A Crash Course in Feminism Mk. II (or, why everyone should be a feminist)

[Morgrim]

I don't know about army but in the australian navy the only role not currently open to women is clearance divers, and they're thinking of changing that. I'm not sure why that ban is in place, honestly. Females have been able to be submariners for a while now. Possibly because someone helpfully pointed out the navy that the last time an aussie submariner had physical contact with the enemy was in 1915 so it was hardly a job where one was expected to take a front line role.

And that's with the diesel-electric boats that are specifically designed to work close to shore and opposing ships; the nuclear boats are even further from any direct action.

[eldargal]

I don't buy the 'women shouldn't be on the front lines because unit discipline will suffer' argument. Call me old fashioned if my tax pennies are going to pay for a professional military I expect the member of said military to, you know, act professionally. If servicemen are being undisciplined because women are present then they need to be ****ing disciplined.
As has been mentioned the ban on women on the front lines has been dropped in the US armed forced because they had to accept the reality that women were already on the front lines performing admirably. The idea that women can't do it is pure, undiluted misogynist bull****. It is more of a case of men wishing we couldn't do it to preserve their fragile little egos.

[Psychosplodge]

Morgrim I knew they allowed them on the OZ boats they showed one of your navies fly on the wall things over here, but after fact checking my earlier statement they have been allowed on Royal Navy submarines from last year, the sixty seconds spent googling doesn't tell me if any actually are.

The ban was apparently on health grounds and nuclear reactors.

[Psychosplodge]

[URL="http://rachelreine.tumblr.com/post/83613894450/thequeenandthephoenix-kiichu"]More[/URL] from that american apparel place mentioned somewhere on here before

[eldargal]

[Denzark]

Woman joins front line military unit.

Men get the arse with that/get distracted/unable to control libido.

And that's the woman's fault how?

How many soldiers are actually taken prisoner in modern wars?

It is not the woman's fault at all. As for the latter - it happens, but rarely.

As to man 'getting the arse'. Lets take a typical British Infantry Soldier. He is not the brightest bunny out there. If - irrationally but if - he 'gets the arse' - lets militarise that. That is morale being lowered. It is military fact that units with low morale perform their tasks worse than those with high morale.

So, do you keep the woman separate - upsetting her but not the wider unit - it performs better overall. Or do you include her but risk lowered morale? As a leader, you must consider what is the most important - lets talk about John Adair's leadership circles. Team, Task, Individual. What is the most important, Team, Task, or Individual. We are talking front line combat here. It is no fallacy that the stakes are high - none higher. They are literally in the worse case, life or death. Sometimes you must ask the individuals to put the needs of the team or the task - in front of their needs. 'Please sacrifice your right to life we need that piece of sandy ground'. So by that dint one may think prioritising how you can keep the team at peak performance, over individual liberties.

Lets talk about 'get distracted'.

Or, in military parlance, 'unit cohesion'. This can be many things. It links to the above. What if the single female fit enough to get into the Platoon has a relationship with one of her peers causing jealousy?* What if as naturally happens between fit young people in high-stress situations, someone is attracted to the female, and she goes down with a sucking chest wound or half her head shot off? Can you rely on her team to keep fighting and let the medics sort her in accordance with doctrine, or will the attraction and a male protective aspect kick in? The whole attack falters causing more casualties?

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying there aren't exceptional females who couldn't physically keep up. Clearly some can - I have met several considerably fitter than me in the mob. But what a Government has to be absolutely sure is - is the potential risk of including the females in the front line outbalanced by the need to treat people equally? I'm not convinced it is.

*The US military is far more hard over than ours about 'fraternisation' and relationships. And they also have a far greater incidence of sexual assault. I reckon the 2 things are linked - you can't repress nature, you might as well manage it.

[Mr Mystery]

[URL="http://rachelreine.tumblr.com/post/83613894450/thequeenandthephoenix-kiichu"]More[/URL] from that american apparel place mentioned somewhere on here before

Which is a shame. Because I'm meant to be getting [url=http://www.redbubble.com/people/galvetica/works/10690898-nozin-aroun?country_code=GB&p=t-shirt&utm_campaign=shopping&utm_medium=google_prod ucts&utm_source=google&gclid=CLunt4S6970CFYrjwgodO VAAmQ]this t-shirt for a dear friend's birthday.[/url]

And they use American Apparel. Who I do not wish to trade with ever.

[Denzark]

I don't know about army but in the australian navy the only role not currently open to women is clearance divers, and they're thinking of changing that. I'm not sure why that ban is in place, honestly. Females have been able to be submariners for a while now. Possibly because someone helpfully pointed out the navy that the last time an aussie submariner had physical contact with the enemy was in 1915 so it was hardly a job where one was expected to take a front line role.

And that's with the diesel-electric boats that are specifically designed to work close to shore and opposing ships; the nuclear boats are even further from any direct action.

It is not about females in body bags (although that plays a part). Diesel electric boats are not designed to work close to shore. The engine of the sub is totally irrelevant to the role, it is the payload that defines the action. A nuclear missile boat should be far from the action (if doing its job properly). A nuclear POWERED (distinction) merely has the ability to stay longer at sea between refuelling. It does not need to surface like a diesel boat.

I have had several Royal Navy affirm that having worked on both all-male vessels (known as stag boats) and mixed crew vessels, they rate the all male boats as happier places.

[Nabterayl]

But what a Government has to be absolutely sure is - is the potential risk of including the females in the front line outbalanced by the need to treat people equally?

I don't think those are invalid concerns. On the other hand ...

As to man 'getting the arse'. Lets take a typical British Infantry Soldier. He is not the brightest bunny out there. If - irrationally but if - he 'gets the arse' - lets militarise that. That is morale being lowered. It is military fact that units with low morale perform their tasks worse than those with high morale.

Lets talk about 'get distracted'.

Or, in military parlance, 'unit cohesion'. This can be many things. It links to the above. What if the single female fit enough to get into the Platoon has a relationship with one of her peers causing jealousy?* What if as naturally happens between fit young people in high-stress situations, someone is attracted to the female, and she goes down with a sucking chest wound or half her head shot off? Can you rely on her team to keep fighting and let the medics sort her in accordance with doctrine, or will the attraction and a male protective aspect kick in? The whole attack falters causing more casualties?

I have to admit that (non-veteran American here) this doesn't seem like a sound line of reasoning. The American in me finds it hard to shake the parallels between the morale and unit cohesion arguments for women and the same arguments made for black soldiers, Asian-American soldiers, and gay and lesbian soldiers. In each case, a group that couldn't served in combat wanted to do so, and the argument was that because of certain social realities, that group's integration into front-line combat units might reduce morale and unit cohesion. And in each case, those consequences failed to materialize, and our armed forces are stronger for their inclusion. I haven't served, but I am the grandson of a man who, at the time of his retirement, was the highest-ranking Asian American officer in the service - a man whose military career started flying in the Pacific during World War 2 and received a number of awards specifically for his leadership (mostly of white people) over the course of his career.

So I can't help but look at the parade of horribles you mention (!= advocate, I understand) and ask: okay, yes, those might happen, and it would be bad if they did, but is there any reason to think that they will happen? Perhaps the United States' perspective is different from the British one in this regard - I don't know how many times you guys have faced the social challenge of integrating new groups of people into your pool of people eligible to serve in a combat arm. But we've gone through it several times already, and the possible unit cohesion and morale results have failed to materialize. So what I want to know is: what makes people think that this time will be different?

[Denzark]

Yeah that is a good point. The major difference between males of different ethnicity/sexuality and females, is that, whilst the arguments of cohesion may equally apply and be discountable, it is a fact that (I consider it fact) that the female pool is not as physically strong generally - exceptional specimens apart - so it is not like you are discounting yourself from a huge resource of manpower (person power whatever) that you can't do without.

And even with US levels of cohesion, I have still been privy to examples whilst serving alongside US military where troops divide themselves along ethnic lines. There are apparently areas a white officer will not go on board the mini-city that is a Nimitz Class carrier, without Marine escorts.