The downside of women serving alongside men in fighting ships, subs, squadrons, etc.

[Swanee]

It's not about warfighting being a 'legal exercise' or not (which is surely ain't), it's the fact that we, even though we are soldiers/sailors/Marines and are responsible for bringing the righteous hand of God down on our enemies, remain employees of the federal government, and the military as a whole is still an arm of the government, and is therefore bound to follow the laws set before us, just the same as everyone else. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for eating my morning cereal out of the skulls of dead terrorists just as much as the next guy, but I'm not about to violate the legislated-and-judicially-reviewed laws of my country or dishonor the Constitution I'm sworn to defend.

We are still beholden to our civilian leaders (SECNAV, SECDEF, all the way up to the President), and their laws are absolutely our laws too. Granted, the UCMJ deals with the differences between the military and civilian worlds, but the basic rules are the same; don't murder people, don't screw someone else's wife, don't steal things, don't help the enemy, etc. There's something important that needs to be said though, because this debate will continue for as long as there is a separate military and civilian sector; The military is not, and should never be, an instrument of social change, no matter what the voting public thinks, but we can't fall so far behind the rest of the nation in terms of social policy that we are going against the public's opinion, or we'll lose their support. Loss of public support = no money to blow stuff up and kill people.

1. No, we do not fight for the "Righteous Hand of God". We are an option our Government has when peaceful Diplomacy will not work. We go and kick the shit out of our enemies, but not for any God. IF you really believe we fight for God, well, that scares me.

2. Like it or not the military has ALWAYS been an avenue of social change. Look at the Buffalo Soldiers, The Tuskegee Airmen etc.. Hell women have been in combat for as long as men have. The Greeks had Athena (Romans had Minerva) the goddess of war and military strategy. Hera had Zeus under her thumb. How much does that tell us about their society and the interaction between men and women.

The question is not whether women are capable of putting a size 6 up the ass of our enemies. The question really is: How do we as a nation and a military that does not and will not tolerate sexual fraternization have both men and women serve together in deployed units? There are more men that women so if you want to keep them separated you take the bigger group...

 

[BusyBee604]

sorry...what?...german?...what's this thread about?

Fraulein, Fraulein, walk down by the river...each night when the moon starts to shine...etc. etc.............................:icon_smil
BzB

 

[desertoasis]

1. No, we do not fight for the "Righteous Hand of God". We are an option our Government has when peaceful Diplomacy will not work. We go and kick the shit out of our enemies, but not for any God. IF you really believe we fight for God, well, that scares me.

I thought I had successfully tuned my 'subtle sarcasm' meter...guess not. That second sentence there is precisely what I actually believe. My sincere apologies for scaring a Marine.

2. Like it or not the military has ALWAYS been an avenue of social change. Look at the Buffalo Soldiers, The Tuskegee Airmen etc.. Hell women have been in combat for as long as men have. The Greeks had Athena (Romans had Minerva) the goddess of war and military strategy. Hera had Zeus under her thumb. How much does that tell us about their society and the interaction between men and women.

The military has been ON the path of social change, but never on the vanguard of it, nor should we ever be. The military's function is not to be a vessel for the nation's social progress, our function is to defend everyone's right TO that progress. That said, we should be (carefully) following the lead of the nation, but not setting the social agenda for everyone else to follow. That's an important distinction to make. Its like judicial activism, sure it probably gets things done that should be done, but it's not the right way to do it. The 'right' way, at least as far as the government process is concerned, is to follow the proper channels of the legislative system, methodically and with all factors considered, then executing the orders from the top of the COC...not swaying to the public mania over whatever social issue is burning Wolf Blitzer's ears this week. So you are correct, but not in the way you probably intended. I think we're trying to say the same thing, but in different ways.

 

[The Chief]

Well, the name changed to a subject I know nothing about, but with your indulgence would like to further my comments re good order and discipline.

My Navy, a Female aboard ship; bad luck, very bad luck. Superstition goes way back, s'why the ship is call a "she". Female WAVES, s'what they were called back then, did not serve aboard ships, were not stationed west of Hawaii (same some O types) in fact females could not even travel on military Space A flights out of area. Admiral Zumwalt changed all that, Z-gram 116 if memory serves announced the change, I left the Navy six months later. But did we have problems with sex in the Navy? Yes sireee, we did. Dependents. The XO of San Miguel PI was relieved (Mid 60s) a "sex ring" involving dependents. I personally made a trip with Admiral Gravely to Fort Allen, Puerto Rico (Ponce) in the early 70's to "investigate" a "sex ring" involving dependents, operating out of the O and CPO clubs. Did I ever get and earful. So while I have no direct knowledge of female sailors, sex has been with us and a problem for a long time. Some say that it all started with that guy Adam with Eve. Having said that; some say Adam was even made out of a bone. Well, sorry for the pun.

Back to fraternization, which of course covers more than sex. I remember a crash, on the O-boat, I believe traced to hydralics and "O" ring servicing. While I was not involved we did discuss in the CPO mess at length. The problem was that some O rings that needed to be serviced at XX hours, but servicing took about 4 hours. The mechs hated it, they found none that were ever bad, but yet they were directed to service them on schedule. Anytime they could get away without servicing the rings they would, a constant battle of wills. Getting those airmen to do what you want them to do, even though they may not want to do it, is leadership. They are paid minimum wages, work 18 hour days and have so many distractions, keeping them focued is a 24/7 job. Now anyone that does not see the link between this and fraternization needs to get another job.

Just my .02C

 

[CAMike]

The human gene was mentioned earlier. Look at the debate this way for a minute.

6 men is a Division have a new semi-cute female sailor report aboard. The female is the same rate and paygrade as the 6 men. Evaluate the following 2 questions:

A. How many of the men will look her up and down and think: Damn, I wonder if her knowledge base and work ethic is superior to mine?

B. How many of these guys will wonder what she looks like in the shower?

I submit- the men who's first though was "B" were probably a majority even though most would certainly deny ever thinking it, let alone speaking it.

Most men are simply just that, "men" and I don't think it's realistic to expect men to change the hard wiring in their brains to accomodate the Navy's desires to satisfy the politicians desires.

Thus a different perspective to view "Women on Ships". In this case it's not too late to correct the course and speed of our Navy's direction on this subject. Or leaders need to take a stand on this subject- but will they?

 

[Short]

By all means, lets follow the example of our more progressive brethren. The Germans couldn't take down a high level Taliban commander in Afghanistan because they weren't fired on first (lovely ROE), the Brits don't have enough helicopters or kit, the Canadians have to contract out their helos, ect. Clearly, they operate under a set of priorities that would be kind of awesome to emulate, if you're not concerned about that whole fighting and winning thing (btw, this is solely a knock on the lack of our coalitions governments to provide for their own, not the men and women from the above countries who are actually down-range). Or we could take a look at the Israeli's example, which has gone completely the other direction. Oh, and whoever was talking about how much deadlier the female of the species is? Yeah, if I'm afraid of someone calling me fat behind my back, I'll concur with that assessment, however, looking back through the annals of history to every single significant military victory that has ever happened, I'll give the edge to the men.

But by all means, we need to focus on what's important and make sure that everyone gets some playing time. Apparently the whole "there is no substitute for victory" has been replaced with "there is no substitute for participation and trying your best".

Not that this matters, or that the female aircrew I've worked with largely agree with the above. We'll all salute and execute the approved policy; that's our job. But don't try to lie about the issue, or try to claim its about leadership only, and not the natural effect of having young aggressive people in living and working in close proximity to eachother, or that pregnancy has no impact on a units ability to fight.

 

[exhelodrvr]

Here's my take: If men and women working together having relations is a "problem," then you need to re-think the entire situation.

No private organization that I've worked for prior to the Navy has viewed this as a "problem."

Nice spin. You conveniently ignore the fact that the issue is not "men and women working together having relations", the problem is men and women working together having relations AT WORK, and men and women working together having relations when it affects discipline (i.e. potential for sexual harassment and/or favoritism.)

And unless the only places you've worked at prior to the Navy were whorehouses, I guarantee you that everyone of of your "private organizations" viewed those as significant problems.

 

[exhelodrvr]

As usual, you succeed in missing the finer points ... you're not a woman, are you ??? The all-female ship was offered somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but still ...

A4s,
I think that "tongue-in-cheek" thing is part of the problem.

 

[raptor10]

Yeah, great example of a frontline force there. I would hardly call female cagefighters a stong military force.

Yaks and llamas are more elite in the militaries of some of the countries you just listed.

I think you misunderstood me, the lionesses are a grunt term for the Marine Corps Female Engagement Teams, who have been patrolling and interacting with a section of the population that has been offlimits to ISAF forces and most importantly to the taliban. After the last 8 years of exploiting our lack of cultural knowledge of the pashtun we are finally responding kind.

And to whomever said that no tactical operational or strategic success could be attributed to women, I'd suggest that they read the story of deborah and jael, Judges 4 and 5, or pick up a book on any of the 90 freakin insurgencies of the last 65 years, and tell me that If I see a burqa clad women approaching my checkpoint I can just wave her on through, no threat there...

We can have an effective fighting force with women in it. We just have to be realistic about the interactions between the sexes.

 

[A4sForever]

A4s,
I think that "tongue-in-cheek" thing is part of the problem.

This is not one of those "that's what SHE said" jokes, is it ... ???

 

[raptor10]

MARSOC gets it's first FET:
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/11/marines_marsoc_111409w/

 

[BigRed389]

I think you misunderstood me, the lionesses are a grunt term for the Marine Corps Female Engagement Teams, who have been patrolling and interacting with a section of the population that has been offlimits to ISAF forces and most importantly to the taliban. After the last 8 years of exploiting our lack of cultural knowledge of the pashtun we are finally responding kind.

And to whomever said that no tactical operational or strategic success could be attributed to women, I'd suggest that they read the story of deborah and jael, Judges 4 and 5, or pick up a book on any of the 90 freakin insurgencies of the last 65 years, and tell me that If I see a burqa clad women approaching my checkpoint I can just wave her on through, no threat there...

We can have an effective fighting force with women in it. We just have to be realistic about the interactions between the sexes.

To add to your examples, the Soviets had several female snipers in WW2 who killed hundreds of men. I'd say that's pretty deadly...

 

[villanelle]

I know this will come across as sarcastic, but you'll have to trust me when I say it is a genuine question...

It seems to me that women make up a significant (if still very much minority) portion of our military. Get rid of them and those positions have to be filled somehow, and it seems like recruiting standards would have to be significantly lowered in order to have enough warm bodies to do that. (I am ASSuming this and I am sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong and the military is turning away enough qualified men to equal the number of women currently serving, and that it is reasonable to assume that the military would continue to make up the difference in perpetuity.) Or, we'd have to start an active draft.

So which is the least of evils: a mixed-gender service, lowered standards for an all-male service, or serving next to people who are only there as a requirement? Or is there an option I'm missing?

As much as it pains my feminist sensibilites to admit it, I can see that a gender-mixed military has its complications. I'm just not sure that there is a realistic alternative that has fewer complications.

 

[A4sForever]

....As much as it pains my feminist sensibilites to admit it, I can see that a gender-mixed military has its complications.....

Of course it has 'complications'. Your semi-admirable struggle towards 'honesty' is 'complicated' by the fact that you have a personal agenda ... i.e., your self-described 'feminist sensibilities' ...

Your search for 'honesty' mixed w/ a personal agenda runs into a brick-wall conundrum:

Personal agendas NEVER work toward the fulfillment of a common goal ...

 

[villanelle]

Of course it has 'complications'. Your semi-admirable struggle towards 'honesty' is 'complicated' by the fact that you have a personal agenda ... i.e., your self-described 'feminist sensibilities' ...

Your search for 'honesty' mixed w/ a personal agenda runs into a brick-wall conundrum:

Personal agendas NEVER work toward the fulfillment of a common goal ...

Sure, I have a personal agdena of sorts, and I want "mixed gender military" to be the answer to the question of the least bad of the options. But it really was a genuine question, and I'm open to the fact that the answer I want may not the the correct answer. That's why I asked.

If the miltiary decided to get rid of women (which will never happen, of course, but speculation sure is fun!), new, different messes would be created, as best I can tell, and I am really interested to thoughts on that. To me, it seems like a "be careful what you wish for" situation.

I get that you'd rather not have those "complications" that come with men and women serving side by side. But given the alternatives, would you really flip that switch if you could?