“And there are problems that one mustn't talk about.
Menstruation, for example. Women often are in pain, they want light duty, and
become erratic. Having men of low social class in authority over young women
inevitably results
in rape or
behavior close to it, usually by black men. Women don't like to squat and pee
around men, which can lead to absurd behavior--see below. Thirteen men in a
squad will work together as a team; add a woman and they will all compete to
get into her pants. Sex erodes command authority: Once Admiral Jones gets
involved with Seaman Sally, it stops being, ‘Yessir, Admiral,’ and becomes ‘But
Bob....’ Would women use sex to get what they want? No, never. Perish the
thought.”
If you have read the
above quote and can’t quite get a grasp of where this guy is coming from, read
his entire post. Apparently, women can’t be in combat because
they menstruate. Or to use Fred’s words: A few* with truculence sometimes
amplified by misspelling, have demanded supporting data.” The facts support the
fact that men are generally physically stronger than women. Who knew?
* Presumably
women who disagree with Fred’s unsupported statements.
The response below is
from a female Army vet who washed out of OCS (with stress fractures) at the age
of 35, and then spent three tours in Afghanistan as a civilian advisor stationed
with a British unit in Helmand Afghanistan in 2011-12, followed by a year as a
civilian conducting studies under DOD contract in Kabul. Let's call her The Menstruator.
Holy fuck balls! With all due respect to those in the
military in 1967, do let them know it is now 2015. I'm not trying to be cheeky
- his understanding of integration and women problems is seriously out of date.
Twenty-nine out of 29 failed. I am sorry to read that. I can
go find you 100 men who would also wash out. 100% of women have failed, but we
all [should] know that's a small sample size. He won't get an NSF grant with
those sorts of stats. It's just not compelling yet. It's also flat wrong to
argue that women aren't capable of the 'guy stuff' that men are. Not only am I
a female who menstruates, grew up playing with dolls, and sometimes cries at
bad rom-coms, I am also twice the age of the male soldiers with whom I
deployed, carried half my body weight, and kept up. I also was one of two
females who carried a wounded soldier to a PEDRO. I didn't even cry. I can't
remember if I was menstruating at the time...
I am a crappy runner. Nevertheless, I passed all Army PT
tests even to the standards for males. Of course these tests were also easier
the older the soldier is. Under his logic, anyone - male or female - should be
discharged (honorably?) after age 30, because apparently all that matters is
the ability to run and lift things and talk about boobies and shun
menstruation. One of the many reasons I thought OCS as horrifying was that I
watched people earn their butter bar because they could 1) run five miles in 45
minutes, and 2) yell.
That's all one has to do to be an officer in the USA these
days. I'm not kidding. I watched smart people who can actually lead and think
under pressure get out, or go enlisted because they couldn't stomach the
nonsense. I understand why the Army has a tradition or rewarding people who can
shout (and lift heavy things) rather than real leadership much better after
reading this. There is more to the combat than cardiovascular capacity! I think
we'd all agree that anyone on a patrol needs to be able to carry a mate to
safety if necessary, and I assure you women can do that.
I say this having been in combat. I went on over 100 combat
patrols in the most dangerous Districts and Province in Afghanistan, and have
been in dozens of TICs, and have been IEDed 3 times, and not only was I not a
drag to the non-menstruators around me, I was a force multiplier because I can
carry rounds, and send them down range just as well as the boys. In fact, the
Army's insistence that long distance running was key to combat effectiveness continuously
proved wrong to me. What we needed out there was the ability to carry lots and lots of stuff on our backs at a 15
min/mile pace forever, all day, for weeks on end. Women can do that just fine!
Occasionally shooting prompted us to sprint with that weight for cover, and we
did that fine too. I've NEVER gone on a combat patrol and jogged! More
importantly for combat effectiveness is what the Army calls
"resilience," meaning the ability to see bad shit and continue the
mission ("Charlie, Mike"). Women and men are susceptible to combat
stress, PTSD, and all that other stuff. In fact, if we're looking at numbers
here (selectively), I'd point out that far more men have PTSD than women, so
perhaps men aren't up for combat?
I absolutely take issue with his characterization of women
"looking cute" while men lifted things. I remember in BCT once a male
soldier tried to help a female soldier with something, and the DS yelled at
him, and reminded us that that dog don't hunt, because downrange we're all
going to need to be up for that. The DS was right, and today I'm proud to say
that my Army promoted women getting their shit together and learning to pull
their own weight. While the Army still links physical fitness too much with
leadership, in my opinion, they are right to emphasize that part of leadership
is the ability to lead from the front (hence OCS' "Follow Me"
slogan), and dudes in uniform are going to be less serious if their female OIC
is leading from behind. Got it. It's still all possible.
It's strange to have done three deployments with an
integrated Army, and read that apparently I was using sex and threats of false
rape reports to further my career. The British Army has mixed accommodations;
even the "ablution blocks" were mixed sex. Guess what: we all
survived, and we weren't all shagging each other as much as Fred would have us
think. His opinions don't change the fact that I was integrated, and carried my
own weight (literally and metaphorically). Not only have I peed in front of
guys, but because Helmand is so dangerous, I had to go announce to
them I wanted to pee, ask the point man to barma the area (check for IEDs), and
then have them stand guard around me so I could have 30 seconds to drop trou,
have a wee, and not worry about getting shot. We showered in front of each
other, we did laundry together, we ate together, and we shared accommodations, and
it was professional.
There is an intimacy to living together like that, but it's
often not sexual. The thing they never told me in training is that the real intimacy
comes with being with someone who is about to die, or has been terribly
injured. One soldier I was on patrol with stepped on an IED and suffered a
traumatic amputation of both legs. I went with him to the field hospital (SOP
is that the first one with the soldier accompanies the injured bloke/bird to
the hospital); months later his wife emailed me to ask if I'd had an affair
with her husband. My point is that of all the intimacies troops experience, the
most important one is not at all sexual. Troops also had lots of sex downrange,
but they kept it discreet and out of the "office". In any event, the
issues we face in combat have actually little to do with our potty parts, and
much to do with our maturity, and I'd prefer to see my Army focus on the important
parts of resilience and leadership. Yes, sex can erode command authority, but
so does sexism. Of course I would say that, I'm a girl who sucks at running.
I don't see the military as he does. It is simply a fact now
that because war is so weird and unconventional that women are in combat. Often
I suppose these are logistics folks taking the mail out to FOBs or something
like that. In any event, let's please stop pretending there is a FLET and
everything is neat, and women can be sheltered in a green zone. That world has
never existed in AFG, and I suspect it hasn't in Iraq as well. Moreover, I have
not seen the presence of women, people of color, or gay people erode anything
we did in Helmand. I believe that to a great extent, something can only
"erode command" if leadership is weak. In other words, if troops are
irritated to have women (or place any group here), then command needs to step
up and create an ethos and environment in which it becomes workable (CW can speak to this much more than I). Easier said than done, I know, but
it would be aided by having officers who have some charisma in addition to
their ability to run 5 miles in 45 minutes.
It is interesting that he said "the brass are terrified
of women." I believe that to be 100% true. I felt in the USA there was a
big difference in experience, backgrounds, and just plain street smarts between
CPTs and below and Majors on up (and similar split among enlisted ranks based
on time in). The Army has its most highly educated junior ranks it has ever had
in all its time. Additionally, Field Graded cut their teeth in Desert Storm 1.
With all due respect to their 72 hour war, our war kicks their war's ass. What
I'm getting at is that those with more time in are more socialized to buy into
the argument that change is bad, and that women/gays/blacks/etc. are going to
disrupt something sacred to the esprit de corps. In contrast, those in for 10
years or less (who had done most of the fighting) are less amenable to those arguments
because we grew up with women/gays/blacks/etc.
I'm not intimidated by integration. Integration of women
does not threaten the military. From my perspective, what threatens the
military is that we are hemorrhaging smart and battle-tested CPTs who are keen
to get out and going to a world that isn't so superstitious and resistant to
change. What threatens our military is that we are given power in war, and
treated like children in garrison. (It's true that in CONUS I needed a
"battle buddy" to go pee. I agree it's nonsense.) What threatens our
military is that it punishes those who seek better ways to fight a war that is
unconventional - but please don't tell the field grades and generals that we're
not fighting an enemy in uniform. Better they work on devising new PT tests
that even girls can pass.
Thanks for the interesting read!