I'm waiting for some academic type to start whining about Biological Privilege . . .

It is a biological privilege to not be sent into ground combat -- though it may hurt a woman's chances for promotion.

But really, though you can see under their standards it could be called "privilege," it's really just: Look, ladies, you aren't physically strong enough to compete with men. Maybe an individual, particular woman might be, maybe women can operate joysticks in planes, but in general, women are not as physically able as men.

The senior leadership of the Department of Defense has made no secret of their intent to integrate women into ground combat arms units across the military, insisting that the services "validate*" their physical standards to ensure that they are "current+."

* see Change
+ see Lowered Enough For Women To Pass

Given most men dont like to kill, seriously the number of shot fired to kill people is a little ridiculous, and women like it even less; coupled with mens instinctive need to protect women, which is even greater than the impulse to not kill another human - I think integrated infantry is a bad idea in combat.

I'm not opposed to fully female infantry platoons/companies though

There are a few women that could probably hack it, but the Marine Corps Officers course is notoriously difficult physically. Most men can't do it either.
All of the services have already lowered the intellectual standards for becoming an officer because they couldn't find enough minorities who could qualify under the old standards.

Stupid gets a lot of people killed unnecessarily on the battle field. Probably more people are going to be killed by idiocy, and poor decision making than by a 2nd Lt in a mech infantry company being unable to do twenty chin ups.

I suppose in the intersts of diversity, the tough physical standards may have to go as well, or we could just go back to a total merit based system, (but that is just crazy talk)

"There are a few women that could probably hack it, but the Marine Corps Officers course is notoriously difficult physically. Most men can't do it either."

Not so. Pass rate for male candidates on the USMC IOC course is around 70%, so 7 out of 10 men who apply and are accepted for the course can pass it.

It should be noted that the IOC course is far-more rigorous, physically and mentally, than the training required for enlisted Marines to qualify for the infantry. The principle, it seems, is that leaders should be able to do everything their soldiers can do, and quite a bit more besides.

llater,

llamas

This reminds me of the Seattle fire department in the 1980's. Some women sued the SFD because women couldn't pass the physical test to become firefighters. They sued and they won. The SFD had to change the one test that no women were able to pass. That was carrying 150 pounds of dead-weight down 3 flights of stairs. (They carried a dummy and it was to see if they could rescue a fully grown adult out of a difficult situation.) The SFD changed the test to carrying 100 pounds of dead-weight down one flight of stairs. Basically the court decided it was more important to have female firefighters than it was to have qualified firefighters. Typical.

"Not so. Pass rate for male candidates on the USMC IOC course is around 70%, so 7 out of 10 men who apply and are accepted for the course can pass it."

Yes, and if the acceptance rate for the course, is around ten percent because the Marine Corps, rightly, does not want to waste money training people who can't pass it, that tells you that most men can't pass the Marine IOC.

Likewise, about two thirds of cadets graduate from West Point, but it is darn hard to actually get in.....99 percent of the population wouldn't make it through.

I have no, and can see no reason for, a problem with women in combat or the rangers or anywhere else, IF they can pas the same standards. These 29 couldn't. Probably most couldn't. But I'm not going to tell the few who could that they can't do it because they have a vagina. The men will deal with it, just like they dealt with blacks and gays. No big deal, in the end.

Women can take and give a beatdown just as well as men -- I've seen it in the movies!

It is a shame that women have been "under-represented" among those who have participated in the glory of combat which leads to those juicy promotions. So,

-- Draft them.
-- Send them into combat in all-female units.
-- Repeat as necessary until enough have been killed and maimed so that they earn promotions at the same rate as men. Amputees can be so inspiring!

Equality,amirite?

Women can take and give a beatdown just as well as men -- I've seen it in the movies!

It is a shame that women have been "under-represented" among those who have participated in the glory of combat which leads to those juicy promotions. So,

-- Draft them.
-- Send them into combat in all-female units.
-- Repeat as necessary until enough have been killed and maimed so that they earn promotions at the same rate as men. Amputees can be so inspiring!

Equality,amirite?

Posted by: Jay R at April 9, 2015 1:35 PM

Let me tell you a little something about modern warfare.

Those artillery shells and roadside bombs do not discriminate on the basis of sex.

Women and children have been getting maimed and blown to kingdom come in battle by the millions , and most of them were civilians.

For example it was far far safer to be in the American military in 1945 than a civilian in Tokyo or Manilla.

Hillary? Is that you?

Yes Jay, I am all for including ALL adult citizens in the draft. It works well for Israel.

All female units (separate but equal?) might be a brilliant plan. Women are certainly stealthier than men, and can get places bulkier men just can't. Less upper body strength, but better balance and flexibility.

Hillary? Is that you?

Posted by: dee nile at April 9, 2015 6:38 PM

No, unlike Hillary, I was actually in the Army.....

All female units - that would be the trick. The thing is, the Marines are the holdout here.

- In Army basic, when you have to run distances while carrying a load (you know, like you might actually have to do in combat), they have trucks along to pick up them women, when they drop out of the run. Most women can't carry 100lb+ loads any distance at all, and certainly not while running.

- In the Navy, when it's time for that three-year deployment, surprising numbers of women suddenly find themselves pregnant. Real useful in time of war.

- In the Air Force, when a plane lands and needs quick servicing, you pick up your toolkit and run to the plane. The required tools are too heavy for many women, so they can't actually do their jobs anything until some male colleague carries their tools for them.

Women on the pointy end of these services are kind of a joke. Standards have been lowered everywhere, to allow the women into positions where, frankly, they are a danger to themselves and everyone around them. Of course, some women are qualified and capable, but the lowered standards mean that no one takes them seriously either - because how do you tell the difference?

Military bases for all three services have generally turned into huge child-care centers: the anti-discrimination measures have the effect of encouraging the women to become single mothers.

Momof4,

Don't forget greater stamina and higher chemical resistance.

Isab,

What would be the result if a man put on 50lbs and was unable to do his duty in the military? An honest question, I really don't know.

As a_random_guy points out a fair number of women abuse the pregnancy discharge. Maintaining the ability to perform should be required of all soldiers irrespective of gender. So both honorable and general discharges don't feel appropriate. But I never served so I don't know all the details.

Isab,

What would be the result if a man put on 50lbs and was unable to do his duty in the military? An honest question, I really don't know.

As a_random_guy points out a fair number of women abuse the pregnancy discharge. Maintaining the ability to perform should be required of all soldiers irrespective of gender. So both honorable and general discharges don't feel appropriate. But I never served so I don't know all the details.

Posted by: Ben at April 10, 2015 6:11 AM

He would not receive a promotion and would ultimately be forced to either resign if an officer, or would not be allowed to reenlistif he were enlisted.

And yes, discharges are abused for all sorts of reasons, and pregnancy is only one of them. These days there are much easier ways to get out of the military.

A bigger question is the fact that your fifty year old general does not have either the strength or the stamina of your 20 year old Marine.

Does that mean that he has no place in combat, or does it simply mean that his other skills are more important?

I agree that few women are suited for combat, but I don't think physical strength is the issue people want to make it out to be. It is an easy discriminator but a poor proxy for combat skills.

A lot of my fellow officers were all in favor of one physical standard for men and women, but when you asked them if the same standard should apply to the 45 year old Colonel in charge of the unit, they wanted to start making exceptions, and apply a double standard for age.

I don't think that most women are aggressive enough. They make fine snipers, but in general poor infantry.

This is the same reason, that I prefer men phlebotomists. Most women, in an effort not to hurt you, won't be aggressive enough with the needle and often end up doing it twice.. (And yes there are exceptions)

I agree with you Isab that if a job has a requirement then that should be the requirement. No exemptions for age, gender, skin, yada, yada, yada. Either those are the requirements or they aren't.

Similarly pregnancy is not longer the automatic discharge it once was. And as you say, there are plenty of other ways to abuse the discharge process. Honestly if you are a secretary at the pentagon being pregnant, fat, or old is not that big of a deal. Front line infantry, different story.

secretary at the pentagon being pregnant, fat, or old is not that big of a deal. Front line infantry, different story.

Posted by: Ben at April 10, 2015 12:10 PM

The problem with making yourself unfit for duty, is that people become termporarily unfit for duty all the time, and if you are going to court marshal women for becoming pregnant, you are going to have to do the same for the 20 year old male marine who crashes his motorcycle and breaks his leg, or goes to the beach and gets a second degree sunburn, and what about the male soldier, who,through his unprotected sexual activities, contracts AIDs instead of becoming pregnant?

You can't deploy him *ever*.

I agree Isab. If you are just temporarily unfit for duty that doesn't necessarily require court marshal. And what I read it looks like the military has moved in that direction with pregnancy no longer being an automatic out.

But I don't see why making yourself unfit for duty via baby is any different than other methods. In this day and age it is a very predictable and controllable event. PR is the only issue I see.

But I don't see why making yourself unfit for duty via baby is any different than other methods. In this day and age it is a very predictable and controllable event. PR is the only issue I see.

Posted by: Ben at April 10, 2015 4:10 PM

And no one should be getting AIDs either, but in the socio economic groups that your average military enlisted come out of, it happens more often than you think.

People are stupid, they do lots of unwise and easily preventable things.

The military would be a morass of conflicting, and probably unconstitutional discriminators if they attempted to distinguish between all the stupid things soldiers do that are easily preventable.

"The military would be a morass of conflicting, and probably unconstitutional discriminators if they attempted to distinguish between all the stupid things soldiers do that are easily preventable."

Hmm. "Unconstitutional". What is your view of the UCMJ?

My CO could deny me sunlight if he so chose (SSBN, SSN duty). The mission comes first.

Not the men, or "rights".

Hmm. "Unconstitutional". What is your view of the UCMJ?

The UCMJ is constitutional in and of itself.

It has occasionally been applied in such a way to violate either due process protections, or other constitutional rights, and in those cases, the Supreme Court had sided with defendents prosecuted under the UCMJ, just as they have sided with non military criminal defendents prosecuted under unconstitutional state laws.

I believe that cases brought under the UCMJ are generally more fairly decided than those in civilian courts, because the judges are not elected, and the juries are better educated.

Errors and unconstitutional prosecutions still occur.

The military had a higher standard for servicemen and officers intellectually, but they were lowered to let lower IQ blacks in (blacks score generally 80 on IQ tests vs. whites 100)

A female Marine officer--not combat arms--was out in the field in Iraq with her unit--intel, I think. She said females can't cut it in combat because, being lower on testosterone, they can't come back from the debilitating effects of overexertion as men can. That was her conclusion as she became less and less able to keep up with the guys.
As to strength, those who downplay it usually have no clue--full disclosure enlisted MOS light weapons Infantry, commissioned MOS Airborne Small Unit Infantry Commander--as to what is necessary. When you suggest that cocking the fifty while lying down is a better idea than getting to your knees for leverage, you'll get yelled at for, I dunno, willywaving or something.
Do the math. If a grunt carries two-thirds of his body weight, that might be, say 110 pounds. Pick another number. His equipment is sixty pounds. Means he has fifty pounds of expendables--ammo, stuff to kill people with. A woman's two thirds might be ninety pounds. Say her equipment--got the small size in body armor for example--is fifty pounds. She carries, then, ten pounds less ammo. Does that mean much? In a platoon of, say, thirty-five, 350 pounds. Not a sneeze. If you figure different average body weights and equipment weights, the amount of ammo differs, but it's always significant. With not much different figures, you might come to a platoon of forty women with half a ton less ammo.
Then there's hygiene. What with various kinds of crud running around, you might find everybody has explosive diarrhea. You can't go off and hide to do the biz when you're in the field. You drop trou in front of everybody else--who are hooting at you because that's what young guys do when it's not their turn--and then you smell so bad you try to stand up wind from yourself, not to mention everybody else.
Kipling has something on that. Epitaph for the refined man. "I turned aside for my needs. I was seen from afar and killed. Why is this reason for mirth? I paid the price to live with myself on the terms that I willed.? Which is cool, I suppose, except now his unit has an empty slot.
In the combat arms, peak strength is a major factor, even if it isn't necessary every day. It's necessary some days. The defnition of necessary is that if you don't have whatever it is, you're screwed. That means more dead people than are really necessary.

A female Marine officer--not combat arms--was out in the field in Iraq with her unit--intel, I think. She said females can't cut it in combat because, being lower on testosterone, they can't come back from the debilitating effects of overexertion as men can. That was her conclusion as she became less and less able to keep up with the guys.
As to strength, those who downplay it usually have no clue--full disclosure enlisted MOS light weapons Infantry, commissioned MOS Airborne Small Unit Infantry Commander--as to what is necessary. When you suggest that cocking the fifty while lying down is a better idea than getting to your knees for leverage, you'll get yelled at for, I dunno, willywaving or something.
Do the math. If a grunt carries two-thirds of his body weight, that might be, say 110 pounds. Pick another number. His equipment is sixty pounds. Means he has fifty pounds of expendables--ammo, stuff to kill people with. A woman's two thirds might be ninety pounds. Say her equipment--got the small size in body armor for example--is fifty pounds. She carries, then, ten pounds less ammo. Does that mean much? In a platoon of, say, thirty-five, 350 pounds. Not a sneeze. If you figure different average body weights and equipment weights, the amount of ammo differs, but it's always significant. With not much different figures, you might come to a platoon of forty women with half a ton less ammo.
Then there's hygiene. What with various kinds of crud running around, you might find everybody has explosive diarrhea. You can't go off and hide to do the biz when you're in the field. You drop trou in front of everybody else--who are hooting at you because that's what young guys do when it's not their turn--and then you smell so bad you try to stand up wind from yourself, not to mention everybody else.
Kipling has something on that. Epitaph for the refined man. "I turned aside for my needs. I was seen from afar and killed. Why is this reason for mirth? I paid the price to live with myself on the terms that I willed.? Which is cool, I suppose, except now his unit has an empty slot.
In the combat arms, peak strength is a major factor, even if it isn't necessary every day. It's necessary some days. The defnition of necessary is that if you don't have whatever it is, you're screwed. That means more dead people than are really necessary.

Ooops. Commissioned MOS is Airborne Infantry Small Unit Commander. Got some things turned around. That's 11B10 as a grunt and, old style, 71542 commissioned.