The former Fox News commentator has made it clear, in his own book and in interviews, that he believes men and women should not serve together in combat units. If Hegseth is confirmed by the Senate, he could try to end the Pentagon’s nearly decade-old practice of making all combat jobs open to women.
“I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles. It hasn’t made us more effective. Hasn’t made us more lethal. Has made fighting more complicated,” he said in a podcast hosted by Shawn Ryan on Nov. 7. Women have a place in the military, he said, just not in special operations, artillery, infantry and armor units.
“Who’s going to replace them? Men? And we’re having trouble recruiting men into the Army right now,” said Lory Manning, a retired Navy captain who works with the Service Women’s Action Network.
I have never fought on the front lines so my opinion shouldn’t matter nearly as much as others with that experience, but it seems like if a woman can pass the same exact physical standards required of infantry units to fight on the front lines, then there would be no harm in doing so. If standards need to be lowered because women generally are smaller and weaker than men, then that’s where I would foresee a problem.
Regardless, a bunch of tankie wannabes on Lemmy most likely have 0 clue of the reality of the situation. Historically, women have fought sparingly in combat roles and have been put in positions that require less physical prowess and more technical skill, I.e. snipers, pilots, drivers, nurses, medics. There is most likely a reason for that that is inclusive of personal choices.
This is one of those issues where Lemmy’s opinion and arguments are the farthest thing from being taken seriously by me.
I’ll wait for the DoD or pentagon to release several studies in which these scenarios were tested and view the results, and base my opinion off of their general consensus.
They did that. That’s why they’re in service today.
Agree. Systems have a way of working things out, in general as long as deciders do so from a pragmatic, not a pre assumptive perspective. I also have not served in a combat role.
As a firefighter, there were several women in my academy class, and several more at my station after academy. They are all as valuable as anyone else on countless calls. But no one is suited for every role.
Only one couldn’t complete the training in a satisfactory way, and it was some of the hardest physical things we did. (Dragging a 200lbs dummy through an obstacle course and up a flight of stairs in a certain time, advancing charged 2.5 inch hose as a team, up a commercial highrise stairwell). They matriculated into a backline role as an EMT, studied to specify as a paramedic, and are now an incredible asset. It takes good leadership to get people where they should be.
An important point is: all the other women got that shit done, and are very capable firefighters who have helped the community as such. If they had just be barred from trying, the community would have lost their service.
Everyone is good at something, if they are motivated. There’s no reason for people who aren’t actually experienced on the topic to be making these decisions. If actual combat leaders make a determination about the requirements to get the job done, that should be the last word on it. (As long as their opinion is grounded in demonstrable examples and transparent training standards)