Today, Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter announced
the decision to open all combat jobs in the United States military to women. He
believed that “drawing strength from the broadest possible pool of
talent” would maintain the military’s status as
the most powerful in the world. Many women were happy about the decision.
Unfortunately, the Republican
chairmen of the Senate and House Armed Services Committee did not fully agree. Senator
John McCain of Arizona and Representative Mac Thornberry of Texas said, “Secretary
Carter’s decision to open all combat positions to women will have a
consequential impact on our service members and our military’s war-fighting
capabilities”. Though Mr. Carter acknowledged that the decision isn’t enough to
fully integrate the military, he tried to alleviate concerns by stating that
every service member has to meet the standards of the jobs, and that no quotas
or perceptions should be held. Military leaders will be required to assign jobs
and determine promotions based solely on ability. He also acknowledged that many
units would probably remain mostly male, especially the elite infantry troops
and Special Operations forces, where only small numbers of women could meet the
standards.
Since the three-year deadline to integrate women into all combat jobs was quickly approaching, the Marines,
in September, released a $36 million study that found
integrated combat units were slower, less accurate in firing weapons and had
more injuries. Critics said the forces were just looking for data to keep women
in secondary roles. On the other hand, a study of the Marine Corps made public
by a women’s advocacy group found that integrated combat units had morale equal
to that of all-male groups and higher than noncombat integrated groups.
What do you think? Do
you agree that this might have a negative impact? Will the transition be
seamless or is discrimination inevitable? What can be done to prevent injustice
from occurring?
14 comments:
Not to get too opinionated here, but I find that there is overt sexism in McCain/Thornberry's claims which merits a passionate response. Equality is one of the fundamental values upon which America was founded. While this may not have always implied equality of the sexes, we have been long approaching such a balance. Gursimar, the Republican chairmen you mentioned are on the wrong side of history point blank. Now, to praise those who fought for this, I must say that this is a tremendous achievement in the world of feminism and equality. According to Nancy Duff of the National Women's Law Center, "It’s a thrilling day for women serving in the military — and for women across the country" (Rosenberg/Philipps). In 2012, only about 14% of active American soldiers were women (Murga). Now, it seems as though this could change drastically! Additionally, I do not think that overturning the previous restriction on women joining the military will have a negative impact. As a matter of face, Mr. Carter even announced that the military would not be fully integrated, so naysayers have even less of an argument now. It's about time we honored some of the strongest and bravest servicewomen in the world with equality.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/us/politics/combat-military-women-ash-carter.html?_r=0
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/opinion/global-agenda-magazine-gi-janes.html
I am really happy for this decision. A man and a woman of equal ability should surely have the same opportunities across the board. Even in the study that showed that integrated units were not as efficient, perhaps the study should be looked into further to ensure that both genders were of equal training, and that there was no possible sexual tension that may have disrupted the unit; for me at least, I can see this as being the only reason to keep units separated. Even in this case, genders should be given the same opportunities, even if it is in segregated units if military personnel are unable to put aside their biological differences.
The other issue I have heard much anecdotal evidence about is the sexual harassment in many branches of the military. Women in the military, I have heard, are periled by pressures from male group-mates, and in the event of real rape of sexual harassment, these women's complaints are passed off as "overly sensitive," and women are encouraged to "suck it up" instead of fixing the problem. Perhaps the hardcore style of many military branches does not lend itself to addressing social harassment, even if physical threats and attacks are included.
All in all, however, I think this is a wonderful step forward not only for the military, but for women all over the country who are seeing the disparity between men and women shrink every year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/us/politics/combat-military-women-ash-carter.html?_r=0
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/17/army-dismissive-derisive-toward-sex-assault-victim/
I believe that we are heading in the right direction with this ruling; regardless of what Senator McCain and Representative Mac Thornberry, respectively, have to say. That being said, there appears to be some backing to their arguments with the $36 million investigation by the Marines regarding the low efficiency of integrated combat units. This is in mind, the research by the Marine Corps seems to contradict the statements made by the Marines altogether, making note of the fact that efficiency was not restrained by integration; either way it's hard to know who's being completely honest. For many Americans, serving in the United States Armed Forces is the ultimate act of patriotism and should actively be pursued by those looking to support their nation. Ash Carter's decision to open all roles to women really shouldn't be cause for a controversy at all. If any given woman, or man for that matter, doesn't put forth the required criteria for a certain position within the military, he/she shouldn't, and probably won't, get the position. It's as simple as that. On the other hand, if a woman does in fact meet the necessary requirements for a position, she should be deserving of that position and be accordingly appointed to it. Sex or gender shouldn't matter as long as the job is being done with the utmost efficiency. Half of the U.S. population is female, it would be crazy to hinder armed forces opportunities for women, especially at this day in age.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article47740980.html
I agree with the other commenters that this decision is a huge step forward for women and their attempts at being viewed as equals. For most the military is seen as a very 'manly' area, a place that relatively few women are found, as pointed out by raswaglia. Therefore now that all combat jobs are now open up to women I definitely feel that over the next several years we will start to see a rise in the number of women involved.
While women and men are definitely different, I view that diversity as being a positive, helping to bring a wider array of view points and perspectives to the table. As Gursimar mentioned, the study of the Marine Corps demonstrated that integrated groups had morale greater than or equal to that of all male-groups. I feel that in order for the military to keep progressing it can't block a massive part of the population from being involved in all aspects. Carter told reporters during a press conference, "Our force of the future must continue to benefit from the best America has to offer. This includes women."
While many are still concerned about the ramifications of this integration taking place, Carter stresses that implementation and changing attitudes is the key to this decision's success and that it will take some time. He in no way is suggesting that this integration come at the cost of combat effectiveness, since as mentioned before the women going out for these roles will be held to the same physical requirements as the men.
Additionally I do see Justin's point about the high level of sexual violence women involved in the military experience and how increasing the roles in which women can join and integrate, could result in a substantial rise in the violence. I feel that additional measures will have to be taken to address this specific issue, hopefully in the near future. But as for now I still view this decision as a great improvement in helping to bring about equality.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pentagon-nbc-news-all-combat-roles-now-open-women-n473581
Of course discrimination is inevitable, that is why the integrated squads never seem to preform as well. Everyone, even those who are ranked highly in the military, still have preconceived notions of the other gender. As Justin said, most of the stigma associated with serving women is anecdotal. It is common sense that this will result in massive losses in productivity in the short term, but as we see in all sorts of massive integration, the long term will have massive leaps forward (with many unfortunate steps backwards however). My advice is to integrate and let the problem fix itself. All the women serving or readily able to serve in combat roles are just as tough and stable as men, even if some may not be as physically fit. We don't need laws and regulations to enforce their belonging, they already belong. In time I am confident that most sensible men, and soldiers are sensible men, will become exponentially more accepting and trusting of their fellow women through training and active duty. Respect is not mandatory, it's a result of service.
I was very excited today upon hearing news of the decision to extend all combat roles to women. The fact that this did not happen sooner honestly baffles me. The idea that a man and woman of equal ability did not have the same opportunities in the armed forces up until today's decision is ridiculous. The standards for electing people for the roles should be kept the same for sure, with no quota fulfillment whatsoever. But, the fact that people still view women as lesser than men in any regard is horrible. Sure, there are a lot of women who would not meet the physical standards for certain positions. However, the same can be said about a lot of men. So, there should be nothing inhibiting women from going after the same roles as men if they feel that they can achieve them.
With that being said, I do believe that there will be a lot of discrimination toward women as troops try to adjust to this new decision. Many people are not open to the idea of women taking on these roles or being equal (especially in terms of physical ability) to men. Sadly, I do not think there is much anyone can do to avoid this discrimination other than enforce the equal opportunities for women. Assuming that the women who are taking these positions remain hard working and high achieving, in time the men will develop respect for them, as 2CHAINZ stated previously. Laws like this are changing for the better; now mindsets just need to follow suit.
I agree with Caitlyn B. as I am also very excited to hear that women can have a combat role in our military. I believe that women are strong and powerful individuals that will make a positive impact. In regards to integration of women in combat, McCain and Thornberry stated, "Secretary Carter’s decision to open all combat positions to women will have a consequential impact on our service members and our military’s war-fighting capabilities." The phrase, "consequential impact" highlights how McCain and Thornberry do not trust that women can serve as powerfully as men. I agree with raswaglia that there is an overt sexism in their claims. Their apprehension to have women join the military reminds me of when African Americans started to become integrated in our forces. Many Americans believed that African Americans should not have the privilege in fighting. Moreover, America is in a constant state of progression and movement. Years ago, there was controversy over whether or not African Americans should serve as combat, and today there is controversy over the role of women. I strongly believe that in ten years there will be a large number of women in all combat jobs. Americans should be allowed to fight for their country regardless of race, color or gender!
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/us/politics/combat-military-women-ash-carter.html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/defense-secretary-says-u-s-opening-all-military-combat-roles-to-women-1449165140
I also firmly agree with most of the previous commenters, that this move is a step in the right direction. As Hannah said, feminism has come a long way, and this movement is only natural. I do not think that this action should hurt the performances of our troops because women that will be allowed to work in the combat jobs they previously were not eligible for will still only be admitted to said positions based on ability and performance. Republicans, Senator John McCain and Mac Thornbery, both argue that this adaptation of policy will do more harm than good to the performance of our nations military, and despite the $36 million study, I personally am not buying it. There are many alternative reasons for units to be ineffective, and it is hard to directly correlate fire arm target accuracy with gender influence.
Discrimination will be inevitable, as it is unfortunately a part of our society still today. There will obviously need to be precautionary rules put in place for new behavior in coed units, but these extra steps are worth it to further advance in making equality a reality. As time moves on, like 2CHAINZ brought up, it will become the norm for men and women soldiers to work along side each other, and gender will not impact which soldier is thought to be more reliable.
I am in agreement with what has been said before; this law is truly a step in the right direction for women. As long as women are held to the same standards as men and military leaders appoint soldiers based on ability, I think that this is an effective move for the military. As Secretary of Defense, Carter said, this decision will allow the military to draw from the “broadest possible pool of talent”. I disagree with McCain’s statement because if women are promoted based on ability, then there should not be an issue. This decision will allow United States women to defend their country and I think that that is a wonderful thing.
However, I do agree with Justin; the issues of sexual harassment in the military need to be addressed more effectively now that the military is being integrated.
I believe that the decision to make all combat positions open to females is a progressive and well-made decision, since talented servicewomen will no longer be barred from opportunities to fight alongside their male counterparts. As long as women are held to the same standards as men, there is no reason to believe that the integration of combat units will have a negative effect; If a woman has the skills and qualifications to be part of a specialized group, there is simply no reason why her gender should be a barrier to her service.
Obviously, discrimination will be pervasive at first, due to prejudices regarding women's combat abilities compared to those of men. It is difficult to ensure that women will not discriminated against, due to the fact that unit leaders may be biased and their decisions may be arbitrary. Nonetheless, quotas should not be instituted, as this will lead to the admission of unqualified soldiers to combat units. Thus, the only action that can be taken is to allow this process to take place naturally; if females are gradually integrated into military units based on merit and ability, their male counterparts will learn to respect them, potentially leading to a decrease in bias toward female soldiers. On the other hand, if female soldiers are admitted solely to fulfill quotas, many will be unable to prove that they are equal in skill to their male counterparts, perpetuating the stereotype that men are more fit for war than women.
Regarding the potential issue of sexual harassment, I agree with the others that stricter rules need to be put in place to prevent the disrespectful treatment of women. It is indeed likely that cases of sexual harassment will increase if integration of male and female units take place, and so the military should institute greater punishments for performing such acts. These women will be serving their country just like any male soldiers, and they deserve the same rights to be free from unwanted sexual actions.
I think the problem that had occurred in the past is that many people are set in their ways and don't like change. I think that whether or not a study is conducted honestly or not, there are those out there who don't think women are as capable. If the studies are true, though, then I don't completely discredit McCain and Thornberry, as they are just trying to assure that our military preforms at top efficiency. Nonetheless, this is a big step towards equality, but I don't think there should be much controversy, like King Pash said. With this introduction, positions will still be merit and achievement based, so if someone works hard enough, they will be able to get a position no matter who they are. A problem many have mentioned is discrimination, but with the attitude in the military, I don't think there is much that can be done about that. I still think this is a major step for all.
I am personally very pleased with this step towards equality. Constantly through out our history women have been struggling of rthe same rights as men. Although they have almost achieved this in the US, the one place that constantly seems to be fighting this push towards equality is the military. Possibly this is because the system, is deeply rooted in tradition, but I find their court system, especially the way they deal with sexual assault, extremely sexist. Therefore, hearing that they have let women take on all military positions makes me very happy. Once they are seen as equals in battle, hopefully they can be seen as equals in other areas of the military too. This by no means that women wouldn't have to go through the same training as men. In the announcement speech they specifically said women must meet all of the same requirements as the men do for these positions. However, I still think this integration is very positive and will help to pave a way to equality in all respects through out the branches of the National Defense.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/us/politics/combat-military-women-ash-carter.html?_r=0
Unlike Matt, I find Mcain and Thornberry's objections against women in specialized units due to studies conducted by the Marine Corps ridiculous. As Gruelden has said, men and women will have the same standard requirements, which means women certainly won't be getting in the way of efficiency. The study the Marines have paid for are suspected as biased. However, even if all-men units are shown to be better in terms of physical strength, mixed gender units are shown to solve difficult problems and make complex decisions better. Also, women studied were found to be better at dealing with mental stressors when their male counterparts were unable to compartmentalize. This integration could only be positive.
Post a Comment