I would recommend everyone read the Washington Post article linked to at the top of this blog. Very informative and pro-Pfc. Brown.

This is an argument I think we don't see enough, and I'm getting a little tired of the "Shut up! We're at war!" line. While I'm personally very critical of our military actions (and expenditures), I still think that those who want to serve should be given every opportunity--even if they're women, or queer.

the video clip that accompanies the Washington Post article was interesting too. Thanks for posting about this, I didn't know about this policy until recently, I'm definitely going to check into whether Canada has the same stance.

I wouldn't say "I hate the military". The military has no choice but to go where the President orders them to go. Rank-and-file members do not get say. There was a survey done by an army magazine a few years ago which found that more veterans were against this war than any other previous war. There was another poll done by Zogby in 2006 which found overwhelming opposition among multiple branches for the length of the mission:

An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.

The poll, conducted in conjunction with Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies, showed that 29% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq “immediately,� while another 22% said they should leave in the next six months. Another 21% said troops should be out between six and 12 months, while 23% said they should stay “as long as they are needed.�

http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

Obviously, Samhita was trying to say that she hated people in the military rather than what it is doing as a collective body, but blanket statements like that could easily be misinterpreted and used as ammunition against feminists.

Sorry, that should have read, obviously she was trying to say that she hated what it was doing as a collective body rather than people in it.

The thing that strikes me oddly with the Washington Post article is that a platoon leader describes her as "was one of the guys, mixing it up, clearing rooms, doing everything that anybody else was doing." From what I have heard, the strongest part of a military unit is the teamwork. It's the importance of trusting one's fellow soldier...the bonding that is created in training seems the most important part of the unit's success.

To pull one member out, who has been commended by the highest military honor for bravery, seems counterproductive.

Isn't the justification for keeping women out of combat that women will distract and potentially endanger the men? From the testimony of Pfc. Brown's peers, it doesn't sound like they felt distracted or endangered by her presence - in fact, they commended her as a valued member of their unit. It's too bad that Army officials insist on clinging to biased and unsubstantiated views of women instead of listening to the stories of the men and women who are working together and risking their lives for one another and for their country. From the sounds of it, the only men who wanted Pfc. Brown out are men who hadn't met her and weren't working alongside her.

And actually (thinking more about what I just posted above), why is it so problematic to think of men being motivated to do unadvisable things to protect or save a female compatriot? Throwing one's body over the bodies of wounded soldiers through extended and dangerous fire (as Pfc. Brown did) isn't exactly advisable, but it is 100% heroic. Why does it stop being heroic and start being a problem when it's a man risking his life to save a woman?

I always saw the military's refusal to let women in combat situations as a result of patriarchy. Women are still objects and ideas to be protected by fathers and husbands. Women dying in combat reflects poorly on the men in society who failed to protect them.

See Elaine Scarry, The Body in Pain: http://books.google.com/books?id=NEaz8I0KAk4C&dq=elaine+scarry+the+body+at+war&pg=PP1&ots=vk6nChyHr5&sig=Gu0RM2nKIt7NFmjpRz3R6dYSNSI&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fq%3Delaine%2Bscarry%2Bthe%2Bbody%2Bat%2Bwar%26ie%3Dutf-8%26oe%3Dutf-8%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26client%3Dfirefox-a&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPP1,M1

However, this is just a fucked up attitude. Women can't be worth more than men in that losing the lives of women is seen as "worse" than losing the lives of men and at the same time be worth less and not have the opportunities to advance in a career in the military if that is what they have chosen to do.

It's so frustrating. Women should be allowed in combat. Maybe if the powers that be had to be concerned at losing both their sons and their daughters on the battlefield, they would think more carefully before starting wars.

I don't like the military and I have no problems saying so. Just thought I would toss that out there, it's not really germane to the discussion.

I think it's a waste, but if someone wants to join the military and are fully aware of the consequences of doing so, then they should do so, whatever their gender, religion or sexuality.

People who say women or gays or atheists aren't suited to combat really need to read up on their history. Women may never have been an organized army the way we recognize, but they have defended many a castle, town, castle and field. On the battlefield, no one is going to stop and ask you what your orientation is and a bullet fired by an atheist will kill just as surely as a one fired by a fundie.

There's a great documentary about women serving in Iraq called Lioness (http://www.lionessthefilm.com/) playing at the Tribeca Film Festival and hopefully more widely available soon.

According to the film, having women in combat is a violation of U.S. Policy - but it seems that the Army does a lot of tap-dancing around the rule. I don't recall the exact details, but one of the interviewees said that a conservative member of congress tried to make women in combat an issue (as in, trying to get them out to comply with policy) and was immediately squelched from much higher up in the administration b/c if they lost women in combat they would be screwed in Iraq.

Although I'm generally not a fan of war, and specifically against this one, I was very inspired by the female soldiers in the film - it's clear that they are very capable and valuable soldiers - and (imo) that the policy should change so that they can openly serve in combat and be openly acknowledged - without immediately removing them thereafter.

I just went to the dod.mil website. I think it is annoying that they do not have an obvious "policies here" button. Maybe they are buried deeper in the site?

(Yes, I'm the woman in astoria who spotted Monty outside the drug store, but this is my first comment).

I actually wanted to second Qi's comment...I'm kind of surprised at the number of posts that say they hate the military/the armed forces. I am not in any way pro-war and I am certainly deeply concerned by the US involvement in Iraq, but I still have great respect for people who are willing to die for their country. As Qi said, they enter the military not knowing what they're assignment will be but willing to do whatever is necessary. Some of the people closest to me in this world are in the Army (and I come from a very liberal, hard-core democrat family). I can't imagine anyone saying that they hate them. You can hate their actions, but they're just following orders. Besides, the US Army has a strong peacekeeping tradition in various parts of the world.

I do, of course, find it very sad that events like this happen. The reasons women are kept from combat are very archaic. Interestingly, women can serve in the Military Police, which as we all know, receives a great portion of the casualties and deaths in Iraq. So this conflicting ruling appears elsewhere, not just with medics. Additionally, I find it short-sighted to lump the military's concern with gays and women (I have never heard this anti-atheist sentiment before) together. The military does not have a problem with gays, but let's face it, in the average platoon in the army, there are 36 men. If even one of them is homophobic, and someone comes out to the group, the platoon could be compromised. I'm not saying this is a good thing, or how things should be, but it's how things are. I wish that people could be openly gay in the military, but I don't think our culture is ready to take it.

I don't really understand the issue with women in combat. One soldier I know suggested that if he saw a female comrade injured, it would distract him more than if a male counterpart received the same injury. I thought that was interesting, but who knows for sure?

Just to clarify, I'm not sure how the homophobic vs homosexual issue should be handled in the armed forces. If it were up to me, all men and all women would be equal in the military.

Women have been protecting men emotionally since the beginning of time. Why is it so hard to imagine that we can protect men physically too?

Loved the video. Bravo.

Jen, for the atheism angle, a soldier named Jeremy Hall was threatened by his fellow 'comrades' because of his atheism and sent home early. Apparently he was also threatened by his commanding officer because he was not 'holding up the constitution' and was against what the Founding Fathers wanted for the country. My linking bites, but I'm pretty sure if you google the article name "Soldier Sues Army, says his Atheism led to Threats" you will find the NY Times article. This is only the most recent article, there have been others.

(The Air Force seems to be the worst about religious fundamentalism, but all the branches get into it, as the article shows.)

Since I'm an atheist, I tend to watch for stuff like this. :) When I was about to graduate from high school and the recruiting calls started, one of the ways I shut them up was to tell them I was an atheist.

As for my feelings about the military, let's just say I don't buy into yellow-ribbon patriotism and immediately assume everyone in a uniform is an awesome, upstanding person. I don't respect uniforms, I respect people and just because they are a cop, a firefighter, an elected official, a mother, a writer, an athlete, an actor or what-have-you does not mean they are anything other than a person who has chosen to do a certain job.

I've met soldiers that weren't worth crap scraped off my shoe and I've met soldiers who upheld the spirit as well as the letter of their service.

I dislike the military as an institution and I do not trust most of the members of said institution, but that does not mean I want them in harm's way for a pointless war...or even a just war, seeing as how most of the casualties tend to be civilians. It defeats the purpose of 'freeing' a country if everyone is dead or maimed.

Yeah, I'm also a pacifist, so I'm a bit prejudiced.

I really do think this blog tends to over-simplify complicated issues.

There are legitimate reasons for keeping women out of the military; chiefly being the issue of sexual harassment.

As you all know, harassment in the military is a HUGE problem. It embarrasses the military as an institution, and clogs military courts with these kinds of cases.

Then, there is the issue of pregnancy on Navy boats. There have been cases where due to women leaving on pregancy leave, there have been shortages in personnel on deck.

It's simply just so much more practical and easier to have the traditional single-gender system for combat.

There are other ways to serve your country; and honestly, if you aren't an officer, the military is really a shitty occupation.

Oh, and if the military really was so sexist....why would they award this woman for what she did?

How can anyone hate the military? This nation wasnt founded via diplomacy and our continued existance is backed up by force when needed.

There are legitimate reasons for keeping women out of the military; chiefly being the issue of sexual harassment.

Yeah, so let's punish women with the inability to further advance their careers (more combat time, the more honors, the faster one goes through the ranks) because of the faults of men. When men sexually harass women in the military, we should punish the men, not the women.

It would be like telling me that I shouldn't go out at night after ten because I might be harassed and assaulted. Why should I have to stay at home because men can't treat me like a human being?

Then, there is the issue of pregnancy on Navy boats. There have been cases where due to women leaving on pregancy leave, there have been shortages in personnel on deck.

If women can be flown out to take care of pregnancies, more personnel can be flown in. Punishing all women with lack of advancement in the military for what some women might chose is ridiculous.

It's simply just so much more practical and easier to have the traditional single-gender system for combat.

More practical and easier for whom, exactly?

There are other ways to serve your country; and honestly, if you aren't an officer, the military is really a shitty occupation.

Yet women cannot achieve the rank of officer as easily as men if they don't have combat experience. People can serve the country in lots of ways. We shouldn't bar the particular way each person choses they want to serve based on gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.

Oh, and if the military really was so sexist....why would they award this woman for what she did?

It's not the award that makes them sexist. This is a woman who has proved herself in combat. It's sexist that she shouldn't be allowed to return there to further protect soldiers (as she has proved herself so capable of doing) if that is what she wants in her life.

Maybe the military should be made of a majority of women?

"Yeah, so let's punish women with the inability to further advance their careers (more combat time, the more honors, the faster one goes through the ranks) because of the faults of men. When men sexually harass women in the military, we should punish the men, not the women."
------------------------

The men ARE punished. Several military officers I know comment on how much of a headache/embarrassment it is to the military.

Harassment is unfortunate, but unavoidable. Combining men and women will result in it.

I meant that it would be more practical for the military as a whole.

And while it is true that pregnant personnel can be replaced; it is still a headache for the military, having to burn fuel and organize flights. The harassment problems applies to Navy boats, too, you know.

Again, as you said it, "barring" people is unfortunate. But what sounds good on paper doesn't always fit into real life circumstances.

qwerty,

The solution is simple, let women take over the military. Maybe then we won't be fighting meaningless wars. You know that women can do anything a man can do (sometimes better) so the defense of our nation will be served as well (or better) with women in command.

The idea that women should be punished because some men can't control themselves is ridiculous but if you are convinced that this is a huge problem, then let women take over the military.

sls,

The military is the slave of the federal government. Generals obey, and gender has no say in preventing or provoking war.

And the rank of general is EARNED, not "let", as you put it.

The CIC is also earned but not via warfare.

Why is hating the military equated with hating the people in it? Do we have to say we hate the part of government that controls the military and the money spent on it? If homophobic people are a problem, how about not letting blatantly homophobic people into the military...or extremely sexist people. Then they wouldn't have enough people? Giving women and homosexuals more of a chance would give the military more people. I know I simplify but really I can't believe homophobia is accepted.

As you all know, harassment in the military is a HUGE problem. It embarrasses the military as an institution, and clogs military courts with these kinds of cases.

It's a problem precisely because the military finds plenty of ways, some subtle and some rather blatant, of communicating to male and female servicemembers alike that the military belongs to the men, and that the women are basically fair game.

An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.

Which means that full withdrawal within one year is supported by only a slightly smaller proportion of the occupation forces than of the Iraqi population.

It's simply just so much more practical and easier to have the traditional single-gender system for combat.

The traditional faux single-gender system for combat. As much as some are loath to acknwoledge it, women have fought in just about every war in recorded history, whether officially or unofficially. The Soviet Army that was instrumental in bringing down Nazi Germany had women in many combat capacities. Guerrilla forces, partisans, and other resistance groups have often had at least some women fighting alongside the men. There were even a number of women who fought in the War of Independence.

It's interesting that so many of the arguments being advanced against the full inclusion of women in the armed services are actually just retreads of the arguments used to justify racially segregating the military.

Elise: It's interesting that so many of the arguments being advanced against the full inclusion of women in the armed services are actually just retreads of the arguments used to justify racially segregating the military.

A fact which reminds me of an interesting development in the US Civil War: Union soldiers who served with blacks in combat showed truly unprecedented drops in racism. It stands to reason that this would be the case, for is it not said that comrades-in-arms are often closer than brothers? Perhaps full integration would do wonders for soldiers' sense of sex egalitarianism.

But, I also wonder at what harm is being caused to that same end by the lowered physical requirements women are held to. That really ought to be done away with as well.

"As you all know, harassment in the military is a HUGE problem. ...Then, there is the issue of pregnancy on Navy boats... "

Actually sexual harassment, assaults and unwanted pregnancies are not limited to interactions within the military.

Civilian females are the biggest losers here. In fact didn't I just read the other day about yet another incident in Japan?

C'mon, where is the logic here, people. You find the common denominator and you deal with that.

"But, I also wonder at what harm is being caused to that same end by the lowered physical requirements women are held to. That really ought to be done away with as well."

Funny you should mention this, because there is an article on Slate about how the Army is lowering intellectual standards. For example, they are accepting more people who didn't complete high school and who have achieved low scores on aptitude tests.

So while on could debate the logic of this choice, clearly lowering standards is not limited to physical requirements for women.

Also I suspect that as technology continues to advance, at some point physical capacity should become less and less important in the scheme of things.

Harassment is unfortunate, but unavoidable. Combining men and women will result in it.

Even I, a full-fledged radical feminist, believe that men have the self-control and innate ability to treat women respectfully when they want to.

Harassment is only unavoidable if you believe that men are animalistic beasts with no internal controls over their behavior. And if that's truly the case, maybe we shouldn't then be giving these guys guns.

I neither hate the military nor the people in it. The military is required for the defense of a nation. Without it, would we all be speaking some other language today? I don't understand hating the military.

The lowered standards should be done away with. It is a statement that women are weaker.

first off, what the CIC? Im curious.

-------------------

It's interesting that so many of the arguments being advanced against the full inclusion of women in the armed services are actually just retreads of the arguments used to justify racially segregating the military.
----------------

My argument has to do with sexual harassment. Race plays no role in this; only gender. You're implying that im racist, which is ridiculous.

Being a history buff, im well aware of what women have done in history. But I find it ironic that you cited Stalin specifically.

Stalin was so enraged by Hitler for stabbing him in the back that he would send unarmed men into combat whenever there was a rifle shortage. Stalin was so enraged that he resorted to breaking the single-gender system, the first country to do so.

Im not saying that women aren't capable of combat; im arguing they stay out for practical reasons.

It's simply just so much more practical and easier to have the traditional single-gender system for combat.

It would also be so much easier to re-institute single-gender voting. Half the voters, half the paperwork!

Here's the problem with this theory - even if you don't think that women are people, and inherently deserve to be treated equally, even at the expense of increased bureaucracy, it's extraordinarily dense to think that women can't do their jobs well. Seriously, check it out - women are doctors and lawyers and engineers and presidents, and they all are just as good as men. So as far as I'm concerned, if we're going to send people off to possibly be killed, I want the best people sent with them. And sometimes those people are women. It's truly shocking, but sometimes, the best medic available is a woman, or the best sniper, or oceanographer, or whatever. Apparently, you'd rather put those soldiers at greater risk in the field because you don't want to be bothered with dealing with sexual harassment, and I, surprisingly, disagree. A great military filled with great people, whether black or female or gay, and a mediocre military is filled with people chosen by arbitrary restrictions, rather than skill or talent. And mediocre militaries get people killed unnecessarily.

LOL @ person who claims the solution to sexual harassment in the military is to just "get rid of" all the women. Hey, I have an even simpler solution: How about the men treat the women like humans and stop sexually harassing them? And how about we stop placing the burden on women to police men's "naturally" wild, uncontrollable inclinations toward insulting and sexually degrading people?

Anyway, what a load, all of this. I'll have to read more about it, but I wouldn't doubt that another reason the law against women in combat zones is still clinging to life is because of the old biological determinist argument that women are actually physically weaker, and who would want to be in combat with someone who wasn't strong enough to pick them up and carry them, etc. What would happen if you had to be saved from a burning building and the only person there - a woman - was too "weak" to do it? Bullshit, et al.

CIC = Commander in Chief, the President of United States.

Qwerty... you say women should stay out for practical reasons but the reasons you list are all irrational. What's the real reason you don't want women in combat? Would it constrain male combatants from doing the raping and pillaging that makes up such a large part of warfare?

The answer to the problem of harassment is to make it clear that it is unacceptable, punish perpetrators, and don't persecute women who make reports. The military currently fails on all three fronts. That's what needs to be fixed.

This is getting ridiculous. Suffrage and Racism have NOTHING to do with the issue of harassment. None of you are paying attention to what im saying.

You can keep telling yourself "oh women deserve to be treated like human beings" but the truth is; harassers dont give a shit about what you have to say.

Again, harassment is unfortunate, but unavoidable.

Some of you are trying to silence and dismiss me as racist and sexist.

I DONT DOUBT THAT WOMEN ARE CAPABLE OF DOING WHAT MEN CAN DO.

There, i've bolded it.

And our military is far from mediocre.

you say women should stay out for practical reasons but the reasons you list are all irrational. What's the real reason you don't want women in combat? Would it constrain male combatants from doing the raping and pillaging that makes up such a large part of warfare?
-----------

Again,you've disregarded a perfectly legitimate argument. Tell me why it is irrational.

Women in combat wouldn't restrain anything. The female prison guards at Abu Ghraib were more than willing to degrade thier inmates.

qwerty,

You do agree that men who sexually harass women should be punished, right?

Then why keep women out of the military (and/or in combat roles)? You already agreed that women can do the job as well as men so why keep women out?

Harassment is unfortunate, but unavoidable. Combining men and women will result in it.

Your implication that harassment is somehow normal and "unavoidable" in gender-integrated environments is absurd. Harassment is not normal. Men and women live and work together in infinite contexts, and their simply *existing* together does not naturally result in harassment. If I am harassed on my gender-integrated college campus, I do not consider it a natural result of men's presence there, brush it off, and go about my day. I consider it fucked up, report the perpetrator to law enforcement, and expect him to be punished.

By this logic, it would make sense to simply lock men up in cages if they're so unpredictable that women's very *presence* near them could cause someone - probably a woman - to get hurt, degraded, or violated.

This is not a result of "men and women being together." It is a result of an American culture and military culture that normalizes the intertwining of sex and violence and considers women and the feminine inferior and therefore not worthy of the same respect a man would give his male comrades. Once again, this, my friend, is bullshit.

Suffrage and Racism have NOTHING to do with the issue of harassment. None of you are paying attention to what im saying.

We're paying attention, it's just that what you're saying is wrong and ill-informed.

The same tropes of "harassment" and "it's just easier and more practical to keep them out" were used when the military first started racially integrating troops and platoons. It was true that Black men (and other people of color) were mistreated (and still are in some cases, I imagine) after integration. But it was no where near a big a deal as people thought it was going to be.

Racism and suffrage have everything to do with this argument because you are using the same tired arguments that have been used across time in order to keep people out.

The fact remains that some women want to serve in combat. They know they may face harassment. However, we should treat them as thinking adults who are weighing the pros of career advancement and pursuing a job they want and love with the cons of harassment (among other things). We are arguing that by prohibiting women from combat based on solely their gender is sexist and wrong.

You can keep telling yourself "oh women deserve to be treated like human beings" but the truth is; harassers dont give a shit about what you have to say.

So what? If women are allowed in combat and harassment ensues, punish the harassers. There is a system in place to do so and it should be more utilized.

Again, harassment is unfortunate, but unavoidable.

No, it isn't. Period.

Some of you are trying to silence and dismiss me as racist and sexist.

From what I've seen, people are trying to point out that the arguments you're making are the same arguments used by those who kept people from different corners of society based on racial and misogynist biases.

And disagreeing with you is not trying to "silence" you. You're putting forth faulty reasoning and we're calling you on it.

Here is an interesting question in regards to gender equality in the military.

Should women also have to register with Selective Service when we turn 18?

The Soviet incorporation of females into their military on such a large scale (for its time) proved to be an extraordinarily successful experiment in feminism, as female combatants served with all the valor and competence that one could hope for, although Soviet society wasn't actually very quick to take the results to heart after the war ended, unfortunately.

In particular, the Soviet female snipers Lyudmila Pavlichenko and Nina Lobkovskaya come to mind, each being credited with over 300 kills.

Using a Communist governments actions probably isn't the smartest way to get your point across.

Some of you are trying to silence and dismiss me as racist and sexist.

Just as a note, people voicing their disagreement with you is not even close to "silencing" you. But I don't read this blog enough, so our point of view may be new to you. What you're doing is called victim-blaming. You're looking at a situation which clearly has only one crime, and blaming the victim of that crime for existing in the path of the perpetrator. You're saying, "But if women weren't in the military, they wouldn't be harassed." We're saying - being a woman isn't a crime. Sexual harassment is. And, generally, we blame the person who's committing the crime for the crime. I'm sure you've noticed this - if someone gets mugged in New York, the police don't say, "Well, why were walking around New York?!?" Or if someone steal's someone's Porsche, we don't say, "Well, the way to solve that is by outlawing Porshces." We address the crime, as best we can, rather than punishing the victim of the crime, because joining the military is not a criminal offense.

Yes, we agree that harassment is wide-spread in military. But essentially nothing is being done to stop it. As sgzax said:

The answer to the problem of harassment is to make it clear that it is unacceptable, punish perpetrators, and don't persecute women who make reports. The military currently fails on all three fronts. That's what needs to be fixed.

So that's what we want to fix. We don't want to "fix the problem" of women getting jobs, of women leaving the house, of women challenging some men's opinions. We don't think that's fair to anyone, including men, because men benefit from having intelligent women working with them.

And our military is far from mediocre.

I have lots of respect for the people fighting, which is why I don't want them to die. We're currently firing talented personnel because they're gay, while reaching record numbers of moral waivers for felons:

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/04/gns_waivers_040708/

Combined with terrible political support (sending men on seven tours of duty is *not* supporting the troops), I'm not convinced that we're doing all we can to get the best people into our military.

SweetLittleSister: Using a Communist governments actions probably isn't the smartest way to get your point across.

The fact is, their actions proved that women can be competent combatants. Even if it had been the Nazis themselves who had done this, the lesson remains. Besides, in the case of the Soviet fighters, many of them only volunteered in response to the German invasion of the Soviet Union, which is to say that they were, first and foremost, defending their homeland against genocidal invaders, not trying to crush the Western world under the iron boot-heel of Stalinist rule. If you can't appreciate the personal fortitude required to assault mechanized armies and the skill and dedication required to pull your own weight x300 in combat just because of the politics of the person's homeland, well, that's just sad.

Should women also have to register with Selective Service when we turn 18?

Insofar as it is proper that anyone should be required to do so, women most certainly should be required to do so.

Alice,

I never said I disagreed with you. Just saying that Communist rule is not something many people want to emulate. Using a Communist nation as an example is likely to fall on deaf ears.

For example, I am sure that Hitler did some good things for Germany BUT most people won't even give thought to those things. In the end, if Hitler did it, then most people want no part of it.

Oh, I see. Yes, I suppose that from a political perspective, the argument might be counter-productive. From an honest perspective, though, it is also the best, largest scale example of competent female fighters in a modern or near-modern army that saw frontline combat that I can think of.

As for the Selective Service question.

I don't really approve of Selective Service in the first place but I doubt it is going away anytime soon so I guess equal is equal. Just thought it would be an interesting question to ask.

On a technical note, why does it take so long for a post to go through? It can take up to 2 minutes for a post to go through and the page to refresh.

I originally posted here to criticize the naive attitude of the feministing blogger.

The point I was trying to get across that there are indeed actual reasons for women being kept out of the military (which the poster ignores). Its not the "evil patriarchy conspiracy" how the poster puts it. She goes on to spew military-hate and simplify a complicated, controversial issue into "evil man oppress poor woman victim!"

None of you have refuted my core argument; that sexual harassment shames the military and is a huge problem/headache to everybody in it.

Now, how to deal with the above problem is the question. Military leaders want to avoid the headache by just keeping women out.

"Military leaders want to avoid the headache by just keeping women out."

..and they are wrong.

"None of you have refuted my core argument; that sexual harassment shames the military and is a huge problem/headache to everybody in it"

That's because you haven't demonstrated that sexual harassment is a problem that is confined within interactions between males and females of the military.

Groping school girls and raping civilian women are embarrassments that brings shame upon our military as well.

Under your logic, then we should remove our bases from Okinawa and bow out of all combat then, right?

My argument has to do with sexual harassment. Race plays no role in this; only gender. You're implying that im racist, which is ridiculous.

I'm saying no such thing. What I am saying is that all the arguments that have been made, particularly by you, have been arguments that were used to justify segregation of the military. They turned out to be specious then, so I don't think that they're necessarily the strongest possible arguments now.

Using a Communist governments actions probably isn't the smartest way to get your point across.

What communist government? I was talking about the Soviet Union, which stopped even remotely appearing communist right around the time that Lenin overthrew the government and began crushing and subjugating the workers' and soldiers' councils. The Soviet Union was built on the ashes of short-lived communist institutions. The Soviet Union also called itself "democratic". Do you take them at their word on that one as well?

Second of all, the point that you so skilfully missed is that women performed extremely well in combat, including military aviation. And that's just one relatively recent example of women performing just as well in combat as any man.

None of you have refuted my core argument; that sexual harassment shames the military and is a huge problem/headache to everybody in it.

Huh? You're expecting on a feminist site to hear us argue that sexual harrassment is wonderful and brings prestige to any institution that tolerates it, perhaps?

Besides, it's hardly your core argument. Your core argument is that "sexual harrassment shames the military, and the solution is to discriminate against women

If you've ever actually had the considerable misfortune of reading the works of Karl Marx, you'd know that authoritarianism is central to his ideas. The system, as he envisioned it, depended on government monopoly of communication and transportation, closed borders, and conscription of workers into "industrial armies."

If you've ever actually had the considerable misfortune of reading the works of Karl Marx, you'd know that authoritarianism is central to his ideas. The system, as he envisioned it, depended on government monopoly of communication and transportation, closed borders, and conscription of workers into "industrial armies."

I'm not sure what your declaration of a superficial familiarity with some of the works of one member of one strain of 19th century leftist intellectuals has to do with the discussion at hand. But thanks for sharing.

Under your logic, then we should remove our bases from Okinawa and bow out of all combat then, right?

No, based on his logic, the Okinawans need to be resettled. Remember, the solution to these problems is to place the burden on someone else.

Qwerty: While I disagree with you, I applaud you for coming back later in the debate and restating your opinion. It helps keep the debate clear.

The point I was trying to get across that there are indeed actual reasons for women being kept out of the military...

There are reasons to keep women out of the military, but they are bad reasons. Or, if there are any harms of having women in combat roles (I don't think there are any), they are greatly outweighed by the benefits. Namely, a wider pool of manpower (personpower?).

None of you have refuted my core argument; that sexual harassment shames the military and is a huge problem/headache to everybody in it.

Now, how to deal with the above problem is the question. Military leaders want to avoid the headache by just keeping women out.

If that's your argument, I concede it. Sexual harassment is a problem and an embarrassment for the military. But then, I think the solution is more discipline and tougher enforcement against offenders.

I also think that Alice's argument about drops in racism in racially integrated units is pretty powerful. I think you would probably see a similar decline in rates of workplace sexual harassment against women over the course of the Twentieth Century. The more women I work with, and the more closely I work with them, the less likely I am to harass them. The thinking goes, "These gals can do the same job I do -- they're not so different from me." People have a hard time committing violence against people they feel empathy towards.

Alice, you said:

Union soldiers who served with blacks in combat showed truly unprecedented drops in racism.

Can you elaborate or point me to more info on this? I'm not being nitpicky; I just think it's interesting and would like to know more.

There's a really interesting article here about the Israeli army (which, as most of you already know, has a gender-neutral draft) and recent changes to its attitudes concerning sexual harassment.

Relevant bit:

"The shift in the army's approach toward harassment comes as it has opened itself up to placing women in roles traditionally thought the exclusive purview of men. Women now serve as pilots, in artillery crews, as gunnery instructors and as officers in charge of men."

everybodyever: Can you elaborate or point me to more info on this?

Hold on, let me try to remember this. I think I learned that from "Lies My Teacher Told Me," a required text for a US history course I took in college (and a book I recommend in general). Looking up the book, which I do not have with me, I see that its table of contents are listed online, which stengthens my confidence that this is where I got that based on the names of chapters 5 and 6.

So, I'd refer you to there. The author thereof cites his sources and all that sort of good thing, so it would lead you to even more info if you wanted it.

I guess I remember that because it was a particularly striking bit on human nature. I am certain that I learned it in that class, so if it's not in that book I'd have to look through my texts for the course, with I still have but are in another city, but again, I'm pretty sure that's it.

Ann's mention of hating the military was most likely a poorly-worded statement of disgust and hatred toward those higher-ups in the military and the infrastructure that allows ridiculous and unnecessary warfare. I highly, highly, doubt that she indiscriminately hates all soldiers serving in the military- excepting, of course, those whose actions are reprehensible for many reasons, and undeserving of respect as people, not merely in their capacity as a soldier.

In terms of the military's poor record on the treatment of women, I find arguments like querty's to be not only ridiculous, but offensive. Why, might I ask, does it fall on the victims, female or male, and victimization of both happen regularly in the military for a myriad of reasons, to remove their presence from an occupation because they are at risk of sexual harassment. Querty, you have not yet addressed that question, though it has been posed repeatedly.

Furthermore, why does the military get an exemption on employment discrimination that other employers do not have? Unless it can be proven that a soldier does not have the capacity to serve adequately in combat, there is no reason to exclude them from it. That goes for male soldiers as well. If you aren't competent, you shouldn't be out on the battlefield. If you are competent, any denial from the job in question is DISCRIMINATION. Making the claim that ALL women, regardless of their capacity to serve should be excluded simply based on their sex is ridiculous. In other occupations this is discrimination and is not tolerated.

If women working in other professions that have been traditionally male-dominated [and those that are not, considering how pervasive sexual harassment is] are allowed into the workplace with the understanding that it is ILLEGAL for them to be targeted for sexual harassment or denied job opportunities because of their sex, why is this not the expectation for the military? If I were discriminated at my place of work, or my place of education based on gender, it would not be legally tolerated. Would it be a potential pain in the bum for my employer/school to deal with that harassment? Well, sure, I guess so- but it's their job and obligation to do that, as I have done nothing wrong and have had a crime perpetuated against me.

Contrary to apparently popular belief, my existing in any particular space and any subsequent harassment I may experience due to that existence is not a crime; clearly, the criminal is the person who subjects me to harassment. If dealing with this harassment causes inconvenience to those whose responsibility it is to make sure that I do not have to endure a hostile working or learning or standing on the street environment, then so be it.

I am not surprised about the decrease in racism. I've heard often when racist people moved from the southern states to the north in the past, they stopped being blatantly racist because it wasn't accepted in the north. The attitude wasn't so deep that they couldn't stop.

When I think "I hate the military", I mean the greatest thing I hate is how much is spent on it (half of what the world spends). It seems like a waste to spend THAT much.

Why, might I ask, does it fall on the victims, female or male, and victimization of both happen regularly in the military for a myriad of reasons, to remove their presence from an occupation because they are at risk of sexual harassment.
------------

Women are removable from combat. But you couldn't do the same for men because men make up the majority of soldiers.

It's not victim blaming. The perpetrators are prosecuted, but harassment happens at such a high rate that courts cant keep up with it and it shames the military. The military leaders do what is best for the military as a whole.

Keeping it single gender is done to simplify everything. To not deal with inevitable harassment, STD's/pregnancy, rape, etc.
-------
Furthermore, why does the military get an exemption on employment discrimination that other employers do not have?
---------

I'll be honest, this question is really perplexing.

But, I would assume that the well-being and efficiency of the army is much more important then that of some civilian small business. The army protects everything in the country, and our national interests.

The army as of now is under intense political pressure. An unpopular, stalemate war that has proved disastrous for our standing in the globe.

If you do a google search, the pentagon is experimenting with ways of implementing female soldiers. But now is simply not the time to decide such an issue; they need to figure out how to win the war and prevented a Vietnam-style humiliation. There is more at stake, is what im saying.

And obviously; being denied entry to a group does not make the denied person a a criminal.

Keeping it single gender is done to simplify everything. To not deal with inevitable harassment, STD's/pregnancy, rape, etc.

First of all, the only reason harrassment is "inevitable" is that it's tolerated.

As for the notion that keeping women out of combat somehow reduces the amount of rape, there are quite a few Iraqi women that would beg to differ. And STDs can come from civilians, too.

Harrassment in particular was one of the official justifications for racial segregation. The argument basically went "If we put these people in with all these good blue-collar white boys, there's gonna be trobule." If the military could survive racial desegregation, it seems reasonable to believe it could survive gender desegregation.

"Women are removable from combat. But you couldn't do the same for men because men make up the majority of soldiers."

..and that makes it all ok? We could systematically replace men with women. It would take some time but it is possible.

..and that makes it all ok? We could systematically replace men with women. It would take some time but it is possible.

Not to mention that men are constantly being replaced in a combat situation. If they're wounded or dead, new people take their place. The entire system is based on the expendability of the people on the ground (and the even greater expendability of the civilian population unfortunate enough to make their acquaintance).

"Women are removable from combat. But you couldn't do the same for men because men make up the majority of soldiers."

Um, under a policy I would support, there would be MORE soldiers than there are now. Presumably they do not allow men who are unfit for combat roles to serve in them. I would certainly hope not, anyways. The only difference is that women who were capable of playing a role in combat would be allowed to. If the military presumably ALREADY chooses the best soldiers out of the people they train to go fight in active combat roles, there is no reason why it would be sooo difficult for them to do the same with women. That's an extremely weak point.

"The perpetrators are prosecuted, but harassment happens at such a high rate that courts cant keep up with it and it shames the military. The military leaders do what is best for the military as a whole."

I encourage you to learn more about this. The people who commit crimes such as sexual harassment or sexual assault against other soldiers, specifically female soldiers, are NOT prosecuted. That is a huge, huge issue that the military is having, and precisely for the reason you mentioned- it's embarrassing to them. To that I say boo-fucking-hoo. They need to take responsibility for the things that occur in their workplace, war or not, just like any other employer has to do. If what is, by your claim [and I disagree], the "best" thing for the military to do is to discriminate against women, I don't particularly care. It may be the best thing for many employers to do, in many different professional fields, but it's not tolerated. The military cannot just have this alternate code of rules. That they do never ceases to disturb me.

"But, I would assume that the well-being and efficiency of the army is much more important then that of some civilian small business."

Why a small business? All places of employment [apparently not including the military] have to abide by these rules. High-powered law firms with client's lives and liberty at stake have to be efficient too. Admitting qualified women to combat roles increases the well-being and efficiency of the army by ensuring that the best, most capable, and brightest soldiers are put in important roles AND eliminates gender discrimination.

"Keeping it single gender is done to simplify everything. To not deal with inevitable harassment, STD's/pregnancy, rape, etc."

Good thing that the constitution prevents employers from discriminating against employees because it's "simpler" to do so, huh? Furthermore, the fact that you think harassment is "inevitable" disturbs me. Are adult men somehow lacking such self-control that they can't possibly be expected to conduct themselves lawfully? In the world outside of the military they certainly are, so I fail to see how this is different. It's also a poor argument to talk about pregnancy because pregnancy, too, is not something you are permitted to discriminate based on. Oh right, and men contract STDs just like women do, so I don't know what your point was with that.

"The army as of now is under intense political pressure. An unpopular, stalemate war that has proved disastrous for our standing in the globe."

The fact that they actively discriminate based on sex/gender, religion and sexual orientation, among possibly other things doesn't make them any more popular, nor does it decrease political pressure. I'm pretty sure that a number of countries that do not permit their militaries to discriminate based on gender and allow gay individuals to serve openly think we're pretty stupid for being so backwards in our own policies- especially since we like to promote ourselves as so awfully powerful and democratic. What, may I ask, is democratic about allowing the military special exemptions from constitutional laws?

"If you do a google search, the pentagon is experimenting with ways of implementing female soldiers."

It's not difficult to figure out how to do. How long have they been "experimenting" on this? How long can it POSSIBLY take? Other businesses don't get to claim that they're simply "working on it" and the rest of us should sit back and allow them to violate the law for as long as it takes for them to get their act together.

"ut now is simply not the time to decide such an issue; they need to figure out how to win the war and prevented a Vietnam-style humiliation."

That's a bunch of bullshit. First of all, it's absolutely humiliating to the US and the US's image abroad that we have such exclusionary policies. Second of all, I'm incredibly sick of this tired old bullshit about how "we're at war so anything goes." Um, NO. Specifically in cases like ending gender discriminating, the fact that we are at war is sort of irrelevant. There will always be SOMETHING that the military can claim is more important than fixing these policies. They need to do it NOW. They've had decades to do this.

"And obviously; being denied entry to a group does not make the denied person a a criminal."

Obviously not. However, all the rest of the people are criminals; from those that engage in sexual harassment, to those that make these discriminatory policies.

Good thing that the constitution prevents employers from discriminating against employees because it's "simpler" to do so, huh?

Just a small point, but, in the US anyway, the Constitution doesn't actually have any provisions that are directly binding on employers (except, perhaps for Amendment XIII prohibiting slavery). The prohibitions on employment discrimination are found in state and federal statutes and regulations.

Elise- I should have been more clear. I was referencing Title VII, which is obviously a federal statute, but is pretty entrenched in US Supreme Court precedent, which I think implicitly indicates that the constitution protects individuals from workplace harassment or discrimination based on gender [or other factors]. If and when someone sues for sexual harassment or gender discrimination under Title VII, the Supreme Court often recognizes that claim, and recognizes Title VII as constitutionally valid. Sorry for being so unclear.

Too bad we're not as cool as Canada and a bunch of other countries [yet] and haven't written that into the US constitution. :(

I was referencing Title VII, which is obviously a federal statute, but is pretty entrenched in US Supreme Court precedent, which I think implicitly indicates that the constitution protects individuals from workplace harassment or discrimination based on gender [or other factors].

At the same time, the Supreme Court has generally given the military a lot of leeway when it comes to their conditions of employment, including things that would constitute actionable discrimination if done by a civilian employer.

"I originally posted here to criticize the naive attitude of the feministing blogger.
The point I was trying to get across that there are indeed actual reasons for women being kept out of the military (which the poster ignores). Its not the "evil patriarchy conspiracy" how the poster puts it. She goes on to spew military-hate and simplify a complicated, controversial issue into "evil man oppress poor woman victim!"
None of you have refuted my core argument; that sexual harassment shames the military and is a huge problem/headache to everybody in it.
Now, how to deal with the above problem is the question. Military leaders want to avoid the headache by just keeping women out"

SweetLittleSister: the answer to "the headache" isn't keeping the women out of the military, it's educating EVERYONE that harassment in any form isn't ok. If a woman joins the military, makes it through basic training and AIT then there is no reason she shouldn't be able to serve with the men she went through basic with. If the military doesn't want to be shamed by harassment, then they should punish the people doing the harassing. The military has tried to cover up sexual harassment cases before (Google: Air Force Academy, Sexual harassment), which is why everyone on the blog is commenting on victim blaming. Hiding something or banning a kind of person (female, gay, atheist) isn't the answer. I think the military needs everyone they can get right now, so they should try their best to make sure everyone can function properly in their work environment. Yes, the military has its reasons for keeping women out of the military, the point is they’re not good ones. As for pregnant women on subs, how often does that actually happen? I imagine its pretty hard to get pregnant on a submarine, and that if you found out you were while onboard, they wouldn’t keep you on up until the last trimester so they wouldn’t have to deal with you going into labor. You shouldn’t punish women for being women, especially when they are proving that they can handle being in combat just as well as their male counterparts.

As for everyone who has been saying you hate the military, I hope that you mean that you hate what the military is being used for and that you hate the war; for everyone saying they don’t like people in the military, why are you discriminating someone because of their job? The people in the military are willing (and that’s the point here) to put their lives in danger to protect you should the need arise(even if we were in peace, that’s what they’re there for). There are assholes in every job field, but I take it personally when someone says anyone in the military is a bad person since so many of my family members are ex-military and they are good people. Its your opinion to hate the institution, but sometimes the military is they way to feed their families and get them health insurance. For some people it’s a way to pay for college and serve their country. No one actually joins to kill people. So show some respect, even if you hate the war.

The point I was trying to get across that there are indeed actual reasons for women being kept out of the military (which the poster ignores).

While that may be true, no actual reasons have been mentioned here. We have heard a number of rationalisations, most of which were used in almost identical form to justify racial segregation in the military not too long ago, but there hasn't been much in terms of actual reasons, if "reason" is understood to mean "rational justification".

For querty's idea that the solution for sexual harrassment is to keep women out of the military: If a man doesn't respect his own comrade, that guy should probably be kept the hell away from the civilian population, especially women. Such a person tarnishes the reputation of the military by being a real danger for women and potentially endangers his comrades by alienating the civilian population. With that in mind, I would think it would be far "simpler" to get these goons OUT of the military, instead of the potential victims. Oh, and drilling in every recruit's head that this behavior is unacceptable would also help.

Alice is absolutely right in indicating that race in the military was an issue discussed in the same way, and that racial harassment in the military dropped with integration - especially fighting together. (This is not to say that it isn't still a problem - but it has been getting better.) I remember reading that Vietnam did amazing things for race relations in the US army. It would be silly not to learn from this.

It would be interesting to see comparative sexual harassment stats from, say, the US Army and the IDF (which has a way high proportion of women serving). I can't seem to find anything helpful on this, though...

And a note on things not having to be the way they are: in the Canadian military, instead of being barred from entry for being queer, you get barred from entry for being homophobic. All recruits have to sign a sheet of paper saying they have no problem working with people from sexual orientations not their own, and if they don't sign it, they're out. I love it. It doesn't stop harassment or abuse, of course, but it's a great step.

Yet women cannot achieve the rank of officer as easily as men if they don't have combat experience.
______________________

That's not true. You don't 'earn' a commission as an officer through actions, but rather through schooling. And women have 100% equal opportunity to join the officer corps.

Just to comment on the harassment, etc. issues: The source of 99% of the military's bad attitude towards females comes from a feeling that women, in fact, have more advantages and in some ways are more powerful than men in the military. Allowing women to join the combat arms might work towards solving this problem rather than making it worse.

That being said, gender integrating the combat arms is not as easy as flipping a light switch. For example, all of the schooling related to the combat arms, from basic training on up, lacks the facilities to accommodate both genders. Same with the barracks, etc. of the combat arms units.

Finally, I think that harassment and acts of violence are inevitable in this type of integration. The high ranking officers who have the ability to make such changes to military policy are likely unwilling to deal with the fallout of these events in exchange for a tiny increase in the number of soldiers available for combat positions.

"At the same time, the Supreme Court has generally given the military a lot of leeway when it comes to their conditions of employment, including things that would constitute actionable discrimination if done by a civilian employer."

That was the basic point of my statement- civilian employers aren't allowed to do this, so why does the military get a different set of rules? [This, for me, applies generally to the US military court system to begin with. I think it's ridiculous that their standards are so radically different]

I have not heard one single good reason why women should not be allowed to serve in combat roles. Whether someone is arguing that sexual harassment is a pain to deal with, or that it makes the military look bad, to the fact that the facilities are not gender integrated, it
s entirely unconvincing.

"For example, all of the schooling related to the combat arms, from basic training on up, lacks the facilities to accommodate both genders. Same with the barracks, etc. of the combat arms units."

The money that goes toward military funding is ASTRONOMICAL. There is also significant evidence that funds have been misused. I see no reason why it would be difficult to provide integrated facilities. I'll say it again: Other employers do NOT get to discriminate by gender simply because it is expensive or inconvenient to accommodate them.

"Finally, I think that harassment and acts of violence are inevitable in this type of integration."

I still think it's disturbing that people seem to consider harassment "inevitable." Are men not human beings? Should they not be expected to uphold basic standards of decency and be punished by law if they do not? I would say absolutely.

"The high ranking officers who have the ability to make such changes to military policy are likely unwilling to deal with the fallout of these events in exchange for a tiny increase in the number of soldiers available for combat positions."

That's kind of too bad for them. AGAIN, they can't just discriminate because it will prevent "fallout" and it's not entirely relevant that it would produce only a small number of soldiers- first of all, I think it would be a fair number that would be added by allowing women, and second of all, they don't get to continue discrimination simply because the costs outweigh the benefits for their PR machine.

Sorry I go on here...

The fact that SPC Brown was even awarded a silver star speaks volumes about the current state of women in the Army. By doing so, the Army acknowledged that she had performed excellently under fire--and it made public an incident where a woman had served with a combat arms unit against regulations. It would have been much easier for the Army to downgrade her award to something that wouldn't cause a stir (lots of people--men, women--get bronze stars) or not to give it to her, in order to deter Congressional scrutiny. Women have historically been denied awards and pay like this in order to avoid "causing a stir." There were women in jumping into Panama, women in Haiti, women flying blackhawks in Somalia, and most of that involvement was kept very quiet at the time and remains largely undocumented--as a military woman I hear acnecdotes from amazing women who were in these situations, and whose "firsts" were pretty much below the radar. The fact that some women were NOT nurses in Vietnam, and saw combat was also kept quiet.

From 2005-2006, Duncan Hunter, the chair of the House Armed Services Committee, worked really hard to try and get women out of any position where they could possibly be "colocated" with combat arms units on the "front line" (which we all know doesn't really apply anymore). The Army response was swift and angry--they said they couldn't function without women directly "supporting" (read: often living and working with) combat arms units, and effectively got Congress to drop the issue.

The current policy is that in order for a woman to be attached to a combat arms (infantry, armor/calvalry, field artillery) unit, she has to be attached at the battalion level or higher. This is how the Army gets around the federal "risk rule" law--which prohibits women from "serving in combat on the front lines"--as battalion staffs are not on front lines.

I know a military intelligence officer who got attached to an infantry unit in Iraq and did amazing things for them. Their reaction was "you're the best MI officer we've had, you're amazing, we really want to keep you for good, but we can't because of the rules." She replied "Just attach me to the battalion and keep me here in the lower echelon, and I can stay." And she did, and everyone was happy.

The thing is that most junior officers don't understand ways around the policy, and that enlisted women don't have the opportunity to speak up for themselves like that, or many good excuses for being attached to the higher levels of a unit.

That platoon leader would certainly have liked to keep SPC Brown, but probably had no choice in what happened. Keeping her on patrol would have been really dangerous to the careers of the PL's superiors--if she'd been killed all of the freaks in the right wing pushing against military women might have used her as a symbol of what breaking the policy meant, and there could have been Congressional inquiries and all that fun stuff.

What ultimately happens here will depend on Congress and the next administration. Many, if not most Army officers colonel and lower are comfortable with the roles expanded to include women in this war and would support more expansion--though those in combat may be anxious about how the increasingly inevitable integration of women into their branches will be accomplished, though not out of outright hate or sexism.

The relationship between military women and feminists really breaks my heart. I find it really sad that military women were admitted to service academies--West Point, the Naval Academy, the Air Force Academy--because of a bill sponsored (in 1975, at the high of the feminist movement) by the likes of STROM THURMOND and other conservative men in Congress. The only reliable feminist voice for military women has been Pat Schroeder.

Militaries have existed for an awful (and I mean that in multiple senses of the word) long time. It's part of the tragedy of the human condition. Militaries will continue to exist. It isn't realistic to hate the military for existing.

Real feminist advocacy for women in the military on stuff that matters, instead of fingerpointing and blanket condemnations of the military would be greatly appreciated.

The money that goes toward military funding is ASTRONOMICAL. There is also significant evidence that funds have been misused. I see no reason why it would be difficult to provide integrated facilities. I'll say it again: Other employers do NOT get to discriminate by gender simply because it is expensive or inconvenient to accommodate them.
----------------

I would like to raise a question here.

Would you consider the military a typical employer handing out a typical job?

The military, in essence, is legalized murder. It allows you to use super-illegal guns and explosives.It has legal leeway because the military is arguably more important to the federal govt than some civilian company.

And in what way have funds been misused?
----------
I still think it's disturbing that people seem to consider harassment "inevitable."
----------

A small portion of society will always break the law.

Crime has always existed and will always exist.

The money that goes toward military funding is ASTRONOMICAL. There is also significant evidence that funds have been misused. I see no reason why it would be difficult to provide integrated facilities. I'll say it again: Other employers do NOT get to discriminate by gender simply because it is expensive or inconvenient to accommodate them.
------------------

I would like to raise a question here.

Would you consider the military a typical employer handing out typical jobs?

The military is, in essence, legalized murder. It allows you to use super-illegal firearms and explosives. The military gets legal leeway because the well-being of the army is more important to the federal govt than some civilian business.

-------------
I still think it's disturbing that people seem to consider harassment "inevitable."
------------

A small part of society will always break laws.

Crime has always existed and will always exist. Yes, it is inevitable. Sorry.

um.......yeah

idk why that got posted twice

'I still think it's disturbing that people seem to consider harassment "inevitable."'
------------

"A small part of society will always break laws.

Crime has always existed and will always exist. Yes, it is inevitable. Sorry."

Again, let's compare sexual harassment with the racial harassment that used to be the order of the day.

Some harassment on the basis of race still occurs in the military, but thanks to early integration policies, it's not epidemic.

Sure, there will probably always be some people who insist on being bigots. But as long as the military makes it clear that their bigoted behaviour will not be tolerated, nor will it turn back the clock on integration policies, the bigots will be in the minority.

Do you honestly think that such progress would have been made if the US Army had taken the coward's way out and said, "Oh, racism will always exist, it's useless for us to take a step forward in addressing it. Since we don't want to deal with the inevitable conflicts, let's just keep the coloured folk separate"?

Women can't cut it in the infantry plain and simple. 99% of women cannot do what I do, not only that but there is no way a woman could complete Ranger School. The military bashing in these comments makes me sick and all of you should be ashamed of yourselves for speaking about the military in the ways that you are.

The DoD budget has always been astronomical. We have spent billions upon billions in Iraq alone. The idea that the US Congress would rather spend all that money in a foreign nation rather than in our own country is very disheartening. Furthermore, we spent a ridiculous amount of money to build a US embassy in Iraq at a cost of over $600 million in counting and it will cost - wait for it - $1.2 BILLION to run ANNUALLY. Yeah, whoever thinks we are over there to bring freedom and democracy to Iraqis is smoking crack.

“There are legitimate reasons for keeping women out of the military; chiefly being the issue of sexual harassment. As you all know, harassment in the military is a HUGE problem. It embarrasses the military as an institution, and clogs military courts with these kinds of cases.�
---I think this position supports the notion that boys will be boys and cant be held accountable and therefore we should remove women from the equation so boys do not have to control themselves (similar to the argument in countries where women wear burkhas and other face coverings). I am very bothered by this comment.

“None of you have refuted my core argument; that sexual harassment shames the military and is a huge problem/headache to everybody in it. Now, how to deal with the above problem is the question. Military leaders want to avoid the headache by just keeping women out.�
---I think a lot of people have commented on your comments qwerty. They clearly do not agree with you that men in the military cant be expected to behave so women should simply be taken out of the combat zone. I think it is you who are maligning the military by saying that they are just hound dogs when on deployment and simply cant be trusted to be around women in the same position as them. Usually I will argue that I don’t deal with ideals (ex- people should be viewed as equals so we don’t need discrimination laws) but I deal in reality (there are some racist and sexist mofos out there who need the law to tell them what is right!), however I am erring on the side of idealism here since the US military CANNOT maintain an occupation anywhere in the world without the service of women. Women “in combat� are so much more than just women on some “front line,� it also includes nurses, doctors, specialists, pilots, and more. They are ALL considered “in combat� because of where they are right now.

To FeDhu – your positions on the military exactly reflect my own, so thank you for that. I think its quite okay to dislike the military as an arm of the US govt. but support the troops in a time of war – there is nothing unpatriotic or hypocritical about it. Plus, the DoD budget is redonkulous!

To spikecat – the military has been lowering standards for education, mental health status and criminal record status since the Afghanistan war began but in significant numbers since the Iraq war began..

To sweetlittlesister – Uhh no. The only time the US military has EVER been used as a force to protect this nation was during the Revolutionary War. Had we lost, we’d still be speaking English. =) The US military has long professed to be a body that protects the nation but in actuality its been used to maintain US interest in foreign countries and maintain alliances with foreign governments. After all our land grabbing, this nations soil has never been attacked, other than Pearl Harbor. And of course, we were so affronted by this attack we went to bomb Japan before entering Europe to help thwart the Holocaust. The US military ONLY enters a war when an American interest is threatened (i.e. Iraq) or when we are asked (i.e. Viet Nam).

"The only time the US military has EVER been used as a force to protect this nation was during the Revolutionary War."

Let us not forget the Civil War, the War of 1812, or WWII. . . or do those not count?

11B, stop trolling around using a handle most folks don't get :-)...and in reponse to the Ranger school thing--ever met a woman sapper?

I'm not going to go out on a limb and say a lot of military women could go Ranger, but some certainly could.

"Let us not forget the Civil War, the War of 1812, or WWII. . . or do those not count?'

i said the US military has never been used as a force to "protect this nation" -- the Civil War could maaaybe count as the Confederacy attacked first but is wishy washy example for what i was trying to say -- the other two do not count - the War of 1812 was over commerce/trade/tax issues (not to protect the nation itself, just the nations interest) and in WWII we only attacked Japan after they attacked us, that war was not on American soil, it was not to “protect Americans� – history reveals a pattern of democratic nations who do not use their military to protect their nation and its people but to protect their global interests (that is why we do not send any military aid to Darfur, cause we have no interest there and why the GOP controlled congress got their panties in a bunch when Clinton sent our troops to Kosovo)

"I wouldn't say "I hate the military". The military has no choice but to go where the President orders them to go.

An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.

Obviously, Samhita was trying to say that she hated people in the military rather than what it is doing as a collective body, but blanket statements like that could easily be misinterpreted and used as ammunition against feminists" -Qi

Well said Qi, after reading this article I felt compelled to write. As a military wife myself I took personal offense to the comment "I hate the military". While I do get that Samhita was probably not talking about the military in general, its still sucks that it was even said. People fail to realize, the guys don't go to Iraq b/c they want to, like any job, they go b/c their boss tells them to.

And I do agree that the so called "advancement" of woman and people of color in the military is a bunch of crap and just done to serve some type of twisted quota.

-Michaela

How is attacking Japan after they attacked us possibly not protecting Americans?