Time to end the ban on women in combat?
In the Daily Beast, Megan H. MacKenzie writes that integrating women into combat is the same thing as the Army’s desegregation in 1948, when they, in my opinion, corrected a wrong and allowed Black soldiers into white units. Somehow, Mackenzie thinks this is just a natural extension of social justice. She cites the instances that women have been awarded Silver Star Medals as some sort of justification for this.
She runs through a litany of the weakest arguments against allowing women in combat, like destroying unit cohesion, and that women distract men. then something about “feminizing” combat units. I’ve never put much stock in those arguments – I’m pretty sure that soldiers under fire can keep it in their pants, and I don’t believe the canard about unnecessarily putting their lives at risk to rescue a woman who might be injured more than they would for another man.
And unless she means “feminizing” combat units to mean a lowering of standards, I’m not worried that guys will start wearing cologne and products under their K-pots.
But what she fails to address is that women are normally weaker than men…that’s not me talking – it’s science. But that doesn’t stop her from making social judgements in regards to men.
In her analysis of gender integration in the military, Erin Solaro, a researcher and journalist who was embedded with combat troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, pointed out that male bonding often depended on the exclusion or denigration of women and concluded that “cohesion is not the same as combat effectiveness, and indeed can undercut it.
“Male bonding” has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. MacKenzie thinks this is a social issue and not a national security issue. But somehow, MacKenzie acts like we’re trying to exclude women from our little club of infantrymen.
She goes on and on about desegregation, as if it is an important part her proof. It’s not.
Just as when African Americans were fully integrated into the military and DADT was repealed, lifting the combat ban on women would not threaten national security or the cohesiveness of military units; rather, it would bring formal policies in line with current practices and allow the armed forces to overcome their misogynistic past. In a modern military, women should have the right to fight.
“Current policies” in the non-military world are out of step with the realities of combat. It really is about carrying a wounded 200-pound M60 gunner out of the line of fire. It’s not about calibrating the military to social norms.
And all of this idiot blather about having to integrate women into the combat units fails to address the one point that is most important – how will the integration of women into combat make the military better defenders of our nation? If they can’t answer that simple question, why are we even having this discussion?
Thanks to Chief Tango for the link.
Category: Military issues
look Jonn, I have to tell you that when I was deployed, NO ONE could keep it in their pants. Any FOB that had females meant there was soap opera like drama to get into their pants. I will also say that I know men tend to go overboard to protect women. I think militarily integrating combat arms would be a disaster.
As for the strength issue I think it should be clear, and painfully obvious, sadly political realities never seem to have any baring on actual you know reality.
I have no problem integrating women into combat, as long as they’re comfortable with using the same facilities as men, and the dual standards for PT are eliminated. Women who want full equality must actually BE equal, and that means be able to carry as heavy a load, run as fast, etc. as a male.
And yes, I’m a woman – one who passed the APFT by male standards.
“But what she fails to address is that women are normally weaker than men…that’s not me talking – it’s science. ”
Stop bringing up science Jonn, the religion of equal opportunity won’t accept science that contradicts their bible of everyone is equal even if they are not….
That’s why women should stick to being pilots, they’re all little dudes anyway…we all love pilots they protect us, medevac us, transport us….we really do love those guys, but we all know they are all weaker than us physically although perhaps being better mentally…./sarc
(just kidding, thank you pilots everywhere for always being there for us!!)
My Wife is a veteran, and not a weak person by any standards. She is now the only farmer in the family until I retire (again) and wrks circles around most of the folks around us.
She is the first to say “as long as women are held to the SAME standards as men, then have at it.” She is tough, scored 300 on most of her APFT’s and will tell you that there is no way she could carry a 200plus pound soldier out under combat situations. But, even though I would like to have someone next to me that could drag my big butt out of trouble, it would be doubtfull. In great physical condition, fully combat loaded, I weighed over 300lbs, closer to the 320 range. I have served with quite a lot of guys that could not help me.
The old mindset of our enemies were to wound one of us, effectively taking three out of the fight, as the other two were needed to evacuate the first. So both examples are a point not to use the “she can’t drag me out of the fire” argument.
Maintain the single harder standards (male) for both and the rest will take care of itself.
Personally, I would not want to see women in combat units for a completely different reason. As much as I would try, I can not give birth.
Jonn, while I agree with your conclusions, I have to disagree with many of your points. I have served in all-male, as well as “co-ed” units. Many of those points that you discount are VERY valid, including those points made earlier by Doc.
I addressed the arguments for and against, nearly 2 years ago, when the Obama Admin set up there Diversity Commission to study the ways they could ram this particular PC BS down the military’s throat.
Nothing about the human race has changed since then, and despite many attempting to claim that we should have evolved past many of these realities, we remain a part of the Animal Kingdom, with 99% of our behavior being mirrored by others in it. There is simply no place in a combat patrol for sexual tensions, and sexual tensions exist when those of sexual attraction are in close proximity.
http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/2011/01/discussing-the-arguments-for-women-in-combat-units.html
I think men and women may actually be different, and that could be a factor.
Some things about the military are not going to be fair and equal for all… we don’t allow color blind folks into certain MOSs… As a guy still on active duty, I don’t agree with putting women in combat MOSs for a host of reasons.
I forget the movie that I heard this from but…”We’re here to preserve democracy, not to practice it.”
Whiskey Five Tango, Out.
I would send this to all Gender Studies departments at all major universities and afford them the opportunity to join the service(s).
I would love to see the excuses and the backlash.
Funny how the proverbial door swings both ways.
I think American all women’s infantry platoon would be stronger, more competent, more courageous, more hygienic, and more capable fighting force than an ANA, ANP or Iraqi Army infantry platoon!
I agree with Megan H. MacKenzie, every word. Additionally, I fully support abolishing the “draconian” exclusion of fat bodies and PT failures from joining, when all truly they want it to serve their country honorably, albeit rotundly. Also, I find the policy that bars all convicted felons from joining the military sickening. All these folks want to do is join and be a part of something larger than themselves. They just happened to get involved with some bad elements as wayward youths. In fact, I argue they are actually victims of an unfair and racist justice system. Have a heart people. And don’t get me started on ASVAB. I once knew a guy who couldn’t join because he failed the entrance exam on his 5th attempt. I couldn’t believe the recruiter wouldn’t bend the rules even in the face of the tears streaming down his face. It was like the recruiter did not consider the potential recruit’s feelings what so ever!!! I was astonished, it was so mean. It broke my bleeding heart. We have the strongest military in the world. We should use our resources to allow anyone who wants to serve to do so. If a person has cancer, diabetes, was born without an arm, is the sole provider for 3 children under 3, has only one kidney, or their religion dictates they should not be required to shave their beard (how inhumane!!!); it doesn’t matter. These people have suffered enough. We need to let them serve; our moral high ground depends on it. People, why do we have a military if it isn’t for social experimentation and to bolster the self worth of “individuals” everywhere? Everyone deserves to feel loved and belong to something. I read that in the constitution once I think. The insensitive attitude of everyone on this site disgusts me, and trulys hurts my feelings. *** Statements above are 100% SATIRE. If you didn’t realize it by the third sentance you are probably lack the intellegence to join the military. And I fully support the DoD keeping you far far away from our Service… Read more »
Am getting very tired of this argument! No matter how one wants to approach this, the primary limiting factor for combat effectiveness of individual combatants is still not one’s genetalia but one’s strength and endurance.
Could we please use a meaningful criteria to argue this? How many people from the general population have the strength and endurance to manage the job? If you break that down by gender, just how many people are we talking about? Less than half a percent of the population, in the case of females, if that? Eiminate those who would not want to serve in combat roles, and what do we have left? Maybe a dozen total who might actually want to serve in the military?
So we are continuing this discussion simply because some idiots demand it not because there is any compelling need to do so? Not good enough.
Meanwhile, comparing desegration to women in combart is insulting to everyone who ever served, and to the US population in general. Disgusting.
If women are allowed into combat arms eventually physical standards will be lowered and people will needlessly die as a result. The overwhelming majority of women are incapable of performing the tasks regularly asked of combat infantrymen, this isn’t news. If women are forced to compete at the same level as men, without “considerations” for their differing physiology, they’ll fail out at such rates as to create a huge amount of embarrassment for the Pentagon. The “social justice” crowd will be blowing up the media screaming about how 80%+ of females are failed out of schools and the inevitable result is the military bureaucracy will bow to the political pressure and create gender specific standards.
It’ll start will infantry units doing what we used to do in the MPs: putting females in the office jobs. Eventually there will be more media pressure and lawsuits and NCOs and Officers will be compelled to put them into rifle platoons. Of course the females will never end up as the SAW or A gunners, machine gunners or assaultmen, the loads are too heavy. They’ll end up show horned into other billets. Then people will start to die as female Corpsmen/Medics and “infantry persons” physically under perform.
But the people screaming for women in combat won’t give a shit, they’ll have won their political and cultural battle and neither they, nor there kids, will ever be put in a position to pay the price.
*thumbs up* @10
@12 — Female corpsmen/medics? Are you even vaguely aware how many women have served as surgical nurses in combat zones?
What a crock.
“In a modern military, women should have the right to fight.”
I am telling you, push this to Gender Studies programs in Universities.
I cannot wait to see/hear the hypocrisy.
Many years ago I nearly caused a riot at a women’s studies symposium on campus. One of the speakers spent a fair amount of time lambasting steretyping of women, women’s roles, etc, and was proud of how her department was refusing to permit such stereotyping tp exist, yadda yadda yadda.
Anyway, come time for questions she finally got arounbd to picking me. I applauded her talking points but asked that, if they were really against such stereotyping, why the women’s studies department continued to print all of their handouts, flyers, posters, etc on nothing by pink paper.
She wasn’t the least bit amused, lemmee tell you what. 🙂
@15
You said ““In a modern military, women should have the right to fight.””
They already do. It’s called “marriage”.
@17.
Was not me. It was Megan H. MacKenzie, the author.
That’s not a valid comparison, Ex-PH2. All service in a combat zone is not the same. That’s the same as saying that shore and sea duty are both Navy service, so there’s no difference between the two.
A combat medic or Navy corpsman lives/deploys/fights with the infantry/armor/cav/artillery/etc . . . unit to which they are assigned. They have a high probability of engaging in ground combat. In contrast, surgical nurses are assigned to hospital units which are almost always well behind the lines or are on fixed secure bases. They only rarely come under fire. And when they do, it’s almost always either because (1) things are REALLY going to hell in a handbasket or (2) because their secure fixed base is receiving incoming.
A better comparison would be with females serving in the comm specialties – and even that wouldn’t prove your point. Quite a number of female troops have served in communications units in combat zones in recent years. To my knowledge, precisely zero have been assigned to combat units as Radiotelephone Operators (RTOs). Federal law doesn’t allow it. I believe the policy is still no lower than brigade HQ for female troops assigned to combat units – if it’s even authorized. And I don’t think females are even allowed to be assigned to infantry and armor brigades period, though that could have changed in the past few years.
Folks, sooner or later this is going to be rammed down the throat of the military. The social justice Nazi’s will not rest until they get it done. Science and logic, previous experience be damned, none of the politicians or General Officers will fight it. I have yet to see or hear a single General Officer say this is a bad idea. The moral cowardice of both our elected leaders and our General Officers is appalling. It’s coming, it’s just a question of when.
I demand that college or pro sports be forced to integrate women into their ranks first. You know, try that shit out in an arena where lives aren’t on the line.
If women can block linebackers or score points just as well as men can, then they can probably hack an infantry slot.
Well, how will this make the military better isn’t the only question. Will it hurt it is a better question and I have a hard time believing it would.
I have a high open of men, in particular my Marine husband and I agree with you that men can keep it in their pants and bond all the same if there is a female or two present.
Any tax paying legal citizen should have the right to defend their country if they meet the requirements, but they should have to meet or surpass the requirements. If the DOD truly believes x,y,z is the minimum needed to fight effectively then that is what is needed from all service members in combat or not.
I’ve had enough of all of this. I really have. Let’s just rewrite all of our laws, the Constitutions, and regulations of every variety to read, ” Whatever.” That should take care of things. Then, we can devolve into some sort of clanish, altogether fragmented society, kill each other off, and start all over again in a fwe hundred years.
I am not certain what the rush is to make sure our daughters get to experience the same possibility of a traumatic injury or violent death as our sons currently experience.
What societal benefit accrues from this level of equality? Are we concerned that our society is somehow less than it could be with the addition of female infantry combat veterans? If so, in what way would our society benefit from the deaths of female combat infantry troops or from returning female combat troops?
Guess I am just an old misogynist from the past, and missing the big picture of just how great things will be once young women start dying in the field at the same pace as our young men are currently.
This is an issue where I’m on the fence.
I see cogent arguments on both sides….while I may personally lean a bit towards not fully integrating women into combat units [at least no time soon]…..I have a wife who served in OIF 04-05, and easily has similar qualities of stamina, endurance and attitude that I had as an Infantryman.
@22 Just because my boss pays signs my pay checks does not give him the right to dictate what I spend my cash on. Just as you paying taxes does not entitle you to dictate the way the military operates.
Your “combat or not” statement displays your ignorance on the subject. All jobs in the military are not created equal. The physical requirements of a finance clerk does not approach the requirements needed of those whose job takes them outside the wire on patrols every day.
Whether or not you have a hard time believing something, does not mean it is not so. Please leave the questions of military readiness to those who are appointed to make the decisions and enforce standards. It is counterproductive to weigh national security issues based on YOUR opinion.
Every time this gets brought up I get more aggravated by the morons who try to force this on us and more disgusted by the outright misogyny that I see in the arguments against it. I am a prior service female NCO (one who wanted no part in gender integrating Combat Arms) and it outright pisses me off when I see my brothers in arms dishing on the females who do serve. Dont get me wrong, I dont think that this will work but Im sick to damn death of the bullshit that this discussion seems to start.
@ 27 I fail to see one post above where a commenter was “dishing” or denigrating anyone who serves. Which number are you referring to?
ARoberts, no-one is denigrating female service members. The plain ‘ol natural fact that women are smaller, weaker, slower is what drives us to be against anything suggesting that females can hold their own against men in the infantry.
You should be more aggravated that you ALREADY are NOT required to meet male standards in physical ability, because nature said long ago…you just can’t.
Im not talking about here specifically, my apologies I should have stated that, Im speaking in general.
I’ve seen some Wisconsin farm girls and Russian babushkas who would clean a Ranger’s clock. But keep the standards high and make it volunteer to get into a combat billet. See how it goes. now, I’d argue the high you get in the ranks, the less you’re going to see combat. I bet we see an epidemic of knee replacements in the coming decades in the VA. And since you asked, yes that line badge we have to wear really strains our back on that side….
I have no issue with the plain out facts of life, what I was referring to is that every time this subject comes up there is a never ending supply of comments such as “Keep women out of combat and in the kitchen, I need a sammich.” and shit like that. Im not so much aggravated by the limitations placed on my gender by mother nature as there isnt much I can do to change that fact at this time. It is what it is. The fact that folks seem to think that its ok to be complete and utter assholes about it is what aggravates me. Not saying that anyone here has made those comments, again this is not the only place the discussion takes place, just stating that in general Im tired of that attitude.
This is without a doubt an emotional topic. Those that would drag down the service of anyone who possesses the wherewithal to put on the uniform of this country are wrong in every sense of the word. Doing so only creates conflict and division which is disservice to all parties.
But if we cannot have a discussion on the realities of protecting the United States and the combat effectiveness of our “spear”, without bruised egos, or blinders to logic when it comes to pet causes then we have already lost. The enemy will exploit our self imposed weakness for their gain.
@ #23: AC, I think we are about in the same place on this. Sounds like AR may be pretty close as well.
This is another of those wedge issues that serves no useful purpose in being raised over and over again. Maybe after all the other stuff has been solved (you know, like world hunger, reining in world-wide terrorism, the national debt, yada, yada) we can afford the luxury of this sort of distraction.
Between now and then, focus, folks, FOCUS! Laughing at the fools who keep bringing up this nonsense is my go-to reaction.
The generalization that women are weaker, slower and smaller than men is baloney. Women come in all different sizes, strengths, and speeds, just as men do. There are plenty of men who are smaller, weaker and slower than women. Look around you once in a while.
The idea that women can’t hack it is ridiculous. I’m 5’2″. I bucked 85-pound 18″ square hay bales onto a hay rack when I was in high school. I did more than that when I was in college. Those smart weapons that were used as props in the movie “Aliens” were rebuilt German MG42 machine guns that weighed 35 pounds when completely rebuilt. I know plenty of kids who drag 35 to 45 pounds of schoolbooks home from school. They go by my house every day.
My point is that if you’re used to carrying a weight load and being active, it’s no big deal. If you’re not used to it, you have to have time to acclimate to carrying that kind of weight. The same things applies to distance, running or walking. It has nothing to do with your size or how fast you are; it has everything to do getting used to going that distance, and a little further every day.
You don’t sit on your but for a year and then go out and run a 26-mile marathon, do you? Not unless you want to drop dead in your tracks. No. You do conditioning.
However, if you put 100 women in a group and ask them who actually wants to go into combat to shoot live ammo and get shot at with live ammo, you’d probably only get 8 raising their hands, at most.
It should never be anything other than a national security issue, and considering how crude men can be in a group, if women can’t put up with that crap, tough bananas.
That’s all I have to say.
As said many times before, it is not a question of if, but when.
I just do not want ‘co-ed’ integrated units.
Maybe in some MOS’ this is no problem but in infantry and combat units the last thing you need is a group of young guys, many teenagers, still dealing with raging hormones, and stick females in with them.
It will be nothing but drama, petty jealousies, accusations of favoritism, etc. etc. Does anyone think that kind of climate contributes to combat effectiveness, especially in a war zone?
re #35
It’s not about “some women”. it’s about women as a demographic. Are there women who can do any infantryman or combat medic/Corpsman’s job? Of course, I’ve met a couple. The issue that they’re exceedingly rare. Then inevitable result is that you’ll see 80%+ of men graduating from an unadulterated training pipeline and 80%+ of women failing out. That stark numb er can only go on for so long until the military folds under pressure to make it “more fair”.
Also, if you think carrying 30lbs of books or a prop on a movie set is analogous to dragging a wounded 200lbs+ Marines with 60lbs+ of gear out of an enemy’s field of fire then you’re understanding of the physical trials of the infantry community is seriously lacking.
@35 I do not follow your logic. Focusing on the children carrying school books comment for a moment. I am positive that there are some 8th graders out there that can pass all requirements to become an Infantryman, because the powers that be saw fit to construct that person in such a way that they are stronger and more mature than their peers. Just because there are some out there that can do it, do we now lower the age standard to let them?
Hopefully everyone out there realizes the answer to that question is a resounding NO. Why would we? There is no positive effect on combat readiness in doing so. In fact there will likely be a negative effect of putting PT stud 8th graders into Infantry battalions. I feel the same holds true for females in the Infantry. Are we having problems filling Infantry slots in basic? No. Are there females out there that could possibly hack? Most likely. Could this cause negative implications to unit readiness and combat effectiveness? Possibly. Then why risk it? Are we willing to sacrifice lives and national security so some officer somewhere can have a block checked on their OER?
@37 and @38: Oh, here we go. American women in combat: Revolutionary War DEBORAH SAMSON** In October of 1778, Deborah Samson of Plympton, Massachusetts, disguised herself as a young man and presented herself to the American army as a willing volunter to oppose the common enemy. She enlisted for the whole term of the war as Robert Shirtliffe and served in the company of Captain Nathan Thayer of Medway, Massachusetts. For three years she served in various duties and was wounded twice – the first time by a sword cut on the side of the head and four months later she was shot through the shoulder. Her sexual identity went undetected until she came down with a brain fever, then prevalent among the soldiers. Margaret Corbin stepped up to the artillery during the attack on Fort Washington when her husband fell by her side and unhesitatingly took his place and performed his duties. In July of 1779 the Congress awarded her a pension for her heroism – and a suit of clothes. Angelica Vrooman, during the heat of battle, sat calmly in a tent with a bullet mould, some lead and an iron spoon, moulding bullets for the rangers. Mary Hagidorn, upon hearing the order by a Captain Hager, for the women and children to retire to the long cellar, said: “Captain, I shall not go to that cellar should the enemy come. I will take a spear which I can use as well as any man and help defend the fort.” The captain seeing her determination answered “then take a spear,Mary, and be ready at the pickets to repel an attack.” She cheerfully obeyed and held the spear at the pickets till hurrahs for the American flag burst on her ear and told that all was safe. Historical sources do confirm that at least two women fought in the Battle of Monmouth — one was at an artillery position and the other was in the infantry line. Fast forward to the War of 1812: The USS CONSTITUTION met and defeated HMS GUERRIERE, the first in a grand succession of… Read more »
Females do not belong in the Infantry. I do not doubt that they could have skills to be an Infantryman, but, I do not believe that females (generalized, exceptions are just that, exceptions) can physically take the punishment that comes with my job as an Infantryman. I am not a misogynist, I am being realistic. There are many males who cannot hack it and end up being dead weight for a platoon, a burden to the leadership and their buddies.
If females could turn platoons into fast and effective killing machines I would be all for them to kit up with us. However, they don’t make us more effective which is what people need to consider whenever this whole debate pops up.
There is in fact one thing I still do not understand. And that is how you missed the entire point of what I was saying? Everyone acnowledges that there are women who can hack on the line. All I or anyone else has ever said is that if it doesn’t improve readiness or effectiveness and could quite possible have a negative affect on it, why go down that road? Are we in the business of having “individuals” actualization their ever dream or are we in the business of closing with and destroying the enemies of the United States. All MOS’ get paid the same $ for time in grade. This isn’t some nefarious plot to be unfair to a certain group.
I’m sure you can research all day and find many more examples of women performing admirably under combat conditions singularly. And I commend those women and all women who wear the uniform. But that does not begin to define the problems that will occur when tryin to put a female in ever door kickin unit in the US arsenal simply for the sake of doing so.
As far as children being used in A-stan, it’s apples chemlights. Training a child to remote detonate an IED or squeeze off a magazine at a passing patrol does not compare to them being able to hump full kit or drag their buddy out of a kill zone. That was an analogy designed to make everyone think. I guess I failed that mission.
This is my last post on the subject because I cannot begin to use logic where an emotional cord has been struck and the group which feels slighted would rather admonish my “ego” than discuss things cordially.
Have a nice weekend all. Go skins!
41 = smoke-check
Ex-PH2, you still don’t get it. Women can fight, absolutely. Just ask any redneck cheating husband 🙂
Every example you gave was about a woman FIGHTING. Anyone can fall back on basic training and pull triggers, but that isn’t what the discussion is about.
An infantry man doesn’t have a caisson to haul his gear (Molly Pitcher), nor a horse to carry his load (Cathay Williams), nor would a Civil War Soldier (Emily) carry their heavy gear, as the wagon train would haul it, nor would a Marine aboard ship (Lucy Brewer) have any load to carry, since all was stowed below.
An Infantryman has no choice but to haul ALL his warfighting gear on his back, except for a few lucky mounted missions. That’s what Infantry do: “fight with what they brung”. Days or weeks of humping hills, or dozens of miles daily with 120lbs of gear breaks down the strongest of men, eventually. In between the heavy toil of simply getting to the battle, you have to be ready to fight an extended firefight while lack of sleep, food, and water fight against you just as fiercely as the enemies bullets. There is no “time out” because you are tired, hungry, thirsty. It’s kill or be killed…period.
The Navy already did this study, and found females sadly lacking in strength and endurance. Females aboard ship are usually fire CAPTAINS, because they cannot buck the hundreds of pounds of water filled hoses across decks or up ladders. Of 100 women in the study, only ONE could make a marginal cut…while only ONE out of a 100 men failed.
You’re surrounded fire, you cannot move due to leg injuries: Do you want a fully capable man to rescue you….or a marginal-at-best woman to attempt it?
You can toss out cute historic anecdotes all day, it simply will not change the fact that females are not built, nor able to be, like men. To think otherwise is a lying to yourself.
”We’re here to preserve democracy, not to practice it.”
I’m pretty sure that was Crimson Tide.
Ex-PH2 you are, alas, mixing apples & oranges. Your statement that “The generalization that women are weaker, slower and smaller than men is baloney” tells that you have not studied statistics. At least, not very much. In statistics what you denigrated as a “generalization” is known as “expected value,” which is pretty much what it sounds like. In many cases (such as random numbers) we can be quite specific about specific values. For example, the expected value of single rolled die is 3.5. This may seem absurd, but if you roll enough dice over a long series, add them up, and divide by the number of rolls, you will come very, very close to that value, unless your die is biased. One of the more interesting things about this is that the expected value of two dice is 7. It isn’t always so, but that’s the expected value, and a graph of the frequencies all possible values (2-12) would be what is called a “normal*” distribution. You may have heard of it referred to as the “bell shaped curve.” Another example would be average height for men & women. In the US, the average height for men is 5′ 10.5″, and for women is 5′ 5″. According to your logic, this “generalization” is untrue because you can cite specific adult women taller than 5′ 10.5″ and/or men shorter than 5′ 5″. The point is that the expected value for men clusters around 5′ 10.5″, and the expected value women around 5′ 5″. Again, a normal distribution. Point here being that most of the time, for most men, their height will be near 5′ 10.5″ The same applies to women’s heights. An examination of physical strength and other human factors show similar distributions. The outliers (very tall / very short, very heavy / very light, very strong / very weak) are to a great degree meaningless, as the majority of men & women have a height, weight, strength, etc, well within the norm. This is where the “I wouldn’t mind so much if they kept the standards the same” comes from,… Read more »
Sorry for the length of that last post, but I’m a statistics nut. 😉
Other interesting differences:
– Males, on average, have denser, stronger bones, tendons, and ligaments.
– Male and female pelvises are shaped differently. The female pelvis features a wider pelvic cavity, which is necessary when giving birth. The female pelvis has evolved to its maximum width for childbirth — an even wider pelvis would make women unable to walk. In contrast, human male pelves did not evolve to give birth and are therefore slightly more optimized for walking. The female pelvis is larger and broader than the male pelvis which is taller, narrower, and more compact. The female inlet is larger and oval in shape, while the male inlet is more heart-shaped. (my emphasis)
In other words, men are at least somewhat more efficient than women at walking. And we are talking about infantry, no? I’ll leave the question as to whether stronger bones, etc, give men greater resistance to injury, to other commenters.
I do not claim this is conclusive, but it is (I believe) food for thought.
P.S. The “civil rights/race” argument is invalid. The record of difference “races” fighting cooperatively & effectively has a long history just in the US, not to mention the rest of the world. There is no equivalent history of women fighting alongside men, exactly as the men fight.
There is -however- at least some history of women in some cultures functioning fairly effectively as light infantry, which is supported by our recent history in SW Asia, where women functioned well as MPs, liaison with local women, and so on.
I like statistics, too, but the point I was making, which doesn’t seem to have penetrated the fog of this discussion, is (read carefully) that the women who successfully engaged in those infantry combat roles and passed the same muster as men, because they disgused themselves as men, WERE VOLUNTEERS. Had they volunteered as women they would have been told to go home and roll bandages and make bread. They disguised themselves AS MEN and volunteered AS MEN and passed the muster AS MEN. They were found out to be women AFTER the fact. Seriously, did I have to pull off a ‘sippy’ to get a point across? And Casey, if you’re going to use statistics, you don’t pit a 5’2″ woman against a 6’7″ man. It makes your statistics invalid. I was physically stronger and more agile at my height and weight at 23 (5’2″, 126) than most of the guys I knew in the same height and weight category because I was not sitting on my behind at the club every night drinking beer and shooting pool and running my mouth. My favorite and most fun contest was when the farrier came around and we had a contest to see who could lift the back half of a horse three inches off the ground. How do you do that? Someone holds the horse’s head. You pick up one hind leg at the hock, then pick up the other hind leg at the hock, and lift with your own legs, not your back. Minimum lift height was three inches off the ground, both hind legs. And make sure it’s a horse that doesn’t like to kick. The farrier could do that easily, but he frequently worked on Clydesdales. The horses probably thought we were nuts. And, no, I could NOT do that now. I have not done that for 50 years. The point I was making is that those women VOLUNTEERED disguised AS MEN and no one knew the difference until AFTER the war. All those troops had caissons, wagons, and pack horses or mules to carry loads. How… Read more »
And Casey, if you’re going to quote statistics at me, how many men participate in the Susan G. Kohmen 60 mile walk for the cure, out of the total number of participants nationwide?
The Military itself not only recognizes, but re-inforces the FACT that women and men are different, in many forms, including the political appointees that are pushing this agenda.
The Army APFT for an 18 year old female is pretty much the same as that for a 55 year old male, in push-ups and the run.
When the Army decided on a NEW APFT, it declined to include the pull-up, because it wasn’t “gender neutral,” i.e. women couldn’t do it on a comparable standard.
Men and Women are different. Be grateful. If we weren’t, then the human race would be extinct. The other animals in the kingdom also have division of labor, based on the sexes, and we still react in 99% of the situations (or more), as does the rest of the animal kingdom. Face it, we haven’t evolved as much as people want to claim.
I’m going to say one last thing here.
When I enlisted in 1967, women were not given any kind of weapons training in boot camp. We were all given copies of the bluejackets’ manual, but no hands-on experience. If any of us wanted that, we had to find a firing range on base and hope for some kind soul to act as an instructor. The men, on the other hand, got all the weapons training listed in the BJM. Was that fair? No. It was a holdover from World War II. I’m not even sure the women Marines at Quantico and LeJeune got weapons training in the 1960s.
The Army, when it sent nurses and women doctors to combat hospitals in Korea and Vietnam, did not give those women any kind of preparation for being in a combat zone. They got it when they arrived. It consisted of someone telling them they might have to shoot an enemy soldier brought in for medical treatment before interrogation.
You can say what you like about medical facilities in a combat zone, but those women had no preparation for what they experienced. My niece was an Army surgical nurse. Before she was deployed to Iraq, she was given the preparation and training her predecessors in Korea and Vietnam were not.