In historic shift, U.S. military to open all combat jobs to women

boing
41

I believe they have a process with two cycles. Those who don’t make it through on the first cycle can do the test again and if they pass can move on to the next step. Of the people who applied (off the top of my head) 20 men and 2 women failed the first cycle then 7 men and both women passed the second cycle.

From my distant impression of the people who make it into those elite units, once you have the physical attributes it’s really the determination and mindset that gets you through so not surprised that some women are capable of passing through the selection process. Do you even watch UFC bro!? And those are 145 pound women. Scale that up to 170-200 and athletic women could for sure ace the physical portion.

But my point was that some genetically female people will use testosterone and other hormones as a method for increasing musculoskeletal strength/development (among other things) so with the military’s expanded attitude towards applicants, hopefully we’ll start seeing a wider acceptance of the gender spectrum throughout. And If it’s accepted, especially in a place that lionises the military as much as the USA does, it should have a positive impact on the issue across the board.

1 Like
42

Tangentially related.

1 Like
43

Not just the “poorer classes.” I was solidly among the middle class when I enlisted. The opportunities for training, education, a decently-paid retirement after 20 years or so, and free medical care for the rest of my life? In my opinion, it was (and remains) a pretty good deal. In my case it didn’t work out quite the way I’d planned, but I don’t regret the experience. Of course, young people think they are immortal, and I was no exception.

4 Likes
44

That’s kind of my point. While there are women who cheer from the sidelines and push men into battle, as a group they’re more likely to try to find a peaceful solution than us. They’re likely to be even more motivated to do so if the decision to go to war affects them directly.

I’m not claiming that a draft is a good thing or that it’s an even remotely fair process or even reasonable to have one (unless your nation’s physical borders are directly threatened). But it is entirely fair that women be equally subject to the draft if it does happen …

1 Like
45

You’re right that the draft is unfair, and not a perfect solution to the problem of marginalized people ending up in the military much more than privileged people.

Probably something I should have mentioned up front in this discussion is that I oppose the US military because I oppose imperialism in general. I don’t actually think anyone should serve, this discussion is more of a thought experiment to consider the implications of our current trend of liberalizing military service - letting african americans serve, ending the draft, letting non-heteros serve openly, and now letting women serve in combat could be seen as all part of the same trajectory, and I question whether it’s actually a progressive thing, or just a way to facilitate more efficient and cost-free warfare.

the idea that current enlistees are 'slaves' is an insult to everyone who ever endured slavery
Well, I didn't bring up the slavery metaphor, you did. I assumed that you were referring to the idea that once enlisted, the military has the power to control almost everything about your life, including whether you live or die. Which is reminiscent of slavery in some ways, though obviously not all.

But instead maybe you were just saying that during a draft, a government order decides who gets enlisted, whereas now it’s decided by the imperatives of the market. In other words, when the government forces you to work it’s slavery, but when the economy forces you to work it’s free choice. This smacks of libertarianism, but I don’t really care to argue the semantics of “slavery” anyway, so I’ll leave it at that.

Anyway, all that is to say that it’s mistaken to believe that our current military is a voluntary project. I mean, imagine what would happen if civilians stopped signing up to go to war. Would the government just shrug and say “guess we can’t do war anymore”?. No, they would increase the regulatory, economic and social pressures to “volunteer” until finally enough people did. Or less theoretically, look what happened when the US ran out of volunteers during the Iraq War: they conscripted people through stop-loss.

That’s a good example of how our military is still compulsory, just through different methods. And because those methods are more subtle and less controversial, they allow the government to wage virtually continual war with minimal political cost. Since political cost is one of the only forces capable of reigning in the US war machine, it’s a bad thing that the government has figured out how to minimize it.

I want to minimize the death and suffering caused worldwide by the US government. That’s definitely a political goal, but I don’t think it implies a cynical or trivial motivation.

2 Likes
46

Exactly. Anyone who calls that ‘virtual slavery’ is unclear on the concept of ‘slavery.’

1 Like
47

I didn’t say it was cynical or trivial, I said it was morally bankrupt.

It ignores the particular death and damage it inflicts on people who never signed up for such risks, in support of abstract ideals. It deals in ‘principles’, and ignores people.

I’d like to minimize the death and suffering caused worldwide by the US government, too.

But there’s no evidence that a draft will do that, and considerable evidence that it won’t.

1 Like
48

Depends how many men are left pregnant as a reminder.

49

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. I’ve seen first-hand the difference between draftees and volunteers. And frankly I have little patience for false-consciousness arguments of any shape or shade, whether it’s denying women or minorities their agency, or denying soldiers their decisions. It’s a function of privilege to be able to tell someone their decision isn’t a real choice.

If you’re anti-military then by all means be anti-military. I’m for small military myself. It’s perfectly valid to be anti-military and tell people they’re making a mistake by joining up. But the fact is that military service is not so cut and dried. For some it becomes a springboard, while others who join end up bitterly hating it. And institutional military bias towards gays, women and minorities contributes many more dispossessed soldiers than the profoundly misguided and sometimes corrupt policies they’re called upon by political leadership to implement.

IMHO, the people who flourish in the military are those who yearn to serve others. Sometimes they find what they’re looking for and sometimes they find their own personal hell on Earth. Which of the two it is boils down to is a mixture of both circumstance and mindset. There are absolutely people who join who don’t belong in military service.

And once again I believe it comes back to politics. Politicians who support foreign policies of casus belli in perpetuum create a demand that a reasonable republic’s people simply cannot fill, so they resort to dubious recruitment standards and practices. A small defense force ready to grow in the face of a real existential threat to individual sovereignty would be turning applicants away, not marketing to anyone who walks into a recruitment office.

So yes, please advocate for more honest recruitment practices, strict standards and, above all, rational foreign policy. But when you deny the agency of volunteers qua volunteers because you disagree with what they’re volunteering to do (as I too mostly disagree), you deny their agency.

TL;DR – Conscription into and volunteering for a stupid cause are not the same thing, and rose-tinted marketing is not the same thing as impressment.

Anyway, just my 2¢. No antagonism intended.

3 Likes
50

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.