Bojangles, the issue of men and women in the Army isn't about "squeezing a trigger". Don't dumb the issue down to that, because you're glossing over things that may need to be addressed.
combat_medic said:
2. I'm surprised that no one has made this corrolation. We have already established that the majority of the men in the military do not support women in the combat arms. We have also established a higher attrition rate for women in the combat arms (though far from the astronomical figures some would lead us to believe). Has anyone stopped to think that perhaps the former is part of the cause of the latter? Are there any women serving in combat roles who have NOT been the victims of harrassment, abuse, and other such professional misconduct? Has anyone stopped to think that their outmoded attitudes towards women is partially responsible for so many women leaving? Even if so many claim to have never engaged in an outright attack, the feeling of being made unwelcome in your workplace is difficult to ignore, and I have little doubt that this covert animosity is partially to blame. Yeah, there are women who can't hack it physically, just as there are men who aren't. Raising standards ACROSS THE BAR would fix this. Make the entry standards realistic to the job you'll be performing... problem solved.
Now, I'm no sociology expert or anything, but I'll pose the question anyways.
I have no doubt that your right, a good amount of females feel uncomfortable in Combat Arms units - I remember seeing that the "re-up" rate after the Basic Engagement was close to nil for Females in the Combat Arms and I can bet that this was a significant factor.
My question is, is this "uncomfortable" feeling of non-acceptance an active effort of "covert animosity" on behalf of the men in the group (get rid of the chick!), or is it something that "comes with the territory" within a small unit that is built around aggression and violence, two traits that engender themselves to the male buildup.
Now, Whites were once uncomfortable with Blacks in their units, but I've argued that this is fixable because it was superficial, based on nothing but social conditioning. I feel that the difference between Men and Women is real and needs to be addressed; as I said, nature and hormones will make us act in ways that will often overpower rationality.
Perhaps this difference is the reason that women have a hard time breaking into an institution that caters to the aggressive Male disposition (and has been dominated by that since the beginning of Civilization). I read Ghiglieri's
The Dark Side of Man, which made a very compelling argument for violence as an ingrained method of sexual selection in the male species. I think that a organization that builds itself around this natural dispostion may not be fully compatable with mixing in females.
The reason I'm arguing that non-acceptance is that I think it may be more of an institutional trait. I feel that if you take these 9 male soldiers and stick them in a Hospital or Fed-Ex, they most likely would be willing to accept a female coworker. I just don't feel that widespread "feelings of being unwelcome" are based upon most of the men in the CF being overt sexist pigs. I'm willing to bet the that the very nature of the institution that the small unit is built around has some sort of effect on attitudes. If this is indeed the reason, is this system able to be altered without affecting capability and the
raison d'ete of a fighting force? I'm not sure, but I don't think Canada's approach in the 90's (open the floodgates, drop the standards, and target women in recruiting) is the right way to go about things.
That being said, I'm still not going to dispute that women have a place in the Army, and since any branch will fight in battle, the combat arms as well. I've consistently argued that the numbers show it to be a non-issue - if we have to make some accommodations for a handful of females who wish to (and show they are capable of) being Infantrymen, Gunners, Sappers, or Crewman, then so be it - it shows that the Army is truly in-step with Canadian society and it isn't much to ask considering that most women don't want to be in these overtly "Alpha Male" environment. I'm just concerned with the argument that a good portion of the males in the combat arms have a overt (or covert) agenda to rid their small units of females, and that the discomfort that many women undoubtedly experience is something institutional instead.
3. Yes, a greater percentage of women fail in the combat arms. However, more than 50% of men fail JTF selection, or Pathfinder courses, or even Basic Para can have a 50%+ failure rate. Since we're spending such an inordinate amount of money training these men who have a greater chance at failure than at success, should we not also ban them from competing? I can't tell you how many recruiting posters I've seen with men on them. We keep trying to recruit these men, and yet, every course I've been on I've seen men dropping off. Why are we targetting this group when so many have shown they can't hack it?
It's a ridiculous argument.
Your right on that one, CM. As I argued above, in our country everyone is given the chance to, based upon merit, achieve their goals or to "wash out" and fail. This is the way it should be.
