E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Adek Berry/AFP/Getty Images
US Marine Corporal Jessica L. Williams (L) and Lance Corporal Shawnee Redbear of 2nd Battalion, 1st Marines Golf Company patrol in Basabad, Helmand Province, on March 9, 2011. The US Marines deployed about 40 Female Marines in Helmand province and Nimruz for the Female Engagement Team (FET) programme to interact with Afghan civilians, specifically women and children.
Women in the U.S. military are more likely than ever to see combat, says a study released Thursday.
Though men continue to make up the bulk of the fighting force, the proportion of women in the military is soaring, says the Pew Research study, which also found a greater share of women than men in the military are black and a smaller share of females are married compared to their male counterparts.
Female veterans are also more apt to be critical of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan than male veterans, the study found.
Since 1973, when the U.S. ended the draft and established an all-volunteer force, the proportion of women in the military has soared. The ranks of enlisted females have increased from 2 percent to 14 percent, and the share of female officers has quadrupled, from 4 percent to 16 percent, according to the Pew study, "Women in the U.S. Military: Growing Share, Distinctive Profile."
"The presence of women is felt now more than in any other previous era," said Kim Parker, researcher and co-author of the report. "And what we see is that it’s not just in the enlisted ranks, but there are many more women in leadership role. The military has become a place of opportunity for both racial minorities as well as for women to take on leadership roles."
Women are still less likely than men to go to combat, but their exposure to battle has increased because of long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a policy change in the 1990s that allowed women to serve in a greater variety of combat-related roles, such as flying in combat aircraft and serving on combat ships. Only 7 percent of women service members before 1990 had served in combat zones, according to the study, while after 1990 that proportion rose to 25 percent.
"The nature of the wars, where the battle lines are often uncertain, has exposed more women to combat," Parker said. "Even though they’re not the same roles as men. And women are reporting some of the same emotional effects of combat, like PTS (post-traumatic stress)."
More women may see combat in the future. The Pentagon is considering a recommendation by an advisory panel commissioned by Congress that recommends that the military do away with a policy banning women from serving in combat units. That policy is under department review and when complete will be delivered to Congress, Cynthia O. Smith, Department of Defense spokeswoman, told msnbc.com.
In the meantime, "Women will continue to be assigned to units and positions that may necessitate combat actions within the scope of their restricted positioning -- situations for which they are fully trained and equipped to respond," Smith said.
According to the Washington Post, 138 women have been killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Despite their expansion of roles, active-duty women are more heavily concentrated in administrative and medical roles than men. The study found 30 percent of active-duty women are administrators, but only 12 percent of active-duty men serve in that capacity.
Female veterans, it turns out, are also more critical than their male counterparts of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the Pew study, which found 63 percent say the Iraq war was not worth fighting (men: 47 percent) and 54 percent say Afghanistan has not been worth it (men: 39 percent). Surveys of the general public have shown no significant differences by gender in the share of people who say the post-9/11 wars were not worth fighting.
And women are also equally likey to have had emotionally traumatic or distressing experiences as men -- 47 percent of women, as opposed to 42 percent of men.
Still, women and men overwhelmingly say their military experience was positive, and 78 percent of women (82 percent, men) say they would advise a young person close to them to join the military.
The Pew report draws on two Pentagon studies on overall trends in military participation, as well as demographic and occupational profiles of male and female military personnel. It also draws on data from two surveys of military veterans: a Pew Research Center survey of a nationally representative sample of 1,853 veterans conducted July 28-Sept. 4, 2011, as well as a larger July 2010 Current Population Survey of veterans.
Leave a Comment:
The point is? Women were fighting for access to the billets once only assigned to men. The reasoning? Promotion and training. Training became integrated, overseas assignments and MOSs became integrated. Only reasonable to assume that women would end up more and more in combat areas. S long as they support the effort they should be treated as they heroes heroines that they are.
And, women take the same oath as the men. When I was in the military, my sister soldiers and I just wanted to be treated as equals, and given the same pay for the same jobs. Now that I think about it, that's all any of my sisters ever wanted - in the military or in corporate America. Equal pay, equal opportunity, equal jobs.
rainlady, hu-ahh. I found before I entered the military and after I left, that in terms of opportunity, the military beat the civilian sector hands down. I work in IT now and still have men try to bypass me to a male. In the military, it was assumed I could do my job and, if some reason, I couldn't, I got chewed out just like the males.
Right on Rainlady! I found much more equality in the military than the civilian world! But glad to see this final barrier might come down.
Wonderful. What is the actual ratio of men to women in combat roles ? What is the ratio in casualties ? Need more of them out there -Affirmative Action , you know.
Lousy reporting. I should not have to ask about important details. Tabloid journalism.
Lousy reading skills actually. The reporters report. They didn't do the study. The STUDY was done by the Pew Research center. Tabloid reader strikes again.
Ah, the luxury of a modern war from a super war nation, America. Want to see how women measure up? Place them in a Guadalcanal, Peleliu, Iwo Jima or Okinawa situation. Of course you could say that will never happen again but I say never say never. Anyway the pay and benefits are the same regardless of fighting and dying or just hammering on a computer.
Hey "DIK" I bet most of them could kick ur a$$. They enlisted to be soldiers. They can only go where they have been sent....just like anyone else. More power to you ladies and thank you for your service,,,, never mind what "DIK" says .
Give them an M-16 and put them out there. They have their repeal of DADT, and can sleep together unpunished in base housing (heteros can't) so they may as well have the full experience
Was I too harsh?
The ratio of women to men in combat roles is technically zero. Women are currently prohibited from serving in direct combat roles (Armor, Infantry, Combat Engineers), but they can serve in indirect roles (Military Police, Field Artillery FDC's, Aviation, etc). Many women have lost their lives in the wars over there - I can name several from my state, two of whom served under me at one time or another.
As a still serving Army Officer, I support opening up the Combat Arms to women. However, to be included, I believe they must do away with the gender based physical fitness standards. The strength or endurance required to perform a military function does not change based on your gender - you should be able to run as fast, work as long, and carry as much as your counterparts. That is the only way they will be accepted and treated as equals. Otherwise, gender bias will make them a liability, and place the entire unit in danger.
"Was I too harsh?"
I wooda let em relly have it. Lesbiums with they're dms and tapons and stuf.
what is dms cheetah?
its a diseez they gets very month
You can cut the crap cheetah. I've read your stuff and know you're putting on, and I'm not the dolt you think you're posting to. I have my opinion, and your smugness will not change it, and I have no intention of letting the country go down the immorality slide it's on without spouting off. Your sleaze won't run in my sewer.
you axed the kwestshun. i jess targut the ansers so they git under stud
The article was about women. That's it - women. You're the dick who dragged sex into it and that's exactly what gays don't want. Just treat them like honorable people. You, Mr Het, are the one who stirred the mud, or 'threw it in the face' as the expression has come to be used.
You're exactly right. If it is important that soldier be able to carry a certain weight or move at a certain speed, then it is important for EVERYONE in the same position, regardless of gender. On the other hand, if it isn't a legitimate requirement, it should be revised or eliminated, again for everyone.
Perfect sentiment. If women truly want "equal" treatment, than all gender based physical tests should be done away with. There should be one APFT and the standard should be the same for all. Until then, what these people really want is "preferential" treatment. You get a woman out there that can do everything we require men to do, awesome. If not, it's all B.S. talk. It is like saying certain people can play in the NHL even if they can't skate backwards. Dumb.
And now let all the "you're a sexist" B.S. commence.
Absolutely. But along with that, some jobs need higher standards of "smarts" (why certain test scores are required) and some jobs need higher physical standards. But I agree ... whatever standards are set for each job should be the same for both genders.
The "You Go Girl" stories headline with a picture that women are risking their lives in shootouts with the enemy in combat zones. But closer reading reveals their actual role : combat support in lower risk roles. It's a job to be respected, but it shouldn't be dressed up as a combat role if women aren't a proportional # of those killed by bombs and enemy bullets.
These women are not sniper targets. They are selected for their less-threatening female stature to talk to women and children, something that apparently men can't be trained to do. The article does not mention that these women are accompanied by even more men with guns and would not be sent to these areas if without that protective escort of men. How many men were passed over for these protected combat roles with a nearly zero risk of death?
From the article "The ranks of enlisted females have increased from 2 percent to 14 percent, and the share of female officers has quadrupled, from 4 percent to 16 percent"
So, women are 14% of enlisted but 16% of officers? That doesn't seem fair to men, particularly since men sustain nearly all of the deaths and injuries.
Part of the reason that men do not fill these roles is that women in Afghanistan and Iraq cannot and will not talk to men. it would bring shame upon their family. As for there being a near zero risk of death.... Where did you read that load of bull? There are lots of women who have died in combat and even more that have come home with severe injuries that will haunt them for the rest of their lives. Please do not disount the sacrifice that these women have made. Any limitations in the roles that women play in a war effort are not choices they have made but imposed on them by our government. I served for 4 years in the Navy and at no time did I ever say that I wouldn't do a job. We wanted to be treated the same as the guys and have access to the same job opportunities. Make it truly equal and then the guys can complain.
Vincent: do you constantly troll boards looking for some way to express your mysogeny? (Let me guess --a bitter divorce or just never married??) You are actually going to idiotically insist women in combat zones are somehow "protected" from enemy fire?
Yea you tel em vinny like that jeska linch that got all shot up in the rong place and her frend piestewa killd cuz they dint no where they're suplie trucks was. dum bichs.
no mention of how many women are subject to military sexual assault. the numbers are staggering and the DOD mostly tries to downplay it and cover it up.
Women use "sexual harassment" as a tool in the armed forces. I.E to destroy the careers of those around them, if they don't get their "way."
Tom, you complete and utter wanker moron, read the statistics. One third of female veterans (after their tenure) have reported sexual assault of some kind. I know that a lot of male soldiers just "accidentally fell on the women" with their pants off, in your view, but chances are pretty good they're not all lying to gain promotions. Your hatred of women is duly noted, and I'm sure it's returned, otherwise you wouldn't be so bitter.
Big deal.
Women must volunteer for combat duty.
I'll believe it when the "ladies" have to fill out draft cards.
No, women do not "Volunteer" for combat duty. If a woman is assigned to a military unit, and her unit goes into a combat zone, then she goes. There is no choice. Currently, they cannot serve in direct combat roles, but may serve in combat support or service support funtions. However, in todays non-contiguous battlefield environment, they are as exposed to enemy fire as the "combat" troops.
Steven: May I relay your "big deal" comment to the families of the 138 women who died serving their country? Really...I'll send a big bouquet of flowers with your compliments.
Draft registration should be eliminated. Its a great place to start cutting the budget. How much money has been spent registering males (who, in this day and age, politically could not be the only ones drafted) over the past 30+ years?
That's stupid. We should enact conscription. That way whiny, cry-baby, know-nothing, people would actually understand what is required from our military not to mention appreciate the freedoms they enjoy because of us.
If the ladies want to fight, more power to them. A friend's daughter was a member of a security detachment and wielded an M60 machine gun. She is out now but talks as if she was proud of her role in the war. I enlisted in the Army in April of 1969 but never saw combat. I have the feeling that if I had once learned that the solution (even in war) was to kill people. I would have essentially have had to be put down because my mind would take that path too easily. It is no wonder to me that these soldiers end up as homeless veterans. There needs to be training that hardens these people before they get into combat and weeds out the ones who aren't going to survive it mentally. Combat would have ruined me. My PTSD is from my childhood and killing would make me just too dangerous.
it's simple. if they want to wear a uniform of the us military. then they do the fighting and everything else that needs to be done. no more seperation because of gender. it's that simple.
It's coming. The women aren't the ones arguing for separation.
Yes, they can do combat, but they still don't get combat pay. And women aren't the ones fighting to restrict their roles in the military, Sweetie.
Tracey, you sound like you have no actual military experience. Where and when did you serve? You sound more like a sexist than someone who is actually trying to get into a combat arms unit...."sweetie."
Okay, I'm going to get slammed on this but I'm going to layout some very hard facts for those that are not in the military. The increase in combat action seen by female soldiers in the last two conflicts is due to the nature of the conflict and incidental. There are many women that serve in support roles such as the moving of supplies around the country. ACM does not distinguish between these units and units that are on direct action missions. The main difference between the units with women, support, and men, combat arms, is that when engaged by the enemy support units suppress and leave. With combat arms units they suppress, then maneuver and destroy the enemy. A more telling statistic, which is not listed in the article(thanks again msnbc) is the death rate between men and women. This is due to the nature of the combat they are engaged in.
Now, one must look at the possibility of opening all branches to women and the effect. I have gone nine weeks without being able to conduct proper hygiene(bathe). The Army has regulations in place that state female soldiers must have the opportunity to conduct hygiene daily during menstruation in a "private and secluded place". I can inform you that there is no such place on a COB. Yes it would be possible to do shower runs, however one must take into account the disruption to op tempo and the undue risk this would impose on soldiers. Perhaps the most politically sensitive issue is the inequity of gender strength. In my eight years in the army I've met one female who can charge a Mk19. If you can't do the job, you shouldn't be in the role.
Feel free to respond with articulate posts, I would love to discuss this topic with others.
I've been serving as an officer in the US Army for almost 15 years now. I'm an MP and have seen the number of females serving in the MP Corps continuously rise during that time. I started out in a DIV MP Co as a PL and had a handful of female MPs. As a Company Commander, when I deployed to Baghdad, Iraq in JAN 2004, a little over 1/3 of my company were female to include 3 out of 4 platoon leaders. My impression- awesome Soldiers and leaders all around. All of my female Soldiers filling the gunner's position in MP teams had no problem charging a Mk19 or man-handling it (by themselves in most cases) to the cradle in the turret (or the M2 assembled with barrel). They faced the same dangers as my male Soldiers, wounded by the same bullets, IEDs and grenades sent their way and backed up their fellow teammates with the same dedication I would expect from any Soldier.
On the hygiene issue, "private and secluded place" usually ended up being the back seat of a HMMWV with ponchos over the windows (sometimes without given the situation) with a packet of baby wipes and the male Soldiers standing outside keeping watch. Not much time involved, not big issue and no complaints, whines, moans or groans from female Soldiers. They understood the mission, the austere conditions, and appreciated the little bit of time allocated to take care of personal business.
I agree, if you can't do the job, you shouldn't be in the role. This is not based on gender though. It is based on physical and mental capability. I have had plenty of male Soldiers who should have been hammering away at keyboards because they couldn't hack it as an MP (to include not being able to either charge a Mk19 or employ it properly while on the move).
Remember it was a female MP SSG who earned the Silver Star for suppressing, then maneuvering her squad dismounted and destroying an entrenched enemy attacking a LOGPAC convoy in Iraq.
To end, I am honored to have served with so many great female Soldiers and officers in combat and I value their service and sacrifice the same as I do for the many great male Soldiers and officers I have served with.
US Army, '97-present
Sean - 2769 - Very well put. Like you, I'm an officer, with over 25 yearrs in, having served in Combat Arms, Combat Support, and Logistics units, As an Officer and also enlisted. I have met many women in the military, and I can tell you, the biggest thing that holds any military woman back are the male soldiers around them. I have watched women change tires on M915's and M931's, to include manually breaking the tires from the rims and replacing them. People will rise to whatever expectation you set for them. Whether you treat them as equals, or as being weak and less capable, they will almost always prove you right!
Army Guy, has anyone ever explained menstruation to you? It's not a handicap, and it can be easily stopped with the use of an IUD or birth control pills. All these thousands of years, and men are still mystified, disgusted, creeped out and prone to conspiracy theories about women's bodies.
TraceyS, you're sexist, ignorant remarks are noted again. What is your problem? You have two professional soldiers saying how well the women they have served with have performed, and THIS is what you reply with? You, and those like you, are actually hindering any change far more than you realize or will admit. Pathetic.
Bullets and bombs do not discriminate - they kill, maime, injure who ever is in their way. War is not healthy for children or any other living thing. - We wanted the opportunity to be counted as equals, we worked hard for it, we've earned it, but I wonder if our sufferagete sisters of so long ago would still press for the vote if they could have seen where it would lead. As for women being warriors, heck, we've been warriors since day one. This nation's early history does poor justice to the women who helped pave the way, as for today's women warriors, I am glad that we have the opportunity to stand shoulder with our male counterparts, but war is not a healthy living.
NO women not been warriors from day one. Historically women spread their legs for the victors when their countries were invaded.
Jessical Lynch didn't do squat, none of them did. it was all fake.
They just created liabilities and had to be rescued by men and will have to be accomodated no matter how bad they are because they are women.
Women talk about doing their jobs but the job is killing the enemy. How many of the enemy soldiers have been killed by women? I venture to guess almost none.
bf: Women are a valuable part of the military, they just fulfill different roles. Your opinion might have some merit, however the language that you have chosen invalidates ANY value of your argument. All you have accomplished with your post is an inservice to yourself.
bf,
And it was a male company commander who screwed up in the first place that resulted in his maintenance unit convoy being ambushed. Rushing to catch up to 3ID's column, the convoy's commander, Capt. Troy Kent King, made a fateful mistake as his unit approached the outskirts of Nasiriya, a city of 300,000 people about 180 miles southeast of Baghdad. At an intersection south of the city, Captain King misunderstood the route, missed a turn and led the convoy straight into the city.
Investigators determined that Private Lynch suffered several injuries when a rocket-propelled grenade hit the Humvee she was traveling in, causing it to crash into another vehicle in their convoy at about 45 miles per hour. Not much she could have done anyways.
It was the actions of a male officer that resulted in the incident, not anything that a female private did or didn't do.
Yes, but it was another guy, George Bush who screwed up in the first place. I.E, the guy who started the pointless and stupid war.
Sean,
I would caution you about laying any blame for the 507th Maintenance Company incident on any one person. The Captain, was doing the best he could, but was hampered by a number of things. First, the forces who went into Iraq were trained to conduct contiguous operations. Under that doctrine, the 507th was a rear area unit. Their heavy weapons were packed in shipping containers, because they were designated for setting up defense on an established perimiter. The idea of following combat units that intentionally bypassed threat forces was unheard of. Second, their vehicles were not well adapted to move in the desert areas, unlike the tanks and Infantry Fighting Vehicles they were trying to keep pace with. As a result, one serial became bogged down, and the commander stayed back with that serial to move them forward again. Third, when he approached the critical junction, he asked for directions to the wrong route (he was supposed to get off the main route, bypass the city, and then return to the main route.) The Route guides, who could have told him not to go into the city, simply assumed he knew what he was doing, and waved him that way, even though EVERY OTHER UNIT went up the alternate route. Fourth, The GPS he was given was an oler generation, which only gave him a basic indication of direction. Since the primary and alternate routes were paralell to each other, and he did not have a proper map, there was no way to tell.
In the end, no one person was found at fault. Rather, it was a number of small, preventable mistakes at many levels that compounded to lead to this result. The soldiers of the 507th, not being "Combat" troops, actually perfromed remarkabley well, not only during their resistance leading up to the capture, but also during their capture. Be careful of armchair quarterbacking a situation you were not personally at.
"Historically women spread their legs for the victors when their countries were invaded."
No, they didn't. They were usually raped. There's a big difference and if you can't see it, then you are a disturbing person.
Well there is a risk of rape. So they had better be mentally prepared for that. I am sure they are.
I was in Iraq and on a front line combat FOB. The females there did guard duty, had our turn in the guard towers, went outside the FOB, flew over combat areas. We went out on patrol with the guys. Once on patrol a Major tried to leave me in a vehicle and I asked if it was because I was a female and he let me out and never restricted my participation at all. I don't want to be treated differently. I serve my country and do my job like everyone else. I'm an awesome medic and I wanted to be there for the ones who got hit, not sit on the base and do sick call. I went where I knew I was needed. There were some girls crying there, like 19 yrs old, who had no idea they would be put in a gun turrent out on patrol. Us older girls just told her suck it up and lets be mature about this and do our jobs. I never had any problems with male soldiers in the field. We worked in the triangle of death and we all watched each others backs no matter their gender. It's a huuuahhhhhh thing.
Way to go young lady!!! Thank you for serving....
I see nothing wrong with that since women want to be treated as equals execpt when it comes to requirements then there is a male and female requirement.
Bout time they got out of the kitchen.
Women should have the right to kill Arab babies to.
I don't want a 5'6", 130 lb Jessica Lynch in the fox hole with me in case I get wounded.
Nah, but if your in the National Guard, you might see her 300 pound "sister" from West Virginia.
Ain't it strange GOP?.... Remember the Equal Rights Amendment back in the dark ages?.... Good old Phylis said that the USA will never tolerate women coming home in body bags.... oops.... another thing that the GOP got wrong... more power to these ladies... they should be able to do anything that they want.. and in the military you are toast for upper levels without combat experience....
You know the irony of it all? Most of the women in the armed forces are hardcore conservative republicans...Go figure.
Uh, not my next door neighbor. Dike, retired military, NOW, ACLU, Obama supporter, hates religion and men.
Good for her. Notice I said "most," and not "all." I'm ex-Army, and a life-long liberal. Problem is, post end of the draft era, the likes of your friend and I are rather limited in numbers. I remember once having an argument with a female Lt. who was a Blackhawk pilot. She HATED Democrats, liberals, didn't believe homosexuals should be aloud to openly serve...Or even serve at all. This was all back in the 90's, mind you.
When I tried to point out that it was the Democrats, led by President Bill Clinton, who saw to it she could even legally fly combat missions in her beloved UH-60, she was incapable of making the connection. She had no notion of the debates between Republicans and Democrats that took place around 1993 over this matter.
The military is pre-dominently conservative. Its a hard job that doesn't take kindly to free-loading, useless people so very few liberals make it.
Yeah, DP...that's why liberals tend to earn more than Conservatives overall, and the Red States take more federal assistance dollars out of tax coffers than Blue States. Because "liberals" are freeloaders. Actually, I'm sick of my hard earned liberal, blue-state tax dollars going to support the deep-fried Twinkie habits of 300-pound trailer dwellers in the former Confederate States.
The people of this country are almost always ahead of the conservatives. Conservatives are forever struggling to keep up with social changes. Or, trying to stop them in Don Quixote fasion. As a result, they invariably appear to be out of touch.
In Vietnam i was in the marine corp 0311 (infantry) on the ground... there was no place or time for a woman there... now there is time since there are in compounds... Big differents being out on a month long combat run taking fire and taking care of yourself and your buddies... not to mention the cleaniness bathroom time...crap on the go... washing sock and feet and balls with dirty socks then wash the socks... same cloths for the whole month maybe two pair of socks... big difference for the wars that we have been in since 2001... but it is want it is.....but the women did have a place in the rear.. no punt intended... admin and such...and thanks for there support..
Obviously, you hate America...
Yes, everybody knows that women evaporate into a puff of vapor if they can't take a shower every day. The amount of stupidity in the comments section on this board utterly defies belief.
Tracey ... I wonder how much these differences in opinion are a generational thing? In Larry's case, I think that he's failing to account for the fact that the capabilities and expectations of women today are very different than they were 40 years ago.
Yeah, Larry sounds like an Old Foagie for sure, myself and other female friends in my group have been out camping JUST like that, and we didn't melt like the Wicked Witch of the West. Your ignorant misconception amuses me.
Studies are not news and don't deserve articles. Thanks for the book report Jeff Black!
Heck let's send in children to fight while we're at it
We will rue the day we allowed women to actually serve in combat roles. Today's roles are not combat.
The women attached to infantry units are used for searching, and/or frisking Arab women due to cultural sensitivities. It is a dangerous job though. Never know what some of these Arab women are hiding under their dress/burkka.
However, I do not believe women should be assigned to front line infantry,artillary and armour units on a permanent/full time basis.
During WW2 The Soviets used women in the front lines. Mostly in the signal ,and medical units. Many were also deadly snipers. Otherwise, I can not think of any modern army that uses women in front line units. Isreal perhaps?
That is it right there Major Mike.
I couldn't care less who or what someone is, provided they are completely willing and able, physically and mentally, to do the job they are assigned.
I'm fine with women in full combat provided everything is equal. No "special accommodations." No separate bathrooms, they get the same amount of showers as the men, they are on the front lines if they want combat.
This next point will get me flamed, but here is goes;
I also don't think women should use pregnancy as an excuse to leave. I think if they are serving, they should be on birth control. Men are only able to leave if their orders come in, or if they are injured to the point of not being able to serve.
Not flamed but... men can be fathers where women can't be mothers isn't equality either, especially when there's a 75% probability that the father of a female soldier's child is military.
That is true, but the men that are fathers would still be at war. Just because they have kids doesn't mean they can leave.
Hence my requirement for birth control. I know most women feel very empowered that they can have a family and a career at the same time. To me, that doesn't translate to a military career, especially during a time of war.
But you can't lock a woman out of motherhood for twenty years just because of a few months of childcare.
She can still be a mom, just after she's done with the military.
The kicker with a military career is the ever present obligation. If an attack breaks out, the military must respond then and there. The potential is that might happen during the "few months of childcare."
Do they let fathers stay home? No, they don't. Most of the "feel good" videos and stories I see on the news now (it does make me tear a little) is fathers coming home after multiple tours and finally hugging their children.
They are fathers, but they were still at war thousands of miles away.
Oddly enough, sometimes they show the mother left at home talking about "how hard it was." I don't think for a second that being a single parent is easy, but still, that against road side bombings and being shot at? Seriously?
LtKiwi Would your feelings be the same if you had to have the infantry/artillery unit you command in combat terrain for 12 months with only 1-2 days a month in the rear for a break. The rear being defined as a major forward base where clerical and hospitals are? Seven to 10 days in the field moving quickly by foot or helicopter then 2 nights in the firebase and then back out the gate. Carry your food, water, ammo, book, pancho liner to sleep on your back. Cold shower when you return. Use the bathroom in the weeds or bury it. No change of uniform and then pick what fits from a pile of clothes thrown on the ground. Sleep with the ambushed kills til daylight and then search the bodies and find another ambush site. Will your female soldiers and officers be up to this. Oh, I forgot, no underwear.
If the female soldiers are up to that situation, then fine let them live it. I refuse to make special accommodations for them.
If they aren't, they shouldn't be there and they can deal with it. They could also deal with a lower pay grade because of the of it.
That's all I'm saying.
I'm male, and at this point I don't think I'm up for a situation like that. Of course, a heart murmur, flat feet, and retinal re-attachment surgery on both eyes has kept me out of the military.
"...combat terrain for 12 months..."
Not even on Wii have you played that game.
"I'm male, and at this point I don't think I'm up for a situation like that. Of course, a heart murmur, flat feet, and retinal re-attachment surgery on both eyes has kept me out of the military."
Wow. At this point women are carrying your load too. I hope Sarah doesn't find you.
At this point, yes, I will admit that most everyone in the military could beat the livin' snot out of me. Men, women, short, tall, skinny, built, it doesn't matter.
I tried when I was 18 to join. I went through the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force before I finally gave up (Colorado doesn't have much call for Coast Guard). I guess the military isn't a big fan of heart murmurs...
Yes combat is EXTREMELY stressful on the human body, so what may seem to be a minor health problem as a civilian can suddenly be magnified into a deadly health problem due to such stresses, thats why the military refuses people with even minor health problems. Also problems like poor eyesight can be deadly for the soldier and his/her fellow soldiers as well, basically if you are not in near perfect health you really should not even consider joining military, at least for a combat capacity.
Yeah, that was a tough realization in my life, that I could cause someone else harm because of a defect.
I think women should be able to go on combat missions, i mean short of hand to hand combat im confident women can hold their own against and even defeat male soldiers. I do have one problem with it however, and that is the kind of people our soldiers are fighting are extra violent and brutal towards women versus men so i dont want them to be taken alive.
How does the old quote go? "God didn't create man equal, Samuel Colt did."
Send 'em in!
Hell hath no fury like that of a woman scorned.
Only woman I ever saw in "combat" was EOD and she wouldn't get out of her humvee because the area wasn't "secure." I'm tired of all these liberal outlets trying to act like women are so special for doing these things, when men are the ones doing 99.9% of it all. Until a woman can do things, to a man's standard for Infantry, Field Artillery or any of the other Combat MOS's lets put these stories to rest.