Re: Another Story That Left Me Hoping "Maybe It Isn't True."

1

Damn those feminists! You can't have it all, ladies.


Posted by: Dr. Laura | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 8:49 AM
horizontal rule
2

Almost as annoying: the women are not in combat roles, so they can't draw the extra pay. Yet presumably the extra pay is because of the extra risk. And it's certainly not less risky to drive a convoy, so who are we kidding here? The front line/support distinction just doesn't make any sense in a war like this.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 8:51 AM
horizontal rule
3

Sure hope that Menlo Park program goes global fast. A chance for the psychologists to redeem their profession.


Posted by: I don't pay | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 9:04 AM
horizontal rule
4

My reactions to this piece were all over the map. Briefly, or not:
* War sucks. Why do we keep on making war?
* Some of these women don't seem credible (going purely from the presentation in the article; I don't have any other source of knowledge in this regard.) Others do.
* So the article is not a puff piece or advocacy -- indeed it's hard to figure out what the reporter's take on this is.
* Where do I get off judging the women's credibility?
* But isn't that what I'm supposed to do when I read this kind of article?
* "supposed" seems like a poor choice of adjective. "alleged" might be better though I'm not sure it would be precise.
* undsoweiter...


Posted by: Clownaesthesiologist | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 9:08 AM
horizontal rule
5

2: Yeah, given the riskiness of combat support roles in modern day warfare, I tend to have the (uninformed and petulant) reaction to the exclusion of women from combat roles that the problem isn't so much that it's inappropriate for women to be put at risk, but that it's unseemly for them to shoot back.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 9:08 AM
horizontal rule
6

re: 5

Yes, that seems exactly right.

(Then again) it's always been that way. Think of the women driving ambulances on the front as far back as WW1, or, to take another less well known example, the female pilots in WWII who flew fighters into combat zones in order to deliver them for use by (male) combat pilots.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 9:20 AM
horizontal rule
7

I tend to have the (uninformed and petulant) reaction to the exclusion of women from combat roles that the problem isn't so much that it's inappropriate for women to be put at risk, but that it's unseemly for them to shoot back.

I really don't believe that. I seem to recall that during the Clinton Administration, the voiced worry was that male soldiers would be unduly solicitous of female safety during combat, and thereby degrade unit discipline. A similar worry was voiced about letting gay soldiers serve (I think the specific worry there was about possible relationships complicating things). In light of this story (which I haven't read yet, but which I hope is better than the Salon piece) and similar stories, that seems like--weirdly, tragically--an inappropriate worry.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 9:27 AM
horizontal rule
8

Having never been near a front line, does anyone know if the concerns of misplaced chivalry on the front line between gay soldiers or between men and women have any grounds in reality whatsoever?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 9:41 AM
horizontal rule
9

the women are not in combat roles, so they can't draw the extra pay.

You get the extra pay if you're serving in a combat zone in any capacity, it doesn't matter what your role is. IIRC, it's a couple hundred extra dollars a month, and you're exempt from federal income taxes.


Posted by: Matt F | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 9:43 AM
horizontal rule
10

8: OCSteve was saying that he was familiar with complaints of favoritism toward attractive women from male NCOs a couple of threads ago.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 9:47 AM
horizontal rule
11

That's just one of many potential sources of favoritism.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 9:47 AM
horizontal rule
12

A point about the title of this post, picking up and reacting to CA's take: It would never occur to me to think this might not be true. Individual accounts may be ambiguous, and there may not be enough evidence in many of these cases to take punitive action, but the pattern itself seems both self-evident and plausible.

What will the Army learn from this? Don't know.


Posted by: I don't pay | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 9:54 AM
horizontal rule
13

Upsetting article.

This shouldn't be a structural problem within the military, and it's hardly an inevitable result of mixing men and women. Andrew Ol/msted wouldn't stand for this shit going on around him. So, to me, the fact that this is going on suggests that leadership and morale are breaking down. The decent leaders are getting promoted, injured, killed, or embittered. The new ones promoted through the ranks lead the way they have learned in theater. I can't help fearing that it's going to get worse in the short-term.

Christ, how much longer are we going to war this stupid war?


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 10:31 AM
horizontal rule
14

LB, please accept my thanks for this post. As a father whose daughter serves in the military, it is important for others to be aware of this. Although my daughter has not experienced harassment, she has experienced discrimination during 22 months in Kuwait. To confirm Matt's comment, women do receive combat pay for service in Iraq plus the tax exemption for earnings received abroad. More to the point, women also suffer injuries and death as do men. During her last tour in Iraq, my daughter did draw and fire her weapon after an IED ambush. Most important of all, it is time to bring home the troops.


Posted by: swampcracker | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 10:40 AM
horizontal rule
15

9 is correct. However. If the presence of a woman in a unit means that the unit isn't classified as a "combat unit," then the unit (at least when it's operating on "non-combat missions") isn't eligible for some awards and medals that are designated as for combat troops only. Talk about engendering resentment among one's fellow soliders--not to mention not being eligible, oneself, for awards that the guys can get if they occasionally deploy for "combat missions" without you along.

Plus, I'm told that combat experience really helps with promotions, especially at the higher levels.

Back in the day, when women were confined to nursing units and so forth, they could at least be promoted within that class; now they're competing with men for promotion without being eligible for some of the more important jobs. (Which of course a lot of them end up doing anyway.)


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 10:40 AM
horizontal rule
16

I have no problem at all believing that harassment and rape are a huge problem in the military. And no, this isn't because I think military guys are somehow evil; it's because in a situation where aggression and machismo are (perhaps necessarily, although I doubt it) encouraged, the guys who are assholes are going to magnify their assholishness, and the guys who are basically okay but have some asshole tendencies are going to do the same.

It's not like a woman has to be raped by every guy in her unit; it only takes one.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 10:44 AM
horizontal rule
17

15.
Wrong. Some women do receive recognition. There is a category for non-infantry personnel who are inadvertantly forced into a combat role. My daughter has been awarded 7 distinguished service citations and two bronze stars, one after each deployment, for extraordinary service and has the rank of Captain.


Posted by: swampcracker | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 10:47 AM
horizontal rule
18

Wow. You must be very proud of her.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 10:48 AM
horizontal rule
19

17: Yeah, but "some" isn't the same as everyone. And there are non-infantry units that do get deployed as "combat" troops, and whose classification changes when women are on the deployment--this used to happen to Mr. B. and his comrades, and everyone agreed that it sucked (for the women in the group, I hasten to add--they were a group of good guys and didn't blame the victim).

I'm not saying women can't get medals or can't get promoted; I'm saying that being classified as "non-combat" represents a hurdle they have to get over, and one that men don't have to deal with.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 10:54 AM
horizontal rule
20

swampcracker: You must be incredibly proud of your daughter. I hope she doesn't have to deploy again.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 11:13 AM
horizontal rule
21

20: I think he mentioned that she's being deployed to Iraq again very soon. Swampcracker, again my best wishes to her and to your family. And, as others have said, you must be incredibly proud.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 11:15 AM
horizontal rule
22

Swampcracker, your daughter god damn well better not run for President, that's all I have to say.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 11:21 AM
horizontal rule
23

Again, everyone, please accept my thanks for your kind support. I just hope this ends sooner rather than later so 'all' can come home.


Posted by: swampcracker | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 11:22 AM
horizontal rule
24

JE, she might make a good one. Methinks she's got the right stuff.


Posted by: swampcracker | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 11:39 AM
horizontal rule
25

... actually she hates politics ... thinks it is a dirty business.


Posted by: swampcracker | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 11:41 AM
horizontal rule
26

This doesn't surprise me at all. Given the numbers of people deployed, I am afraid that these women are the tip of the iceburg. This is why the military has a "no fucking" policy when deployed. Does it still happen, you bet. Are young women coerced in sex that they otherwise wouldn't? Probably no more than at a college frat party. But the young women in college go to class the next day, as opposed to driving a convoy over IEDs.


Posted by: Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 11:58 AM
horizontal rule
27

Probably no more than at a college frat party. But the young women in college go to class the next day, as opposed to driving a convoy over IEDs.

Yeah, that seems right. I don't want to suggest that the first part isn't a problem, but it seems like the combination (particularly if you let "driving a convoy" range to "deployed far from a support network, in a very stressful and scary situation") is peculiarly bad.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 12:02 PM
horizontal rule
28

The difference that hits me is that in college, the frat boys aren't your entire support structure -- if you can't trust your fellow soldiers, you don't have anyone to trust.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 12:05 PM
horizontal rule
29

27. I think your point about the support network is especially valid. These women are a particularly vulnerable minority, and the support systems in place don't "get" them. Further, the heirarchy doesn't want to "get" it, because it would necessitate a wholesale restructuring. These women are soldiers, not comfort items, but it is really asking alot of some 18 y.o. on her first deployment to stand up to the sgt. on his third. Were we not at war, this shit would not be tolerated, but it is a distraction for the command to run around and find out who is not receiving flowers the next day.


Posted by: Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 12:11 PM
horizontal rule
30

Were we not at war, this shit would not be tolerated, but it is a distraction for the command to run around and find out who is not receiving flowers the next day.

I'd really prefer not to say anything intemperate; could you maybe make that preference a little easier for me to carry out?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 12:25 PM
horizontal rule
31

My point exactly. While a very serious business to those involved, to the command structure this is about whiny girls.


Posted by: Tassled Loafered Leech | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 12:29 PM
horizontal rule
32

Swampcracker - best of luck to your daughter and your family with her deployment. I hope she (and everyone else) comes home safely and soon.


Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 12:35 PM
horizontal rule
33

Thanks Becks.


Posted by: swampcracker | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 1:02 PM
horizontal rule
34

25: No doubt about that, it's a dirty business.


Posted by: soubzriquet | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 1:06 PM
horizontal rule
35

NPR's "Day to Day" did a story yesterday to accompany this. There's a pretty good, and extended, interview with a particular woman soldier.

Worth a listen.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8955260


Posted by: orangatan | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 1:53 PM
horizontal rule
36

Impressive offspring of the swampcracker, no doubt about it. Hope she comes home safe and sound.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 2:03 PM
horizontal rule
37

36 seconded.


Posted by: soubzriquet | Link to this comment | 03-19-07 2:04 PM
horizontal rule