Secretary of Defense (finally) lifts ban on women in frontline combat

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,574
Reaction score
6,396
Location
west coast, canada
In a surprise move? So why do I suspect that this has more to do with difficulties in finding front line troops than anything else?
In the same way that repealing DADT was because they didn't want to send troops home for being outed. Or discourage people from signing up.
 

Sarpedon

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
2,702
Reaction score
436
Location
Minnesota, USA
Yay! We've finally hit a civil rights milestone that the Soviet Union achieved seventy years ago.
 

thebloodfiend

Cory
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
3,771
Reaction score
630
Age
30
Location
New York
Website
www.thebooklantern.com
Now if we can just get the SEAL and Green Beret limitations lifted, I will be a happy camper.

And I just saw the most hilarious comment on the article:
When wounded in combat, women's bodies have a way of shutting down, preventing injury....I know that's not funny, but wanted to demonstrate the stupidity of Todd Akin.
 

clintl

Represent.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,611
Reaction score
603
Location
Davis, CA
The next step is to create a world where we don't need anyone in combat roles.
 

missesdash

You can't sit with us!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
1,092
Location
Paris, France
The next step is to create a world where we don't need anyone in combat roles.

Yeah, I always have an odd reaction to allow more people in the military. I'm glad because they obviously want to be. But I'm not thrilled to be adding more women to a pool where 1/3 to 1/4 will be raped by their peers. Not thrilled to be sending more bodies into combat.

Hard to celebrate that, even though it is a milestone.
 

Opty

Banned
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
4,448
Reaction score
918
Location
Canada
Yeah, I always have an odd reaction to allow more people in the military. I'm glad because they obviously want to be. But I'm not thrilled to be adding more women to a pool where 1/3 to 1/4 will be raped by their peers. Not thrilled to be sending more bodies into combat.

Hard to celebrate that, even though it is a milestone.

Do you have a source that shows that allowing women on the front lines guarantees a 10% to 18% increase in rape? I'd be interested in reading it.
 

absitinvidia

A bit of a wallflower
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
1,034
Reaction score
159
Location
Earth-that-was
Do you have a source that shows that allowing women on the front lines guarantees a 10% to 18% increase in rape? I'd be interested in reading it.

I don't think that's what she meant. I interpreted her post to mean that she's not thrilled that more women will join a military in which 25-33% of women are sexually assaulted.
 

missesdash

You can't sit with us!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
1,092
Location
Paris, France
I don't think that's what she meant. I interpreted her post to mean that she's not thrilled that more women will join a military in which 25-33% of women are sexually assaulted.

Yup, that's what I mean. Obviously allowing women on front lines doesn't mean "women joining the military" but I don't discount the idea that some will join because it's specifically what they want to do and may not have joined otherwise. Even the possibility creates a conflict for me.
 

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,881
Location
Texas, usually
We have no right to tell women that they shouldn't join the military because they might be raped there; instead, we have an obligation to stop rapists, period, wherever they may be. Even if that's in our testosterone-laden military.

I'm glad for this law. It's ridiculous to tell women who are perfectly capable of meeting every requirement for combat duty that they're too delicate, too sensitive, or too precious to do so. And the very fact that "sexual tension" has long been a reason given for keeping them out is likely to open up some extremely useful dialogue, especially in light of all the insane comments we've been hearing about rape, lately, and the fact that gays can now serve openly.
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
I see it as women joining an activity they wish to join. And the army needing to get their shit together re: workplace safety. Not just in terms of assualt but also mental health, proper body armor etc etc.

Otherwise we are yet again telling wimmins not to do an activity because we don't want them to. For whatever reason. They make that career decision, not "society" (a.k.a. us).
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
I was actually quite surprised a couple years back when I learned women couldn't officially serve in combat.

And even if there are some physical differences between men and women on average, weapons are great equalizers.

A penis doesn't make you bulletproof.
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
Also it just really means they can't get medals, specialist positions and promotions related to combat. The combat has been coming to them for some time now.
 

merry_and_silver

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
94
Reaction score
3
Location
Conocoto, Ecuador
I'm not pleased to see anybody else in combat. This is not something to celebrate, in my opinion.

Was it a good thing that women served in German death camps? If not, then you accept the premise that there are some things that nobody should do, male or female.

If this is something to celebrate, then so are the activities of the American military. Many people, a lot of them better people than I, support the activities of the American military, of course. I have doubts about much of what the American military does, though. Just as I have no doubt that the number of men raping women in the military is much higher than what we have visual evidence for, I have no doubt that there is much more pissing on corpses, etc. shooting up women and children in homes, etc. by members of the military than we have visual evidence for. "Well, that's wrong. It's not what they're supposed to do." OK, but it's what they do do. Now women can join in! Yay!

At the very least this is not a no-brainer.
 

missesdash

You can't sit with us!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
1,092
Location
Paris, France
We have no right to tell women that they shouldn't join the military because they might be raped there; instead, we have an obligation to stop rapists, period, wherever they may be. Even if that's in our testosterone-laden military.

You didn't quote me, I know. But just to clarify, that is not all what I'm advocating.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,139
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
I'm not pleased to see anybody else in combat. This is not something to celebrate, in my opinion.

Was it a good thing that women served in German death camps? If not, then you accept the premise that there are some things that nobody should do, male or female.

If this is something to celebrate, then so are the activities of the American military. Many people, a lot of them better people than I, support the activities of the American military, of course. I have doubts about much of what the American military does, though. Just as I have no doubt that the number of men raping women in the military is much higher than what we have visual evidence for, I have no doubt that there is much more pissing on corpses, etc. shooting up women and children in homes, etc. by members of the military than we have visual evidence for. "Well, that's wrong. It's not what they're supposed to do." OK, but it's what they do do. Now women can join in! Yay!

At the very least this is not a no-brainer.

You just Godwinned the thread. Also you seem to be tangling up three different things.

1. There has historically been discrimination against women in a number of professions. The military is certainly one of them. Removal of that discrimination is a social good.

2. The US military has not treated rape with the seriousness it should. This needs to end. It is an interesting question as to whether the second class status of women in the military contributes to that problem. If so this may actually alleviate some of that. Regardless, the military culture and military justice culture toward rape has to change.

3. The question of the military itself as a good or an evil is another matter entirely. Discussion of that is orthogonal to the matter of whether or not women should be allowed to serve.
 

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,881
Location
Texas, usually
Also it just really means they can't get medals, specialist positions and promotions related to combat. The combat has been coming to them for some time now.

It has. We've had women not only under fire (and returning fire, despite not being equipped as well as "real" combat troops,) but also being blown up by IED's and the like. They've been out there, living, fighting, and dying beside men, but because they have tits, they're simply not eligible for the same benefits the guys are.

merry_and_silver said:
I'm not pleased to see anybody else in combat. This is not something to celebrate, in my opinion.

Stopping other people from doing things you don't like via discriminatory laws based on their race, sex, or sexual orientation isn't a good thing, in my opinion.

Was it a good thing that women served in German death camps? If not, then you accept the premise that there are some things that nobody should do, male or female.

This is a similar argument to the one so often used against gay marriage: government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, they say, so let's not expand it to cover gay marriage, as well.

Which is... okay... except, in the real world, government IS involved in marriage, so when you deny it to gay people based on the above "logic," you're actually endorsing discrimination, and setting up a situation where one group (heterosexuals) are enjoying rights denied to another (LGBT.)

We already have combat troops. That's not likely to change any time soon. And we already have women in the military: also not likely to change any time soon. You might WISH we didn't have need for either, but in the real world, we do. And as of yesterday, in the real world, women were getting a damned raw deal based on nothing more than the fact that they were women.

If this is something to celebrate, then so are the activities of the American military.

Disagree. My stance on this has nothing to do with how much I approve or disapprove of anything the military has done. It's about nondiscrimination.
 

Monkey

Is me.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
9,119
Reaction score
1,881
Location
Texas, usually
You didn't quote me, I know. But just to clarify, that is not all what I'm advocating.

It's been a common argument, regardless. I've argued for women in combat many times over the years, in a variety of settings, and I'm not sure the specter of rape has ever failed to be brought up as a reason against.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Also it just really means they can't get medals, specialist positions and promotions related to combat. The combat has been coming to them for some time now.

Yeah. I probably should have put quotation marks around "officially."
 

Opty

Banned
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
4,448
Reaction score
918
Location
Canada
Perhaps now they can revise the archaic and discriminatory "Selective Service" requirement and force women to sign up, too.
 

merry_and_silver

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
94
Reaction score
3
Location
Conocoto, Ecuador
2. The US military has not treated rape with the seriousness it should. This needs to end. It is an interesting question as to whether the second class status of women in the military contributes to that problem. If so this may actually alleviate some of that. Regardless, the military culture and military justice culture toward rape has to change.

The point I made wasn't about rape. Read it again.

1. There has historically been discrimination against women in a number of professions. The military is certainly one of them. Removal of that discrimination is a social good. 3. The question of the military itself as a good or an evil is another matter entirely. Discussion of that is orthogonal to the matter of whether or not women should be allowed to serve.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how you can separate the two. According to your logic, I should celebrate the "social good" of female guards being allowed to serve in Nazi death camps, without actually considering what they were doing.

Many of the female guards in Nazi death camps were not only taking jobs that were traditionally male, but they were recruited from lower classes in German society, meaning that they advanced upwards economically. I guess that's a double social good, right? Here's one of them, Irma Reese.

I think I stated my case as politely and straightforward as I could. Many people support what the U.S. military does. So be it. They have every right to support the U.S. military, and I don't take issue with them, inasmuch as I have a different opinion. I have been a U.S. citizen more than fifty years, and of the many wars fought in my lifetime, none were fought for purposes of defense, all were fought as interventions in foreign countries that had not attacked us. Even disregarding the atrocities that the military commits, the U.S. military was responsible for several hundred thousand deaths in Iraq as part of normal operations, in a war based on false justifications. I don't celebrate that, I don't celebrate the people who did that, I don't think it is good for the world, and I don't have doubts or misgivings about what I think.

If you want to throw your weight around as moderator and ban me because I don't celebrate women now being allowed to kill people like that, so be it. I won't be angry. I understand how people react when they are called on inconsistencies in their thought. Again, I've been on this planet for quite some time.
 

MattW

Company Man
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
6,326
Reaction score
855
Since 2009, the US has had its first 2 female 4 star officers.

Without command of a combat force, that is about as high as they can go.
 

missesdash

You can't sit with us!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
6,858
Reaction score
1,092
Location
Paris, France
I think it's possible to acknowledge the end of a discriminatory policy is good in principle while being ambivalent on the actual outcome of the policy and whether or not it serves a net good. I would dispute the idea that an oppressed group being allowed to do something they weren't able to do before is inherently a net good.

All that said, I do think the second class nature of women in the military contributes to the really horrible rape culture. But that's mostly conjecture on my part, based on the treatment of POC in the military now as opposed to when it first desegregated. From what I understand, racism is still rampant, but I like to think it's not as bad as it used to be. So in this case, exposing people to horrific conditions is a way to work towards eliminating those conditions.

In theory. Obviously.