With that being said, how do you feel about women serving with our men in combat? It's not that I don't think that they cannot do the job, because I believe women can. (I am not a complete disappointment to the feminist movement). I think most soldiers who are in Special Forces, Seals, Recon or Delta might disagree with this. They are the ones who SHOULD know too! However, I am not the biggest supporter of the idea of women and men sharing close quarters a year at a time during deployments. Think about the bonds that are formed with brotherhood of the guys serving deployments together. They are forever intertwined with what went on during that deployment. Families cannot possibly understand everything and they share it with their battle buddies. Most of the times during these deployments, there is little contact with our husbands. We cannot talk on the phone every night, skype or even gmail chat! We trust him and believe he is serving his country the best he can! Add some females into their FOB or COP or even a tent, and the dynamic for men and women are changed. Some men and women might try to impress the other sex. This would take away from their mission at hand. I am NOT doubting my husband's faithfulness, but it doesn't seem like the best situation to go through on top of the whole RISKING YOUR LIFE and being the loving wife back on post. Maybe I am jumping to conclusions, but I am a little concerned. . .
Am I alone in this? Am I a bad women for feeling this way?
You are not alone - I completely agree. I met my husband when we were both ROTC cadets and I truly believe women are just as capable as men. But! I do not think that is the best situation to throw men & women together in; there are just environments where it would bring more harm than good and our soldiers would pay the price.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your honest answer.
ReplyDeleteOMG!! i agree. people can say what they think but ill just say sometimes it creeps me out.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. I don't think it's a wise idea to put men and women in combat together. Partially for the bonds that are formed (that I think would be unhealthy whether they're married or single), but also because of the impress/protect factor. MOST men tend to protect women in dangerous situations. Therefore, they would put themselves in more danger trying to protect the woman. Then, of course, you could have the "I want to impress her/him" factor. Either is not good on the battlefield.
ReplyDeleteI also have one other reason for disagreeing with it: Women are the only humans that can have (carry and birth) children. If they are on the front lines, who is going to produce the next generation? Granted, not ALL women join the military and not ALL of them would choose to be infantry. I still don't think it would be a wise move for the military...even if for the sake of being EO or PC.
good points... thank you for your opinions.
ReplyDeleteMy husband's last deployment had the unit up in NE Afghanistan, absolutely the front line of combat. There were women in the unit. Some of them did an OUTSTANDING job, same as the guys. But yes, there were others who did not "behave appropriately". Those stories make me sad.
ReplyDeleteBTW, LOVE your blog! ;)
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your inside scoop and the compliment!
ReplyDeleteI have mixed views on it. I do think that a few women are fully capable of doing combat-related work. However, I also don't think it is smart to redesign a whole field so that a few women could take part. (Example...in deployments, are we going to run a whole separate tent to house two ladies? That seems a waste of space & money, IMO).
ReplyDeleteWhile I appreciate your viewpoint, I have to respectfully disagree. I've heard arguments from all sides, but I still don't see the issue with women serving (I also did a blog entry on this).
ReplyDeleteWomen have also died in this war. They aren't tucked safely away while the big boys do the fighting. They run convoys that often get attacked or hit with IEDs. These women work with men in those convoys and are sometimes forced to return fire if attacked. Years ago, women fought as snipers in WWII and they were considered the best of the best, even better than men.
Men and women already live together in FOBs, COPs, and COBs in the Middle East. While there are instances of affairs occurring, they aren't as widespread as you might believe. And surely every woman who chooses to serve won't be opening her legs for everyone.
As for "impressing" the opposite sex, not all of our men and women fighting this war are that immature that they need to impress anyone - even a member of the opposite sex.
You have to also consider that not all women will want to join the hardcore branches of combat, which you named specifically in your post. Some of them will only want to go into Armor, Infantry, Air Assault, etc. Those branches don't always offer minimal communication. It's important to remember that some soldiers choose not to call home because it makes deployment easier for them.
Of course logistics have to be worked out, but the same can be said of the DADT repeal. Why not work them in together if changes need to be made? Better to do it once and done than having to revamp a plan. I don't think much redesigning or extra funding would really be needed to make the change.
I can't even touch the argument that women are supposed to be mothers. That argument wouldn't hold up as a viable reason in front of the DoD committee or the Senate Defense Committee. It's fine to have that as a personal opinion, but it's unfair to subject every other woman to that mode of thinking. We might has well transform back to the 1950s.
I think our nation's military will benefit from allowing each person to use his or her best abilities in the line of duty. Women already die "in combat". They are MPs, medics, and even EOD technicians (my husband's job). I am not threatened in the least by opening the OTHER combat positions to them. Not many will qualify, nor do I think the standard will be lowered by allowing us dainty women to serve in more positions.
ReplyDeleteNot all women define themselves as a person who wants children, so the fact that we can have kids shouldn't affect our jobs AT ALL. I know some pretty "manly" women that the Army would be LUCKY to have serving in its more combat ranks. And that said, I know some pretty macho gay men, too. It's time to stop defining us by a gender or sexual orientation and allow people to be the best they can be- WHATEVER that may be, to the highest possibly standard.
I look forward to an army of tomorrow, that is more efficient and uses its soldiers to the best of their abilities, male or female, gay or straight.
Thank you for your comments and opinions. It's healthy and important to see both sides. To clarify, I am not saying that women can't or shouldn't, but it does raise some concerns. Thanks again. I look forward to reading your post about it LTarmywife.
ReplyDelete