Women in the Military
Feb 26th, 2010 | 77 responses
Earlier this week, the U.S. Navy announced that it has decided to lift the ban on female submarine crew members.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates signed a letter a week ago last Friday, notifying Congress of the Navy’s policy change, a change which both the Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, and the Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Gary Roughead support.
Congress can block the policy change by passing legislation doing so within a 30-day period following the date Gate’s letter was delivered to Congress.
Bonnie Erbe wrote an opinion piece on this issue a couple of days ago. Erbe is a TV host and writes for Scripps Howard News Service.
While I do not necessarily agree with all her views (In particular, about reinstating the draft), she has some interesting views on both the opportunities and the problems facing our women in uniform, and she sheds some historical perspectives on women in the military—starting with Joan of Arc, in 1429.
Please read it here.
77 Responses to “Women in the Military”
hi there 'medic'
Please read the commenters' rules as I've asked you once before and am asking you again to please read the rules for commenters at the top of the home page. The answers to all your questions about TMV comments policy are there, including lengths of comments, dominating discussion, etc.
Also, DdW is using his actual name which is also on this article, and that is verified. Unless commenters use their actual names and locations, we have no idea if they are who they say they are.
My statement still stands re really wondering about deployed military, as you claim to be, publicly dissing military. In the military I know, all are brothers and sisters. In the field of medicine and healing I know, caring about all life is the highest held value.
Thanks.
dr.e
Dr. E, no one in the Navy would know what you are talking about, sorry, Grave Duty is not a slang term in the Marines or the Navy, if you are talking late night then it is “Balls to Four” or other colorful terms, we not speak Air Force in the Navy and having worked with the Army a lot over here, I have also never heard that term in their use. This “dissing” you keep refering too, I see you ignore it for others, hardly fair and hence I read your rules and have not yet violated them, it would seem more of a “circling of the wagons” to me and make back handed slights, such as in this recent post. Is that a typical way for you to argue a point?
Finally, already said my local and all you guys have done is use your first names and you, just an initial, not a lot to go on but I take DdW at his word that he served.
To kathy, read the book by the young Mrs. Jessica Lynch to see how well women did. But fair enough, hardly enough accounts of instances to make a statement on that, so to really answer your question, I do not know of many, but it does not take away from my argument and it is not the type of lesson I am willing to learn at the expense of peoples' lives. IF even some of you who counter my argument had suggested that women should have to meet high standards and even given some and that no exceptions would be made then we could have a discussion, but almost all of the arguments are based on emotion and a sense of entitlement. Re-Read the original post I made and argue against it, I am open if you can show me examples in history or even how it could be possible to go about it but it has to be via logic, not via some entitlement or right argument, that does not hold water when we are talking about peoples lives.
Medic:
First, and again, thank you for your service, especially as a medic.
I had not intended to further argue your opinions (and that is exactly what they are, opinions) on women serving aboard submarines, or in combat, but I can not let others do my bidding. So here it goes.
You may quote 18-year old studies on women’s aerobic capacities, or muscle mass, or body fat, or body weight or upper-body strengths, etc., etc. But, yet, you have failed to quote a single authoritative study that categorically tells us that women are not suited or qualified for submarine or combat duties.
You also fail to mention the numerous women who have been serving well and heroically in combat situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. You also make it a point to call it “a joke,” time and time again, the instances where women in combat situations have earned awards and decorations for heroism, valor and injuries received. Sad!
You may quote 22-year old studies that say that women can do fewer push-ups than men, may not be able to operate an obsolete P-250 pump aboard ships, may not be able to carry a two-man litter up and down the ladder on a ship, etc.etc. yet you fail to mention that women have been serving honorably and successful aboard Navy ships for years and years.
You show contempt and disdain for the “officer corps” :“ They would rather risk peoples lives than hold a standard and stick there (sic) )necks out and risk there (sic)careers! (They being the Officer Corps).” I find this a contemptible and serious accusation against the officer corps of our U.S. miitary services. Just think of what you have accused honorable men and women in our military of: “They would raher risk lives.”! Yet, when it is convenient for you, you use a general officer to do your bidding: “Look at the recent problem of pregnancies in Afghanistan and what one General tried to implement due to a growing problem, he was instantly castigated by Senators Boxer and many others and he backed off.”
When it is convenient to your agenda, you ignore—no, show contempt for—the decisions our highest ranking military leaders, four-star flag-rank officers, the Chief of Naval Operations, etc., etc. with much more experience and knowledge than you or me, make that you don’t agree with.
Then, you insult the character and integrity of these officers by alleging: “…using the Admirals and CNO as back up for putting women on the subs or if they supported any combat use is not valid. They do what they are told and will always go the way of the political winds… The Majority of our Flag Level Officers are politicians in Uniform…The Navy Brass, for the most part, has been very weak on this, they are after all the ones who refused to have any standards when it was found that women could not do the same things physically as men and changed the ones they could not avoid having and lowered them…”
I wonder if you similarly find that the military decisions by generals such as Petraeus and McCrystal are politically correct and that they, also, go with the “political winds.”
Medic, where are the criteria, the qualifications, the physical requirements written for our male soldiers in order for them to qualify for combat duty. Once you find them, please publish them, and I bet you that many women meet them. Unless you decide to add new ones that only apply to women.
Let me close with comments I have made before, but which, in my opinion, you have not addressed:
Anyway, Medic, I wish you luck in your military pursuits, but I hope that your ideas on our women in the military will not find fertile soil.
By the way, Medic. I found your original lengthy comments posted verbatim in response to a recent NYT article “Homes Fires-Womens' Work”
Absolutely nothing wrong with that…saved you a lot of writing. But that is what I kept asking you about.
Is it still snowing in New England?
Medic has not highjacked this thread. He is speaking from his heart and has maintained composure in spite of the fact that I feel he has strong feelings about this subject.
I belonged once to a site where Ms. Pinkola Estes moderated also. There was ZERO tolerance for anything but the most leftist views imaginable. Seriously Dr. E, don't you think you're coming down a bit heavy-handed? Let the man have his opinion. Y'all sit by when those in favor of gay rights call me all sorts of nasty names and demonize me for my opposing views. All's silent. No, I take that back, sometimes the management will jump in on the attack for my daring to suggest that mainstreaming homosexuality might not be a good idea.
So please, spare me. Let this guy have his say. So far I haven't seen half the venom coming from him as I have the liberals here defending what they believe.
Ms. Silhouette:
I ususally do not respond to or comment on your comments (anymore), but I feel I must now.
Dr. Estes, in my opinion, has been more than tolerant and patient with your comments in spite of how hurtful and baseless they are to gays and lesbians.
dear Sil, read the rules. follow them. The site is for civil discussion. That's it. 'The guy,' as you call the commenter, has had pages and pages of his say here. Far more than any other article commenter on any other active article.
DdW the sailor has what's called laziness. I read TMV rules, it says no posting from other sites more than two paras. The sailor just wants to hear himself talk. Boring. This could have been a good discussion, but it looks like a one-man me me me show
“could you make some sense of your last comment, what are you saying?”
There is no reason to make a big deal of this, to make this a huge political battle.
Gays in the military (the general policy defined by federal law) is already being made too big a deal, t to the point where it's a possible November election issue. I'd rather it not be. Just let the authorities do as they see fit. Changing the federal law (Congress's task, if sought) should have been quick and silent.
I stand on what I've noted to you previously.
Just as an aside, if you'd read the home page and bios, DdW's and my full name are in full sight.
thanks 'medic'
dear Sil, read the rules. follow them. The site is for civil discussion. That's it. 'The guy,' as you call the commenter, has had pages and pages of his say here. Far more than any other article commenter on any other active ~ Dr. E
***********
I've seen other threads with more numerous postings and back and forth. There must be another reason why you're singling him out. You still haven't spoken to the numerous verbal attacks I've received for merely spelling out the stark logic of my positions, much like medic did.
He's got a point and I think it grinds you that he does. Nobody should be a drag on any platoon or combat outfit. That includes the weaker sex. What? Did I say something? Does it offend you that the stark fact of reality is that women are the weaker sex when it comes to pulilng their weight alongside men? And does it bother you that a woman's pheremones floating around in a crammed submarine might cause a rukkus? Those are other stark, hard facts of reality that also just happen to be true.
And also like the guy said, your idealism works OK in the world of civil affairs as long as nobody really has to rely on stark reality to get by. But in combat, in the military we don't find democracy. We find an autocratic government that's sole existence is about being the best fighting and defense MACHINE there is. Machines don't run well on inferior parts that weaken other parts. Women do well in the roles they now have in the military as support, vital and needed support. They have a role to play there. It's just not on the front lines or in a submarine..
Sorry Sil. Your projections dont fit the situation.
Thanks.
dr.e
“projections”? or “observations”? Just because you have a degree doesn't mean you can use it to beat away lucid rebuttals.
1. What is a stark fact, is that those of the “weaker sex” are certainly and totally pulling their weight alongside men, in every area of society, government, business and in the military. To claim otherwise is just plain disingenuous or a heads-in-the-sand attitude.
2. What is a hard, stark fact is that women are and have been serving alongside men for years aboard Navy ships, in combat situations well, honorably and oftentimes heroically. And they will be doing just fine aboard submarines. To throw in the pheromones red herring is a throwback to more primitive cultures and times and is a similar straw man as used to justify discrimination based on sexual orientation.
In fact, claiming that our men in the military cannot keep their pants zipped up, and that our women in the military are their willing (or unwilling) partners, is an insult to them. Yes, Ms. S there are exceptions, but fortunately our society does not establish its rules on equal opportunity, non-discrimination, and fair play based on exceptions.
AFP Today:
Read more here: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/100228/usa/us_mi…
DdW,
You still cannot make the argument. You attempt to say that because the studies are old that they are not relevent, yet do not explain how females have somehow leaped ahead in biology, they have not and physical strength does matter in combat. You can scream all you want that women are qualified it does not make it so and emotional arguments are not rational ones.
As for your attempts to segway this into a discussion on my views of the Officer Corps., again, you read what you want and ignore what does not fit your premise. Many are good but the majority, once they hit 04-05 become career men first and do not care about the mission. Ask any NCO who is in the Combat Arms, you will hear the same. We have a good corps of JOs right now but over 60% of them are getting out after their tours are up and cite the EXACT reasons I talk about-poor leadership from above along with politics, micro-management, etc…I do not know what you did in the Military, but I find the worship of our senior officer corps a bit naive. The system is currently set up to produce those type of people, sorry, that is the reality and when we raise the issue it helps bring about change. We have been pushing forever to have the personnel system changed from it's current 2 year punch and go to a longer term so that O's have a better idea what they are doing, our hope is that it will change in the nexr decade. We are finally in a shooting war and things are begining to change. Your post on that sounds like you advocationg blind obedience, not something an American Troop should ever do.
As for your comments on awards, sorry, that is the truth. It should concern you because award inflation makes the awards earned by the likes of the Silver Star for the medic looked at with less awe than they should. It is why I am always skeptical of them when I see them on certain groups (ie; Air Force vs Marines) and why it should concern you as well. If you give out award for nothing or for doing your job you are defeating the purpose of them in the frist place.
DLS,
It is a big deal, as is the gay issue. DADT is a terrible policy and we turn away people who want to serve due to a pref they have, I do not agree with it.
Scazzi, great argument, I am on the edge of me seat with your ability to use critical thinking, please, enlighten me more
Finally, to Archangel. I find it amazing that you toss around back handed comments yourself yet frown on it when others do so and appear not to like debate when it does not suit your politics.
Hey, Silhouette:
You have been diligently admiring Medic for his views on women serving aboard submarines and in combat.
I have exhausted my discussion with him on those two issues. However, it would be very interesting to see an equally passionate and inteligent debate between you and Medic on the following position by Medic:
No?
DdW,
To say that women are in fact not the weaker sex physically flies in the face of science. As for serving along side on ships, yes, we have also not had a Naval Conflict or even simple ship to ship or air to ship exchange since Vietnam so the jury is still out. Also, to your point about sex, it is naive to think that 18-21 y/o men and women will keep their pants zipped, they don't and to think they will is not realistic. Honestly, I have seen far to many ship board or other overseas “romances” to think that will ever change. Men and Women are NOT interchangable, Genders are not social constructs. As to your question on test, fine, have the women meet the same PT standards the men do, no push ups on the knees, no pull up “hangs” and the only thing that would be added in should be buddy carries. If women could pass the male standards we would not have what is called Gender Norming on the PT Tests. They might have 2-3%, that is it and if they ever actually enfoced them I would love it but they will not, why else would the politically brave officers changed the litter carry to 4 from 2 if it did not politics did not matter?
Ddw, just because we disagree on somethings does not mean we cannot agree on others. She and I might have very different views on Gays, but it does not matter on the topic for here does it? People tend to get a bit dogmatic I think and are unable to break away from the convetional wisdom of their peers, it is unfortunate when that happens.
Medic:
I happen to agree with you on repealing DADT.
You have provided us with a very spirited and eloquent defense on why women should not be assigned to submarine or combat dutioes.
I have tried to argue for the repeal of DADT, but not as eloquently and backed up by facts as I believe you'll be able to.
That's all
Ddw, it is because you are to emotionally based in your arguments
It is an easy argument to make. Historically, Physically and morally you can make the arguments-no difference physically between a gay man and straight man, no moral reason unless I missed the rounds up under the Constitution and Historically there have been whole groups of fierce warriors who were homosexual/BI- Spartans, Macedonians, Thebes, Arcaidia…. Alexanders Elite “Companion” Troops are a great example you can use. The only thing they would have to change is that the Frat Rules, pretty lose right now, would have to be STRICTLY enforced. That is my only concern, I again see politics preventing this from being enforced.
Dear Sil: give it a rest now. As Dorian suggests, see about debating the issue of the post with 'medic' if you like.
Thanks
Don't think we'll ever see this debate, dr. e. as both must see such as a “trap,” as a “divide and conquer” tactic. No such thing has crossed my mind
Dude, I don't care, I feel the same way on that topic as I do women in combat and have plenty to argue for it, nice try though, nothing to do with divide and conquer fears, I think I proved my point on the women in combat, no one came back with a logical, historical or even a moral reason since it would be putting my life and others in jeapordy due to their inclusion. So, I am pretty satisified with my debate on here and backed it up with facts, not emotion.
yeah, and as a 'so-called navy medic' who ranted about women emotionally here, yeah, you're the rational one alright. Yawn.
Why Scazzi does this mean we're not friends anymore? You know Scazzi, if I thought you weren't my friend… I just don't think I could bear it!
Ahh..scazzi, so many like you on the net, not smart enough to argue a point, not funny enough to make a good quip and not even clever enough to understand context or inflection I imagine. Oh well, I am sure in a few years, with a lot of reading and some good ole'learning you will be able to actually articulate an argument but until then, yawn…you are just another troll, not capable of making a point or engaging in debate, so common on the net and so plebian (look it up, it will help you down the road to know big words 
)
good luck on your fantasy mission to be whatever confused thing you think you are 'medic'. Your bitterness about people must make you a terrific 'medic.' Not.