GI Jane
IDF committee recommends allowing women into all branches of combat arms: infantry, armor, special forces:
Not clear to what extent this is driven by goals of gender equality, as opposed to national security interest. The article doesn’t tell us what the committee’s considerations were about throwing men and women into close quarters in circumstances that don’t allow for any privacy whatsoever, where menstruation and associated problems might compromise the unit, the full range of potential for sexual issues. But we can guess from the reported result. Not a problem. The article also doesn’t tell us whether physical standards will be the same for women as for men, which as Amidror notes would have the effect of excluding most women for physiological reasons. It would, however, solve the inevitable problem that will result from abandonment of don’t-ask-don’t-tell policies. Which is, what the heck to do you when G.I. Joe announces that he’s decided to express his inner G.I. Jane.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:56 am on Tuesday, September 18, 2007
4 Responses to “GI Jane”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Meh. We’ve already had multiple cases of women in direct combat, but they weren’t infantry, they were truck drivers, MPs, clerks, you name it. With some exceptions (as far as I know), in a largely defensive role.
In an offensive role? If women can hump 80 pounds of weapons, ammo, body armor, and other gear such that they can attack the enemy, put ‘em in the infantry. Or armor. But don’t lower the standards.
Living in close quarters….that depends on the unit leadership. And, frankly, people will be people. General Order Number One was the most winked at order I’ve ever seen. If I hadn’t agreed with the reasons for the order…….well, never mind.
I do agree that a single gender unit is much easier to lead, especially in stressfull conditions, because sexual relationships tend to dork up the chain of command, especially if the middle and senior leadership get involved (and some people just can’t keep their pants on).
Bottom line: a tough call politically, an easy call for the military. In this case, I’d lean towards the military, and try to contain the problems. Which there will be.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:36 am
Or, it might be their manpower problem. There have been stories in the Israeli media about their conscription debacle. Somewhere around 30% of the conscripts called evade service. At times, that number has almost been 50%.
Since the government refuses to seriously pursue the dodgers, its women to the front!
September 19th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
I agree about not lowering standards. As in any industry, if women can adequately do the job, then they should get the chance to do it, but if they can’t, they should do something else. It serves no one to have a double standard. Maybe in some future military when technology negates physical differences, this kind of question won’t even come up, but right now in the real world, it matters.
September 19th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
My problem is with captured women, a mother of two who is captured will always have more currency than a man in the same position. Another fact is that women who are captured are generally raped, witness the Korean hostages in Afghanistan. The culture that devalues their women in order to keep from being held hostage to their plight is on the same road as Islam. You can’t say that women should be considered equal and then put them in a situation where they would be singled out for torture and propaganda purposes.