U.S. Military Women Exposed to More Combat Than Ever Before

But we know this already. That said, should only males be exposed to it? Is that fair? We know already the answer to this is no. Well, most MRAs, anyway. I don't want to speak for everyone on this as tempted as I might be. :)

There is one thing good that could, off chance, maybe just maybe, come from having women in combat roles, and this is that it is a requirement of political correctness, unbendable. Here's my argument:

1. Women must be in combat roles as a matter of policy.
2. Item 1 is not subject to reversal.
3. People find the idea of women being in combat very discomforting, so much so, they may find their enthusiasm for sending others to war wane.
4. Not being able to reconcile items 1,2 and 3 to one another, they instead minimize their support for solving matters via warfare.
5. Item 4 inevitably leads to fewer people of either sex being exposed to combat.

Dare I dream?

Matt, it would feel very anti-climatic if we achieved world peace not on moral grounds, but because war went out of style like capri pants.

Also, I do not really trust this study. My general experience with women in combat is that yes they were there and they could hold their own, but the severity of what they experienced is still not even close to that which men have. For example, sitting in a defensive tower with a machine gun might create an opportunity to shoot at something and women can fill that role, but men are still the ones who venture outside the wire and face extreme risks of getting killed themselves.

I think that at this point we have to consider that women are not discriminated against at the VA, which is strapped for cash and can't even provide sufficient care to men who experienced truly severe things. But what these researchers are suggesting is that we redirect existing resources into women-only care, to provide special treatment to soldiers because of their sex. I don't like the idea of that. I believe that resources should be allocated based on the severity of the injuries sustained. Period. So if women have injuries more severe than that of men, then at that point funding should be directed towards their specific needs. That's what a study should need to demonstrate. I also think that in the case of PTSD, the entire premise of women-only care is patently ridiculous. The whole entire problem for men is that PTSD treatments originally got developed to meet women's needs in the event of rape and things like that. It would be ridiculous to say that the field of psychology doesn't already cater to women's needs.

I have some concerns about this 1 thru 5 table from above .......

1. Women must be in combat roles as a matter of policy.
2. Item 1 is not subject to reversal.
3. People find the idea of women being in combat very discomforting, so much so, they may find their enthusiasm for sending others to war wane.
4. Not being able to reconcile items 1,2 and 3 to one another, they instead minimize their support for solving matters via warfare.
5. Item 4 inevitably leads to fewer people of either sex being exposed to combat.

Matt and others, I know the MRM has differing views on women in combat. I see the two views summed up as this: (1) woman should have equal exposure to combat (death). Many feminists are also supportive with this view as they see the exclusion of woman as discriminatory (2) those that don't want to see women in combat feel women are inferior soldiers and therefor, impact the efficiency of the whole military.

I often see many anti-war comments associated with view number one and how easy it is to send off "others" into war while protecting oneself from harmful elements (death). I sometimes get frustrated by those that have an attitude that being pro-military = pro-war. I don't know anyone who is pro-war or who wants anyone to die, but I also believe that the ability to defend one's own country is a necessity and sometime war/death is unavoidable to maintain freedom and overall harmony in the world. If nobody is willing to fight/die, then we might all die or all lose our freedom. I think sometimes the extreme anti-war people forget this.

I hope I don't put my foot in my mouth as I admit I am not that familiar with military policy, but I thought no one has been called up for the draft for many many years. So currently the military is a force of people who have volunteered their service, with women being the only gender with combat exclusions (you can interpret this as good or bad). Even if we opened up the high combat positions to women, I believe few would apply and we would still have many more men in those positions (remember they are volunteers - not forced) so, Matt, are you suggesting quotas for combat positions?

Also I want to say something about the common belief that more women in the military will lead to fewer wars, fewer deaths, and deaths that do occur will be an equal ratio of men to women. I am not sure I agree with this. Lets say war is inevitable and death of all the population is at stake. Do you send your best most efficient soldiers out or do you make sure there is an even number of men and women? Wont weaker soldiers lead to less efficient combat and then lead to more deaths, possibly of the whole population of military and civilians ? Do equalists believe women are as good of combat soldiers as men? and if they are not, then don't you see the negative effect (and possibly more deaths) if we weaken our military?

Currently, the United States is no force to mess with and other countries know it. If we had a weaker military I am not sure we would have the same influence that we have. Just think how other countries would treat us if we had a military of female soldiers. No one wants to send soldiers off to war, but how should we have reacted to the 9-11 attacks if not by fighting back? How would sending a weak military force full of female soldiers accomplish anything? Do you think female soldiers could have got Osama Bin Laden? I don't. I know more men have died in this war compared to women, but if we did not fight back with a strong military there would have been more attacks on our country like 9-11 and many more deaths to Americans.

Instead of calling for more female soldiers and more female deaths in our military I would like to see more honor and more respect for the men that choose to serve and look for ways to keep our military strong and powerful.

Kris, you have a couple decent points and a couple misconceptions. If you think the US is no force to mess with then obviously you haven't been to Iraq and dealt with a really resourceful and determined enemy. You must be under the misconception that the 9-11 attacks don't count when it comes to no one messing with the USA and that our giant military industrial complex can actually render this country immune to the bad policies of its leaders.

As far as calling for more female soldiers and more female deaths in our military, I say bring it on. It's one of those things that has to be experienced to be understood. I do not think that women will ever be capable of "honoring" those who volunteer to serve or even understanding the first thing about them until they face the same exact circumstances that lead them to the front lines as men. Feminism would be changed forever if women had to earn their right to vote by dying on the battlefields the way that men have.

Kris, you should also note an important fact about the military: those men are underpaid. Low-ranking enlisted men are paid so little that they would technically count as subsisting under the poverty line and, ironically, they would qualify for government assistance if it wasn't for the fact that they're in the military. Most of the money that is spent on the military goes to pork barrel projects that grease the pockets of the rich and powerful, not to the soldiers. Our country does not value the troops. Pure and simple. If it did, it would give them the same salaries that teachers and police officers enjoy. Waving a little paper flag around on a parade does not honor anything, it's just being a fool.

I appreciate your comments, but much of what you pointed out has more to do with honor and military pay scale and little to do with females in combat. You and Matt seem to want women to experience the fear of war and/or actual death without any thought that the price to pay for this experience may be more deaths to both genders. I don't agree with anyone who thinks woman in combat would lower the death rate associated with war. I actually think it may increase it.

I don't see any military men in combat positions demanding more females by their side. Have you ever thought about their safety? When has anyone been in an emergency/combat/ life or death situation when survival will be a group effort and thought to themselves "gee, I wish I had less men and more women with me." ?

I'll ask you a simple question. If you had a 20 year old son who has volunteered for the service and going off to fight in a high combat position and he will be assigned to one of two teams for a dnagerouse mission. One team has 5 men and 5 women, and the other team is 10 men. Which team would you hope he gets assigned to?

If you would not want your own child's life in the hands of female soldiers, why would you call for other soldiers to do so? Lets face it women are physically and mentally weaker than men. There may be a few exceptions but it is not worth the trouble as there are other biological differences to deal with.

However, I do believe that if we ever ran out of volunteer military troops and needed the draft then all men and women should be required to serve to the best of their ability. Any society, wether we are talking about a whole country or an island of 50 people should expect everyone to do their part according to ability and not worry about having equal ratios.

You're right. Dungone, I have not been to Iraq. But my impression is that we have accomplished some things there that needed to be accomplished. Osoma Bin Laden had the courage to mess with the USA and now he is dead! as well as many others who had a role in 9-11 and were planning further attacks. They attacked us, and we fought back! I am very proud of our military. What would it have been like if the USA did not have the military force to fight back or forced to have an equal number of females in all positions even on the planning and executing team that shot Bin Laden? If we were concerned about gender ratios going into that mission I doubt we would have been so successful.

"I don't see any military men in combat positions demanding more females by their side."

You're talking to one right now. I'm a Marine Corps combat veteran, Kris. No need for hypotheticals. I have also had the opportunity to experience combat alongside with women.

FYI, Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with Iraq and going to Iraq had nothing to do with killing him. Check your facts please.

Really? I think it's great you served in the military and are giving your perspective.

I don't mind learning new things or being corrected. But based on my discussion with soldiers and my visits to military blog sites, I have heard almost all soldiers say they have concerns about women's abilities in combat and are happy with the current policies that exclude females in those positions. I give more credit to a soldier's opinion over a civilian's. Either I have not spoken to enough soldiers to get an accurate assessment or the majority of them do not share your opinion. I find it interesting that you have not once commented on the mental and physical skills or ability levels of females in combat, but instead choose to focus on your perceived need to teach women to honor the men who serve in combat by demanding that they serve in combat as well.

You also have not addressed how you would like to get women into combat positions. Currently joining the US military is voluntary, even if the ban on females in some combat positions was lifted there would be far more male applicants and they must pass the requirements. If quotas are not imposed or standards lowered you will likely get a ratio of many men to one woman. This would likely cause problems. Also, issues like menstruation, birth control and pregnancy will need to be dealt with. Women cannot even pee as easily as men. Even if you suggest women abort any accidental pregnancies, the service and accommodations still needs to be provided by the military. Can you imagine if a supply of birth control pills does not make it to camp?

I still put far more faith in a man's ability compared to a woman's. If I was ever trapped, near death or any other emergency I would hope my comrades or rescue team would be men. Perhaps you have no preference. If I can be convinced that females in combat would not jepardize success, safety and efficiancy , then I will advocate for full female inclusion.

BTW - I just heard our US Navy Seal Team 6 just rescued two hostages from Somali Pirates and killed nine pirates. Way to go Seals!!!

Kris, I don't think there's any one way to talking about the answers. There are several things to consider, though. Most combat soldiers have never had the opportunity to serve with women, so even though they are experts in their field they're really just guessing like anybody else. The ones who have served with women seem to have really mixed opinions about it, but really you can tell from listening to them carefully that a lot of their hesitations have to do with current policies that actually exclude women, so those negative opinions could change if the policies changed. One big source of resentment of women is that they get promoted and can even command over combat troops without having to risk their lives in combat the way men do. And military personnel really tend to admire leadership that "leads from the front" as they say, so that is just one way that the current set of policies is giving current soldiers a negative opinion of women in the military and not giving those women the same opportunities to go out and actually earn some respect.

Lastly, the most important thing about it comes down to somewhat of a design problem. The military is designed for men, so if you try to ask yourself whether or not women could fight the way men fight, then I think you're asking the wrong question. Military strategy was never meant to be partial to one particular kind of soldier. The first question it asks is alright, what kind of soldier do we have and what can they do, and the second question it asks is alright, so how can we fight a war with that kind of soldier and win?

To give you just one example of how our enemies adapted, consider suicide bombers. Our enemies realized that defending soldiers were good at picking out military aged men at checkpoints, so they learned that they could send in women suicide bombers to get through those checkpoints and get them closer to the targets which they wanted to attack. The point is, when it comes to killing people against their will, one of the most important things is to be more creative than the other side. And if you can do that, you can make life very difficult for your enemies no matter what your tools are.