|
Edited on Mon Nov-13-06 01:05 PM by haele
There are very few billets that women can't apply for in the military. Submarine Duty and Special Forces are about the only billets I can think of off hand.
I enlisted in the Navy in 1977 and retired in 1998. There was a whole "sea change" as it were in attitudes towards women in the military during that time. When I signed up, I was severely restricted in the training, the billets - heck - the career path I was able to apply for. In 1977, Military Women were only supposed to apply for: Stateside or Staff (Nato, Pac or Lant Fleet, etc)Communications Administration Stateside or Staff Medical Stateside or Staff Supply/Logistics. Stateside or Staff Technical Support (including motor pool and other mechanic positions) Stateside Training or Survey Teams
Women were not allowed on any sort of unit deployments that could possibly include "Combat Status" - which in the Navy, meant that women could not be on any ship other than Oceanic Survey, Fleet Tugs or Barges.
In 1979, it changed slightly. Women were allowed in "Non-Combatant" deployable units, including Quartermaster units that were close to the front or Tender Ships that could pull up alongside a damaged Combat Ship that couldn't make it to a safe port. (In fact, my first unit was a ship that was an R & D formerly not available to women.) Women were still not allowed to serve in combat status, which meant that if a unit with women assigned to it went into a combat zone, everyone within that zone suddenly lost combat status. We called it "the Maybelline Line"; and it sucked big time during the Iran/Iraq issue and the first Gulf "War" (as well as Grenada and other little Reganite activities like Panama). Men and women who became injured or killed were not considered injured or killed in combat, even if the damage was done by what would normally be considered combat action. Men and women could not draw "combat pay" even if they came under fire and had to return fire to protect their base or unit position. Because of this; by 1993, women were being allowed to serve in a form of "modified" combat status - basically, they were allowed to serve in any unit that are considered to serve sort of a half-and half/either-or mix of peace-time and combat purposes - Infantry and Cavalry units, "Combatant" ships, air wings, MIUW/UDT, Sea-Bees etc. Submarines are out - and that is due to fear of sexual harassment because of the extremely close restricted quarters and long deployment missions with little shore leave to serve as a release and Special Forces (Rangers, SEALS, "Delta Force" et all) are currently out because those units are considered completely combatant.
So your question really is? What?
Should women be allowed to apply for any billet available and compete fully with men; qualified person gets the billet? Or should women lose what serves as "combat" status and we should return to the fiction of the 1980's where men were punished if women showed up to do their jobs and women were in serious jeopardy if their position was over-run? Or that women should just not be allowed to join the military in the future and any still in should be removed from any deployed unit and kept stateside until their time is up?
These three positions are basically the purest breakdown of various policies concerning women in the military. I can understand that a lot of guys "get distracted" when there are women around; heck, a lot of women get distracted when there are a lot of men around.
Another opinion many people have is that actual billets are physically "downgraded" so that women can compete with men. In my experience, if a woman can't perform to the actual requirements of any particular billet, she doesn't get in or she gets transferred as quickly as possible. Same with any man who can't make the requirements. No commander would risk his or her unit with a man or a woman who can't do the job and pull their weight, and most commanders do not have holding positions that they can drop slackers in until they shape up. Now, there are billets within units that don't require as much of a particular mental or physical strength that a generic structure-wide requirement may have. Again, historically, in combat or pre-combat situations - physical and mental strengths complement themselves; a smaller, weaker, smarter person is just as important in combat as a larger, stronger person. You have your "tanks" and your "runners". There are very few "uber-people" around and most of them tend to be put in leadership positions. However, the US military structure allows for a unit to continue on even if their leader is down, so all soldiers/sailors are required to be flexible and to rely on their particular individual strengths and leadership potential to take over in any emergency situation. One of the few halfway true, even if it was sarcastic, things said by our former SECDEF was "you go to war with the Army you have, not the one you want". You work with the strengths you have on hand, not with what you fantasize you can have. (What, add a few steroids, a few brain meds, some cybernetics, and you too can develop a couple divisions of "sooper troopers"?) There aren't enough "men" to go around. You want to be combat ready, you have to include women.
When the bullets start flying and the mortars start coming in, gender doesn't matter one bit. You aren't thinking of sex of any type - even "survival" sex, despite what the movies and TV suggest. You're thinking of "your ass" and then "your buddy". Most men with combat experience I know would no more wait for the woman than the man showing panic or dithering in a foxhole while under fire, no matter how "gentlemanly" or "chivalrous" they are.
In combat or emergency situations, it's all about the training and the ability to stay calm and smart. Not about the gender.
Haele
|