Phalluses, Phalanxes, and Fallacies
The Department of Defense announced on Thursday that it has begun a review of some 230,000 combat rates, specialties, and positions that women are currently not allowed to serve in, and that by September of 2015 any service that wishes to retain all male combat units will be required to submit a request to be approved by the Secretary of Defense.
The announcement came shortly before Secretary Panetta turns over the reins of Defense, most likely to President Obama's announced successor of choice, former Republican Senator and Vietnam veteran Chuck Hagel.
By requiring a waiver from the Secretary himself, the policy sets the new default expectation that women can serve in all roles, unless some sort of exclusivity can be defended and is actively requested by a given branch.
Since the Pentagon is pondering this, let's do so ourselves: what, today, is a valid criteria for our military leaders to use in deciding whether or not to exclude women from some combat roles?
Since the mid-90s, women have been allowed to serve in a limited number of combat or support roles: service onboard navy surface combatants, as combat pilots in all services, and as corpsman (the "p" is silent, Mr. President, like in swimming). I have served alongside many fine officers and sailors who are women. I support women serving in uniform in many capacities.
So, it is true that, as Army Staff Sgt Jennifer Hunt says:
"Right before the IED went off, it didn't ask me how many push-ups or sit-ups I could do," said Ms. Hunt, one of the women who filed a lawsuit last year to challenge the ban. "Right now the women who are serving are being engaged in combat, so their physical restrictions aren't a barrier."
Though, we hasten to add, stating that women have been exposed to combat is not yet quite the same thing as saying that it is good that this has happened, or that we ought to expand the opportunity for this to be the case.
Some have suggested that whether or not a person has a penis has no impact on that person's ability to shoot straight. Agreed. A woman can be taught to pull the trigger on a modern combat rifle as accurately as a man. However, physical size does matter: a deck mounted .50 caliber machine gun on a naval vessel can be hard for smaller men to control. The same is true with larger caliber machine guns carried by infantrymen.
Others say testosterone plays a role in high stress situations like combat, making it more favorable to men. This is a reality that I won't deny. While women can certainly be fierce, they are fierce in a different way. Moreover, men also have a natural predisposition to be protective toward women. This instinct can alter the focus of a unit in the midst of a firefight. A similar instinct crops up whenever a member of the unit is wounded, but it is amplified in the case of a woman.
A third factor is the rigors of some specialties on the bodies of men and women. The bodies of men and women are built differently; physical activities affect them differently. The question here turns not so much on the quanta of pain a body can endure--most of us guys are very unlikely, even if wounded, to ever suffer the amount of pain a women feels in birth. Rather it turns on the fact that the amount of gear carried by an infantryman takes its toll.
Consider the stress fractures suffered by women who attempted to complete the USMC Infantry course this past year. No one will deny that these were strong women, and mentally tough. If women are, as a general rule, liable to suffer these injuries to a higher degree than men, and are more likely, therefore, on longer rotations in the field to be unable to fulfill their duties as often (through no fault of their own, but simply through the tolerance a body can stand under these conditions) and taking into account the time it takes to build small unit cohesion and the money it takes both to train an infantryman, as well as the medical cost of dealing with the injuries or benefits later down the line, do these factors not merit consideration? (We will refrain from speculation on the impact these rigors might have on a woman's ability to give birth.)
Perhaps you think these notions are outdated because of technological developments. In the future, that may be the case. At present, however, it seems fitting to point to a certain war in a mountainous central Asian country that no one expected but that requires patrols on foot more often than in armored vehicle.
If the objection is raised that women compete in the Olympics, are we not right to point out that mastering one's own body and body weight are not the same as an infantryman carrying equipment, armor, and weaponry into battle (often weighing 100 pounds or more in addition to his weight)?; or those of a special forces soldier under fire carrying another wounded man to safety while exfiltrating from his objective?
Another consideration is some of the physical realities front-line units often must endure. See this article by Ryan Smith, a former infantry officer in the Iraq war. These are the conditions of modern warfare, yes, in 2003:
The invasion was a blitzkrieg. The goal was to move as fast to Baghdad as possible. The column would not stop for a lance corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, or even a company commander to go to the restroom. Sometimes we spent over 48 hours on the move without exiting the vehicles. We were forced to urinate in empty water bottles inches from our comrades.
Many Marines developed dysentery from the complete lack of sanitary conditions. When an uncontrollable urge hit a Marine, he would be forced to stand, as best he could, hold an MRE bag up to his rear, and defecate inches from his seated comrade's face.
During the invasion, we wore chemical protective suits because of the fear of chemical or biological weapon attack. These are equivalent to a ski jumpsuit and hold in the heat. We also had to wear black rubber boots over our desert boots...Due to the heat and sweat, layers of our skin would peel off our feet. However, we rarely had time to remove our suits or perform even the most basic hygiene. We quickly developed sores on our bodies.
When we did reach Baghdad, we were in shambles. We had not showered in well over a month and our chemical protective suits were covered in a mixture of filth and dried blood. We were told to strip and place our suits in pits to be burned immediately. My unit stood there in a walled-in compound in Baghdad, naked, sores dotted all over our bodies, feet peeling, watching our suits burn. Later, they lined us up naked and washed us off with pressure washers.
I leave you to take from that what you will.
A final exigency is the sexual. In my experience, it is impossible to place several hundred young people of both sexes in high stress positions and send them to sea for months on end and not know, somewhere in your heart of hearts, that at least some of them are sexually active, and that this can have consequences for unit readiness, both physical and psychological, and might undermine the chain of command. These conditions can be mitigated, but not eliminated.
This list is not exhaustive, and clever Ricochetti will add their own to it.
Ultimately, I see questions like this through the following lens. At the very beginning of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle reminds us that "Every act aims at some good."
If this is so, what good is being aimed at by the policy? Can you tell me with a straight face that it is improved combat effectiveness?
[H/T to Ricochet's King Prawn for breaking the news to the Member Feed]
*If you are among the members who knows enough Latin to know that the proper plural of phallus is not phalluses, gold star, good for you. But, really, don't write about it in the comments....
- Comment (101)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (28)
Comments:
Apr '12
Re: Phalluses, Phalanxes, and Fallacies
J Climacus
The problem is that a lot of other people (men) will get burned (i.e. killed) in the process of learning this lesson. And it doesn't matter if there are all female combat units. Men will be required to rescue those units when they get in trouble.
The feminists aren't the ones that will be signing up and forced to "live with it." Women who signed up for support roles will be put in to unsuited combat positions, and die.
It's a horrible waste of resources and the lives of men and women both-- but what do the feminists care? Not their blood on the line.
Apr '11
Re: Phalluses, Phalanxes, and Fallacies
J Climacus
The problem is that a lot of other people (men) will get burned (i.e. killed) in the process of learning this lesson. And it doesn't matter if there are all female combat units. Men will be required to rescue those units when they get in trouble. · 1 hour ago
The world ain't fair! No one will learn anything until everyone feels the pain of bad ideas. Men, women, children all must feel the pain of stupid ideas. Then all will learn. The day a whole regiment gets cut to pieces because their women soldiers couldn't cut it will be the day we rethink our war fighting strategy. It will be a dark day indeed but very educational.
This is the way it must be. You can't talk idiots out of doing something stupid. If you could they would not be idiots. We should just brace ourselves for it, and pray we are wrong.
May '12
Re: Phalluses, Phalanxes, and Fallacies
As I've stated before, most time served in the military is peace time. During peace time, the budgets get lowered, the promotions come less often, competition for schools and desired slots gets tougher. Boredom in the barracks becomes a problem: alcohol, drugs and sex. Add gays and you have a cocktail for disaster. Will women need separate showers and rooms? If so, those tight facilities and maintenance budgets at most installations are now much tighter. What happens when there is a rape in the field during a month long FTX? Company commanders, what will you do?
May '12
Re: Phalluses, Phalanxes, and Fallacies
It is a fair question. I think there is a difference in threat and strategy.
The Israeli Military is properly known as the Israel Defense Force. They are surrounded by semi hostile and full on hostile nations and terrorists and manning the walls with a rifle is necessity.
We are a volunteer force and Israel used to and may still have compulsory service for all.
The percentage of the US population in the military is a fraction of Israel's and we have no declared hostile threats on our borders (discounting Mexican drug cartels).
The U.S. mostly fights wars of choice on other's turf. When Israel goes to war it is on their turf out of necessity and in that case everyone fit to fight in some capacity must.
Mar '11
Re: Phalluses, Phalanxes, and Fallacies
Bartholomew Xerxes Ogilvie, Jr.
Lifting the ban does not compel the military to place any women in combat roles, nor does it imply any lowering of the standards for those roles. It just means that women can beconsideredfor combat roles.
This is completely false. There is already pressure to place women in roles simply for ideological purposes, not fitness. The standards for females in the military have already been lowered.
What this policy does is reinforce that trend.
Feb '12
Re: Phalluses, Phalanxes, and Fallacies
An interesting benefit, for me at least, to the Tailhook scandal. Nowadays, when faced with some sort of mandatory human resources training, I can authoritativly say,"Ha, I was a Naval Aviator post Tailhook, do your worst!"
It was the mother of all sensitivity trainings.
Nov '11
Re: Phalluses, Phalanxes, and Fallacies
BrentB67
It is a fair question. I think there is a difference in threat and strategy. . . .
. . . The percentage of the US population in the military is a fraction of Israel's and we have no declared hostile threats on our borders (discounting Mexican drug cartels).
. . . When Israel goes to war it is on their turf out of necessity and in that case everyone fit to fight in some capacity must.
Because of its history, culture, religion, geo-political circumstances, etc., Israel is sui generis with regard to almost everything. That something supposedly "works" among Jewish boys and girls in a Jewish country in desperate times proves nothing.
Apr '11
Re: Phalluses, Phalanxes, and Fallacies
You shoot the rapist dead, and move the woman to a different unit.
Mar '11
Re: Phalluses, Phalanxes, and Fallacies
BrentB67
It is a fair question. I think there is a difference in threat and strategy.
One, I believe Israeli has female only combat team not mixed units. I will always be against mixing sexes in units for combat roles. All someone needs to do is watch documentary or two on Modern U.S. Carrier operations to see what a horrible idea it is to mix sexes in close quarter, high stress environments.
Secondly, It would be interesting to see the female combat effectiveness verses the male especially over a long time period for the IDF. The real problem is with our modern PC culture this would be pressure to decrease the standards for women.
All you have to do is look at the easier PT requirements for women there is right now. I have no issues with women being in the military in general, but for any given position there should be no difference in standards if you are male or female period.
May '10
Re: Phalluses, Phalanxes, and Fallacies
My main interest in the IDF experience is whether or not they have identified combat roles or combat styles which fit women particularly.
On Fox News this morning, I heard a commentator say that women have been found to serve well as snipers and helicopter pilots.
[edit: The commentator was KT McFarland]
Edited on January 24, 2013 at 10:51pmNov '11
Re: Phalluses, Phalanxes, and Fallacies
Women on battleships, military as social experiment, thirty years later:
Jul '12
Re: Phalluses, Phalanxes, and Fallacies
Roberto
Bartholomew Xerxes Ogilvie, Jr.
Lifting the ban does not compel the military to place any women in combat roles, nor does it imply any lowering of the standards for those roles. It just means that women can beconsideredfor combat roles.
This is completely false. There isalreadypressure to place women in roles simply for ideological purposes, not fitness. The standards for females in the military havealreadybeen lowered.
What this policy does is reinforce that trend. · 1 hour ago
That doesn't negate what I said. Perhaps it's true that the standards are being lowered, for ideological reasons. All I said was that lifting the ban didn't necessitate that standards be lowered. Lowering of standards is a bad thing in any case.
Dec '12
Re: Phalluses, Phalanxes, and Fallacies
On the "Love Boat" way back in 1991: Thirty-six crew members of the supply ship Acadia were pregnant and had to be transferred during the ship's deployment to the Persian Gulf, naval officials say.
More than half became pregnant after the ship was under way, but a Navy spokesman, Lieut. Comdr. Jeff Smallwood, said there were no indications of improper fraternization between men and women on the ship.
"These women have a right to get pregnant," Commander Smallwood said. "The conclusion somebody is jumping to is that the Acadia is a love boat, and that's not the case."
He said nine women became pregnant before the Acadia left San Diego on Sept. 5, but were not tested until the ship was under way. Five others were transferred to the Acadia while she was sailing to the gulf, but their pregnancies were not discovered until after they were on board. Seven Months on Duty
The remaining 22 women became pregnant while the ship was deployed, perhaps on liberty calls in Hawaii, the Philippines and other ports the Acadia visited on her way to the gulf, Commander Smallwood said.
Feb '12
Re: Phalluses, Phalanxes, and Fallacies
One of the most amusing bits I've read today, either way I'm shedding tears.
Dec '12
Re: Phalluses, Phalanxes, and Fallacies
Current physical fitness standards for men and women. Rather than put the entire table in, I focused on 3 age groups 17-21, 27-31, 37-41. Here are the scores required to max the PT test.
(Event Men , age 17-21, 27-31, 37-41 Event Women age 17-21, 27-31, 37-41)
Push Up Men 71, 77, 73 PU Women 42, 50, 40
Sit Up Men 78, 82, 76 SU Women 78, 82, 76 (same required)
2 Mile run Men <13:00, <13:18, <13:36 2 mile Run Women <15:36, <15:48, <17:00
Apr '12
Re: Phalluses, Phalanxes, and Fallacies
Currently, getting pregnant is the preferred way to get out of a deployment; it's so common that the Navy started sending the women TDY to shoreside jobs--and not counting it as sea time. (Something I quite support, although I wish they wouldn't inflict them on the barracks for the folks who just joined. Transitioning is bad enough without folks deliberately screwing stuff up.)
These days, the biggest morale issues having women around caused that I saw was when mutual users met up, or when it was officers. We had a chaplain who slept with multiple XOs, openly, and several captains just ignored it. She was very much a political animal and knew all the right buttons to push to abuse her power.
Dec '12
Re: Phalluses, Phalanxes, and Fallacies
Bartholomew Xerxes Ogilvie, Jr.
Roberto
Bartholomew Xerxes Ogilvie, Jr.
Lifting the ban does not compel the military to place any women in combat roles, nor does it imply any lowering of the standards for those roles. It just means that women can beconsideredfor combat roles.
This is completely false. There isalreadypressure to place women in roles simply for ideological purposes, not fitness. The standards for females in the military havealreadybeen lowered.
What this policy does is reinforce that trend. · 1 hour ago
That doesn't negate what I said. Perhaps it's true that the standards are being lowered, for ideological reasons. All I said was that lifting the ban didn't necessitatethat standards be lowered. Lowering of standards is a bad thing in any case. · 2 hours ago
See my earlier post regarding current standards. I don't know if the split standards were in place when women were first integrated into the mainstream military but I do know there has been a separate standard since at least the mid 80's.
Jul '11
Re: Phalluses, Phalanxes, and Fallacies
Austin Blair: Current physical fitness standards for men and women. Rather than put the entire table in, I focused on 3 age groups 17-21, 27-31, 37-41. Here are the scores required to max the PT test.
(Event Men , age 17-21, 27-31, 37-41 Event Women age 17-21, 27-31, 37-41)
Push Up Men 71, 77, 73 PU Women 42, 50, 40
Sit Up Men 78, 82, 76 SU Women 78, 82, 76 (same required)
2 Mile run Men <13:00, <13:18, <13:36 2 mile Run Women <15:36, <15:48, <17:00 · 36 minutes ago
Hey, I can currently max the top female age group and I'm almost 47. Sweet, I'm going for a sex change.
Jun '10
Re: Phalluses, Phalanxes, and Fallacies
I am sorry that this is going to sound so retrograde. I support women being able to fulfill functions that were previously all male in roles other than combat. The fact remains that women are the only ones that can produce babies. For that reason alone we must limit their exposure to harm. Protecting the ability of society to reproduce is a first priority. It is similar to investing and protecting your "seed corn". Therefore this policy change is terribly misguided.
Re: Phalluses, Phalanxes, and Fallacies
Reason gives "two cheers" to women in combat, noting that if gov't official claims that standards will be the same for both sexes, entirely likely that no actual women will be serving in at least some combat positions. Interesting.