this one. Anyone that can endure "the most difficult course of instruction in the DOD and arguably in the world" will not give it up next week so she can have a baby. Like you said, it is an all voluntary force. If pregnancy is her reason then it's as good as any man's for leaving the unit.
4. With all due respect to your point with regards to your spouse's stress level if a woman was in your platoon - but isn't that saying more about you than that woman SEAL?
So, your logic is flawed, I suspect the problem is more glandular. -- SEMPER FI!!
Posted: 2 Apr 97:
I am a male veteran of Vietnam. I carried a rifle. For those who haven't, male or female, I can attest there is no glory in trying to take the life of other mothers, fathers, and teenagers. Once the trigger is squeezed - there is no turning back. Those images haunt forever.
Having clarified my position, I'd like to make a comment - probably not popular with some of the men's comments I've seen here tonight- Wars in the future are going to continue to lack the "front lines" of the great wars and Korea. Like Vietnam, and to a lesser extent,the desert, fluidity and confusion will mark everyone in the theater. Imagine the terror in a barracks when a Scud missile eliminates not only life, but identity. To my knowledge neither weapons nor plasma is "sex distinct." Ambush can come from anywhere, and friendly fire is always a danger.
So what's the point? It's simply that in today's military, every Doggie, Leatherneck, Zoomie, and Swabbie is subject to sudden death, or (worse to me) totally debilitating wounds that leave us maimed for life, and unable to contribute further.
What's left? To define a combat role. If you're there, you're in one! I remember seeing the interview of a helicopter pilot during the desert. The pilot was later killed flying a Chinook somewhere over a sand dune. I felt an awful sense of loss, not because the pilot was a woman - but because she paid the same price as the Infantry troop. Tonight I read of a veteran who was awarded a purple heart for wounds incurred engaging the enemy in a firefight in WWII. I doubt she fired "pink" tracers, or used "soft shell" ammo. (Evidently the other side didn't either).
Today's technology has blurred responsibility, and capability. I would much rather face the "Republican Guard" than a 90 pound blonde sitting at the console of a Cruise Missile. So would any other soldier who's been there and done that (even if we have outgrown the t-shirts).
Finally, I believe you've hung in there and persisted, I saw last week where the Army has their first female 3 star flag on board. Seeing the way she presented herself and having served the same Army, I was proud of her, and the good sense the Army showed in her promotion. Like the General, I believe osmosis, and continued good judgment will prevail. I believe above all the military should be and will become truly a place of equal opportunity.
I would only ask that those who would be the instrument of death, one on one, really understand it's ramifications. Godspeed
Posted 2 Apr 97:
I am a 19 year old male who is currently attending college and I am an active cadet in the AFROTC program. I first got interested in this topic by an English research project. I, like everyone else in this great country have my own opinion on this topic.
1. I was reading this book about women who have had their struggles in the military and how they have had to fight for combative positions. The passage in which I'm referring to is by a female staff sergeant in the Army who was at NCO leadership training. She ran into a Ranger who said that women do not belong in the Army period. He went on to say that what if I were in battle and got wounded, and she was next to me and needed to carry me out of the field, she wouldn't be able to do it. That Ranger later went to Grenada. After he got back, he found that staff sergeant and said; " Sergeant, you know the whole entire time I was over there, I had you in my mind.' He said, 'I was wrong. We had some guys that jump out of airplanes, and when it came time for doing it real, they just froze.' He said. ' I jumped out, gung ho, ready to go. I got on the ground, and bullets and fire and bombs was flying all over the place, and I froze.' He said,'It could happen to anybody. I see what you mean. It doesn't matter." She later said that she couldn't believe that he found her to tell her that he would have rather had her by his side, than the men that froze.
2. Our Det has a population of women that is about 25% of our Det, and that is really impressive that the USAF is willing to take that many women, commission them to 2nd lieutenants, and put that kind of trust in them. There are a couple of women from my Det that I know who got assignments to flight school. There is no fear there on the part of the USAF to spend that kind of money to train women to fly our plane possibly into combative zones.
3. All I have to say, is ladies, go out there and strive for your dreams. You will never know what could happen unless you let go of the stereo types, and go for it. You can reach for the moon, and if you never get it, at least you will be amongst the stars. GOOD LUCK!
Posted 29 Mar 97:
If the enemy thinks you are weak he may attack. Nothing should be done to the military which would encourage an enemy to possibly attack us. After reading these posts I say this- if as a nation we cannot decide whether or not it is OK to send women into combat, then I must conclude that we should not. The actual and perceived strength of our military is what has often kept us out of war- no one wants to mess with us. Why screw up a good thing, or if it ain't broken-- why fix it?
D.K. -- a civilian male
Posted 17 Mar 97:
Who must give the ultimate sacrifice for a society is not a decision that can be made lightly. It also cannot be made in vacuum. It is not a singular issue, as who must bear this responsibility has ramifications outside of the military.
If it is unfair to deny women combat roles, then it is unfair to demand that men-only sign up for the draft. It is unfair that a man may be shot for desertion, but a woman may *choose* a military career or a combat job.
Military service is not a jobs program, but a responsibility that society places upon its members. To demand entry is to also assume the responsibility. The ramifications of this, exceed the narrow focus of opening up just a *few* positions.
You can be disciplined for negligent behavior in getting a sun-burn. A military member does not own their body. It is the "Property of the U.S. government" Since the Supreme Court has ruled that a person has the right to do what they want with their own body, then this also means that the government has the right to do what it wants with a military body. You can be ordered to risk your life in a hopeless situation. Women must accept this same responsibility. Not only for those who *wish* a military career, but ALL women. This is a BIG issue. If a woman gets pregnant thru negligence, then does the government have the RIGHT to demand removal of the unviable tissue mass, for the good of the mission?
Military service is not an issue of individual fairness, it is a question of social fairness. We must debate this issue in its larger context. Women may choose, but men must go, is not socially fair.
Posted 6 Mar 97: Russian Women in Combat in WWII
I don't know how many people know this, but in World War Two, while American women were safe at home, anxiously awaiting news from the front of their husbands or sons, Russian women were fighting and dying on the battlegrounds of the Eastern Front against the invading Nazis. With the horrific losses suffered by the Russians early in the war, they were eventually left with far more weaponry than people who were qualified to use it. Women on the Eastern Front served in combat as fighter and bomber crews, artillery gunners, tank crews, snipers and yes, even infantry.
I read recently about one young Russian woman by the name of Lydia Litvak, a Junior Lieutenant. Being a Russian fighter pilot at the time would most likely have meant piloting a Yakovlev fighter, which is similar to a British Spitfire or an American Mustang. Controls back then were fly-by-wire, too, none of this fancy powered stuff that's around today. That meant that flying required some serious strength, as the controls could get very heavy in tight maneuvers.
According to what I read, Litvak was a very good pilot. She didn't give a damn about equal opportunity, or women's rights, she just wanted to kill the fascists who were invading her homeland and killing her people. She used to paint a big, white rose onto the nose of her fighter, just so the Germans would know who she was. She went missing on August the 2nd, 1943, when she'd insisted on flying, despite her hands being badly injured at the time. They never found her body. Her final tally of German kills was 12, twice that required to be recognized as an ace.
It makes you wonder what might have happened if America had let women fly against the Japanese in the Pacific - with the substantial increase in the available talent pool, it could have taken six months off the war.
I hope that all of this helps to put a very nineties argument into some kind of historical perspective.
Posted 6 Mar 97: "Women can if they want to"
I think women should be able to fight in combat. I cant see why they shouldn't if they are good enough.Well, not every woman is nor every man. Most men are stronger than women, how I wish it wasn't like that, but it is, sadly. There are women who are strong, and women who can fight.Women who could replace the men at the front-line, I'm sure of that. Let them. Those who aren't that strong can do other things. If a woman wants something, it isn't impossible. And if she makes it,to be in the Army or fight in combat, etc., she has fought much harder than the man to get there.
Finally, I would like to tell all the women who are fighting for their rights to KEEP ON!, and last:To tell all you "macho men" that we women aren't incapable as you seem to think!
Anna,14
Posted 2 Mar 97: Women in combat? Should it be or not??
I am a senior in high school and I have been researching "Women in the military." It is of no shock to me that once again there are such controversial issues of one of the biggest questions in America, Should women be allowed in combat?????? I am all for equal rights and I agree some people just do not have the common sense of what the word "EQUAL" really means and it is of great concern to many people. Who are you to say what a woman is capable of doing? So many men and even women believe that it is OK to be a woman behind a desk in the military but not the front line woman in combat. I just cannot and refuse to comprehend your reasoning behind this outrageously unequal statement. There have been many women who have proven themselves in other occupations, and in everything, so why such a big head on why we cannot excel in the military. The world is full of MALES AND FEMALES. So knock off this crap, yes that is what it is crap about women couldn't possibly be physically prepared for the military. Granted some women may not be military material but then you also have the men who also aren't capable either. I read letters about this on the web and I am beginning to become very uneasy, aggravated, and pissed about some comments. Mind you I understand everyone has a right to their own opinion but also keep in mind woman and men are supposedly supposed to be equal and obviously in the military we are definitely still striving to prove ourselves. If men wanted to achieve a goal, that most men didn't consider a "man's job," women understand that it is the man's right to do so, so many people just do not understand women is part of men and if we weren't capable of achieving what men do then god would not have made women spelled that way! So take this into consideration and think twice before you preach about how would it look to others if women were treated equally in the military!!! Someone wrote how would it look if women kissed their children goodbye to go to the military, well it should show freedom, bravery, and strong-willed women fighting for what they believe in. Women aren't just fighting for their country but along with their rights in the U.S.A. each time a female is born. I hope the world someday becomes better, in my mind and many others I don't see it every becoming better but worse, and it is so sad we cant even stand out together as The United States of America, together, equal, and free. I will leave you with a thought to consider.. Did you ever think that we the U.S.A. could stand out stronger, tougher, braver if we combined as one male and female to fight our enemies and have a better outcome then fighting on who does what based on their sex, instead we the U.S.A. fight each other and lose our battles with one another rather than our enemies that could take us all out as a country!!
Thank you for your time,
Melissa
Senior in High School
Posted 19 Feb 97:
It is interesting to me that so often the question of women in combat is examined in light of fairness, rights, and equal opportunity when I think the basic issue should be effectiveness. I am a woman and I spent almost four years in the Coast Guard. I found that my lack of upper body strength was a real problem for me and that being at a small boat station was frequently so difficult that I really did not enjoy it at all. I'm not saying it was undoable; just difficult and so wearying. So when I think about expanding the presence of women on ships, I wonder if it really is such a wise idea. People pooh-pooh the difference in strength between men and women but it is real and it needs to be addressed. And I really haven't seen that done here or anywhere else.
When we consider women in combat roles we add to the strength issue the issue of drive. At six months old, male babies demonstrate more aggressiveness than females do. Compared to the over three thousand men on death row in this country, there are fewer than fifty women and women make up roughly ten percent of the prison population. How many of us can remember seeing boys fight in school? Now, how many can remember seeing girls fight, and I mean really fight. I never did. It is silly and counterproductive to pretend that there are no significant differences, physical and otherwise, between men and women. It is unrealistic to pretend that these differences don't matter especially when it comes to something so utterly masculine as fighting.
I personally never wanted to fight and I suspect that a great many women share my feelings. The idea of freeing a man to fight seems noble enough to me and more in keeping with most women's nature. I certainly cannot imagine seeing my little daughter go off to combat.
Posted 13 Feb 97: Response to 7 Feb 97 Femininity in Arms
I hope the USAF realizes that this type of attitude exists in their military. And I hope if anyone comes in contact with someone bearing this attitude, that they will report them to a commander, Social Actions, or someone in a position of authority. Nothing wrong with the personal opinion that women don't belong in combat, but to relegate military women strictly to desk jobs, deny that women, too, are serving in defense of their country, and criticize EOT programs is wrong. If someone like this is a supervisor (and lets their true colors show), I hope the subordinate(s) know better than to tolerate it.
Posted 13 Feb 97: Response to 7 Feb 97 Femininity in Arms
I recently read the opinion response Femininity in Arms dated 7 Feb 97- I was outraged that after 15 years in the military this guy just doesn't get it! Women should be aloud to serve their country in a time of war just like men! I am in the USAF and for this jerk to say that women should have office jobs is beyond me. Most men I see around the military can easily be replaced by women. More women could replace these so called men in their jobs, the author of Femininity in Arms is just insecure and afraid that a women can perform his duties better. It is no wonder that the military has so many problems with harassment, people like this guy need to attend a social actions briefing, or maybe its time to retire! "Out with the old and in with the new"
Sincerely, an Outraged Airman
Posted 7 Feb 97:
I believe that if a woman is willing to fight for her country no one should be able to stop her. Although I know this will probably not happen for a while. I am a senior in high school, and plan to join the military after graduation. I am considering the Marines or the Air Force. Personally I am looking more towards the Marines, because I believe they can and will get me closer to combat.
Posted 7 Feb 97: Femininity in Arms
In 15 years of military service, 1 war, and over 3000 hours in tactical jets in the USAF, I have never heard a more coherent argument why women should not be allowed in combat arms.
Your post can be summed in the phrase, "If a girl can do it, then it isn't worth my time".
There are favorable aspects of testosterone emissions...especially if you are getting your ass kicked in a war.
Unfortunately, men are not attracted to combat arms like they used to be. The men that are attracted arrive more feminine than they were in the past. And if they did show any signs of masculinity, it is quickly suppressed by EOT 2000 (Equal Opportunity by the year 2000, the hapless propaganda program forced down the throats of eager white males who volunteered to fight for their country), and the threat of the death penalty if they look at a female the "wrong" way. In fact, learning the USAF sexual harassment policy is more important than learning Air Force doctrine. In the past 50 commander's calls I can recall, we were admonished to avoid sexual harassment 50 times and discussed Global Power once. SOS, ACSC, and AWC, are the same.
Women do not belong in the combat arms. They do have a place in the military--women should fill traditional roles in the CBPO, finance, life support, etc. where their service will free a man to fight for his country.
One final thought: when the curtain goes up and we go to war, what will this country think when they see their mothers kissing their children good-bye on their way to the front? Except this time, unlike the Gulf War, we know many will not return. What will be our reaction when we see the first women aviator POWs live on CNN just after getting gang-raped and beaten? Women in combat is a bad idea!
Posted: 7 Feb 97: In regards to "From a US Navy SEAL" Posted Jan 27
I am a 16 yr. old female who hopes to gain entrance into West Point. While I believe the time is coming soon when females will be allowed to serve in combat as infantry (I know, I know, I've heard it before-the ruck sack is heavy), I cannot, however, see a day in the near future when a woman becomes a member of a SEAL Team. It is not so much that it's too physically and mentally challenging, it's unfortunately, what the SEAL said: Woman wouldn't be accepted as a member of the Team. In order for a woman SEAL to succeed, she'd have to be a member of an entire Team of women SEALs. And the entire Team of women SEALs wouldn't be treated as equals to male SEAL Teams. It is unfortunately, a lose-lose situation for women. It is not unthinkable for women to be in combat situations, however. The people that think that a lady can't get the job done on the battlefield have a very stereotyped view-it's not like we're going to be standing around worrying about our makeup while bullets hit our comrades. I believe in hard work, sweat, and the ability to overcome and succeed. In the future, there will be a way around the problem of women being less than equal to men in the military world. And the best way to start would be to resolve the combat obstacle and just let us fight and die for our country.
"DUTY HONOR COUNTRY"
Posted 27 Jan 97: In Response to the Navy SEAL:
You never have to wonder why the Navy has such a bad reputation when it comes to women. Attitudes like yours are so arcane and outdated, I had a hard time taking you seriously. You write as if these same arguments have not been raised, challenged and disproven before in several other arenas. It was supposed to be the biggest disaster in the world for women to gain the right to vote, work outside the home, join the military. So far, America's still standing. I think that what lies at the root of your discomfort with women in your field is your own insecurity regarding your masculinity. You probably view your job as making you very "macho" (it sounds corny, but if the shoe fits...). If women were to become SEALs, I think your biggest fear might well be realized--that they can do the job better than some men in some cases...probably better than you. Then, being a SEAL would no longer mean the ultimate test of manhood that you believe it to be, but rather the ultimate test of strength and courage--two things you wish you had the monopoly on, but two things of which you truly have no concept. Women throughout history have proven that women will do whatever it takes--fighting or otherwise--to survive.
Anyway, I do believe that some women are ideally suited for combat, just as some men are. Everyone always talks about the sexual dangers of women in combat with men. First, men need to learn self control, isn't that what the military is all about? Discipline? Second, why not have all-female combat and infantry units? We don't need to fight alongside men to fight men. If the women chosen are strong enough and true die hards, they will prove themselves not only to be worthy, but favorable assets in a combat situation. It's just a theory, but I would be interested to see what people think.
Posted 27 Jan 97: From a US Navy SEAL:
I am a 26 yr. US Navy SEAL currently on active duty. In my job in the Navy the integration of women would be a disaster. Lets set aside the political arguments pro and con and discuss the actual ramifications of this potential situation.
1. No more than 30% of the most physically fit males in the Navy are able or willing to complete Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training (BUD/S). BUD/S is the most difficult course of instruction in the DOD and arguably in the world. The job and the training necessitate enduring incredible hardship (particularly cold weather). It is so cold that during portions of BUD/S we were reduced to hugging and even urinating on each other to maintain warmth. This situation could be repeated on real world ops and has been due to time spent in water and wet. Here's the dilemma, do we continue to subject trainees to this environment (which they will encounter as a SEAL at some point in their career) to ensure that they are mentally and physically capable of enduring without quitting and include women into this scenario or do we lower the standards of training to prevent this politically disastrous situation and endanger current SEALs by adding to their ranks those that are unqualified to be there?
2. SEALs often operate far away from any type of command structure in very remote areas for long periods of time. The thought of women in the Teams is THE most repugnant thought any SEAL could ever have and there is nothing that anyone could do to change it. Keeping in mind that the Teams is an all volunteer unit (you can leave at any time and go into the regular Navy) two things WOULD happen if women got in. First, at least 75% and probably more would instantly turn in their Trident (SEAL badge) and leave the Teams and of those who stayed none would ever accept a woman as a Teammate or equal. There is nothing that anyone could do to change that fact and it couldn't be enforced by the chain of command because we're never in town anyway (even less so if 75% of SEALs were gone). Guys in the Teams are not saints. The potential for abuse of women is not high, it is certain.
3. Of course the readiness issue is valid here as well. A platoon commonly trains together for about a year in preparation for a 6 month overseas deployment. There are only 14-16 guys in a platoon so that means that if anyone can't go on deployment or participate in training a significant deficit exists in that platoon. If someone gets hurt during this time an experienced SEAL from the Team will replace him. Well, all the experienced guys will be gone as soon as women are in so now we really have a problem if a women becomes pregnant.
4. I am a happily married man and my wife knows what kinds of things I am called upon to do. She has told me how uncomfortable it would make her if there was a woman in my platoon. Just one more thing for my wife to stress about while I'm overseas for 6 months. This is the reality of women in combat and not just special ops.
Posted 26 Dec 96: A Desert Storm veteran writes:
The subject is women in combat. Women have been in combat since the civil war. The subject should be women in combat roles (Infantry, etc). Women in every war have died, been taken prisoner, even raped. I was in Desert Storm, and I can tell you that there were some MEN who should not be in combat! Some of the comments said that the men would risk their lives to "save' a woman's, I never saw that happen during Desert Storm. Our unit took everyone's ammo away from them after we had a MAN lock and load on us. They took away almost everyone's, I a woman had ammo they "allowed" me this because I a woman showed courage and strength. I was nicknamed (among other things) quiet strength. And I'm proud that my NCOER for Desert Storm reflects the following: Highly motivated soldier, extremely dedicated, sets high standards, can be counted on to achieve results in emergency situations (wartime), displays no outward signs of combat related stress under harsh conditions, exceeds peers in basic management skills (peers meaning men), etc, etc.
I, a woman WAS IN COMBAT, So I say again, the question should be about women in combat roles.
Posted 16 Dec 96: A college freshman in the Air Force ROTC program writes:
First of all, I would like to say what a great site this is. I am currently a freshman in college and I am participating in the Air Force ROTC program here. What I have experienced in this program is just mind blowing to me. I have found a confidence in myself, and a drive to be the best I can in all I do. I am so excited as I anticipate what the next three years will bring, and I can't wait until the day I am commissioned.
The subject of women in combat has always caused a conflict for me. It has been a dream of mine to enter into the Air Force, and I am very willing to fight for my country. I do understand why people don't believe women should be in combat, but I honestly believe some women could and are capable to do this. The fact that they are female should not be a reason that they shouldn't be allowed to fight because I am sure there are women, including myself, who have a desire to fight and protect their country. I'm not saying that it would be easy, but I know that I am willing to prove myself to be able to fight, and I think all women should be given that opportunity.
Thanks so much for having this page! I love coming to this site because I can see how many women have fulfilled a goal that I have myself. To be in the United States Armed Forces!
2 Dec 96: From the first female tank officer in the Singapore Armed Forces:
I have long thought about the feasibility of having women in combat and after much deliberation, I have decided that it is an issue that ought not be based on gender but rather, on capabilities. I don't approve of sending incapable women to the front line, just as I disapprove sending incompetent men. It all boils down to us proving ourselves. There is no room for error and poor judgment, nor is there room for weakness. However, we should not be discriminated simply because we are women. No doubt our female physique may not be suited for certain branches of the military, there are still plenty of opportunities for us to excel.
I am grateful to the Singapore Armed Forces for giving me the opportunity to serve as its first female tank officer. I don't expect privileges and concessions. I expect of myself nothing less than my best. I know I can be better than most male officers and I'm going to prove it.
Submitted 1 Dec 96:
I wish to express my utmost appreciation to the author of the 30 Nov 96 submission. I could only shake my head in dismay when I read the 22 Nov 96 submission by the 16-year old. Thank you for such an objective description of what it means to be in the military -- for both genders.
Submitted 30 Nov 96 in response to the 22 Nov 96 submission:
Wow, did you ever cover alot of issues... Perhaps I can offer a few suggestions to help clarify some of your concerns. Your argument seems to hinge on your perception of women as being the "weaker" sex, both physically and emotionally. My first thought is that you are seeing an unrealistic picture of military women as portrayed by Hollywood. Of the limited stereotypes available we see: Linda Carter as Wonder Woman (WWII); Maj Margaret Houlihan M*A*S*H; Demi Moore's pathetic Lt Commander lawyer, A Few Good Men; and those endearing MP's in Stripes). The military is not very different from other professions like police, firefighting, medical, and even the clergy. Each member joins an organization with its own disciplines and areas of expertise. Within those organizations there is a large diversity of roles, and each member will fall into a category which is suitable FOR THAT PERSON. Example: a police officer in fraud busting, has a very different set of skills than that of someone on the SWAT team, or the bomb squad. An arson investigator is different from the fire safety and prevention team. A pediatrician or neurosurgeon has a different set of skills from the doctors and nurses on the "knife and gun club" emergency room shift. Even in the clergy, some are suitable for ministering in the suburbs, and others do mission relief work in war zones. However, there is no legislation restricting gender in any of these professions. Once a person has joined, then the training begins. There is basic training, and trades training. There are range practices, personal drills, platoon exercises, company and brigade exercises, Tactical exercises without troops, NORAD and NATO exercises, and Bi-lateral and multi-national exercises. We train for war. Very few armies today use conscription any more. A Professional core of expertise, with a large number of trained reservists, is the model most nations use. The reasons are many, but simply, war is hell. The question is not "Can you cope?", but "How long can you cope?" Military psychiatry now accepts that ALL sane people will succumb to Combat Fatigue (Battle Stress Disorder, whatever). Only training and unit cohesion will really affect the duration of unit effectiveness. (Aside: 2% have traditionally NOT shown these effects, which corresponds to the 2% of the population which exhibit psychotic personalities. Not necessarily criminal, just a little more emotionally undeveloped (book: No More Heroes))
The urge to protect others on your combat team has little to do with gender. I recently read an article by a retired Col. assessing the operations in Somalia, when soldiers were put at risk, to recover dead bodies of their comrades. This is not unusual. Your argument about strength is becoming less and less relevant, as the 21st Century Soldier concept is developed. Sure, artillery and tank ammo are still heavy but even the strongest fellow gets worn out after a day's barrage. Most fighting is now done by machine (a tank is still a tank, even if driven or commanded by a woman) and/or electronics (air defense, electronic warfare). The entire concept of warfare has changed. Only recently has the battle NOT stopped at nightfall (resuming at dawn) which allowed rest and repair to wounds and equipment. Nowadays, war is a free-for-all. The female EW technician suffers the same death as the ship's Captain whose decision sunk the ship. The ability to make these decisions is not an innate gender privilege. It is a matter of training and experience, which have been long denied to one gender. Race and social status were previously accepted means of denying power to individuals, regardless of merit. The arguments I hear today, are suspiciously similar. Finally, the issues of POW treatment. These concerns have existed as long as warfare. May I suggest you read a few autobiographies from WWII. (I cannot recall the titles or authors) An American's experience in a Japanese holding camp in China, Japanese POW camps for women and children (remember the rest of the world started fighting in 1939, and occupations had already occurred by the time Pearl Harbor happened), and then there are the Nazi Death Camps in Germany. Turn off your computer, go to the library, and order in some books. It will broaden your horizons.
Regardless of what you do in the future, follow YOUR dreams. Whether you serve the community through the police, medical, or clerical organizations, or your country through the FBI or military, you are responding to a calling. It is not much different from the religious type. It is just a feeling that there is something you must do.
Submitted 22 Nov 96: A 16-year old writes:
I am all for equal rights, don't get me wrong, but I must say, I just don't like the idea of women in the front of the battlefield. They don't belong there. I am 16 years old, and one day, hopefully, I will be an agent of the FBI. That is my ultimate goal in life. I can understand why some women would want to be able to fight in combat, but it's not a question of what they want, it's a question of what is best for everyone, and I think that this just isn't it. What it pretty much boils down to is MOST (please note there are exceptions,but not many) women can not handle frontline combat. We are very emotional to begin with, and seeing a close friend of mine's head being blown off would send me over the edge. I'd be hysterical, which is something you don't want to happen to you in the middle of a battlefield. Also, we can't take the pressure, the psychological conditions you would face, and the physical requirements needed to survive in that environment. The military has been compromising their standards for women, and that is not good. Because the military is going up against other country's biggest, baddest, strongest, and toughest MEN, and our women just could not efficiently defend themselves, let alone their country against these people. If the woman has proven beyond a doubt that she can handle it, than go ahead and let her fight. But most women can't do that. One more quick point: when a women gets shot or wounded, a man will usually try to go and save her, and you're not supposed to do that, because it puts you and your comrades in unnecessary danger, and sometimes, she is already dead. It's not the man's fault, he was acting on pure instinct: to protect the women. There are just too many problems with having women in combat. There are so many other things they could do. They could be in the back, not fighting but reserved in case they are really needed. Or just helping out the soldiers. There are so many other things we could do than fight right up front.
Submitted 19 Nov 96:
When did you men think that you were the only ones of the species who can fight? Look across the globe and you will see women fighting everyday, some in mortal combat, some for the food we must eat on a daily basis. As a former special agent with 24 holes in her body from shrapnel to bullets - combat truly is hell. Throughout herstory (sorry boys - NOT!), the female of the species is the deadliest. There are those of us who may not be able to carry a ruck for 100 miles, but there have been and are, those of us who can shoot the eye out of a gnat at 300 meters. As the owner of a police & civilian defensive tactics company, CQB is rough. As we women know on a daily basis (we are assaulted every 27 seconds and raped every 5 minutes), war is hell. Those of you on your religious and/or male testosterone high, need to come back to reality. The bottom line is: if we are good enough to "cut it," then the choice should be ours - not some fat male sitting on his butt behind his desk.
Remember: "Your Survival Begins and Ends with You!" (copyright Susan Baldwin)
Submitted 8 Nov 96:
I served in our armed forces as a Navy Officer. I don't understand why anyone believes the "Women in Combat" issue boils down to either "women's rights" or "physical strength or stamina." My wife is a former Navy Nurse, so I believe I know something about women's issues in the military. I wouldn't want either her or my daughter in combat. (When it comes right down to it, I wouldn't want either of my sons to go into combat either!) No-one in their right mind WANTS to fight in combat! It's something you have to do, not something you want to do. My position is, if someone HAS to go, it better be a man...
One undeniable fact in our world is WOMEN BEAR CHILDREN, MEN CANNOT. What no-one seems willing to speak about or acknowledge, is that unless you only utilize women in combat who cannot physiologically bear children, you run the very real risks of women prisoners of war who will become pregnant, and children born through rape. While the woman may "choose" to join up for combat service, the child born (or aborted) as a result of rape, has no choice! It's as simple as that.
Secondary issues include: 1) what unique pressures does a pregnant POW endure, 2) who will represent the children born under such circumstances, and 3) who will care for them and raise them, should they survive the war...? If the US Government supports women in combat, it had better be ready to deal with the consequences. The Government does not have a good record of caring for children fathered by military servicemen and left behind in previous theaters of war...
21 Sep 96: Submitted by Terry. A male marine's point of view.
I am a twice wounded Vietnam Vet (Marines). My wife is a 20 year Navy retiree and a Desert Storm Vet. I feel that there are definitely rolls for women in Combat, such as air planes (fighters included) and close support (artillery if she can lift the ammo), assignments to Combat Ships and the like. I do not feel that 99.9% of Women can do what the Infantry does. I was 18 when I was wounded both times and in my physical prime. It was hard and trying on me to do the things required of ground direct combat.
I was a Marksmanship instructor in Hawaii in the early 80's when the Marine Corps started putting Women through the Rifle Range. They shot very well and at least equal to the men. I think you can see that I have nothing against Women in the Military, just some jobs require Men. Some jobs Women can do as well or better than a Man.
I know I'm going to catch hell for this but I can stand the heat.
Semper Fi, Terry
21 Sep 96: Submitted by Richard
No matter what I say I am going to come out of this sounding like a male chauvinist! And I expect to blasted for not being politically correct in how I address the subject.
First I believe in women's rights, just as I believe in men's rights, etc. Everybody should be given equal opportunity to pursue whatever goal they set for themselves and they should be equally rewarded. I learned this at the knee of the grandmother who raised me, the much older sister who was my protector as I grew up (and she spoiled me rotten) and girls that I dated as I grew up. Somehow I always seemed to be around strong women, who knew the difference between being strong and just being tough acting. We have way too much of that today on both sides of the gender fence.
Back to women in combat! Okay, ladies, we have an unexplored frontier here, a chance to move into another of those supposedly male dominated areas. My question is "What kind of damn fool wants to be in combat, male or female?" I have been there, I have done that and I didn't want to see what I saw, and many of the experiences are still with me.
I was a combat aviator in Vietnam! For the first six months I flew exclusively and my secondary purpose was to find, fix and destroy the enemy. That is what combat is all about - killing people! You go out and you face the enemy and you kill the son of a b**** before he kills you! But if you are the "winner" you go lay awake at night, thinking about the ones you killed and maimed...knowing that he (or she) isn't that much different than you are!
My next four months was as an aviation liaison officer in the Ashau Valley. That was one of the hottest spots in Vietnam. Remember that is where Hamburger Hill was located! (Yep, I was there for that!) I spent most of my time on Firebases Rendezvous and Berschestgarten (spelling?). For 4 months, I slept in a hole in the ground, which was shared with 4 other men and about 3 times as many rats. No shower points, no latrines, one hot meal a day which was usually C-rations boiled in the can. We bathed using our helmets as washpans, with our weapon always close at hand and no matter how much one tried to remain clean, it wasn't possible. This lead to little rashes and fungus growths, picking of strange little critters off one's body, and eventually as we have found out since, severe dental problems, gum disease, and little rashes and fungus growths that keep occurring. In between that we tried to ignore the roar of the artillery and most of us came out of the valley with severe hearing loss!
Add on to that, the repeated rocket attacks on the position, the two times the VC got thru the wire and over-ran the position, the times we had to drag the body parts of our friends off the battle field, and the times we held on to fellow soldiers as they died, the going to sleep at night stinking of the blood and guts of those killed around us, with the stench of battle all around us, waking up to see faces blackened by gunpowder, hollow eyes staring at the horror all around, and knowing it still wasn't over. Anybody that wants to be a part of that is stupid. It has to be done, but it isn't something any sane person "wants" to join in on.
Imagine if you will, walking into a train, blown apart by an NVA raiding party, and the blood, guts, teeth and eyeballs actually lapping around your ankles as you try to wade thru to save anyone still living. Imagine seeing an old mama-san laying there looking at you, her toothless mouth smiling because she knows you have come to try to save her. Imagine then as you pick her up, only to discover that her entire body is just a mangled, almost liquid-like sac, that literally slips thru your fingers as she dies before you. Imagine further the total fury as you jump out of the train, tears blinding you as you run stupidly toward the enemy position, screaming obscenities and being saved only by a friend who tackles you and drags you back to safety. Yes anybody who wants that has got to be stupid..I never wanted it!
After, Nam, I commanded a company in Alaska! Being the lucky type that I am, I was the first unit commander to have women assigned to the unit. They had been trained, along with the men, to get the job done! In the infinite wisdom of the military, they were put in a separate detachment with a female NCO to "protect" them from their horrible male counterparts. Within a week, they were complaining to me that they had no free time, were being made to do humiliating things in the barracks, and a lot of other "stuff"..The female NCO was demanding sexual privileges before she would give them passes and/or time off. When I went over to check out the complaints, female NCO told me male officers had no say so in how she treated her girls, and she ordered me to leave. (I had her booted out of the army in exactly 14 days! Not because she was gay, but because she was sexually abusing a bunch of my troops, and it didn't matter whether they were male, or female!)
So now the female soldiers in my company were on equal footing with the male soldiers, and were given assignments without discrimination. They were sent out in sub-zero weather, with one mission, which was to put up a communication site. That included putting up tents to sleep in, 40 foot antennas, maintaining generators/vehicles, running cable down the side of the mountains, etc. When that failed, they were sent out in coed teams and when that failed they were sent out one female with 5 males (You know why that failed). Wrong! It failed because in the 6 sites the Colonel visited on that one faithful day, there were 5 males working and the lady in the group was in her tent sleeping!
Though I believe in equal opportunity, I also believe that all persons who have equal opportunity should produce equal results. I busted my butt attempting to keep these female soldiers on the job, to figure out how to train them so that they could/would be utilized in the field they were trained in, to devise a way that they could succeed. Every one of them quit on me, finding jobs as clerks (the cutest ones got themselves jobs at the higher staff levels), or cooks, or drivers (the cutest ones got themselves jobs at the higher staff levels.) Literally millions of dollars were wasted in training these people for jobs they could not do, did not want to do, and ended up not doing!
So, for those who want to be combat soldiers, don't imagine that it is some Audie Murphy movie. I have never known a soldier who wanted to work in sub-zero weather, battling the elements, etc. I have never known a soldier who really wanted to be in combat. I have known but few people who enjoyed killing and they for the most part ended up dead.
What exactly is being said about "Women want to be in combat"...Hell, a person has got to be crazy to even think it is a rewarding career goal. I have been there, I have done that, I still have blood on my hands and I will never forget seeing death up close.
If anyone sees "being in combat" as some big warm building with maps and assistants all over the place, where the combat leader points at maps and advises others of the super plans underway, etc, just remember combat leaders don't start at the top, they have to work themselves up the ladder...and damn few live long enough to do so.
Okay, ladies, the firing line is open. Disregard the intent of what I have written and hit me with all the cheap shots. No problem - I know I am an obnoxious, chauvinistic, so and so! Hell, all I ever did was give 20 years of my life, to defend your right to say anything you want to say....
19 Sep 96: Submitted by female civilian defense analyst
Women should be allowed to serve in combat positions. I'm a female civilian defense analyst, so while I don't have personal experience in combat, I work with the military every day and I've heard views on both sides of this issue. The only argument against women serving in combat that is remotely compelling is the point that women are typically less physically strong than their male counterparts. However, there are combat positions that do not require brute physical strength. Furthermore, if women can meet the same physical standards as men, as Gen. Krulak has proposed for Marine training, then they should be allowed to stand side by side in ground combat positions with male soldiers.
My biggest reason for supporting women in combat is the following: I support equality for women in all things, and I do not believe that women will truly be viewed as equals in the military world until we have women generals with combat service under their belts. This is not to run down those few and admirable women who have already become flag officers -- more power to them having risen through the ranks in the dark ages of rights for women in the military -- but my observation is that many of the key positions in the services and Joint Staff go to those officers with combat experience. Can you imagine a CJCS [Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff] who hasn't served in a combat role? A regional CINC [commander in chief]? Women deserve the opportunity to compete for this positions, and as I understand it today, this opportunity is not open to us. All women in the military, officers and enlisted, will gain greater respect when they are allowed to serve in combat. Any woman who chooses to join the military, assume the risks of that profession, and serve her country, deserves to be given the same opportunities as her male peers.
3 Apr 96: A 14-year old writes about Women's Right to Fight in Combat:
Women do not have many rights in the military. Many restrictions have been put on them, and I believe that these restrictions violate the 5th Amendment. Therefore, I believe that a woman or man should go to the U.S. Government and demand a repeal of the restrictions on women fighting in combat. I am only 14 years old, and do not have the power to do this, so I am writing this message, to ask someone to reach out to America and declare that women deserve as much respect as all men have in the military!
Send
in your comments to be posted for this opinion
Participate and give your comments on these opinion's. Select Here
Main Menu
Copyright by Webmaster of this homepage © January 1998