The conundrum of the women combat limits lawsuit
Let me say at the outset that I think this case is fine. The combat exclusion for women is kind of a dodge anyway, because it isn’t actually followed. Which is not to say I think women should be SF or anything else. But last month when I was running around, I was doing so with two wonderful young ladies from a CA unit that were patroling with the INF guys. (SSG Booth and I forget the other young ladies name.) So, I think they have a point that the policy isn’t followed anyway. Here’s the story on the case:
Two female soldiers asked a federal judge to throw out the U.S. military’s restrictions on women in combat, claiming the policy violates their constitutional rights.
U.S. Army reservists Jane Baldwin and Ellen Haring, in a lawsuit filed today in Washington, said policies excluding them from assignments “solely because they are women” violate their right to equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution’s 5th Amendment. The complaint names Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Army Secretary John McHugh as defendants.
“This limitation on plaintiffs’ careers restricts their current and future earnings, their potential for promotion and advancement, and their future retirement benefits,” the women said in the complaint filed by Christopher Sipes of Covington & Burling LLP in Washington.
I’m curious to any who support the women in this case to explain to me though how the differing PT standards would not be a good cause of action for men? If you take a male and a female service member with the exact same background across the board, and give them the same exact raw numbers on the PT test, the woman will get promoted, and the man will get flagged for PT failure. Would not the differing PT standard tilting towards women not violate the men’s right to equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution’s 5th Amendment?
It’s not a novel thing here, and I know that as well, but I’ve still never heard a good articulation as to why women excluded from combat units is an injustice, but women’s lower PT standards isn’t ALSO an injustice.
Category: Politics
For the same reason that Women’s only health club is legal, but a health club that allowed only men would be sued into bankruptcy. We’re on the wrong side of the Y chromosome. Read “The Kinder, Gentler Military” by Stephanie Gutmann. It’s a bit dated, but provides a good background. It’ll make you blood boil. I have a copy TSO.
I did notice that Obama gave a speech at a women’s college earlier this year, and yet my Alma Mater was forced to go coed. I never did research whether the school was supported through any public funds.
For the women in combat issue, I defer to General Robert Barrow.
Wrong way to go about it, but like you said they are already there…
Wait a minute shocking!!!! Did you say there were women out on patrols! Boy I have only heard of this done in about oh…I don’t know countless other instances.
I agree one hundred percent.
And for those of you who didn’t know– my 17 yo daughter just went to MEPS for USMC… I had to brag. That’s 4, 2 Navy, 2 USMC.
QUESTION: Are the women who are back-doored to the front via Motor T or other jobs given the same training as an infantryman or other Combat Arms jobs? It seems those who are injured, captured or killed are in motorT jobs.
It seems it would be safer to train them appropriately in combat jobs and send them, than sneak them in.
And women should have the same PFT.
Not even just PT….
Try having a female in full rattle as part of a dismounted crew served weapon say a M240 carrying all her personal combat fighting gear and the gear as the Assistant Gunner-a Barrel bag, Tripod, 600 rd 7.62 on a daily basis humping up and down mountains patrolling. Have her keep up with the Gunner? aint gonna happen, seen it.
Have the average female in IOTV humping 97 lb. 155mm rounds and Powder bags like her male crewmembers over and over.
Watch a female try to be an RTO during MOUT training and NOT wind up with an IV smoked like a salmon.
Watch a female in rattle throw a Practice frag to Army standard distance using Army standard throwing techniques- Damn near cant be done and Most fall within Bursting radius so if live would injure, kill the female due to upper body strength limitations.
Heres the issue I have with this; the whole argument is about equal promotion opportunities. This is about furthering someones career, not about making our military more efficient and effective on the battlefield. Unfortunately there are many who make the laws and rules that do no understand the realities of modern combat. Too many fail to realize that infantry is still the centerpiece of combat, despite all the amazing and neat videos of surgical drone strikes.
In order to make this work, the military will have to gender norm the physical fitness, which means they will definately not raise the womens standards to meet the males, instead they will lower the standards to ensure all can pass.
The Marine Corps already attempted to have women meet the mens standards, instead it failed miserably. Turns out, the average female Marine was able to perform 2-3 deadhang pull-ups (we do pull-ups instead of push-ups), 2-3 is the bare minimum for males, with 20 being perfect.
I am starting to get worked up here, so I will quit now.
The thing is, those limitations are not inherent. My 18yo son could not do 20 pull ups… he was at like 12 ish. He wanted a perfect score- he wanted 20– so he did them day and night. He’s at 19 with 6 weeks till he ships.
A female can choose to build her strength and endurance especially if she has to do it to get the job she wants. As long as no one is giving her anything… if she doesn’t throw the damn practice frag correctly- she FAILS. story over. move along.
#6: No they are not given the same training. The problem is that the training is conducted by their SNCO’s and Officers, who themselves are not infantrymen. Most will at least go to Basic Machine Gunners course and attend convoy training, but the problem persists that they are not held to the same standard as the infantry because their leaders don’t know any better.
It is hard to instill combat efficiency in a unit in 6 months as compared to an infantry unit who eats, sleeps, breathes infantry life.
# 10– I thought so, I told my daughter I would support her if she could get selected for infantry training, but not if she went motorT to sneak up front. I think she’s going Intell. whew. LOL
Not usually in favor of establishing policy via lawsuit, but this may turn out to be one of the few exceptions. Dunno.
The main problem that I see is that evidently a significant number of women are being placed in “combat” without the same training to increase survivability that men are receiving.
This is hardly a new issue. During WWII the Women Airforce Service Pilots flew unarmed aircraft forward and lost 38 pilots in the process. http://www.wingsacrossamerica.us/wasp/index.htm
Yes, service then and now was voluntary. Yes, there are huge differences between those WASPS who understood that they would not get military benefits for doing what they did.
On the other hand, have we still not settled this? If women are thought to be capable of doing the job (if they are there doing the job, that pretty much proves that someone somewhere either considers women expwendable as a class or they are indeed able to do the job) then the question of why they are not given the training to survive in that environment remains.
That question opens several areas most of us just don’t want to explore. Like if the training given men is generally even necessary or simply a rite of passage. And that question of PT standards.
I do agree that standards should apply to everyone. While there might be some justification for gender-specific recruiting standards for admission to the military in general, each job within the military should have standards which are solely tied to the requirements for that job and apply to everyone simply because that is what the job itself requires.
Will never figure out why this has been made so complicated. There are written tests which indicate one’s mental ability to do particular jobs. Lacking a high enough score, one will not be assigned to those jobs. Can we not do the same with physical standards?
Let the bashing of our sisters begin. Where is 68w to tell his “war stories”?
Part of the problem of this site is that any time a female combat vet who has shown up they usually get so pissed they either end up lurking or quit coming because they get talked down to. I have talked to friends who were MPs, medics, truck drivers, etc… Who didn’t spend their time playing games on the fob. Yeah maybe they weren’t humping it all over Afghanistan, but that may be because they never had the opportunity. Every time a discussion about women in combat comes up we hear every stupid reason or story why not, ignoring the fact that a lot have already been in combat. If they can fight beside us why can’t they have the same opportunities as us?
I wonder if these two women have registered with Selective Service (aka: the Draft)? I had to as an 18 year old (male) Marine Reservist. If you want people to believe you have principles, you have to live by those principles. Always. Not just when you think it will help your promotion prospects.
And another thing: if my daughters end up having to register for the draft because of the actions of fembiciles like these, well, let’s just say they don’t want to meet me in a dark alley.
Damn. I missed the bashing! jeez. 🙂
When military personnel use the logic of “Constitutional rights”, they lose me immediately. You waived those when you raised your hand and signed on the dotted line. You now fall under the UCMJ. That’s why Congress gets involved in such matters, not soldiers on the inside.
When all else fails, let’s try hysteria! Kinda doubtful that members of the military would even consider registering for the draft. Kinda doubt that they have insurance on a boat they don’t own either.
Kinda doubtful that members of the military would even consider registering for the draft. Kinda doubt that they have insurance on a boat they don’t own either.
Boo I’m referring to a couple people in general. I have take my meds today and I meet with my counselor…so I will try to not “freak out” and “go crazy”, but I am just waiting for certain individuals to show up and tell their story about how blah blah blah…gurls attract bears or gurls can’t pee outside…
Oops – how did that happen??
@19, I have a buddy who feels the same as you and I do, and he always floats the “attract bears” thing to discredit the entire argument. It is always hilarious to me. I remember another buddy of mine who might have run for Congress in Buffalo that used to use a similiar tactic of arguing a contrary position, waiting for others to join him and then going comepletely off the rails.
When I was still in Topeka a guy tried that argument on me and I said, did you know that women below a certain body fat % didn’t have a period? He got a really confused look and said really? I also said women regularly can skip their periods by not taking the placebo pills in their birth control. I am just a married guy and I know this. Can you imagine what a woman who doesn’t want a period knows?
Btw ppr did a funny cartoon about bears!
TSO,
You said, “…but women’s lower PT standards isn’t ALSO an injustice.”
To me, it is kind of like firefighters. As long as the women can pass the same physical test, I’m OK with it. If I am unconscious in a fire, I want somebody strong enough to carry me out.
Combat is completely different. Men and women in the same foxholes or trenches for possibly weeks at a time can’t be a good thing.
Different times I have said that there should be some things that the Joint Chiefs of Staff decide. This is one of them.
I remember when the toughest age bracket for women in the Air Force was the 18-20 something group and it was the same standards for a 50 year old male. How fair is that?
It seems to me that there will always be some females who want to have their proverbial balls for what ever reason. I am of the mindset if a woman must be afforded the “equal” chance for promotion/pay/et al, then the same standards must apply to both sexes. And they should be applied with the male standards, period.
If one applies this to combat situations, clearly there are some women who are man enough but reality will err on the side of men most times. Can’t they just get over it? I have. 🙂
@18 OWB: Males in the reserves and national guard are still required to register with Selective Service, even though they’d be off to combat long before the draft started. Sounds stupid to me too which is why I couldn’t believe the nasty letter I got from Selective Service back in 1979. Your tax dollars at work.
PS…if women feel they are being talked down to, then maybe that is the sign that they are not doing what is necessary and the slack taken up by others can be exhausting and frustrating. What do they expect? I say to my girls- If you want to play with the big boys, don’t cry about it when you find the limitations get you in trouble. Be big enought to admit that you must step back, down or– simply out.
Again-I refer to Fred Reed: http://www.heretical.com/miscella/frcombat.html
The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength… An Army study of 124 men and 186 women done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer fractures as men.
I didn’t make any of that up-that comes from “From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces” circa 1992.
Women are also more likely to suffer PTSD than men even though they encounter fewer traumatic events-and that’s the American Psychological Association http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2006/11/ptsd-rates.aspx
Thus women are more likely to be hurt-physically and emotionally than men either from combat or from strenuous exertion to prepare for combat. I think that it’s pretty obvious that combat effectiveness would suffer from that. And that’s the crux of the matter, the military exists to be the most efficient combat force that we can field-not further anyone’s career. But as Jason is fond of saying “that’s not fair” and so here we are.
I am one of the lurker women. I can and do lift weights. There is no way I will ever be as strong as my husband. I do not want to live in a country where my daughter has to go fight when there is able bodied men who should go. Call me old-fashioned.. I don’t think I could kill someone except in defense of my children.
Jason despite your PC rant. Men and women do have biological differences that make men better at combat. One is testosterone. And women do smell after long periods in the field. We are also more prone to infection. And yes we can stop having a period but that is VERY rare and is usually with very high muscle content and not all of us can achieve that. As far as the pill, are you going to mandate that women take that? Good luck with that and the lawsuits that arise. Heck, I remember the outcry when the general instituted the punishment for anyone who got pregnant in Iraq.
“Men and women do have biological differences . . . ” —
Reminds me of the E.R.A. Equal “Rights” Amendment to the Constitution — thank Goodness it was not ratified by The States .
No. 13 you are wrong — See
No. 12 .
Melle did mandating of anything? What I was saying is that women have periods and they learn to deal with them in the field and out. I know women who went 60+days without a shower during the invasion. Okay kinda defeating an argument before it starts.
Defend USA yes I stick up for fellow vets. When you hear cinstantly how you don’t rate it pisses you off. If you want to have a real discussion maybe it would be nice to have someone other than wannabes and people who have never seen a female in combat let alone a been a female in combat involved.
68W, 1992? Can you do some math for me…how long ago was that? I am counting back and it looks like that was 20 years ago. I remember I joined in 1994 and physiology and diet has changed a bit since then. Can you find a study a little more current? Because if you want I’ll point you to a combat medic who I would feel confident carrying me out of a burned out vehicle.
^ There is no doubt — I NEVER WILL BE “a female . . . ” — in combat, or out of it .
Really-you think basic Human Physiology is different than it was 20 years ago.
Well, there’s one born every minute,
No but physical training has.
^!! — There exists there (above), an apparent difficulty of logical acumen, in my ARROGANT judgment .
Well, that’s not what you said.
But anyway it doesn’t alter the baseline established by the study (and the reason that we haven’t seen a more recent one-and won’t-is that it is inconvenient to those who want to further the feminist agenda). Women will still have 55% of the upper body strength-on average-as men. Bulk ’em up good (but be careful because if you push them too hard they’ll suffer those other injuries discussed in the link from overly strenuous training) and they’ll still be physically weaker than men, and have lower stamina. You keep trying to square that circle, but nature is a bitch and will not be trifled with.
Obviously, the ^ sign is out — “No. xx” is the way !!
(CROSSTALK is confusing.)
Notice they didn’t sue to be held to a higher PT standard. You’re holding us to a lower standard…simply because we’re women! You’re promoting us through the ranks faster than we deserve…simply because we’re women! No, they like that just fine the way it is.
The equal protection clause does NOT mean that we can’t treat different people differently. This bizarre interpretation is a recent invention and it’s being carried to absurd lengths. Our Constitution does not require all people to be treated exactly the same.
Also, the Equal Protection clause is in the 14th, not the 5th amendment.
I mentioned this before during a similar thread. I was with the Tempe, Az Fire Deparment until the roof of a burning manufacturing plant decided to fall on me. One of my fellow Firefighters, named Gretchen, helped pull me out. She had to pass the same physical fitness standards as every guy who was on the job. Of course there were ‘adjustments’ that had to be made when she was working but there is a huge difference between life in a fire station and life in the field. If after passing the exact same physical fitness standards as a male and will sign off on an affidavit that they will live in the exact same circumstances as male grunts, then let them. The very second they complain about something, they’re shipped off the the nearest “Remington Raider” unit.
@1: “The Kinder, Gentler Military” by Stephanie Gutmann is a fantastic book. Everyone should read it. It was recommended to be me by a very memorable lieutenant I knew in the infantry. He was actually an old E-7 from the ranger battalion who went to OCS because he didn’t want to be promoted to E-8 and away from the joes on the platoon level.
It’s a must read. I seem to remember finding it at the on post bookstore, though I’m sure they don’t sell books like that now. Hate speech, you know.
The number one problem with women in the military is pregnancy. There are others, but pregnancy is the big one. There is no getting around that.
Also, they bring down the physical fitness of entire units.
“The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution. The ERA was originally written by Alice Paul and, in 1923, it was introduced in the Congress for the first time. In 1972, it PASSED BOTH HOUSES of Congress and went to the state legislatures for ratification. The ERA failed to receive the requisite number of ratifications before the final deadline mandated by Congress of June 30, 1982 expired and so it was NOT adopted.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment
Ok so I do just start calling an idiot again so you don’t go through a couple days worth of posts and go aha thats not what I thought you meant! Here is my argument.
1) Women already are in combat, although not “officially”.
2) Women may not equal men in all physical categories they can be trained to meet standards.
3) The current conflicts and history have proven women are useful in combat situations.
Therefore women should officially be allowed in combat.
I know your problem is that, women can’t be trained to standards. Well we will never know until we try. I know a lot of women who have worker their asses off to get to those standards. Everyone talks about the lower standards of the pt test, but most of the women I know max it on their scale and top out on men’s scale. So come up with some hard data that is going to prove that women cannot be trained to male standard.
Jason-I have no doubt that you will eventually resort to ad hominem. You argue a bad position badly, that has to get frustrating.
The link I so helpfully provided notes:
Lt Col. William Gregor, United States Army, testified before the Commission regarding a survey he conducted at an Army ROTC Advanced Summer Camp on 623 women and 3540 men…. Evidence Gregor presented to the Commission includes:
(a) Using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, he found that the upper quintile of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile of men.
(c) Only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260.
(d) On the push-up test, only seven percent of women can meet a score of 60, while 78 percent of men exceed it.
(e) Adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70 percent of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only three percent would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge.
How’s that for hard data?
One more time-the link: http://www.heretical.com/miscella/frcombat.html
Certainly will have to conceed that it is much easier to exclude women from anything and everything than it is to enforce the rules/laws which require behaviors which do not result in pregnancy.
So, were the men who tested in the bottom quartile allowed to graduate? Any real reason why the women who tested in that same range should not be given the same opportunities that the men in the bottom quartile receive?
OWB-quintile 20% (not quartile 25%).
Yes they were allowed to graduate, but now I have to ask you, if we are testing 5 women to get one to reach the lowest level of fitness comparable to males which is a better bet for our training dollar?
Oh-and it has constantly proved impossible to “enforce the rules/laws which require behaviors which do not result in pregnancy”. Sex is more primal than discipline.