Skip to comments.Back from combat, women struggle for acceptance
Posted on 12/14/2009 9:15:22 AM PST by US Navy Vet
Nobody wants to buy them a beer.
Even near military bases, female veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't often offered a drink on the house as a welcome home.
More than 230,000 American women have fought in those recent wars and at least 120 have died doing so, yet the public still doesn't completely understand their contributions on the modern battlefield.
For some, it's a lonely transition as they struggle to find their place.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Posted twice Mods please kill one.
nobody will buy them a beer because they are vets? hogwash
Women shouldnt be in combat to start with.
How INTOLERANT of you...
“How INTOLERANT of you.”
thats right. there is no need to have women in combat and all of the complexities it adds.
Most people don’t realize that military women have been put into harm’s way.
It sucks, but combating ignorance can feel like a losing battle most of the time.
What gets me is they put a few women in those situations with a group of men. Where everyone is young, away from home, and feeling lonely. And they are surprised when there are problems.
“Most people dont realize that military women have been put into harms way”
hey they wanted to be the same.
Hey, who believes this sh*t? The only reason female vets may be shunned is they may be unattractive. The good lookers always go to the higher headquarters, the homely to the support roles. At least that was true of the Marine Corps when I was in. Among the women officers, I doubt this is true.
Yeah, I was thinking, where is the “Barf” alert next to the title.
In these wars, one doesn't have to be in a combat position to be in danger. Pretty much everyone associated with a military base is on the front line when the mortars and rockets are coming in or when traveling off-base.
“In these wars, one doesn’t have to be in a combat position to be in danger.”
I realize that. Women are competent for most support roles but mixing men and women adds a lot of problems.
Please name a war during the history of the U.S. (or the world for that matter) in which women were not in some way involved? While you are at it, please define “combat”. Regardless of whether women had arms or were just providing medical treatment to the wounded on the front lines, woman have been “in combat” in most modern wars. This is not to say or suggest that women on the front lines do not present challenges - but, it is what it is.
“This is not to say or suggest that women on the front lines do not present challenges - but, it is what it is.”
it is what it is eh, now theres a solid argument.
Is this a rebuttal?
I knew a few women who have been deployed overseas. They come back with a much different mindset than the men who are deployed. I can’t say that it is a positive or negative, however.
BTW, we are not the first country to have women in combat roles. The Russians had them in World War II, and the Israelis have it now.
No, its pointing out that “it is what it is” is not a solid argument.
The only reason women have been put into combat is for PC reasons.
Read post No 1
The target audience for these kinds of stories is rapidly diminishing - pretty soon the nation will be full of people feeling sorry for themselves and no one left to feel guilty.
I did - that’s why I began with the word “Yeah”.
So, where is your solid argument? You’ve only proferred up your opinion. And, then chose to ignore the thrust of my post to you, deciding instead to focus on one short sentence. Seems that this is exactly the type of thing that Obozo’s press secretary does on a regular basis.
I’m a Viet Nam vet [male]. Nobody bought me a beer, either.
These people are WEIRD.
“So, where is your solid argument?”
Arugment that women shouldn’t be in combat? Yes its opinion from having been there.
Obviously most women don’t have the physical strength that most men have. That is a factor in many cases. The real reason though is the impact it has on discipline and complexity it introduces into operations.
I can believe she’s having trouble adjusting but these reporters will manipulate people for their own purposes.
Again, women are there. Women have been there for war after war since before this country’s founding. The Israelis seem able to hold together a very very disciplined military despite the presence of women in Combat. Other than comments like yours (which are rare) there does not appear to be any negative effect of women in combat in the U.S. military either. Or, are there any sources of information that is being withheld from the general public on this that would shed a different light? If so, share, please.
So why should we put women into combat roles? How does it benefit the security of the United States?
The only reason women have been put at risk is to placate the PC crowd. Meanwhile what has been the cost?
I’ve seen it first hand. It damages discipline to put 5 women in a unit of 100 men.
These are the same folks who think Danica Patrick will win NASCAR and women are just as good a carrier pilot and so forth
Yes...women have always been exposed to war in war zones...kids too but no one is suggesting employing children..yet.
But no one of any note except in myth/legend has ever fielded frontline forces with women..never...there have been a few decent female war leaders in history...Bodicea always comes to mind first.
Women have been most exposed in partisan efforts which are by their nature brutal desperate affairs.
I have lived in brutal desperate affairs regions in Sierra Leone years back and even there very few women were integrated into the various fighting groups and some coulda sure used them....they did use kids btw..boys.
My irks me is that feminine emasculated boys sit at home smoking pot and playing video games whilst women are in harm's way...even women with children at home.
I have an issue with that. It bodes poorly for how we prevail.
It is arrogant to assume that we as a culture have just stumbled upon some new notion that mankind throughout history was wrong about and that really women should be in combat as troops at the frontline....whatever that is now.
That arrogance we have these days that we are so much smarter and more tolerant ad nauseum goes way beyond just women in combat. We as a culture are like kids who think they know so much better than their parents about everything.
We rejected all social precedence starting back in the 1960s and are now reaping the windfall. I was there. We are not better off now but try telling that to anyone under 45.
Back in the Gulf War I, when the war was over and we were planning our re-deployment back to the states, one of the guys in the TOC mentioned that it seemed to him that the females were getting more and more b^tcher. Many agreed. Then one guy said he understood why, that in a few weeks time they would be ugly again and that really angered them.
“Again, women are there. “
yes they are
“Women have been there for war after war since before this countrys founding.”
Women have been in support roles for most wars, not in front line combat or in highly exposed positions.
“Other than comments like yours (which are rare) there does not appear to be any negative effect of women in combat in the U.S. military either.”
BS, I’ve seen the negative effect first hand. This is not a knock on women. This is a knock on the PC crap that has been allowed to take control of the military.
Israelis do not put women in combat...not since. They tried, it failed.
One of my closest friends was a Yom Kippur vet and he complained that the men would stop and obsess over a wounded woman and that they simply could not keep up and did not fight as well:
“Despite 225 years of witnessing the horror of wars fought by male American soldiers, there are still a number of idiots mostly feminists who themselves will never have to face an armed enemy soldier pushing lawmakers to drop a ban against allowing women in combat.
Israel a nation of about 6.2 million people constantly at war with its neighbors allowed women in combat, the idiots shriek. Why, then, must the American military, as regards ground combat roles, remain so androcentric, so “male-centered”?
It’s time to debunk the myth, once and for all, that Israel’s experience with allowing women in combat was successful and, therefore, should be duplicated by the Pentagon. It wasn’t successful. It was a disaster by Israel’s own admission.
“History shows that the presence of women has had a devastating impact on the effectiveness of men in battle,” wrote John Luddy in July 27, 1994, for the Heritage Foundation backgrounder.
“For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield,” Luddy said.
Writes Edward Norton, a reservist in the Israel Defense Forces: “Women have always played an important role in the Israeli military, but they rarely see combat; if they do, it is usually by accident. No one in Israel, including feminists, has any objection to this situation. The fact that the Persian Gulf War has produced calls to allow women on the front lines proves only how atypical that war was and how little Americans really understand combat.”
“Few serious armies use women in combat roles. Israel, which drafts most of its young women and uses them in all kinds of military work, has learned from experience to take them out of combat zones. Tests show that few women have the upper-body strength required for combat tasks. Keeping combat forces all male would not be discriminatory, as were earlier racial segregation schemes in the military, because men and women are different both physically and psychologically,” said the Feb. 5, 1990, National Review.
Furthermore, Israeli historian Martin Van Creveld has written extensively about the failure of the IDF to successfully integrate and use women in combat.
Finally, even Israeli citizens don’t relish the thought of allowing their women into combat roles. In 1998, a survey conducted by the Jerusalem Post newspaper found that 56 percent of Israelis don’t want women in combat.
There are now and always will be idiots who say the Pentagon should put women in any combat unit they wish to serve. Most of these people will speak with the ignorance of never having had to experience the horror of combat, as well as the luxury of never having to worry about engaging in armed conflict themselves.
But to use the “Israeli experience” as an allegedly successful model for the U.S. to follow is not only absurd, it’s disingenuous. It is a lie propagated by radical feminists like ex-Democratic Rep. Patricia Schroeder who have falsely claimed that such a goal is merely an extension of “the will of the people.”
Perhaps if more lawmakers and Americans in general were exposed to military service, the idiots who seem to be dominating this debate wouldn’t have many sympathetic ears.”
Bu they stopped making co-ed line units. . .as the ever-so-sensitive muslimes would fight harder and not surrender if it was found out they would surrender to women. Yeah, I know, big deal, wish more would die, but the thing is, this would also result in prolonged fighting and more friendly injuries and death.
I worked with a lot of women in the Air Force. As a general rule they really really enjoyed the attention. Some turned into sluts or even hookers.
Some encouraged competition for their affection. Leading to all kinds of problems. Some managed to stay ladies.
Many were very competent at their job. But their presence there certainly detracted from the mission.
âWeak Linkâ by Brian Mitchell. Documents well the adjustments in standards to modify combat tasks and weapons requirements in order to integrate women into traditional front-line units.
You make a claim - then there is no follow up with details. Details, please. In what way does this damages discipline? As you formulate your answer I’ll text my son and ask for his experience with respect to this while he was in Iraq (with a combat unit) just to see if there is any common elements. I’ll also ask my niece who was in Iraq providing security for convoys. Then, I’ll begin asking the same from friends whose daughters and nieces also served in Iraq in various capacities. And, perhaps there is even some documentation out there in cyberspace that can be brought into the discussion. Maybe even writings both pro- and con-? Before a debate of this type can be thoroughly considered, I’d suggest more than one persons opinion is required.
No women ever bought me a drink.
So SoldierDad what does your DD-214 look like?
“You make a claim”
You have yet to back up your claim. This is a good time for you to do so.
“Details, please. In what way does this damages discipline?”
Because when you mix a lot of young people together of different sexes they frequently think more about sex than doing their job.
Its not necessarily the fault of the woman or of the man. Both are in circumstances they don’t know how to handle.
“Ill text my son and ask for his experience with respect to this while he was in Iraq”
Do that. I’ve been there personally and also received the PC warnings from the military.
Quit taking this personally. What benefit does it bring to mix women an men in combat? If you cannot see the complexities it brings then you are dishonest.
While I have not had PTSD, I have certainly had brief spates of nightmares and minor distress resulting from some of the things I have experienced. And I am a strong, healthy individual. (And I'm not done with the war zones yet...MY choice.)
In fact, I believe that if people don't have some reaction to some of the things experienced in war, there may be something wrong with them.
BTW, men are taught to be hyper-sensitive to women in their units, you know, watch your language and behavior and such, and then when they all ship out the men are supposed to turn off decades of PC senstivity-training and view women as mere buds on the line? Not going to happen.
“My point was that you don’t have to be in a combat position to get a little shaken up in these particular wars. “
True, but women should not be in those positions likely to face combat. Most especially with muslims as our enemy.
“In fact, I believe that if people don’t have some reaction to some of the things experienced in war, there may be something wrong with them.”
When war quits being terrible then we are in trouble.
Although I kind of liked Limbaugh’s idea:
“We know that women in groups — same office, same dormitory, same barracks — eventually have synchronized menstrual cycles. We also know that there is this thing called PMS, and we know that it turns a woman into a hellion. We know that PMS has been used as a defense against a charge of murder. Here’s my proposal: We have 52 battalions. We can prepare the nation so that we have on any given week of the year a combat-ready battalion of Amazons to go into battle. Imagine that you are Manuel Antonio Noriega. You are in the Papal Nuncio in Panama City. You feel safe. All of a sudden, you hear this bloodcurdling scream outside: ‘I AM OUTRAGED!’ And there is Sgt. Maj. Molly Yard leading a battalion of Amazons with PMS over the hill! That would be enough to scare the pants off anybody.”
Actually, Post 34 is the reference post.
The only woman that didn’t cause this kind of problem was one who talked about how her son pulled her leg hair.
"As of 2005, women are allowed to serve in 83% of all positions in the military, including Shipboard Navy Service (except submarines), and Artillery. Combat roles are voluntary for women. Women serve in combat support and light combat roles in the Artillery Corps, infantry units and armored divisions. A few platoons, named Karakal, were formed, in which men and women serve together as light infantry on the borders with Egypt and Jordan. Karakal became a battalion in 2004.[
The IDF abolished its "Women's Corps" command in 2001, with a view that it had become an anachronism and a stumbling block towards integration of women in the army as regular soldiers with no special status. However, after pressures from feminist lobbies, the Chief of Staff was persuaded to keep an "adviser for women's affairs". Female soldiers now fall under the authority of individual units based on jobs and not on gender. The 2006 Lebanon War was the first time since 1948 that women were involved in field operations alongside men. Airborne helicopter engineer Sergeant-Major (res.) Keren Tendler became the first female combat soldier to be killed in action."
Not exactly matching what you are claiming.