Jump to content

Talk:Women in the military: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 173: Line 173:
:One of the many documents confirming the prevalence of negative attitudes is the 1977 report, “''Evaluation of women in the army''” (EWITA). This is a study done by the Army Administration Centre at [[Fort Benjamin Harrison]], Indiana. The way American women are brought up simply does not produce good leaders, the report suggested, and the situation is worsened by the fact that there are few women leaders in the army to serve as role models for other women. Asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement “In general women have the necessary leadership skills to perform in any [[MOS]] or unit to which they may be assigned”. 28 percent of all males questioned said they disagreed with the statement as it applied to peacetime. For wartime, the disagreement figure was 46 percent. According to EWITA, one of the most frequent complaints about female soldiers is that many of them exploit their sex to win undeserved promotions or desirable jobs. “Although the prevalence of this practice is speculative”, the report said, “it is safe to assume that it does indeed exist”. EWITA did not put all the blame on women, though, but suggested that some men are either inept at managing women or treat them gently in order to win sexual favors. More than 50 percent of males disagreed with the statement that “in general women can avoid the problem of sex fraternization”. Such fraternization, especially between ranks, is usually “prejudicial to good order and discipline”, says the report. Besides it can lead to [[pregnancy]], “perceived by the army in the field as the greatest impediment to the full integration of women in the army”.<ref>{{cite journal |last= Adams|first= Virginia|author= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= November 20, 1980|year= |month= |title= Women in the army|trans_title= |journal= [[New Society]]|volume= 54|series= |issue= |page= |pages= 364-365|at= |chapter= Women in the military|location= |publisher= [[New Society Publishers|New Society Ltd.]]|editor1-first= |editor1-last= |editor1-link= |language= |format= |id= |isbn= |issn= 0028-6729|oclc= 1787509|pmid= |pmc= |bibcode= |doi= |accessdate= |url= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |laysource= |laysummary= |laydate= |quote= |ref= |separator= |postscript= }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1= Reichart|first1= John F.|authorlink1= |last2= Sturm|first2= Steven R.|authorlink2= |coauthors= |editor1-first= [[United States Air Force Academy]]; Dept. of Political Science|editor1-last= |editor1-link= |others= |title= American defense policy|trans_title= |url= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |format= |accessdate= |type= |edition= 5th edition|series= |volume= |date= |year= 1982|month= |origyear= |publisher= [[Johns Hopkins University Press]]|location= London|language= |isbn= 978-0-801-82757-0|oclc= 477027010|doi= |id= |page= 798|pages= |at= |trans_chapter= |chapter= |chapterurl= |quote= |ref= |bibcode= |laysummary= |laydate= |separator= |postscript= |lastauthoramp=}}</ref>
:One of the many documents confirming the prevalence of negative attitudes is the 1977 report, “''Evaluation of women in the army''” (EWITA). This is a study done by the Army Administration Centre at [[Fort Benjamin Harrison]], Indiana. The way American women are brought up simply does not produce good leaders, the report suggested, and the situation is worsened by the fact that there are few women leaders in the army to serve as role models for other women. Asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement “In general women have the necessary leadership skills to perform in any [[MOS]] or unit to which they may be assigned”. 28 percent of all males questioned said they disagreed with the statement as it applied to peacetime. For wartime, the disagreement figure was 46 percent. According to EWITA, one of the most frequent complaints about female soldiers is that many of them exploit their sex to win undeserved promotions or desirable jobs. “Although the prevalence of this practice is speculative”, the report said, “it is safe to assume that it does indeed exist”. EWITA did not put all the blame on women, though, but suggested that some men are either inept at managing women or treat them gently in order to win sexual favors. More than 50 percent of males disagreed with the statement that “in general women can avoid the problem of sex fraternization”. Such fraternization, especially between ranks, is usually “prejudicial to good order and discipline”, says the report. Besides it can lead to [[pregnancy]], “perceived by the army in the field as the greatest impediment to the full integration of women in the army”.<ref>{{cite journal |last= Adams|first= Virginia|author= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= November 20, 1980|year= |month= |title= Women in the army|trans_title= |journal= [[New Society]]|volume= 54|series= |issue= |page= |pages= 364-365|at= |chapter= Women in the military|location= |publisher= [[New Society Publishers|New Society Ltd.]]|editor1-first= |editor1-last= |editor1-link= |language= |format= |id= |isbn= |issn= 0028-6729|oclc= 1787509|pmid= |pmc= |bibcode= |doi= |accessdate= |url= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |laysource= |laysummary= |laydate= |quote= |ref= |separator= |postscript= }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1= Reichart|first1= John F.|authorlink1= |last2= Sturm|first2= Steven R.|authorlink2= |coauthors= |editor1-first= [[United States Air Force Academy]]; Dept. of Political Science|editor1-last= |editor1-link= |others= |title= American defense policy|trans_title= |url= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |format= |accessdate= |type= |edition= 5th edition|series= |volume= |date= |year= 1982|month= |origyear= |publisher= [[Johns Hopkins University Press]]|location= London|language= |isbn= 978-0-801-82757-0|oclc= 477027010|doi= |id= |page= 798|pages= |at= |trans_chapter= |chapter= |chapterurl= |quote= |ref= |bibcode= |laysummary= |laydate= |separator= |postscript= |lastauthoramp=}}</ref>


== Physiological concerns section ==
I removed the definition you dislike. You are able to provide more recent issues of the problem. -- [[User:George Serdechny|George Serdechny]] 10:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I've also removed the following section. The citation given for the claim that menstrual periods could cause ineffectiveness for women in ground units is actually about female aircraft ferry pilots in World War II being restricted from flight duties during their periods due to attitudes at the time, and it argues that no accidents were ever actually attributed to the pilot menstruating (it's online [http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?view=image;size=100;id=mdp.49015002666593;page=root;seq=120;num=104 here]). [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 10:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

:Women are liable to [[monthly period]]s, which, in case if female serviceman is a member of a combat unit involved in ground missions, could affect seriously while proceeding the missions. [[Mood swings]], evoked by monthly periods, could also negatively affect team cohesion, or result in refusal to proceed some orders. Taking into account, that infantry units are quite often deployed on missions for days or weeks out of unit base location, such inadmissible situations could happen quite frequently. The generally held belief was that women were incapacitated for several days each month and that they were accident-prone prior to and during the menses.<ref>{{cite book |title= A woman's war too: U.S. women in the military in World War II|last= Nassen Poulos|first= Paula|authorlink= |coauthors= |year= 1996|publisher= National Archives and Records Administration|location= Washington, D. C.|isbn= 978-1-880-87509-4|page= 104|pages= |url= |accessdate=}}</ref> But those who rebut the woman's body as military liability claims argue that menstruation does not incapacitate or debilitate most women and that "female military nurses have had a long history of functioning in wartime under primitive, unsanitary conditions without questions being raised about menstruation interfering with the performance of their duties.<ref>{{cite book |last1= Wechsler Segal|first1= Mady|authorlink1= |last2= |first2= |authorlink2= |coauthors= |editor1-first= Nancy L.|editor1-last= Goldman|editor1-link= |others= |title= Female soldiers - combatants or noncombatants?|trans_title= |url= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |format= |accessdate= |type= |edition= |series= Contributions in women's studies (Issue 33)|volume= 3|date= |year= 1982|month= |origyear= |publisher= Greenwood Press|location= Westport, Conn.|language= |isbn= 978-0-313-23117-9|oclc= 230312576|doi= |id= |page= |pages= 273-274|at= |trans_chapter= |chapter= The Argument for Female Combatants|chapterurl= |quote= |ref= |bibcode= |laysummary= |laydate= |separator= |postscript= |lastauthoramp=}}</ref>

Revision as of 10:06, 14 April 2011

WikiProject iconMilitary history C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Additional information:
/ 
Note icon
No existing task force includes this article in its scope; to propose a new one, please leave a message on the main project talk page.
WikiProject iconGender studies Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconFeminism Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWomen's History Start‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.


Thoughts on the article

This article has been fleshed out considerably, but I think it still needs work in thinking about weasel words. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words Other than that, its pretty good. Asarelah 17:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brand new article

The articles on the history of women in the military, and of the current debate in thier role in combat units, have been merged into one single new article.

This article will comprise of two sections:

1: The history

A brand new section devoted to the history of women in warfare.

2: The current debate

A re-written version of the existing debate article.

These changes come after discussion on the peer review page of the original women in combat article, which can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Peer_review/Women_in_combat#.5B.5BUser:oldwindybear.7Coldwindybear.5D.5D --SGGH 19:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment of women veterans

I wonder if there are issues relating to the treatment of women veterans that can be explored in thier own section of this article? [1]--SGGH 12:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Women Veterans specially women with PTSD are not being treated equally at the VA Hospitals in Washington DC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.70.245 (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Women on submarines

The statement that Australia was the second nation to permit women on combat submarines is just plain wrong. For example, the Swedish Navy has had women serving on subs since the 1980's. The fact that all countries' navies except for those of Australia, Norway, Canada and Spain ban women on submarines is also plain wrong. Apart from the aforementioned example of Sweden, the German Navy also permits women on submarines. There are probably more countries (I'm pretty sure the Danish navy permitted women onboard when they operated submarines, which they no longer do.), but those two are the ones I'm completely certain about from the top of my head. //83.226.220.153 01:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cite some references and be bold. Jinian 02:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While i have sofar been unable to find a source for it i think Sweden got its first female submarine officer sometime during the 2nd half of the 1980s, but it may have been early 90s. Anyone who watched the Discovery channel program that reported from one of the first exercises with Gotland and USN knows Sweden certainly has no ban on women on subs. Also its ridiculous to use the USN excuse about "Social reasons include the need to segregate accommodation and facilities" as something generalised, because the cost for Swedish navy to add women on its submarines(and they´re supertiny compared to USN SSNs, and can still remain at sea on patrol for 6+ weeks) is exactly NIL, ZERO, nothing. And it works fine. Today, its uncommon that a subcrew does not have women in it. DW75 (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://skargardsbryggan.com/index.lasso?f=3&s=0&n=20&a=517142369&o=&oo= (article in swedish) This article says that Paula Wallenburg served as a sonaroperator in 1995 and has now become the first female submarine commander 15 years later. While this proves that sweden have not had a female commander on a submarine until recently, it really doesn't tell us when the first woman served in any other capacity. Women where first allowed to serve alongside the conscripted males in 1989 and it wasn't until 1994 that they were allowed to do so without any plans to become an officer but that doesn't mean there were any availible positions on a sub during that time or even if there were any women applying before Paula. 212.27.23.71 (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason to keep the disputed tag? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've culled some of the editorialising in that section although I'm uncomfortable with the emphasis placed on the those four, it's a little OTT and I'd be quite happy with who was first.
The reasoning, hot bunking, was a little trite and tends not to be an official reason, just the usual dinosaurs. The main reasons for both UK and US Nuc operations is physiological, related to working in the vicinity of the kettle and the levels of gases in the atmosphere which have the potential to impact on foetal development before pregnancy is discovered. There are also operational reasons for both attack boats and bombers which owuld preclude removing a pregnant female. I'll track down sources for the physiological aspect.
ALR (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not immediately running off for my respiratory physiology or occupational medical textbooks, I'm surprised by there being an atmospheric risk. Years back, I did some work for the U.S. Office of Naval Research that did deal with the atmosphere. There was a very strong reason to ban chloroflurocarbon aerosol propellants, since they poisoned some of the catalysts in the air scrubbers. As far as gender differences, there are very few occupational exposures, such as heavy metals, where the pregnancy issue arose, in which it was soon realized both genders needed protective equipment.
The one bit of comedy, in that study, came when the psychologists reported that the smell of fresh-baked bread had the most positive effect on morale, and the chemists came up with synthetic baking-bread smell. When the ONR admiral presented this to the chief submarine admiral, the latter asked "ummm...why don't we just bake bread?"
Other than setting the limit in a volume-cycled ventilator, I've never heard of a gender-related difference in ventilators used in intensive care.
For quite a few pharmaceuticals that have very high birth defect risks, such as isoretinoids or thalidomide (it's back for radically different purposes), there's a therapeutic contract requiring the woman use two forms of contraception, which is verified. Such an arrangement would be likely to neutralize any fetal danger. IIRC, it's been mentioned this is done with astronauts on flight duty. While Norplant is no longer marketed in the US, I know woman soldiers that make a point of having an IUD implanted before deployment.
In the interest of full disclosure, my mother was a WWII Navy metalsmith, and then a career Army reserve psychiatric social worker and hospital administrator. I sort of grew up with the assumption that any woman who could meet the physical requirements for a job could do it. While she wasn't especially strong, I wouldn't want to have been on the other side were she on sniper duty, with her patience, and just missing the cutoff for the Army Reserve national shooting team. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the UK, we aren't quite as draconian with our service personnel as the US. Our application of duty of care and health and safety is somewhat more rigorous as well. Pregnancy renders one unfit for sea service and the individual is removed shoreside at the earliest opportunity. HMG got stung quite badly in the early 90s over treatment of pregnant females in the military, mainly over lost earnings but one or two tried it on with respect to the missed chance for parenthood argument.
I'm not all that informed on the detail but the RNs position stated on their website is:
Service in submarines is closed to women because of medical concerns for the safety of the foetus and hence its mother. This restriction is purely medical and does not relate to combat effectiveness. The potential risks to the foetus do not arise from hazardous radiation, but from contaminants in the submarine's atmosphere.
The Institute of Naval Medicine (INM) reviewed the exclusion in 1999, as did subsequently both the Defence Scientific Advisory Council and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Their outcomes supported the conclusions of the INM report, that the exclusion was justified.
There are a couple of other documents, but I'll need some time to track them down.
ALR (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

=new paragraph

I have added the paragraph from the submarine article as it seems to contain well-cited information on this topic. A couple of references were destroyed in the copying process but I'm on that now. SGGH speak! 18:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit of some unsourced statements, rewording of "Aliens" movie reference

recently removed 2 unsourced statements in this article: 1) that a US soldier was "abused" by her Iraqi captors, citation please 2) the dubious claim that female MP's are known as "lionesses"

also re-worded the final section about Sigourney Weaver in Aliens, as it was poorly organized and seemed to have been edited down from a longer section

sorry forgot to sign comment

Kaiser187 22:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Libya

Col. Kadaffi has what could be a "Amazon" detail serving as his bodyguards. 205.240.144.225 06:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lioness Program

"Female Marines Train for Iraq Border Security" by Staff Sgt Raymie G. Cruz, 3dMAW

http://www.usmc.mil Cricket316 02:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added information on Lioness Program to 'Tactical Concerns' section Feb 2011 Kerani (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

I think it would be a good idea to set about fixing the references to give titles to each URL rather than leaving the plain html code. SGGH speak! 18:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

protect against constant vandalism

The main page is being continuously vandalized. I recommend blocking editing by all unregistered persons.

Syrenab 15:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:HMCS IROQUOIS.jpg

Image:HMCS IROQUOIS.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lionesses?

OK, seriously, I'm in Iraq right now and I've never heard of anyone call a female MP/SF, detainee handler, medic, driver, translater, or ordinary straight-up shooter a "lioness." This sounds like a word coined by a reporter that was never in common usage. Recommend more specific language. Instead of talking about "lionesses" for examples of female combatants, discuss the policy the Air Force has for females in their Security Forces. Or talk about how there are female MPs in every branch. Or site specific examples of females being attached to combat units (not limited to medics).

John Holden (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Women as noncombatants

This article seems to ignore the traditional view as women as noncombatants. That is how can we discuss the role of women in combat, if we ignore their role as "innocents" How is the role of women different from men? Men were traditionally the warriors. Societies either had an all male army, or a male and female army. I am not aware of any with an all female army, except the Amazons, a mythical all female race. Women as warriors is unusual, may not unheard of, but not the norm. That needs to be explained in the article. Rds865 (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Not the norm" in what way?
Feel free to bring in authoratitive references that will add the element you see as missing. Binksternet (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sense of honor

This article also ignores the argument that some honor codes forbid fighting women. Also, men are often considered duty bound to protect women and children. Examples of such as is letting them evacuate first and the phrase innocent women and children, always excludes men. Rds865 (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If some codes of honour forbade fighting women, then that would be a great advantage to the side that employed women to fight. Those honour-bound not to fight women could then be killed/captured by women very easily, since they couldn't fight back. You're welcome to add this argument once you find sources for it. Geoff B (talk) 06:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no honor in modern day war. The laws set up by the Geneva convention are just that. Laws. Not precepts and codes of honor. Richco07 (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do these comments have to do with the FACT that there are such codes of honour / unwritten rules? I agree that they should be discussed. Ingolfson (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this section needs to either be cleaned up or reduced to just a link to the other page. There aren't many examples, and most of them aren't of military or even paramilitary women. Ripley was, I believe, a civilian (maybe merchant marine equivalent), and I believe Michelle Yeoh's characters in Supercop and Tomorrow Never Dies were in the People's Liberation Army. The others, while clearly "action heroes" of one sort or another, have little or no link to formal military organizations. It might be interesting to list more female characters who fit the category, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzanne de nimes (talk • contribs) 15:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The link is definitely broken, as well. I can think of several examples off the top of my head, none of which are there. --24.69.203.173 (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of sources

FYI, a list of sources on this subject can be found here: [2]. Cla68 (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Women in Military

Women have been an integral part of the military since early ages. Women have played all sorts of roles including direct combat. Women have been restricted from having an active role in the military on accounts of "weak physique"; in spite of these restrictions, women have continually shown that they can be able soldiers and fight just as well as any other male soldier. Going back in history some of the notable names that come to mind are Joan of Arc who led the battle against the English to end the siege of the City of Orleans or Rani Laxmibai of Jhansi in India who defended her city against the British East India Company at the age of 20. Some other notable names are Catherine Ségurane, Rani Durgawati, Lizzie Compton and many others. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruchiksynjitp (talk • contribs) 13:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Compatibility concerns' section

I've just re-removed this section from the article. A 33 year old study about the attitudes of soldiers at the time hardly seems likely to still be "perhaps the most effective research in interaction among enlisted men and women" given the social changes and changes to national militaries since then. If this material has any value, its as a snapshot of attitudes at the time. I've posted the material below for discussion. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the most effective research in interaction among enlisted men and women was done in 1978 by Michael Rustad, a research assistant in sociology at the Wellesley College Centre for Women. As Rustad sees it, tensions between the sexes have replaced the racial tensions that the army once faced. “Females reported that they were considered freaks by males in their units”, Rustad wrote. “Some complained of male catcalls, lewd jokes, sexual harassment, and loneliness in a male-dominated environment. Males were distressed by feelings that females were not physically prepared to handle masculine jobs, and that they were 'getting over' by offering sexual favours to escape from demanding tasks”.
Project Athena is a study of the integration of women into the United States Military Academy at West Point. Some female cadets, the researchers said, felt they had to be “one of the boys” if they wanted to be accepted. Many women elected to shun makeup, wore their hair short, and favored trousers rather than skirts — even though regulations allowed feminine hairdos and makeup at all times and skirts on some occasions. During the women’s first year, the academy actually changed its rule and required women to wear skirts at dances because, the researchers said, “male cadets were applying sanctions to women wearing dresses to these events”. According to the Athena report, male cadets not only had a low opinion of women’s ability to lead but actually “resisted the leadership attempts of the appointed female cadet leaders in their group”. West Point men are not the only males who tend to take a dim view of women’s capacity to lead — or follow.
One of the many documents confirming the prevalence of negative attitudes is the 1977 report, “Evaluation of women in the army” (EWITA). This is a study done by the Army Administration Centre at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana. The way American women are brought up simply does not produce good leaders, the report suggested, and the situation is worsened by the fact that there are few women leaders in the army to serve as role models for other women. Asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement “In general women have the necessary leadership skills to perform in any MOS or unit to which they may be assigned”. 28 percent of all males questioned said they disagreed with the statement as it applied to peacetime. For wartime, the disagreement figure was 46 percent. According to EWITA, one of the most frequent complaints about female soldiers is that many of them exploit their sex to win undeserved promotions or desirable jobs. “Although the prevalence of this practice is speculative”, the report said, “it is safe to assume that it does indeed exist”. EWITA did not put all the blame on women, though, but suggested that some men are either inept at managing women or treat them gently in order to win sexual favors. More than 50 percent of males disagreed with the statement that “in general women can avoid the problem of sex fraternization”. Such fraternization, especially between ranks, is usually “prejudicial to good order and discipline”, says the report. Besides it can lead to pregnancy, “perceived by the army in the field as the greatest impediment to the full integration of women in the army”.[1][2]

Physiological concerns section

I've also removed the following section. The citation given for the claim that menstrual periods could cause ineffectiveness for women in ground units is actually about female aircraft ferry pilots in World War II being restricted from flight duties during their periods due to attitudes at the time, and it argues that no accidents were ever actually attributed to the pilot menstruating (it's online here). Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Women are liable to monthly periods, which, in case if female serviceman is a member of a combat unit involved in ground missions, could affect seriously while proceeding the missions. Mood swings, evoked by monthly periods, could also negatively affect team cohesion, or result in refusal to proceed some orders. Taking into account, that infantry units are quite often deployed on missions for days or weeks out of unit base location, such inadmissible situations could happen quite frequently. The generally held belief was that women were incapacitated for several days each month and that they were accident-prone prior to and during the menses.[3] But those who rebut the woman's body as military liability claims argue that menstruation does not incapacitate or debilitate most women and that "female military nurses have had a long history of functioning in wartime under primitive, unsanitary conditions without questions being raised about menstruation interfering with the performance of their duties.[4]
  1. ^ Adams, Virginia (November 20, 1980). "Women in the army". New Society. 54. New Society Ltd.: 364–365. ISSN 0028-6729. OCLC 1787509. {{cite journal}}: |chapter= ignored (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |coauthors=, |separator=, |trans_title=, |laysummary=, |laysource=, and |month= (help)
  2. ^ Reichart, John F.; Sturm, Steven R. (1982). American defense policy (5th edition ed.). London: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 798. ISBN 978-0-801-82757-0. OCLC 477027010. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |editor1-first= missing |editor1-last= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |coauthors=, |separator=, |laysummary=, |trans_title=, |month=, |trans_chapter=, |chapterurl=, and |lastauthoramp= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
  3. ^ Nassen Poulos, Paula (1996). A woman's war too: U.S. women in the military in World War II. Washington, D. C.: National Archives and Records Administration. p. 104. ISBN 978-1-880-87509-4. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  4. ^ Wechsler Segal, Mady (1982). "The Argument for Female Combatants". In Goldman, Nancy L. (ed.). Female soldiers - combatants or noncombatants?. Contributions in women's studies (Issue 33). Vol. 3. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. pp. 273–274. ISBN 978-0-313-23117-9. OCLC 230312576. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |coauthors=, |separator=, |laysummary=, |trans_title=, |month=, |trans_chapter=, |chapterurl=, and |lastauthoramp= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Women_in_the_military&oldid=424004534"