If the Pentagon leaves the physical requirements for combat units unchanged, this will be much ado about nothing. When I went through the Army's basic parachute school -- granted, many years ago, so I have no idea what the current standards are -- the minimum number of pullups was seven.

There isn't a woman in 10,000 who can do that; the vast majority of men can.

But more to this post's point: Read Sebastion Junger's latest book, War.

Reality bites.

The MOS for infantry is 11B. If the Army created an 11F or some such that had a combat responsibility strictly for protecting a base or clearing a city/village/town. I could support that. The standards wouldn't be that much different than the 11B.

But the extended field combat that is expected of an 11B is so totally different.

The next question is a women ready for what would happen to her if she were captured by the Taliban or Al-Qaeda as a soldier? And the effect it would have on her fellow male prisoners? The male prisoners may be sodomized, but will generally not have that happen often. A female prisoner will be stripped naked, tied down, and have a train ran on her that would consist of every single male in the camp.

I completely agree with the point made regarding co-ed combat, but allowing women combat roles in the military does not necessarily mean co-ed combat. Women and men can be put in separate battalions and not allowed the same task in the same area, so once this gender segregation is done, there is no issue of men overreacting to the danger they perceive to the women or other such stuff which will put male lives at risk

Look, all I'm saying is Private Vasquez. I know she'd have my back.

Well, if we're worried about the competition angle, since DADT is gone, let's just put all the women in units with men that won't be interested in them. #sarcasm

Ah...I was hoping you'd comment on this, thereby giving me the chance to pontificate on a subject near and dear to my heart.

There are SO many misconceptions out there on this subject, it is simply astounding....first of all, there is a HUGE difference between being deployed and serving in a combat zone and really, truly being "in combat." Yeah, yeah, I know the tripe about no front lines and all that BS. Got it. Been to Afg three times and been plenty exposed to plenty of danger--IDF, rioting crowds, VBEID threats all the time, and Afghan "security forces" with the most appalling weapons handling skills you've ever seen in your life. So that's misconception number one. All this "they've been doing it for 10 years now already" is crap. Not saying plenty of females haven't served honorably, stepped up to the plate and then some, been exposed to danger and in some cases even made the ultimate sacrifice. This is not to take away from their (our) service. It is simply not factual to say that women have already "been doing it for 10 years now."

Misconception number two: How hard is it to pull a trigger? Well, not very hard. However, pulling a trigger is but an infinitesimal part of combat. Combat is brutally physical, will grind your body down after days, weeks and months. When the opportunity for a balanced diet and regular rest and physical training isn't available--as so rarely is--the natural "fall back strength" of the body will be all there is. And a man is naturally stronger physically. That's science.

Miconception three: It's a matter of the boys club not wanting to allow girls. Well, sort of true but for very good reason. See article. The kind of distraction that the male/female dynamic brings is absolutely not something that needs to be added into the mix of combat. Where LIVES depend on focus and concentration and distractions are DEADLY. Are there not enough things that young plt commander/sgt has to worry about without throwing in Pvt Sally into the mix and the fight over her that has ensued? Really? "Oh, it's a leadership issue." What a crock. What it is, is a dangerous distraction that WILL cost lives.

There are SO many reasons why this is bad ju-ju and only one "good" one. It will be more "fair" for women. Um, ok. Funny how the vocal minority isn't volunteering to don flak and kevlar and go out on a patrol....they just want to open the "opportunity" (snort)

Unfortunately, if the standards are not lowered, that same vocal minority will apply enough pressure to get them lowered because they'll be yelping about how there aren't enough numbers of females in certain units/specialties. In the meantime, as we "experiment" and "research" with these females trying for these specialties, we will break them at a higher rate than we do already and then their military careers really will be limited as they have to be discharged. But, there you go. PC never works. Don't let common sense get in the way of "opportunity."

women want to join the infantry for their careers.

It seems to me women don't love guns as much as men do. And I know some fine women shooters - hunters and competitors - but they don't fetishize the things as much. He'll own 17 guns and she'll own three.

I think guys who volunteer for infantry really want to shoot a bunch of guns, really get into it, get tough and lean. And yeah maybe pop the enemy.

And that's all terrible, terrible etc but that's exactly the instinct we tap into to keep the fighting arm of the military going.

I just want to know when women will have to register with Selective Service.

Millenia of evolution has bread the male to be a fighter. Millenia of evolution has bread the female to nurture.

Unfortunately combat is a crucible that doesn't give a crap about political correctness or "fairness."

This, combined with the hollowing out of the military, is going to get people killed.

I knew that women were in the Israeli military but was never quite sure to what extent.

This piece I just read, A Look at Countries Where Women Are in Combat says...

ISRAEL

The image of the gun-toting Israeli woman warrior is widely seen as the prototype of a gender-blind military. Reality is different. Israeli women are subject to the draft — but they serve two years while men serve three. Women were also barred from direct combat until 2000, when the first and so far only mixed gender infantry battalion was organized. The Caracal battalion, which is about 60 percent female, was assigned to patrol the relatively quiet borders with Jordan and Egypt. Still, more than 90 percent of Israel's military jobs are open to women — including high-risk posts such as air force pilots, air defense, naval gunboat crews, artillery and search and rescue. But the five major infantry brigades are still all-male.

Well, here's a simple question, one for those intent on putting women in military support positions en masse:

Could you concentrate on the task at hand, say, connecting an ejection seat to the fighter, the engine to its mounts, or the wiring package to a Trident missile with Amy Alkon at your elbow?

To hell with political correctness and sensitivity and harassment training (which, of course, MUST displace actual technical training time): that big red shock of hair will bother you when you notice it. And some will obsess over it.

And you can't filter the female population for lack of effect on men.

You can legislate that gay couples be thought of as straight couples with matching parts, but that doesn't make it so.

Adding women to the mix will be hard for men? make them unconfortable? Gee, don't you poo-poo that argument when it's used against gays?

I can do 7 pullups. And that's after 4 kids. I'm taller than the average man. I'm darn strong for a woman. My pussy shouldn't mean I'm excluded. My ability or lack of should. Men can get the fuck over a pussy in their midst. It happened in the office, it can happen in the military.

Could you concentrate on the task at hand, say, connecting an ejection seat to the fighter, the engine to its mounts, or the wiring package to a Trident missile with Amy Alkon at your elbow? -- Radwaste at January 25, 2013 5:55 PM

Rad,

Could you do your job with her at your elbow? Have you never had an atrractive co-worker?

Women are already in aircraft maintenance including connecting the ejection seats, installing engines. The wiring of a Trident missile is done at the factory, generally.

Subs are a special case as there are only two staterooms and the rest of the berthing is shared by everyone. So that means no privacy at all.

All the branches of the military have generally not restricted maintenance of weapon systems based on sex. There are some exceptions, such as Army and Marine tank crews. They are responsible for most of the field maintenance. The common phrase is "crack track" that is very hard for men and virtually no women can do it.

We're talking about direct combat roles. This is women running, jumping, and shooting next to guys day after day.

Jim,

What I do DOES NOT KILL PEOPLE as a direct result of inattention. (BTW, the missiles are armed once at sea, by the crew, not at the factory.) On a lesser note - do you want to hear about sexual misconduct where I work? Will that make it OK somewhere else?

To elaborate:
"Adding women to the mix will be hard for men? make them unconfortable? Gee, don't you poo-poo that argument when it's used against gays?"

No, I don't. What I note is that sexual activity is uniformly BAD for critical tasks.

Thank you for reminding us all that making gay people an issue in the services has made things worse.

On this blog I have noted that the gender of the crew installing wiring packages to arm a Trident missile does not matter - if one thinks the other is "hot", gender doesn't matter. The distraction can be fatal - and, as an incident on the USS Iowa has already shown, it may have been.

The difference is a sense of duty, which can't be regulated, it must be instilled. It is my experience that duty can't be "hired", and that this is the primary difference between an ordinary government job and military service.

I can do 7 pullups. And that's after 4 kids.

You sound really hot. Can you send me your photo? I really love muscle women or women who can do a decent number of pullups :-)

Weren't Greek soldiers expected to have sex with each other to build camaraderie? Or is that a myth?

Well, here's a simple question, one for those intent on putting women in military support positions en masse:

What I do DOES NOT KILL PEOPLE as a direct result of inattention.

Rad,

You keep refusing to accept what is already reality. There are already mixed sex teams working on USAF aircraft today. Also Army helicopters and Navy aircraft, as well as ships and the majority of military vehicles have had a women repair them at one time or another. They aren't falling out of the sky.

About 25% of the USAF members I dealt with were female, when I was serving. They already are in support positions, en masse. And a number of gays has always been there, it was just never brought up.

As for citing the Iowa blast -- no proof has ever been found that Hartwig caused it, or it was deliberate. I knew a few Navy guys back then -- they didn't expect an accident, but weren't surprised by it either.

You are confusing the fact that women have commonly served along side men in support positions since the sixties with allowing them into front line combat.

Jim,

You are the one that cannot accept reality. Radwaste is TELLING you the reality. The introduction of women into these roles does reduce the effectiveness of the unit and increase the possibility of death for everyone not just the men. Your desire for social equality does not change this. And really...the Air Force? How many actual combat roles are there in the freaking Air Force? Even the fighter pilots are isolated from the real in your face combat.

There's a great story about a Confederate woman fighter at Chattanooga in the Civil War. The yanks who managed to kill her said it would be impossible for them to stop an army of she-devils like that one!
Letters from a Union cavalryman noted several women in his unit. The other men left them alone, since they did the same duty as the men. If they'd been outed to the officers, they would have been sent home.

You are the one that cannot accept reality. Radwaste is TELLING you the reality. The introduction of women into these roles does reduce the effectiveness of the unit and increase the possibility of death for everyone not just the men. Your desire for social equality does not change this. And really...the Air Force? How many actual combat roles are there in the freaking Air Force? Even the fighter pilots are isolated from the real in your face combat. -- causticf at January 26, 2013 9:43 AM

Women have been repairing cars, trucks, and aircraft for years. Just as they have done comms, linguistics, accounting and other roles. They have held the these roles in the military and the civilian world as well. Rad, and you are denying this fact. They have not made the military any less effective.

I agree that women should not be in front-line combat if they can't qualify. And the standard to pass ranger school probably wouldn't let them get there.

How many actual combat roles are there in the freaking Air Force?

I'd like you to notice these jobs:
Officer:
* Combat Rescue Officer (50 or greater percent failure rate)
* Special Tactics Officer (50 or greater percent failure rate)
* Air Liaison Officer (50 or greater percent failure rate)
* Combat Weather Officer (50 or greater percent failure rate)

Enlisted:
* Pararescue (PJs) (80 to 85 percent failure rate)
* Combat Controller (80 to 85 percent failure rate)
* Tactical Air Control Party (TACP) (44 percent failure rate)
* Combat Weather (50 or greater percent failure rate)

That doesn't consider the SP service charged with base defense, etc.

The reality is, that outside of some specialized positions, such as subs, women have been in support roles for over forty years not to mention the WAVES and WAACs.

Jim, your statement of "They have not made the military any less effective" Seems very absolute.

What experience do you have that would support such a claim?

The fact that women have been put in certain roles and have been ostensibly performing these support tasks does not mean that their introduction into mixed units has had no negative effect.

There are some women that perform well as mechanics, technicians, and armed support. But these are the exception, not the rule. In the aggregate, women do not perform as well in combat or mechanical roles as well as men. That means a unit with 25% women will not perform as well as a unit with 100% men.

There are some roles in which women perform as well, and even some times better than men. But the types of functions that we typically call grunt work is not one of them.

What I am mentioning is only the inherant performance differences. This is without the additional problems of having mixed units as a social detractor.

While I don't have hard data and numbers to throw around, I have plenty of anectdotal and personal experience to draw on. I've had 20 years experience in supervising G.I.s as a first line supervisor, shop chief, and at the Major Command level adjusting the Unit Manning requirements for maintenance units.

I can firmly state that having women in mixed units is not as effective as having all male units. However, it may be worth studying the results of establishing actual standards that apply equally and universally to weed out the non-hackers of either sex. If that can be accomplished in the face of the political opposition, then it may be time to see if segregated units have any difference in performance that can be measured.

Until equal standards are put in place, having women in the military at any level is a detractor from overall effectiveness, regardless of individual outliers.

I can firmly state that having women in mixed units is not as effective as having all male units. However, it may be worth studying the results of establishing actual standards that apply equally and universally to weed out the non-hackers of either sex. If that can be accomplished in the face of the political opposition, then it may be time to see if segregated units have any difference in performance that can be measured. -- Azenogoth at January 27, 2013 10:11 AM

Just as it is in the civilian world. And I agree that there may be an effect. But Rad's idea "Well, here's a simple question, one for those intent on putting women in military support positions en masse" already exists.

We've had women in support roles, including maintenance positions during Vietnam, the Iran hostage crisis in the 70's, during the Cold War, Granada, Desert Storm, Iran, and Afghanistan just to name a few of the excursions. That is the reality that exists.

I have seen hackers and slackers of both sexes while I was in; and in the civilian world as well.

Rad is declaring doom. I'm saying that the inclusion of women in the military already exists. But I did not say they should be in combat positions. There is probably 1 in 10,000 females that could survive ranger school, or BUDs. But there are about 1 in 1000 males that could probably survive Ranger or BUDs training either.

I'm trying to get the point across that women exist in the military already.

Here's another simple test:

If "equality" is real, then NO ONE would have to cite EXCEPTIONS to support the integration of women in service positions.

This is like abstinence training in schools: pretense, on the altar of political correctness, that there are no consequences to this.

This on a blog that resolutely and repeatedly shows that no, men and women are not the same.

Want to use the female population in warfighting? Create all-female units and see what you get. You'll either be pleased or disappointed. I think the attack submarine is the best place to show this. Have at it!

Meanwhile, what you actually have now has created transgressions that no one will admit, and it is getting worse because meddling has produced the ridiculous idea that fairness is part of military service - even combat!

Not necessarily a big fan of women in combat, but you can be a truck driver and get caught up in a fire fight. All war these days is assemetrical anyway, and nurses in hospitals were killed in World War II.

That said, one of the biggest problems in the military is that most intelligence tests have gone by the way in favor of PT standards, which don't discriminate against minorities, but "do" discriminate against women.

What to do? A stupid commander is even more likely to get you killed in combat, than a slow one, so which is more dangerous to the mission? Tough choice.

Want to use the female population in warfighting? Create all-female units and see what you get. You'll either be pleased or disappointed. I think the attack submarine is the best place to show this. Have at it!

I said above -- create a special MOS for the women who want to be in combat. It would generally be fixed defense or clearing action force. Pretty much on the the 11B standard. There are women SWAT team members. But letting women do the daily slog of combat isn't a good idea.

Your words Rad:

Well, here's a simple question, one for those intent on putting women in military support positions en masse:

Could you concentrate on the task at hand, say, connecting an ejection seat to the fighter, the engine to its mounts, or the wiring package to a Trident missile with Amy Alkon at your elbow?

My reply is that it already is happening! When I was in I worked next to blonds and brunettes and raven hair women. Very few red heads though, but that is because there are very few in general. I also fucked both military and civilian women during that time. But never in my chain of command. I did find a few women I couldn't work with at my elbow. Same as a few few guys. That was because their personalities and mine clashed.

As a matter of fact, my first supervisor was a red head. She was also a bitch. We had two people change jobs, one get out and I put code 88 as my first choice for reassignment to another base. (Code 88 stands for worldwide suicide -- you'll take any assignment anywhere in the world, even an armpit.)

Meanwhile, what you actually have now has created transgressions that no one will admit, and it is getting worse because meddling has produced the ridiculous idea that fairness is part of military service - even combat! -- Radwaste at January 27, 2013 10:55 AM

There was, is, and always will be transgressions. Just as the soldiers that pissed on the bodies of the dead Taliban. Was that an acceptable transgression? How about Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse?

People of honor try to avoid such situations. If they are caught they should be appropriately punished.

Yes -- there is a bit of fairness in this. But is based off the idea that if you can meet the existing standard you should be allowed to do it. It is not a view that we'll lower the standard to let you do it.

"There was, is, and always will be transgressions. Just as the soldiers that pissed on the bodies of the dead Taliban. Was that an acceptable transgression? How about Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse?"

The way this kind of thing is being repeated makes me think it is being offered as a "two wrongs" fallacy. They are not an excuse.

And there is also this: if the examples of women is service are already in effect, then the implication is that there will be no consequences to the new ruling.

Just don't be surprised when you see that men in the service are trained to be "less masculine" - for some reason not fully explained.

The bottom line is that someone has decided that more women in body bags is a good idea.

Nope.

I would summarize this post this way:
Women are too weak and men are to stupid to think without their dicks.

Most of what I've read about this subject has been condescending to both men and women. Maybe men aren't rational enough to work with women.

Used to be a grunt.
Let's do some math: If an average man is 180 pounds and carries two thirds of his body weight, that's 120 pounds. Pick a number for his own gear; rifle, water, armor, helmet, radio, entrenching tool, rations, various other items and say it's forty pounds. That leaves eighty pounds. Which is ammo and other expendables. Stuff to shoot.
Say the average woman is 130 pounds. Say her personal gear as above is 35 pounds--smaller armor--and that means her excess, which is ammo and other expendables to kill people with is fifty-one pounds. Close to thirty pounds less stuff to kill people with.
If you have a platoon of thirty-plus, the women's platoon has about a half a ton less stuff to kill people with. Problem?
Now, I know proponents insist on having the same physical standards for having women in the combat arms. They insist on it, but they lie. The standards will be gender-normed instantly. Have been. The FDNY just dropped physical standards due to pressure to get more women in. Think that's going to go without negative consequences?
After Tailhook, the Navy was so spooked by Pat Schroeder and other feminists that the first two women who graduated in F14 (think Top Gun) graduated with what, in other circumstances, would have been failing grades. One blew a trap and was killed and the other was grounded for unsafe flying. The F14 was a two-seater so Tom Cruise would have somebody to talk to. This means the Navy took two people who'd never done the Navy any harm that we know of and put them in airplanes flown by demonstratively inadequate pilots. So, yeah, the military is going to maintain standards. Suuuurrre they are.