Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure I got that they are in the IDF, always had been the thread is about service as "combat infantry" not serve in a combat zone a carry a rife which you might have to use to protect yourself. Can a few do it? yes. However is it cost effective for an army to run many through a basic infantry course and have them fail and drop out at the rate that we lose candidates to the special forces? And when the women do fail then the fear is because so many will fail that politically the basic infantry requirements will be lowered to insure the target percentage of women pass.
That last line is virtually a certainty.
Quote:
Even with Israel's new law those women are in one mostly segregated battalion and until they are used interchangeably with say the Golani Brigade it is more of an experiment then actually assigning women to the paratroopers, armored corps and the other high status combat units in the intake and assessment phase. Is it the time when the IDF or other national army will reach the scene where your common infantry squad looks like the gender balanced of an infantry squad in a science fiction movie? I don't think so. Should we spend the extra time and money to give the 1% who wants it an opportunity? I would say yes, except as I stated above I fear the political class will force the military recruitment and assessment professionals to change their standards to insure that the politically correct percentage of women pass in the end.
I'd make two more related points to go along with that.
One is that the IDF is a true defense force. Israel is not sending women to the other side of the planet to fight their wars for the sake of corporate profits. If Israeli women wind up in infantry units, they will be infantry units on or within rifle-fire distance of their own soil.
The US, OTOH, is already putting more women in "force projection" roles than any other military in history.
I'd make two more related points to go along with that.
One is that the IDF is a true defense force. Israel is not sending women to the other side of the planet to fight their wars for the sake of corporate profits. If Israeli women wind up in infantry units, they will be infantry units on or within rifle-fire distance of their own soil.
The US, OTOH, is already putting more women in "force projection" roles than any other military in history.
To the true defense force statement politically I believe Israel is one of those few places on Earth where the enemy will not accept terms of surrender. It is a true stand or die strategic situation when you come down to it. Should it come to that, with other units and reserves smashed yes Israeli women would be sent up as "emergency" infantry just as the Soviet band was at Stalingrad and US Army service troops who were trained on the old Springfield rifles and not the standard M1 Garrand were drafted from their units and made infantry replacements in the winter of 1944/5. That doesn't mean wasting your training resources for this political goal now.
On one-hand, we have people saying that females should have the same rights to serve in tough/combat units that men have.
But some say that the females shouldn't have to meet the same physical standards that the males must.
And meanwhile, the most important thing the DOD is dealing with right now isn't ISIS, al quaeda, North Korea, or the budget cuts -- their biggest concern right now is 'sexual harassment & sexual assaults' committed by servicemen against servicewomen!
Sure, sexual assault is wrong -- and a crime -- but if female servicemembers need to basically be considered a protected species with their chain of command taking extra precautions & actions to help ensure their safety from male US servicemembers, is our culture really ready to have females on the front lines in combat against a real enemy?
Sexual assaults without witnesses, without evidence, sometimes without the physical presence of the male 'criminal', ... The politics of that topic is very difficult to approach these days.
I have never been at sea with females, as my community did not allow females. When I did serve with females, I observed instances of those accusations.
One time a civilian supervisor called me in for 'counseling'. I was told that a female had complained that I had sexually assaulted her. At first he refused to tell me who she was, but that I was required to sign a statement agreeing to blah blah. After a bit of arguing, he finally told me her name. It was a female that I did not know. I signed it, with the statement that I had no knowledge of who that person was. Later that day, I learned that she had been assigned to stand a post with me, and that was her immediate reaction. She thought that if she made a complaint that I had assaulted her, she would be reassigned. I hate having civilians serving in the chain-of-command within a military unit.
I saw an academy officer once who made a sexual harassment complaint against a crewman. The crewman had a picture of his wife taped to his clipboard. The officer was offended at the idea that a crewman would have a photo of his wife [at the time, we were not allowed to speak of being married. Photos were not generally approved to be onboard]. The crewman lost his career over it.
Another time, years later, I was accused of sexually assaulting a female who worked for me. Apparently it happened while we were both wearing armor and we were armed, I was in front of 40 MPs in a classroom reading out their daily assignments. A roomful of possible witnesses, but nobody saw it. I was reassigned, and given a counseling letter.
Lastly, a subordinate decided that he hated females. He refused to stand a post with a female. He was loud with his opinions and repeatedly berated her for being a female. I wrote him up for refusing an order, and I initiated that command's procedure for 'sexual harassment'. He was reassigned, and within a few months he was accepted for OCS. Last I heard he had made O-2.
There are times when the sexual assault claim is used as a poker chip. There are other times when it does happen, and the system promotes the individual.
I am not certain that it makes any sense.
I wonder how many sexual assault victims have ever been in the same room with their assailant.
As has been noted by both myself and another poster, the needs of the service come first as far as males are concerned. A male who enlists to be a clerk can be involuntarily pressed into the infantry if the needs of the Service require it. There is no "want to be there" about it for males, and that is a constantly known factor.
If infantry (or any other combat arm) becomes voluntary for females (when and while it suits their career goals) but remains involuntary for males, there is still no equality in the ranks.
My assumption and what should be the assumption of anyone enlisting is you can and will be put where the need is. That is figured into my "want to be there" If you do not want to be hot stay out of the kitchen.
They can, if the wish, also go into airborne and marine airborne. They need to, of course, complete the exact same training as their male counterparts. On a side note the training that an infantryman receives has become more physically demanding. It was discovered that the average recruit was finding it hard to meet the physical requirements of the courses, so naturally, being French, we shortened the course by a week and increased the physical requirements to pass.
France: Women make up nearly one-fifth of the French military and can serve in all posts except on submarines and in the riot-control gendarmerie. Though permitted to serve in the combat infantry, however, most chose not to. As a result, women make up only 1.7 percent of that force.
They can, if the wish, also go into airborne and marine airborne. They need to, of course, complete the exact same training as their male counterparts. On a side note the training that an infantryman receives has become more physically demanding. It was discovered that the average recruit was finding it hard to meet the physical requirements of the courses, so naturally, being French, we shortened the course by a week and increased the physical requirements to pass.
Within the French Army female infantryman are certainly rare but I can assure you, they're not there solely to make the camps look pretty. They pull their weight and perform the same combat/patrol missions as their male counterparts.
If they didn't, there wouldn't be a lot of point in them being there.
Within the French Army female infantryman are certainly rare but I can assure you, they're not there solely to make the camps look pretty. They pull their weight and perform the same combat/patrol missions as their male counterparts.
If they didn't, there wouldn't be a lot of point in them being there.
How would you feel if half of your country's combat infrantry were women?
Within the French Army female infantryman are certainly rare but I can assure you, they're not there solely to make the camps look pretty. They pull their weight and perform the same combat/patrol missions as their male counterparts.
If they didn't, there wouldn't be a lot of point in them being there.
How do their records compare with regard to continuous "fully deployable" status and overall career lengths?
How would you feel if half of your country's combat infrantry were women?
I would prefer to be deployed with whomever was the best available. Quality is the key not gender, the percentage of women in the unit, infantry or not, is irrelevant. If the units were 100% women and they were well trained and able then fine.
Much better than to be alongside a unit that was 100% men and not as good wouldn't you agree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
How do their records compare with regard to continuous "fully deployable" status and overall career lengths?
I have no idea. I also have no idea what the records are for male soldiers either with regards to "fully deployable" status and overall career lengths? I have looked and we don't keep records of that information.
As you ask I assume that your military does, would you care to link them?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
