Changing culture takes time.
It took the US infantry fifty-five years and thousands of deaths to abandon the idea of trench warfare. It took the US cavalry twenty-five years to accept that armored tanks were better than horses against a machine gun. It took the US Supreme Court almost sixty years to decide that “separate but equal” was anything but equal and black Americans should attend school alongside white ones. It took America more than 130 years to declare that men and women should have equal voting rights. Just because policies take time and adjustments to “get it right” does not mean that they should be abandoned altogether. Women serving in combat roles is no exception: implementation and standards should be addressed, but the policy aim is right.
Last month, Heather Mac Donald’s Wall Street Journal op-ed argued that “women don’t belong in combat units.” In it, Mac Donald makes four main claims: first, that women are physiologically incapable of handling combat; second, that women cannot meet physical standards; next, that the “inevitable introduction of eros” will erode unit cohesion; and, finally, that military policies should only be made to improve combat effectiveness. While I agree with many of her premises and beliefs, I disagree with her conclusion. The US military’s combat arms branches do not need to ban women. They need to fix their standards problem.
Stress and Injuries
Mac Donald is correct in asserting that men’s and women’s bodies are different. We are physiologically different and, on average, a man’s body can handle more weight and physical hardship than a woman’s. But an average is no reason to categorically ban a population. Most average Americans cannot meet the basic eligibility standards to join the military; applying Mac Donald’s logic to that fact and ceasing to allow any Americans into the armed services more clearly demonstrates her logic’s absurdity. That’s why standards are applied individually; if an individual can meet the qualifying standard, he or she should be permitted to do the job.
I am slimmer and slighter than most of my infantry peers, a problem many female infantry aspirants also face. Upon commissioning, I weighed 155 pounds; I soon tore my shoulder labrum while grappling in training with soldiers thirty to seventy pounds heavier. I didn’t have time for surgery, so I carried on and went to Infantry Basic Officer Leader Course, where I gritted my teeth through a collapsed arch in my foot. Pressing forward, I went to Ranger School, which I flunked after contracting pneumonia. As soon as I was medically cleared to start walking, I ran to Airborne School before eventually returning to complete Ranger School. Years later, I assumed company command with Achilles tendinitis and a partially torn bicep, but I did not let that stop me from leading my company on runs, on ruck marches, and in combat training.
Physical injuries are part of the job, part of pushing and trying to meet a standard. One of the Army sayings I hate most is, “You gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet.” But it rings true in the sense that combat (and training for combat) produces injuries. Some people, regardless of gender, handle the strain of combat and training better than others.
And yes, as she points out, medical bills for combat-battered bodies are expensive. God forbid she ever sees the medical bills for my platoon sergeant, who nearly lost both his legs in an IED blast, or those of double-amputee Capt. Nick Vogt, or the cost of treating Lance Corp. Kyle Carpenter’s shattered arm, face, and brain. For all those willing to lay down their lives and batter their bodies in combat to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, we should be grateful to pay those bills.
Once again, I agree with Mac Donald’s argument that physical standards should be the same across the board. We are not alone in that sentiment. But, again, this is a standards problem—not a women-in-combat-arms problem.
Though I agree with Mac Donald’s premise—that physical standards should be the same across the board—there is a problem with her argument. “Gender neutral” requirements are actually the gold standard in combat-focused training, not a punchline to be mocked. What gender-neutral Army standards exist were not created to qualify more women, as Mac Donald claims; they were designed to ensure that standards were not lowered just to qualify more women. Ranger School, for instance, is one of the few places in the Army that has always had single, and thus gender-neutral, standards—because there, the standards are tied to combat tasks, not arbitrary age- or gender-based goals.
Mac Donald points out that only two out of thirty-six women have passed Marine infantry officer training. Similarly, only three out of the first nineteen women to attempt Ranger School passed. To me, this demonstrates that gender-neutral standards work. If Mac Donald’s sky-is-falling claims were true, thirty-six Marine females and nineteen female Rangers would have passed due to diluted standards. Instead, the opposite is true. At times, male Navy SEAL candidates have faced 20-percent pass rates at their initial training; it is not unusual for more than half of an all-male Ranger School class to fail the initial physical fitness assessment, and some classes have seen pass rates drop as low as 35 percent; all-male Army Special Forces training consistently hovers around a 30-percent pass rate. We don’t ban men from those programs because of their low pass rates; we point to them as evidence that the standards work to separate qualified men from unqualified ones.
Where Mac Donald does have a valid point is that female combat recruits should have to “meet the same physical standards as men.” But I propose changing that statement to read: “all combat soldiers should have to meet the same physical standards.” My—and many others’—frustration with the current physical fitness standards is the arbitrary nature of age- or gender-specific scales. Under current fitness standards based on age and gender, my thirty-seven-year-old former platoon sergeant must run two miles in 18:18 to pass with the minimum sixty points. But if one of our twenty-year-old privates were to take that long, he would score only twenty-seven points and fail. Yet we were all expected to carry the same weapons, perform the same tasks, and go on the same patrols in Afghanistan. And yes, the current physical fitness standards for women are even more skewed than for old men.
The current standards for anyone to enter combat arms are not sufficient. I once had a male soldier, fresh out of all-male infantry basic training, fall out of a ruck march after less than a quarter mile with only thirty-five pounds of weight on his back—thirty-five pounds which the Platoon then had to carry for the next eight miles. I also led a company ruck march where two male soldiers fainted and one male noncommissioned officer outright quit, while one female soldier refused to stop walking even as she wheezed through an asthma attack. While serving in the Army’s only air assault division, I had a young male soldier repeatedly fail to meet the basic gender-neutral physical standards required to attend Air Assault School. These soldiers’ genders did not help or hurt our unit; their fitness, fortitude, and abilities—or lack thereof—did. The solution to these problems is to create appropriate, realistic, age- and gender-neutral standards for combat arms—not to ban any entire demographic group because there is a weak standard in place.
Hormones and Eros and Sex, Oh My!
I appreciate Mac Donald not reiterating my favorite line of ridiculous argument—that male soldiers can’t stop themselves from sexually assaulting female soldiers. But this “hormonally charged” argument isn’t much better.
I particularly enjoy Mac Donald’s pearl clutching over male Marines doing a handstand around females. Oh the horror! I can only imagine how much Mac Donald would have blushed had she seen my all-male squad’s frolicking “dance off”—with handstands galore—in the barracks after a tough, muddy, stressful week of infantry training.
But seriously, will there be inappropriate fraternization like sexual liaisons, rivalries, and breakups that undermine team bonding? Undoubtedly. I took over my current company as it was recovering from the aftershock of a consensual, male/female, NCO/soldier sexual relationship. It was handled according to Army Regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice—the standard—and the company moved on, learning and rebuilding trust as we went.
As some of Mac Donald’s points illustrate, there is also a disturbing power imbalance present in most sexual liaisons that make consent difficult to determine. I was serving as a young platoon leader at Fort Campbell when accusations arose of a male squad leader who was repeatedly using his rank to coerce numerous subordinate soldiers into sexual liaisons in his all-male unit during a combat deployment. The fallout stemming from that situation certainly harmed their fighting force. This is nothing new; problems arising from power imbalances, sexual liaisons, rivalries, and breakups have been present in militaries for millennia—long before women joined the combat arms.
As a commander, my concern with fraternization is not solely about sex; that issue is just one part of a larger problem across the Army. During my time in command, I’ve also been surprised and concerned to find young team leaders on a first-name basis with their senior platoon sergeants. It’s almost a weekly battle of whack-a-mole to chase down stories of squad leaders and NCOs throwing weekend parties for their favorite junior soldiers. What some call bonding and “guy stuff,” the Army prohibits in Army Regulation 600-20 as “undue familiarity.” A junior soldier who spends time hanging out with, drinking with, and doing God-knows-what with a senior NCO with whom he is on a first-name basis is every bit as damaging as a sexual liaison to building esprit de corps in a unified fighting force. Once again, the problem isn’t women; it’s failing to meet the standard.
I absolutely expect my male soldiers not to sexually assault or have inappropriate relations with female soldiers; that doesn’t mean we should ban female soldiers from combat units. I also expect my soldiers not to beat their spouses or drive drunk; does that mean we should ban marriage or driving in combat units? Of course not. It just means we need to do a better job enforcing standards and discipline.
Once again, I concur—this time without qualification—with Mac Donald’s argument about the aims of military policies. Women’s promotion potential should not be a reason to adjust combat policies; promoting a social agenda should not be a factor; catering to a political lobby should not be a reason. Policies should never be aimed at reaching a quota or making a press release. Military policies should only be developed for one purpose: fighting and winning our nation’s wars.
This is why I believe that the right women should continue to serve in combat arms roles under age- and gender-neutral, combat-focused standards.
I wish I had had a female soldier with me in Afghanistan when an Afghan woman approached me begging for help. Armed males menacingly gathered around to heckle and began physically harassing her for talking to me; I tried to help, but the more I tried, the worse it got. After we left, I never saw that woman again; I’m still haunted by what may have happened to her. If I had had a female soldier with me, that situation might have ended very differently.
Are there females in my company who are overweight or cannot pass a fitness test or do a buddy drag or complete a ruck march or finish an obstacle course? Yes, unfortunately. Are there also males in my company who are overweight or cannot do these things? Yes, unfortunately. Is that a problem? Absolutely. But there are also several stars—of both genders—that pull more than their fair share of the weight. Though we encounter myriad obstacles, my first sergeant and I work ceaselessly to train and improve the soldiers that cannot meet the standard and dismiss the soldiers from the Army if they are ultimately unable to do so.
Women can and do bring different skills and perspectives to the table and often approach problems differently. Some women have proven themselves able to demonstrate leadership and articulate new ideas better than some of their male counterparts. Women like Capt. Shaye Haver or Capt. Kris Griest, the first two female Ranger School graduates; or my female executive officer, my highly competent second-in-command; or Rezagul, the Afghan woman who killed twenty-five Taliban fighters; or any of the Army women’s rugby players—any of these would undoubtedly make any infantry unit better, stronger, and more lethal. Are they “average” women? No. But they can meet the standard; why ban them from doing so?
Changing a culture is never without headache or heartache. Racial integration of the Army was not easy, either—it had more than its fair share of stutters and missteps, from social isolation to all-black units to segregated facilities. But flawed standards and imperfect implementation are not good reasons to scrap worthy policies. We should not penalize a capable and competent minority of women because the majority may not be qualified to serve in combat arms units; instead, let’s fix the real problem so that all of our combat forces adhere to a higher standard.
Capt. Micah Ables is currently deployed with the 1st Cavalry Division as the commander of one of the Army’s first and, currently, only four mixed-gender mechanized infantry companies. He previously served as a platoon leader and executive officer in an all-male heavy weapons company with the 101st Airborne Division during a deployment to Afghanistan. He is a graduate of Ranger, Airborne, and Air Assault schools. Follow him on social media: @mableswrites.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense.
Image credit: Sgt. 1st Class Jason Kriess, US Army National Guard
Injury rates and the long term outcomes don’t justify the investment of resources, institutional change and cost. Will deter recruiting as well
There are higher and better uses of most women in the military or peripheral roles. No matter the appealing aspects of citations within this article, we will nearly always fall behind the men who qualify and do not suffer the injuries and time consuming issues both lesser men and most women will frequently.
If a female wants to serve in a military combat and has the physical + mental capability to do it, let her do it. Even if there are less-risky job opportunities for her, let her do it. At the end, almost every job sector is equivalently important and necessary. And having both males and females engaged in every profession and sector possible is really necessary (specially when they have the ability to do it). And this article doesn’t deny that only few females will qualify while most or half males will qualify. The male to female ratio won’t be equal, that’s the only fact. If the physical strength of the females and the males and every single person engaged in a military combat is same or very highly similar… it’s all fine. Because even though females are weaker in case of handling physical and mental load than males, males fall down sometimes and need help as well. This article talks about facts. Females should be let in every profession and it’s different sectors if they’re worthy for it. There’s no such thing as “only for males” or “only for females” here, because all these concepts and rules were at the end created by humans to serve particular needs and so humans can slightly change them as well. Because when needs changes, rules related to it have to change too.
And having both males and females engaged in every profession and sector possible is really necessary
"And having both males and females engaged in every profession and sector possible is really necessary…"
Can you elaborate as to why it would be necessary in every sector possible?
"Because even though females are weaker in case of handling physical and mental load than males, males fall down sometimes and need help as well."
Yea but if you're a man who falls down and needs help, to get out of harms way on a battlefield for example, you'd prefer a mans strength. No?
"Females should be let in every profession and it’s different sectors if they’re worthy for it."
Define worthy. I'd say if them being a woman doesn't interfere with the job in any way and/or doesn't make it more dangerous for the persons health. Which in most normal jobs it doesn't. But this is about the military.
No. Training soldiers is an investment in American time and resources. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to properly train an infantryman. It is a life and death job and the highest standards of fitness should be expected because that means life and death not only for the soldier, but for their whole platoon.
If one soldier can’t be expected to carry the 140 lb required for the 10 mile movement over rough terrain, they are a liability. It means they move slower, louder, or need to have their gear carried by others who will be overburdened and potentially injured because the unfit is not pulling their weight.
Pregnancy is also an issue. You have women 18-30 joining the infantry, they are in their physical prime and they are very fertile. So are men. When a man gets someone pregnant, he can still do his job. If a woman gets pregnant, she is sidelined for at least a year.
This means she can’t deploy with soldiers she trained or trained with. What if 2 months before deployment, a female platoon sergeant at 29, gets pregnant? She has worked hard, developed her body and her platoon to work as a well oiled machine, and now due to off-duty activities (better be off duty activity) she is now non-deployable and cannot lead her platoon in combat.
Now the platoon deploys without a critical leader who everyone depends on. She has to sit back in the rear on light duty while her people fight and die without her. And even if all goes perfectly, she isn’t there when people need her because of natural biology.
Now what about the rest of her career? Pregnancy is hell on the body and even after giving birth she has maternity leave, so we are at over a year of her not acting as an Infantry leader, only doing light PT. Women recover physically and gain muscle slower than men’s bodies too, but lets assume it takes her 3 months to get back to her typical fighting shape.
At this point she’d have been out of her position for 15 months. She has not been leading her soldiers. She has been sitting back on soft shoe profile. What happens to her career? Should she be promoted if she’s able to get out of deployments and leave the company in a critical role left empty because she may get pregnant again? That’s not fair to her or the company/battalion/soldiers. She should be passed up for promotion because another E6/E7 took her spot and shouldered the responsibility she couldn’t.
This isn’t to disparage women. This situation is an eventuality which is entirely avoidable by keeping women in non-combat roles. It os time, energy, and training wasted on someone who isn’t there to do their duty when the nation calls for it.
The military has a number to fill. Why would you train to a large failure rate and spend more money, just to accommodate political correctness? I served, and the women could not carry the heavy weapons, the water, or the artillery rounds. The only way to make this work would be to have a physical entrance exam. Even then I've taken puches from the strongest females, it was like getting hit by a middle school kid. Put the men and women together in the MMA and see how that goes. I'm sick of people lying about what combat really is.
your ego is full of it. Women have there part in the military, and its not engaging in battle. I wouldn't want a female in a foxhole with me in any war period…
Females may be weaker at handling physical load, but there is no evidence that they are weaker at handling mental load. Quite the contrary. Males are four times likely to commit suicide.
Do not enter the military if you just want a regular paycheck. There is a standard to be met and those who do not meet it, man or woman, have no place in the military. A cook or a clerk or a radio operator or an administrative staff will have to be pulled out of their assignments and do combat duty if necessary. And they should be physically and mentally fit when they are assigned that role.
This article was so illogical it was funny. Women don't belong in the military, was have had to change our physical test multiple times FOR WOMEN and they still fail to pass it. The person writing the article stated 'That’s why standards are applied individually," when and where does this happen? Standards are not individual in the military recruits have to pass a fitness test and it is not changed for one individual. The only time the fitness test is changed is for women.
What a crock of bullshit!
Good take on women in the military. Yes they can do it and yes I have seen them do it so let’s be done with it and applaud our women in the military and in combat just like many of our allies nations do. Keep up the great effort our females who must work harder, be tougher and earned every bit of what they achieve. God bless them all!
I served in the military too. As a Gunners Mate, I saw the very beginning of all this woke feminist bullshit. The majority of females couldn't do the the jobs. The only thing they did is put lives at risk.
My thoughts are this. Women in the military is positive. Personally I believe in roles that fall in non-combat orientated positions. And my logic is this.
As stated in the article and as is biological fact, women's bodies are more succeptable to injury. Yes the perseverance is important, but when that injury is a broken arm the chances of winning the fight drop drastically. I personally would not want to be in a FUBAR situation (most situations that fall to hand to hand combat) with someone who is more likely to suffer a sever injury and thus deteriorating a bad situation even further.
What ? Are men made of steel ? Don’t they suffer injuries ? If your country s in crisis why not let women fight alongside men ? How long are you gonna let misogynistic ego get in everything s way ! What’s the problem in allowing a woman to shoot the enemy ! Is a ladies only job to reproduce? What is this shit ! I don’t understand!
Why don't you post your name, coward. You don't know if you've been shot, powder burned, fucked, or snake bit. I AM SO SICK OF ALL THIS POLITICAL WOKE FEMINIST CRAP ! I tell you what, the next time we have to go into a combat situation, send in an all female unit including you and let's see what happens.
yes. It takes more money as well when you fill your infatry with people half as capable – it makes no sense that why most countries (western-woke or not) do not front females as their elite fighting squad – there wouldn't be enough women anyway to make a full army of capable fighters and the fact is, if there was, they would be taken down by a b-grade platoon from a 3rd-world country.
I predicted many years ago that the end result would be a high failure rate and injury rate for females in infantry. Next, the feminists would come up with "perhaps we need to reconsider what is required to be in infantry". This means lowering the requirements so that fewer women would fail. This might seem to fix the problem of women failing in training and dramatically higher injuries. But, it also means that men that would not have made the standard before will now meet the standards that were lowered for women, resulting in not only more women that can't really withstand the rigors of infantry life, but men who would have washed out before will now make it too, resulting in less effective troops of both sexes. This is why the Marine Corps fought for so long to maintain the combat edge they have over our enemies that is formed by a very tough program of physical requirements that is intended to weed out all but the toughest-minded and physically fit Marine. Very sad to see that the Corps has now been forced to lower their standards for political reasons, after they clearly demonstrated that even women who made it through the training ended up having 40% more injuries, and many are skeletal injuries which occur because the female bone size and density don't hold up well to infantry service.
Thats why most women who have gone through spec ops training are either getting recycled or drop out because they just cant make it.
Did you actually read the article? It covers the points you raise and deals with the flawed argument you're making. But you know, carry on with your male-supremacy BS. No, I'm neither female nor a beta.
Here's something for you to try and get your misogynistic, stuck-in-your-ways brain cells around – women are a smaller target, more disciplined, consume fewer resources and can aim their weaponry just as accurately. Oh and this is to say nothing of the fact they don't tend to rape non-combatant females in war zones. They are also FAR more likely to be able to successfully engage the support and compliance of locals in an urban warfare scenario – commander after commander has said as much. If you don't think that's important, go back to playing Call of Duty.
"I'm neither female nor a beta."
No, just someone divorced from reality.
"compliance of locals in an urban warfare scenario "
Yeah, no. In Afghan and many Middle Eastern cultures the very idea would be considered an affront. We're talking about people that consider women sub-human and attack girls for daring to attend school. It'd depend entirely on the locale.
It’s this simple if a 6 foot man with a knife is trying to kill a girl in war she’s most likely fucked also women tend to be more emotional and you don’t want someone to blow your cover because there crying or you don’t want them to get tired and have to wait for them
Ok so sure they can talk to people and they can aim a weapon just as good but that does not mean they cant be spec ops they cant lower the standers for a women because the standers are there to single out the best of the best the if a women cant meet the standers they cant operate because they will not be as good as a male that has meet en those standards and do not bring rape into it that has nothing to do with operating its about meeting the standards made for a vary specific reason to single out the best and most elite i wouldn't trust a women in a spec ops team that did not have as hard and tough training as me and so far no women has meet these standards that are vary needed to operate on a spec ops team so to sum it up women need to be held up to the same standards as men if they want to operate
YOUR FULL OF IT, EGO.
Did you know that women can: carry less, run slower, shoot less accurately, get injured more easily, get pregnant meaning they wont be fighting.
They are also physically weaker and locals will dislike female military personnel since American wars are fought in the middle east and we all know how friendly they are to women in charge.
Now these are the advantages we are looking for people!
No. Women aim much worse than men, search it up. Also, they don’t need less resources, they need more because of injuries, and 58% of hospitalized female soldiers are from pregnancy, sucking up more resources. Men have 50% more upper body strength. But by all means, continue ranting your political agenda, ignoring the facts
Male soldiers don't "tend" to "rape" non-combatant females in war zones. Criminals do and the criminal element is statistically small and leadership needs to prosecute to the full extent of the law those troops who commit crimes such as rape. To me the real and biggest detractor besides "standards" has to be the lost training time, unit cohesion and deployments due to "pregnancy. Male combat troops do not get "pregnant", get excused from training due to pending child birth and then for an extended period following childbirth. Male troops do not get exempted from deployment due to pregnancy. Pregnancy in the combat arms degrades unit cohesion, collective training tasks and combat effectiveness. Combat arms troops suffer enough physical injuries (both male and female) that already impact on such considerations, so why would they add even more down time concerns in our combat arms units? Also, consider not just the short term injuries to female troops, but the long term health concerns for female combat arms troops due to pelvic bone structure differences and overall bone density issues, not to mention female specific health issues concerning their reproductive systems. Lastly, the issue is about standards, and being able to train and deploy over the long haul are among the most vital of standards.
More disciplined? Wtf are you rambling on about….
More excuses, the military should focus on one of the two genders to be in the front lines and that should be the gender that is best suited for the job. End this woke PC nonsense.
That's honestly why there should be different standards. One for women and one for men. It would keep the men's side on tip top shape or whatever, and the women still have a fighting chance
Fighting chance? This is about life and death, and about entire countries. Nobody cares about gender equality here.
Separate, but equal is unconstitutional according to SCOTUS, so why would separate and unequal be?
Actually NO, different standards breeds contempt, I was in the military and saw it, inferior women promoted ahead of far better qualified men then asked the men for help, I used to resent helping the women doing small tasks than the men were given, also they were being screwed by the men all the time, they couldn't do the basic training and their studies were inferior, they are simply not good enough.
Ah, but what does that have to do with our P.C. Culture and snowflake world today, LOL. I was aggressed by an OPFOR, that I did not know was OPFOR and did not know was a female. We had to pick her up by the road and take her to her unit the next morning, she was lucky she was not more permanently injured. We had a pretty good minimum height and weight standard in the 8" artillery. Went I send her flying into the night sky, I told my buddy I didn't know who tried to steal my M16 but it was one of the lightest soldiers in our unit. The joke was on me and her. The women could not carry the 60 with ammo for any distance, nor the heavy gear, nor the 5-gallon cans of water. Each round for our Gun weighed over 200 pounds, we had men who would throw them on their shoulder and run with them. I could cradle one like a baby.
They will ask the Geneva Convention to reconvene in order to make a male combatant assaulting a female combatant a war crime.
I think it already is a war crime, mistreatment of POW type of scenario.
I am a woman and I served 28 years in the military and I totally agree with you.
Will you marry me?!
Nothing hotter than a strong women with honesty!!
IBELIVE MOST MEN ARE AFRAID THAT Some WOMAN can do better than some men, & some men can not deal with some woman are better than them!!!!!
no its just 70 percent of women do worse in the army then men.
This is what I was talking about. Typical woke feminist crap again.
Then why dont they require women to sign up for the draft. A recent court decision even says women shouldn't be required so much for equal treatment under the law!
have to agree, all males should never serve and all these superwomen soldiers should be in every single unit top to bottom.
look out universe, they are coming for you.
I would agree with that honestly. This should have been passed a long time ago under the Equal Rights Ammentment of 1973. Fuck you Phyllis Schlafly
As a woman, I would gladly sign up for the draft. I think women should fight for their country. If I don't qualify for a combat position, I will serve where I'm better qualified.
Men say women are more emotional. Have you met men? Men are without a doubt more emotional.
As for women in the military: Most men aren't suited for war. Some men are very weak bodied and weak willed. To say they're better suited because they're a man is just sexist. To say a woman shouldn't be allowed even if she can pass basic requirements is sexist.
The fact it even needs to be argued is sexist. But so is the world.
Women shouldn't have to be in the military since war only exists because of the emotionality of men, but if they want to and can, why not?
No…just no….99 percent of women aren’t fit for combat. Sure I’ll give you most men aren’t either but the percent that are is insanely higher than on the women’s side. Of course the military is sexist, they’re also ableist and ageist….it’s literally the whole point of increasing lethality.
"some men aren't fit ". no kidding! that's WHY THERE ARE MINIMUM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS and why many men FAIL thus don't get to BE soldiers.Who here is arguing those men should still be waived through?
Are you or are you not arguing to allow women into combat roles regardless if they can/cannot pass THE SAME STANDARDS ?
Do you want a surgeon who's job was based on gender or race operating on you or a family member? OR do you want the top performer ?
some men are weak bodied lies men are biologically stronger then women if anything women are the weaker side and men are more emotional were did you get that conclusion Research has suggested that women express emotions more frequently than men on average. Multiple researchers have found that women cry more frequently, and for longer durations, than men at similar ages.
CAN WOMEN EVEN DO 5 CHINUPS IN BOOT CAMP
No, their chins are better at chattering than doing chinups.
It's as simple as this. Up close and personal with bayonets, knives, entrenching tools and rocks, a woman simply cannot watch her buddy's back the way a male can.
If women were suitable for the most violent profession in earth, they wouldn't need special protection in law against domestic violence, tape and separate sports, prisons and a me too movement.
Maybe there wouldn't be the need for a Me Too movement if rape and assault weren't so widespread and rampant. It's not women being unfit, it's the harassment and traditional outlook on women and the misogynistic out view on what women can and cannot handle. The Domestic abuse claim is just false information, do you even know how abuse works? Women are not the only ones subject to domestic violence, it's universal.
My biggest concern is pregnancy. How is it right that as a man you are expected to work for a paycheck, but if you are in the army as a woman, you get a break from deployment for almost 2 years. 9 months growing and now 365 days postpartum. If you decide to have 3 kids, you can get up to 6 years off with pay. That's insane. Meanwhile everyone else is told deploy or get out.
Thank you, Navy veteran.
One thing your article failed to point out is intermingling of the sexes. One of my wife's good friends was kicked out of the military for having an affair with one of his female students. One of my personal friends is also in the Navy explain to me the women on ships and the pregnancy rates and a lot of other things that are just problematic when men and women work together having sex in addition to the sexual harassment rates increasing constantly no sign of that going down. So yes there are positives there are a lot of tough females but there's also unfortunately the intermingling of the Sexes which causes a lot of problems for a lot of personal lives families and destroyed careers.
People hookup. Better than not having sex for a whole year
Your a genius Ryan, SGT how did they get past our guards? Oh sorry, sir they were hooking up!
If someone cannot withhold from having sex, knowing the consequences, then that is a maturity level problem, not a "because there is a female there problem"
Sarah, you are incorrect. Humans will always seek to mate. Teens do it geriatrics do it. It isn’t maturity. And I think you also fail to realize that these interpersonal relationships DO degrade units. I’ve see. It happen. Morale. Jealousy. Different treatment.
It is maturity. They have to realize the consequences of their actions. They have to realize that women aren't there for men to have sex with. They are there because they chose to be there and chose to put their lives at risk just as much as men, and if men can't keep their pants up, then they shouldn't even be there. This also goes for women as well. If neither gender can go without having sex, then they shouldn't be in a job that requires them to be in a certain body type
and how would that bedifferent from the cases Micah mentioned above with inappropriate relations between an NCO and his juniors?
Furthermore militaries have some of the highest homoeroticism you will ever see anywhere
I'd say the maturity level problem is the unfortunately widespread, disparaging of the male lived experience willfully-ignorant female. Who plays-down what it takes for a male to walk around with 10 times the testosterone (and higher, in combat military personnel selected for this trait) she will EVER have the handle the behavioral consequences of. All of which is really obvious from the other sex's perspective, but is lied-about by omission in most Feminist arguments, for example. The reason Feminism is accused of man-hatred is because misandry (man-hatred) is formed of hatred AND contempt. Playing-down what discipline men need on a daily basis, is pure contempt for males. It is taken for granted by entitled, spoilt women. The kind of person you really DON'T want on your team. The entitlement to male disciplined behavior, is unfortunately part of the old unwritten rules where women used to feel entitled BUT more balanced on the condition of being mothers and working hard for that entitlement themselves in return. Teamwork. Feminism's Communist-derived rush to destroy the Nuclear Family, is bearing some pretty rotten fruit when people are gaslighting each other that basic human biology doesn't exist in the way that it clearly does. How dare they be that short-sighted and egotist – immature?! Our enemies laugh at our brainwashed stupidity in tolerating this undermining of the family and military. Make no mistake.
woah you really just made a massive leap didnt you
I agree with sarah
Go look up stories from old peoples homes where they are screwing around like teenagers. It's not a maturity issue, it's a hormone and proximity issue.
Even when all people involved have the dicipline(or w/e you want to call it) to not act on those factors it will still make a difference in focus, etermination, cohesion etc. that the tension is there. So why?
Great point Sarah, maturity is not one of the military's strongest assets. Youth and speed are important as well. Trust me the mix not being there makes leading troops a whole lot easier. Not to mention the additional facilities etc. Plus I imagine you have no concept of how they function, but you are talking about people literally sleeping together for long periods of time in small two-man tents under tarps, etc. The bigger issue is strength and speed. I've done 32-hour continuous ops and I had to carry many times more weight than what was normal or safe because the women to the very last toughest one could not pack the weight. Ammo is heavy, squad weapons are heavy, Water and medical supplies are heavy. So in combat you don't mind if it takes 20 percent longer to get from point A to point B and how many people die because of the delay as long a women can serve, right?
Then the US is obviously doing something wrong because women have successfully served in combat all their lives throughout human history in many different countries and cultures
In miniscule fractions that are meaningless and have similarly rarely involved straight combat roles. Always a way out, always some other task to do
It depends on the type of unit, military and mission. It is easier to fight in a war where weight doesn't help or hurt the individual combat troops. But humping 110 or more pounds for long durations, up mountains and through thick jungle, then being expected to fight on arrival, carry your own wounded off the battlefield and do this for 20 – 30 years is not figured into your historical lesson Richard.
Females are surely capable of driving a mechanized vehicle into combat, sit in a static position and fire their weapons effectively and have done so on many battlefields. But who usually has to do the heavy lifting for a thrown track? How many females have been part of a M-2 team and carried the gun , the extra barrel bag, the ammo or the tripod T&E up and down a steep hill repeatedly? On certain Special Operations missions I've carried in over 150 lbs of gear, with extended foot marches/patrols only to have to fight once I arrived at the target. I only weight 165 lbs. and was expected to carry my fair share of the weight with no excuses given or accepted for being lighter than my 225 lb brethren. How many 115 lb females (or even 165 lb females) are out there that can do this? Can they do it again tomorrow and the next day and the next?
It is long past time to take the politics and social engineering out of this argument and to replace it with commonsense, reality based medical studies and a hefty dose of reality!
I really don't understand why should be comparison. All around the world always talk about gender gap, gender privilege, but very few talk about gender responsibility. If really want equality, then demolish alimony, make all women pay equally on household, dont let women ne housewife, go out work or be homeless, let women do trash job, sewage job, hard labor job equally.
Traditionally we have put gender role, privilege and responsibility, based one biologically function and cultural. Until this generation teach that women are better than men, they should have what they want, men cannot insult women, but women can, men must support women or otherwise misogynist, but when women not support men, it's women right. Yet you still compare and give statistic women are doing better and men not.
The problem is not men, it's actually the stupid system implemet. This system does not make women stronger, it just make men weaker.
I agree when many of the women in my unit found out we were deploying in 6 months within 3 months at least 60% became pregnant and didnt have to deploy
Thank you, Capt. Ables for your spot on response to the OP ed piece.
You failed to ask a very pertinent question, hwever: How would she know ANYTHING about Infantry qualification? Where and when did she serve?
I find it incredibly insulting that people that have never served a minute in defense of our Nation think they know how best to do the job.
I would be honored to serve under you, Sir.
Cpl. Joseph "Doc" Cote
A Co. 3d Bn. 7th SFG (Airborne)
Ft. Gulick, Panama, CZ (1975-1981)
Retired 20 years Special Operations so I have a pretty good understanding of what the standards are but here's the thing. We all know what the standards are for attending college for a certain degree and we can write articles about them even though we never attended this University or course . Attending has nothing to do with standards, the standards are there. So your argument that because she's never served she can't pass judgment on standards is just incorrect.
Just so I understand you correct you were a Cpl/Corporal (E-4) in 7th SFG? Are you a long tabber or support?
Ft. Bragg, NC (1994-2015)
J.S. You would understand continuous ops obviously and the physical demands of the job. 5 Gallons of water will always weigh 40 pounds plus the can. Ammo will be heavy, Arty ammo is super heavy. Rather than talking about the standards, I'd love to see people talk about realities. And in the Military, it is also a numbers game. how many do you want to train to find the females that can operate at the same physical level as the males? What are your thoughts? Experiences with this, please?
Whether athletic competition where one walks away with a trophy or physical combat where one walks away with one’s life, one prevailing over another is the universally desired outcome, and optimum physical capability is the universally required standard. While strength differences do occur between men, in any kind of competitive physical interaction a woman CANNOT be optimally trained equally with a man. In the men’s Olympic 100 meter dash all men do not finish first, yet no women compete with them! The biggest strongest most talented professional woman boxer would never be put in the ring with a Muhammad Ali or Mike Tyson. They would be KILLED!!! So says the DNA; ALL women have fewer red blood cells than all men, ALL women have less oxygen carrying hemoglobin then men, ALL women have less dense bones and muscles, a wider different shaped pelvis affecting running jumping and climbing, smaller lungs, smaller hearts, etc. These are immutable XY/XX chromosome determined gender differences affecting physical strength, stamina, muscle/skeletal structure and speed essential for survival in hand-to-hand combat in a foxhole or a field, and CANNOT be changed by congressional legislation, judicial ruling, hormone doping, mutalating surgery, or forced social indoctrination based on gender mental illness! Political Correctness is not the Breakfast of Champions…it is the poisoned Breakfast of Fools…DEAD FOOLS!!!!!
Did you read the post at all? Micah acknowledegs that men are generally stronger than women. However for those exceptional ones who pass the standards, there is no reason they should not be let in.
yeah,we've read YOUR comments, too.
But so then tell us your position on allowing men to compete with women in women's sports? We're waiting ….
Time to stop the madness! Whether athletic competition where one walks away with a trophy or physical combat where one walks away with one’s life, one prevailing over another is the universally desired outcome, and optimum physical capability is the universally required standard. While strength differences do occur between men, in any kind of competitive physical interaction a woman CANNOT be optimally trained equally with a man. In the men’s Olympic 100 meter dash all men do not finish first, yet no women compete with them! The biggest strongest most talented professional woman boxer would never be put in the ring with a Muhammad Ali or Mike Tyson. They would be KILLED!!! So says the DNA; ALL women have fewer red blood cells than all men, ALL women have less oxygen carrying hemoglobin then men, ALL women have less dense bones and muscles, a wider different shaped pelvis affecting running jumping and climbing, smaller lungs, smaller hearts, etc. These are immutable XY/XX chromosome determined gender differences affecting physical strength, stamina, muscle/skeletal structure and speed essential for survival in hand-to-hand combat in a foxhole or a field, and CANNOT be changed by congressional legislation, judicial ruling, hormone doping, mutalating surgery, or forced social indoctrination based on gender mental illness! Political Correctness is not the Breakfast of Champions…it is the poisoned Breakfast of Fools…DEAD FOOLS!!!!!
Asclepius: I can think of several women I'd rather be deployed with than a whole lot of men. At the end of the day, I don't care what color, gender, or sexual orientation the person next to me is when I step off on patrol. What I care about is: Can they do their job? What would you rather have? A man who can't drag you to cover or a woman who can? Having deployed as a medical officer in Infantry and Field Artillery units plus commanded in a medical unit (also deployed), I have seen the gamut of what is required of Soldiers. In my infantry BCT, of the 6 female medics sent down to the infantry companies on the last deployment (to interact with/search Afghan women), 5 of them ended up separating from service (4 of them for hip injuries, 1 for another musculoskeletal injury). On the flip side, I also put several male Soldiers out for similar injuries. I actually agree with the points you made, and they are physiologically correct, but you failed to account for one thing. That is many MALES in combat arms units cannot pass standards and get injured. The rate of injury in support units is much higher than you might think. (Ask any PA or unit surgeon about the recovery rate is for an 88M with low back pain). At the end of the day, what is most important is that we maintain standards and don't change them to meet a political agenda. Now there is a valid argument to be had over if that is occurring. The party-line is that is has not. The grapevine says otherwise. I'm willing to give the Army the benefit of the doubt on that one until I see otherwise… but I am still very wary of politicians (congress) getting involved over their "pet issues". That will get worse (initially) when the ACFT gets implemented, as some events appear to be a problem for very small women in support MOSs. The Army has this right and should see it through. One standard… because your enemy doesn't care about your gender or your profile. Your job requirements should determine the standards, not your gender. If they meet those requirements, and are willing to fight and die for their country… let them. Lastly, we should look at requiring women to register for the selective service like all males are. Equal opportunity should = Equal opportunity (voluntary or not).
At 190lbs I can honestly say that I have never met a woman that would feel comfortably carrying me or dragging me. My cousin (female) went to VMI ‘17 and I went to USMA 16’. We both score a 300 on our PT test. She scored the highest APFT in her entire school her senior year (males included) I believe it was around a 340 (Way higher than I scored) on the extended scare. However, our scores are not even close to similar, I don’t believe she came very close to maxing the run or pushups on male standards, I really don’t believe I’ve met a woman who has maxed all male standards as a good amount of men do. If she was able to max a male PT test and maintain strength that many males have, she might want to go compete in the CrossFit games and be a million sure. However I don’t know any women like that, except the ones you might seen on espn. She is a Sig officer and I an infantry officer. She 110% agrees that women don’t belong in combat roles. There’s more to PT than just performing that pt test. Strength is a huge factor. You can argue for “standards” all day but end of the day, you’re just arguing against biology which is absolutely absurd.
The standard is in place. Regardless of what gender you are. Make the minimum requirements, but do not change those requirements. There are other jobs for service members.
Men die in war, women make babies. Accept it or be forever unhappy.
Happy women don't self-delude and respect what men do. Willfully-ignorant females with entitlement complexes play-down what it takes for a male to walk around with 10 times the testosterone (and higher, in combat military personnel selected for this trait) she will EVER have the handle the behavioral consequences of. All of which is really obvious from the other sex's perspective, but is lied-about by omission in most Feminist arguments, for example. The reason Feminism is accused of man-hatred is because misandry (man-hatred) is formed of hatred AND contempt. Playing-down what discipline men need on a daily basis, is pure contempt for males. It is taken for granted by entitled, spoilt women. The kind of person you really DON'T want on your team. The entitlement to male disciplined behavior, is unfortunately part of the old unwritten rules where women used to feel entitled BUT more balanced on the condition of being mothers and working hard for that entitlement themselves in return. Teamwork. Feminism's Communist-derived rush to destroy the Nuclear Family, is bearing some pretty rotten fruit when people are gaslighting each other that basic human biology doesn't exist in the way that it clearly does. How dare they be that short-sighted and egotist – immature?! Our enemies laugh at our brainwashed stupidity in tolerating this undermining of the family and military. Make no mistake.
That's very sexist of you to say. Women don't only make babies (and is honestly not the only reason women are even here). Men also do other things than die in war. That was honestly just a stupid comment
Ya we should make it easier for weaker and/or Dumber to get into the army. Sounds ideal
not at all excellent…this was mostly false anti science garbage
Standards in the military should be unnegotiable as it sets the rules to ensure most of the armed forces are fit to do their job. If you can't drag a fellow service member to safety or do what may be required of them in an arena of battle, well, now you are compromising on our national security. Warfare is not a field for the psychologically disturbed morons to play. Your feelings don't matter, your gender dysphoria is unimportant. We send volunteers into the military whom when asked, can perform with the intent to win. Now if you want to create an actual "NON- combatant" force whom operate some remote drone or something where your no where near the battle, that is one thing, but the raw fighting, at the front line…………..This is not a social gathering, its not a basis for "fairness" or feelings………..its fighting, its war, and there should always be standards to make sure we don't have separate standards to accommodate weaker people that can't make the cut.
Do you know the term "comfort girls"? Women who become POW will be passed around like a bag of candy. The Japanese would rape some young women as many as 35 to 40 times a day. Just because a woman can do what a man can do ,doesn't mean she should.
Men can also be sexually assaulted/tortured if they become POW but go off I guess.
Women should be able to perform in the military if they can meet the requirements. I'm honestly not sure why this needs to be debated. If sexual relations are a potential issue, I'd argue those individuals are suited for combat given that they have no self-control. Men included.
A major issue is that women are raised from childhood to not perform at their highest capacity in anything athletic or technological. If they were raised to perform in such fields, they would outperform men in some areas because opposed to what some people think, women do outperform men in some physical areas.
There's a lot of deeply engrained sexism that does need to be unpacked there from how women are raised and programmed, the opportunities they're given(or aren't given, as it is), and peoples' lack of willingness to allow them the chance to perform well. That isn't an argument for allowing them that space in the military, but recognizing that some women who happen to escape that societal programming are suited for the military
Combat isn't classically only a male thing. That's a more modern idea
I completely agree with this article but believe the author does not go far enough. There should be no standard at all. In reality, everything is subjective except for whiteness and maleness, when those traits occur via self-identification in a heterosexual-identifying human-identifying life form. Those humans born with both X and Y chromosomes (naturally then making exceptions for trans women identifying as men and vice versa), and especially all white males, should be totally barred from serving in the military and frankly from any government employment. There should not ever be another man dying or injured in any way whatsoever serving this country and all the people they oppress by existing. An all female military is the ideal we should be pursuing. Also, I submit that the comment on this article by “Mary”concerning the male Soldier suicide rate versus female, which she based on women being mentally stronger than men, deserves its own article.
Why do women have lower PFT standards than men yet try to claim they’re as capable? If you want to stand beside me as an infantryman then I expect you to do be held to the same standard as me. It’s not possible and everyone knows this. That’s why each gender has a different standard. Now to claim we are equal and that we were just using the wrong gender biased exercises… that’s ridiculous thinking and is just gonna get Marines killed.
Actually NO, I am ex-military, my sister was in a different force, we both confirmed lower standards for the women, also women were on extra studies 10x more frequently as they failed exams so much more, they were promoted ahead of far better qualified men and then asked their juniors for advice and help, it was idiocy, this is the lunacy of women in the forces, they get injured more often also!
It's not excellent, since women joined the forces all the standards had to be lowered, thats just another reason I left.
The GMTV was especially designed so a 5th percentile woman could change a 435 pound tire. Design features include a hydraulic jack, and a crane.
I will note that trench warfare was a tactic used in the Revolutionary War, the war of the Rebellion, the Spanish American War,WWI, WWIi,, Korean War, and Vietnam.
The reason the 40 year old platoon Sgt has their standards lowered is due to age NOT sex, another reason to keep the slower Sgt is due to EXPERIENCE, you cannot replace experience with anything else, no PowerPoint slide shows, no books, or exercises, no, experience is the only thing that grants you experience. Women get injured at extremely high level, upwards of 80% of skeletal and muscular injuries in the Army, less than 16% of women account for 80% of combat injuries and that is training not real world, facts have to be address and the old adage of 'the unit is only as strong as the weakest link' is true. Regardless or your opinion the facts are women breakdown at higher rates and that has negative impact on the fighting force. Lowering the fitness standards will not help anyone, the men will be in worse shape and in combat the physical toll only increases.
Well done Michah – we are an effects based organization that requires consistent standard enforcement to achieve long-term gains.
In 2013, I deployed 3-1 IBCT, deemed a women in the Army (WITA) Brigade, which was a precursor to women being integrated into the entire force. We had 400 females serving from IBCT CSM to company level (supply, commo, medics, maintainers) – and had no problems. Few would have opted to leave our females behind – OR have these teammates replaced one-for-one by males who had not talrained as part of the DUKE team.
there's many jobs for women in the military in which they serve the nation well, the argument was over placing them without the same standards into combat ground units .
Excellent. However, I would like to address the Cpt Ables' comments on standards in what I hope is a constructive way. It always disturbs me when smart folks talk about women meeting standards set for physically fit men. Can some above average females achieve these goals yes. But to the point, "it took the US infantry fifty-five years and thousands of deaths to abandon the idea of trench warfare. It took the US cavalry twenty-five years to accept that armored tanks were better than horses against a machine gun…." How about changing the nature of some of the combat requirements so more women, not just super women can achieve the standard needed to accomplish the task. If the current ruck sack weight is xx, how about investment in size, weight of it and it's contents to lighten that ruck sack load so more people can carry it, Men not just women would benefit. Is the current design of the ruck sack suited for the female body and it not, why can't it be modified. Same for heavy weapons systems. If it took 25 years to go from horses to tanks, how long will it take to go from heavy weapons systems and bullets to laser weapons or weapons that a woman could more easily handle while still having lethality to accomplish the task. The list goes on. People will say why change the equipment so woman can better accomplish the task, I say, WHY NOT! So it might take 25 years or 50 years, but if PEO Soldier and others can address bulk and weight for all, more women will succeed.
Do we want MORE women to succeed or do we want QUALIFIED women to succeed? If someone has to drag one of my military family members out of harm’s way, I don’t care if they are male, female, old, or young as long as they can physically and mentally perform the task. I think you missed the point of the article.
Well said! I think she must've read just the first paragraph.
The fact is, no woman will be able to drag you to safety. I spent over 20 years in law enforcement and never worked with a woman who was capable of prevailing in a violent physical altercation with a man. Not one. And many of those female officers were former military. Regardless of any claims made by the military, standards will be lowered or just disregarded and anyone who speaks out about it will be punished.
Your 100% correct,
I'm now over 80 yrs old a Korean era USAF vet. When I served females were in demand, they received promotion twice as fast as their male counter parts, due to the service needed to appease those in control, most should have not gotten that promotion.
I would never want to serve next to someone that would not be able to carry me (if wounded) a good distance to save my life, how about you ???
Well said, I wouldn't want to have to fight and depend on a woman next to me.
Women are able to drag men. Maybe not as well as men can, but it's not impossible. Women are able to drag a 200 something pound man. You probably didn't really see how much they are able to do. Plus, the human body is surprising in many ways. In many situations, adrenaline can make a person (no matter what gender) stronger than they actually are
I think that Cpt. Ables response answered both of your issues. We need MORE QUALIFIED women to serve. I don't care if the soldier beside me is Male or female. If that soldier has proven to be qualified, then I trust my superiors that created those qualifications that the soldier beside me has my back.
I wouldn't want to rely on most men to save me in a combat situation and I'm a woman. The majority of men, as he said in the article, don't make it to the elite Army Rangers, Navy Seals, etc. So to keep up the trope that "all men are automatically superior to all women" doesn't convince me. Not all men need to be in combat either. My husband, at 5'5" 120lbs, ended up training to be a medic and then going to officer training. But even with his diminutive size, when he was in combat training, he was able to carry his gear, do the grueling marches, and excel.
I wouldn't want to rely on you. You ignorant stupid feminist cunt !!!!
Interestingly during war carrying injured soldiers often becomes one of the common jobs women take on because they are restricted from other tasks. And they do it extremely well all of a sudden. And also take on the mental hardship of making decisions what leg to cut off what to keep, deal with actual blood, etc. And what people say afterwards? They are just medics, it’s not really like being at war. Not like men. It was literally your point that women can’t carry men is the reason you don’t want them there a second ago. There is no logic in sexism, the whole point is to make men look good. The only way is to ignore them and keep going.
You are essentially arguing for lower standards so we can get more women into combat arms. Not only is that the wrong approach from a position of effectiveness its also a morally wrong position. You are putting peoples lives in danger by lowering standards and at the same time using the prejudice of low expectations in regard to women’s ability.
Some of your ideas are great but your phrasing makes it sound like you want to lower standards. We DO need to innovate in equipment technology to increase the leathality of our forces and this may make the physical requirements lower to do the job which in turn increases the pool of available people to do the job and recruiters get to be more picky on other factors increasing the overall quality of the force.
The more you can lower one standard based on it not needing to be as high it allows you to raise another standard higher, to test people in new ways to cut the chaff. This is why allowing Trans service members to serve is so important. Not allowing them to serve and having "being cis" as a standard reduces the pool of applicants and forces us to lower the bar in other ways, ways that damage the lethality of the force.
Set a standard too low and you recruit people who cant do the job. Set the standard too high and you limit your ability to pick the best of the best in all other aspects of their capability and character.
Transgender is (rightly or wrongly) a recognized mental disorder across the globe, known as body dysmorphia. For example, it is recognized as a dysfunctional (sick) problem whereas according to the same global psychiatric agreement – wanting to have sex with 15 year old 'girls' is not (which, conversely is just a legal convention to protect younger sexually-mature females which is 50% of the population, from poor life outcomes, which makes sense). The male sexual desire for sexually-mature young females is NOT seen as dysfunctional. Yet some would lie that it is and conflate them with absolutely-dysfunctional pedophiles, just because of the legal convention and needing the world to revolve around their delusions and manipulative power-trips. The law or culture matters NOT, the hard reality is what matters. You do NOT want mentally-disordered people in your unit, end of story. Tough for Trans people, but gaslighting the world that you're more sane than you are, forcing tolerance of faulty logic, is blatantly more abusive than pointing out that transgender feels weird to most people for good biology-based reason. One that is too hard-coded in our nature to force change of, thus why push so hard to do so unless selfish narcissistic mentally-disorded person? I'm sure there's x% of stable, respectiable and loveable trans people but what do they expect from society? Self-delusion about the nature of transgenderism? Seems like people are drinking that kool aid too much these days.
Agreed 100% with your position on why people with body dysphoria should not be allowed in the military.
I just hope you're not against banning competent women from combat units or spec ops.
Tolerance of women is not a viable solution. Patricia should re-read the article because she is defending, and advocating for, quotas & the very same patriarchal beliefs & attitudes that CREATED the misogynistic policies against which Micah was so elegantly arguing. One standard for all is what is needed here.
The chasm between tolerance and acceptance is wide—acceptance is what Micah was essentially advocating for because she knows tolerance is not enough. Tolerance is the status quo, and is detrimental to unit cohesion. The acceptance of women in combat arms units is the end goal, not quotas and “changing the nature of some of the combat requirements…so more women” can succeed. It took multiple generations to achieve the acceptance of a racially integrated military—even that struggle isn’t fully over.
It will take a generations more to achieve the sexual integration of women into armed fighting units, and Micah Ables just made a fantastic case for achieving it. Great piece! Congratulations, Capt. Ables.
Sounds like a woman wrote this. Gary, huh?
Men can be supportive of women's rights. Just because Gary wanted to support women, doesn't mean that he's a woman
The address your question what you're asking if should we lower the standards so there more women can have an opportunity to be in combat units. When instead you should be looked at that you want the most qualified individuals to be in combat units. so far the women that have been assigned to combat unit and have gone out home daily duties and responsibilities with those combat units have all failed or were unable to maintain the same workload is their male counterparts.
Just read up on Marine Capt. Katie Petronio NC what she wrote as a female who's been there and done that and what it did to her and cost her . And they continue to look into her and see how she was criticized and lambasted because she was honest about it.
My God……I cant believe the comment I just read. People Like you with your Ridiculous ideas on how they think Combat works are going to get a lot of people killed. You missed the whole point of the Article. Thank God I am out of the Military.
My only comment about standards is I have no problem with a variance based on age. What they both fail to mention is experience does overcome quote fitness standards. My example is when it came to lifting heavy objects. I was always just almost on the weight program was always the slowest runner just barely qualified, but I could work longer and carry a load twice what those quote more physically fit runners could. The other thing is usually it isn't the sex between soldiers of different sexes it's the emotional stuff that comes when they no longer like one another sexually that's always the problem.
Because, the rucksack is already refined to be as light as possible. So the troops can carry more AMMO. The other physics of the combat world. Example: digging a trench to defend against an incoming explosive ordinance threat that won't allow a shallower trench to be dug just for women's smaller muscles to be able to dig slower, etc. That still needs a deep trench dug even if women are a few inches smaller to make better use of cover.
The REAL, PHYSICAL WORLD does NOT CARE. It doesn't revolve around Feminist ideology. Like with Transgender debate, delusion is pushed at all levels because ideology trumps realism.
In my country, a significant proportion of the oil that (mostly) men fought and died to secure (including the enemy's men who never voted for, nor had any choice in the matter) is used to fuel obese women's car driving, when the average car journey is ride-able by bike or even walking distance.
Women who then want things revolving around them – even if they're not the obese ones – the obesity comes from the excessive convenience-culture paid for with others' blood. We're barking up the wrong tree in how we deal with women's demands, IMHO. It might be true that technology will miniaturize enough that much equipment-humping brawn doesn't matter so much, but then again, robots might be doing the fighting by then – and be very scared of that, for men serve women, and with sensible, respectful tream-player women that is fine = but robots serve only whoever can control them. Which isn't you or me. Similar to how ignoring male fertility is creating dependency on IVF labs and whoever controls those labs. Let alone the long-term ethical repercussions of reproducing many nonviable offspring. Or reliance on robots who can be turned against us with a quick reprogramming by a centralized remote enemy. Then, we'll REALLY need our wits about us. Better not continue a poor precedent in logic from current times.
Right and in combat what needs to make it from point a to point be is whatever needs to be transported from point a to point b. You don't get to design it for weight. It could be a 50 cal barrel, it could be a lot of ammo. why manage to the exception. We don't need it. We are accomodating women in combat roles not for practical reasons but for political ones.
Thank you for crafting this response to Mac Donald's article. I did some research on Mac Donald, assuming that someone who would write such an article clearly had military experience and had seen first-hand the integration of women into combat units…but she does not have any experience, and it is evident in her ignorance throughout most of her article.
Your response sheds light on what many outside the military probably do not know – there are plenty of members that have difficulty meeting standards now (male and female, combat and non-combat units), and it will continue to be an issue that needs to properly be addressed by leadership. Thank you again.
Have we truly “abandoned” trench warfare, or has the need for it simply evaporated with the rejection of the cult of the offensive? Is armor truly greater against machine guns in every environment, even in areas where tractors are impractical?
Regarding the autjor’s stance on the APFT, I believe it is based on the same misguided assumption that we need to replace the test with a task-specific one (i.e. the ACFT): There are two, disparate metrics when assessing one’s physical ability – standards relative to one’s own body (i.e. benching one’s body weight) , and standards based on an external factor (a rifle/ruck/etc. weighs roughly the same). The first, such as the APFT, should be to assess one’s ability to survive actual training – such as I can reasonably trust a soldier to run an obstacle course without having a heart attack or passing out while climbing the tower (this should still be a go-nogo thing, and gender/age-specific standards are suitable)… if a soldier can’t pass, that soldier doesn’t get to play soldier until he/she/etc can; the second has a legitimate place as well, despite its flaws in design – but it should be an addition to the standard, not a substitution. If a joe can’t pass the first, I don’t want him to attempt the second. They measure different aspects of physical fitness. The case study about male infantryman failing shortly after basic training (I assume he meant OSUT) suggests a straw-man argument that “men can fail, too,” but really just demonstrates that drill sergeants are failing (or aren’t allowed to succeed) at their jobs. Why was a soldier who couldn’t meet the air assault standard allowed in the unit? Why was an asthma sufferer allowed in the army?
The counter argument to fraternization concerns is misdirecting and unclear… a squad leader coercing “subordinate soldiers” into sexual liaisons within his “all-male” unit? The tone of the article suggests that the “subordinate soldiers” were females from outside the squad leader’s chain of command… but if we trust them to abide by the laws of war, the Geneva accords, etc, shouldn’t we trust them to refuse an unlawful order? The author’s argument only illustrates the fact that these issues cause more chaos to the already-chaotic reality of war. That is anathema to the idea of training for war. The author does nothing to dispel the argument.
Why are there any soldiers in his company who can’t meet the standards, male or female?
As far as the incident with the Afghan woman, I won’t second guess his decisions at the moment – war is complicated… but my initial reaction is that she approached him and he failed to address the situation properly – I don’t mean this as a criticism, and I wish him no ill if the story is true, but the lack of a female doesn’t mean he had no option beyond demurring to local custom.
The author fails to make any point for the integration of combat arms units, though I suspect it will be a nice bullet on his OER. Fluff from someone trying to capitalize on commanding “one of the Army’s first and, currently, only four mixed-gender mechanized infantry companies.”
Great points all Hate_Me, as usual. People like the author and so many others continue to skip over the reality of these choices and what they “feel” should happen. I think part of the issue why frat, pregnancy and lowered standards aren’t addressed is because it is essentially career suicide not to tow the company line and as a result we see ever decreasing standards and ever increasing unplanned losses in relation to women in the military prior to deployment.
Good to see you, Otter. Hope you’re well.
I’m not, on principle, opposed to women in combat arms; I’m concerned that the agenda being pushed is counter to the existing data. It’s not a misogynist POV, it’s a scientific one.
If the push for women in combat arms is an honest one, there are ways to make it a functional reality (though I feel it is not an issue on which the military should focus, the die seems to have been cast), this requires enforcing standards and raising the caliber of training for everyone, male and female… however, that won’t produce the desired numbers while diverting training time/funds desperately needed to meet other goals.
Maybe I’m just a pessimist, but it seems like the feel-good OER bullet crowd is going to win out over actually… winning wars.
Hello yourself! Hope you are well too, I’m just dandy, as always.
I agree, I’m not opposed to the idea of women in combat, but I have ZERO faith that the civilian and military leadership will do it in a fair, honest and effective way. There have just been too many examples already of lowering and/or changing standards for “everyone” so that they can then claim women are held to the same standards. Add in issues with pregnancy, frat, injury rates etc…and it’s a recipe for disaster in terms of manning and combat effectiveness. These issues need to be addressed and addressed honestly or we are setting people up for failure.
Agree totally. I'm female and served in the Marines. Show me ONE female who could hump the same weight in the field consistently as the men did, and not eventually get injured. EVERY country which had tried to put significant numbers of women in combat has abandoned it. The So iets only did it in the Second World War because they had to. I am so glad I was in before the military got totally ridiculous.
So, what you are implying is that an Infantryman who is 5'6", 165 lbs. can't do the job as well as one who is 6'4", 230 lbs?
Best rethink that. My Spotter outweighed me by 50 lbs. Yet when he had hit, I carried him out to extraction.
If the Army went by your standards, we wouldn't have an Army!
Very well done. This is true "Affirmative Action".
Why does "Hate me" assume that there could be no homosexual liaisons?
Homosexual relations do happen in all-male military units, though generally rarely and often without consent. However, that does not appear to have anything to do with the author’s argument.
Gay men for the most part part on friendly terms ( for the most part) rarely does that happen with heterosexual relations!
I'll admit up front that I don't know what the "right" answer is. Nor do the supporters of the article, who cheer it uncritically. But the base line would seem to be what is best for the US, not what is preferred by an individual soldier wanting to be a Ranger, no matter how much admirable grit they might have.
Take the 'injuries" issue. No doubt med expenses for combat injured soldiers deserve every penny paid to fix them, like the soldiers injured from an IED cited in this piece. But it does not seem obvious that we–that is the US–ought to be paying the same kind of expenses for soldiers injured in training exercises, because they're lighter and more easily injured. The right approach might well be to preclude the more easily injured from combat training in the first place, rather than spend a fortune to gain a very few. A soldier injured by an IED is one thing: another reduced to 30% efficiency by non- combat injuries, and clogging up medical facilities for that reason would seem to be a burden. In a real war situation, we want to train quickly: not be training 36 people for three, with 33 out because of training injuries. Again, I have not served so I am no authority, but reasonable questions have their own authority.
Or the concern for lack of cohesion in a combat unit: I don't pretend to know, as I've never served–but real world experience suggests that its an issue not to be lightly dismissed, as it is here, with the airy claim that "more training" will be enough. You can tell people in their 20's all day that they're not supposed to favor some members of a unit based on opposite sex attractions, but the attractions are there just the same, and pretending that you can wish that away, seems wishfully naive. Some reports suggest that pregnancies in naval units cause problems aside from lack of cohesion–like the loss of expertise. But then again, some wrongly predicted that integration of the armed forces would hurt cohesion. Again, I don't pretend to know the answer, and maybe it really won't matter. But I feel that the author wants badly to believe its not going to matter, and wants me to also believe that, in the face of much human experience to the contrary. Again, I don't know the answer, but I don't think this author does either. Dismissing the concern out of hand as a matter to be cured by "more training" is not compelling.
These issues may be of no concern where only intellect is needed. And there is of course, the example of Israel to examine, although I note the author does not rely on combat unit experience from other countries. I'd really like to see a more detailed and analytical piece on this issue.
Real world experience shows that more men missed going out to sea by trying to schedule optional surgeries right before deployment, by percentage. Same with being drunk and stupid. More men end up injuring themselves while being sloshed than women getting pregnant, by percentage. During my first tour in the Navy, three of my shipmates were killed during drunken incidents. This was shore duty. Let me asure you this affected our squadron much more than one or two pregnancies.
Hmm that's weird, When i was in the navy and stationed on the USS Whidbey island our crew was around 55% female and 45% male. When it was time for deployment we lost around 15% of the female crew due to pregnancy. The side effect was since they were not replaceable everyone had to pick up the slack. Also a side note 4 of them got abortion within a couple of weeks after we deployed.
They really shouldn't have been in the military to begin with if they were just gonna do that
1.) Standards are important, but enforcing them and being honest about them is even more important. The women who made it through Ranger School were treated differently and saying they weren’t isn’t being honest. The USMC Infantry Officer Course didn’t have anyone pass until the CET and passing all the forced marches were eliminated as part of the requirement to pass. So let’s be frank and honest and admit that the women who have made it through were not treated like the males and standards were “changed”, but changed for everyone. The author undermines his credibility when you don’t say that as a leader, you’re tuned out automatically. I’ve had not 1, but 3 SOCOM COs repeat the nonsense that “we’re not changing the standards, but we’re reviewing them to make sure they’re gender neutral.” Add those lines to GO Dempsey’s famous line about standards being too high and we have ZERO faith in leadership to do the right thing.
2.) Frat: Frat is a two way street and it needs to be strictly and unbiasedly enforced.
3.) Pregnancy: Far too many women take advantage of the system and end up pregnant prior to or in deployment. The Navy alone loses between 9-15% of female crews prior to every deployment due to this.
4.) Quotas: An ugly secret of the Officer Corps is that there are set a sides for women upon graduation in each branch and there are currently “goals” of 30% for enlisted women enlistments. Quotas need to be ended and just let the chips fall where they may. Current policy is counter-productive to faith in the Chain of Command, confidence in ability of all and patently unfair.
5.) Injuries: Women are injured at far higher rates than their male counterparts. 2-3x more on ACL/MCL injuries, Ankle Injuries and 1000x more in terms of hip injuries. These need to be taken into account, Manning is and always will be an issue.
6.) The issue with the female in the village is not something a female in his unit would’ve helped with just because she’s a female. IMHO it’s language and cultural training that would’ve been more helpful in that situation. And you can’t blame yourself for incidents like that in a conflict, you do the best you can.
Below are links ok injury, pregnancy, standards, physiological differences and other issues related to this topic.
Great reply, Thanks from an old retired salor.
This was a very good article & informative. Over the years my extended family have complained about women in the military….for instance one of my brothers in law thought Tammy Duckworth should not have been flying & by doing so endanger others. So you can see that this issue is quite challenging in my family.
However, now I have a niece in the military and she is almost done with basic training. When she's done and we can talk with her it will be interesting to hear her stories and her perceptions.
Thanks for the enlightenment you provided to me.
Good thoughts, but I believe the author misses the point of the general fitness test. The general physical fitness standards are not arbitrary. They are designed to ensure that every individual meets a baseline strength, flexibility and cardiac standard of fitness that would be expected of someone In a specific age-range and sex grouping, The standard isn’t whether the military needs every soldier to be able to run 2 miles in under x minutes, but rather that the military needs people who have each demonstrated that they possess a minimum level of health and fitness for someone in their age range and sex group. The performance on the 2 mike run is an indicator or a way of measuring the individusl’s health. Running 2 miles is a means to an end. It’s not the goal. It’s a task and it’s the task that is arbitrary, not the standard.
Special schools such as ranger and infantry need students to possess a minimum level of athleticism and athletic capability relating to specific tasks because those tasks, in addition to general health and fitness, are integral to the job performance.
The military overall needs people who demonstrate a minimum level of health and fitness. They use performance tasks as a way of measuring fitness. Special units need people to perform athletic tasks. They use performance tasks as a way of measuring the ability to perform those tasks.
To the author and every other member of the military, male and female–It's not about you! You joined up to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, in whatever way was best for the country, not you.
As Captain Ables writes it, he has spend most of his infantry career toughing his way though injuries and illness. That takes admirable grit, but I can only wonder long he has before one of those injuries ends his career. If he's a great a leader as he thinks he is, his medical retirement will be a huge loss for the Army, and the Army would have been better served putting him in an non-infantry MOS where he'd could do 20+ healthy years.
Also, Capt. Ables made it through his training courses (eventually), but what of the other undersized candidates? If they failed at an unusually high rate, they were wasting the Army's time and money. In all the training experiments listed, female candidates severely under-performed the average pass rates, so if the point was to produce the most Ranger-qualified soldiers or Marine infantry officers, those experiments conclusively failed. I understand those were experiments to gather information, but future efforts cannot afford to waste their time on candidates doomed to fail.
In the military sense, a fair system would be one in which every member had a detailed data model to predict future utility to the service. Those with the strength and skills to succeed at anything would see more weight given to their desire and personal satisfaction, but marginal candidates would see their options limited to those in the best interests of the service. Every day and dollar spent on a service member must be calculated for maximum return to the nation, which may not seem "fair" to the individual, but it is fairest to the service as a whole and the country we serve.
So you’re telling me this…
Lower standards by making it “Gender Neutral” , for the inclusion of women. That lowering standards does not matter. I don’t give a [bleep] if the author served infantry or not, this sounds stupid as [bleep].
If men are raping women in sleeping quarters who are on the same side, imagine what the army of an all-male enemy would do to women on the front-lines! How would that work for group cohesion for the male soldiers to see their fellow women ganged-raped by the enemy on the field?
I have a feeling they would divert all their energy to defending their women instead of focusing on the enemy. There is something primitive to war, and using rape as physiological warfare against the men of a clan is an established practice for disrupting unity and cohesion. A woman being just as capable as a man in the board room of a Corporation is not the same as being on the front-lines during war. Different dynamics come into play.
I have a sister named Anna, she is smart like you too. Thank you Anna from an old retired Navy Gunners Mate.
Umm I imagine they'd feel the same way about the enemy torturing their brothers in arms in front of them. Rape is torture. Male POWs have been raped by the enemy. I would also assume they would attempt to end the threat to their squad mates well being as soon as possible.
These aren't defenseless women, they have guns and know how to shoot. You might get the occasional white knight doing something stupid but for the most part everyone is trying not to die and end the threat. If the enemy wants to run towards the women squad mates only that just makes them a better target since the rest of the squad isn't pinned.
Also you make it seem like it's the women's presence that is at fault for their rape. It's the piece of shit that raped them that's at fault. How is raping a fellow military member any different from being a traitor? Rape is a very real threat they know about if they get captured and so is torture and death.
If they understand the risks and are willing to take them while being a positive contribution to a good team. Let them.
That's the same thing with men being tortured, and quite frankly, men can be raped from other men as well. It's all torture, and they would react the same way for anyone
The main problem is the Pentagon simply doesn't have its priorities straight. In the past 20 years, I bet there has been more talk in the halls of Pentagon about "how we can be more inclusive" rather than "how can we be more lethal".
I know this is gonna get some White Knights riled up, but the main problem with the military, particularly the army, is that it has become extremely emasculated. The military has always been and will always be a male dominated organization. Though in the name of being "inclusive" and trying to improve recruiting, the Pentagon is trying really, really hard to change that. But instead of helping recruiting it's actually hurting.
One of the biggest problems with recruiting now is that the army is simply no longer appealing to males. You know, males who on average like to blow stuff up and shoot guns?
Guys are wired that way. I'm all for females in the military, but something like a female amongst a TEAM of cohesive males simply turns guys off and they want no part of it. At one time the Pentagon realized this, advertised to MALES and recruiting wasn't a problem. My nephew is graduating high school this year and he was like most other boys growing up: he was infatuated with the military and was considering joining the army. Long story short, the army recruiter that visited his school was female, and he also started noticing more females on recruiting posters, commercials, etc., and when he found out they were allowing females in infantry now, it completely turned him off and he's not joining. Yes, it seems petty but I can certainly understand why he made his decision. This forced inclusion the Pentagon is suddenly obsessed with is detrimental to the military, and thus bad for trust, unit cohesion and morale. The army and really the entire military is no longer appealing to many who would normally consider the military as a career. It has quite literally become "just another job" and it can certainly hurt attitudes within units.
Did you really just write a comment that can be paraphrased as "My nephew was going to join the army but then he found out they let girls in so now he won't." Sounds like he wasn't actually that gung ho to sign up if "girls are allowed in?!" was his tipping point. Honestly he probably just had a macho army guy fantasy type thing going on his head and knowing women can be soldiers and are actively being recruited poured a bucket of cold water on the fantasy. When I decided to join, I joined. To some it's not real till they start taking steps in MEPS and the reality of it hits them. Loss of autonomy, potential death, hard training, strict rules and severe punishments for laws that never applied to them before. Some people hee and haw for awhile, never taking the first step at all and find an arbitrary excuse as to why they didn't. They might not know themselves. Some guys don't realize they never really thought about the reality till basic training and I think they're the funniest ones.
Micah, comparing the ban on women joining combat units with civil rights and women’s suffrage is patently absurd. The issues are completely separate. Segregation and laws against women voting were immoral precedents that had no basis in science or reason. The ban on women in combat was a policy firmly grounded in an understanding of the physiological, psychological and emotional differences between men and women, and the understanding of the fatal consequences a rejection of those realities could mean for those on our front lines. It is absurd to equate the too. You have a right to live freely in this county, vote, and have equal protections under the law regardless of sex .You do not have a right to be in this country's military. Not everyone can join the armed forces for a host of reasons, let’s not make false comparisons to drive emotional appeals. This job and it’s potential consequences are too important for that kind of sophomoric argumentation
I take issue with just about every claim you make in here. I think that it has been well established at this point that integrated units perform worse than all male units, for reasons that should be obvious. I can attest to this fact as I have served and interacted with both types of units and the differences are stark. You go on to say in this article that you yourself had issues as a company commander stepping into a unit that was rocked as a result of a sexual relationship between two individuals within the organization, and that the company had to rebuild as a result….Is it not so obvious as to point out that regardless of how the company eventually rebounded (as you claim), that the inappropriate relationship that destroyed the order and discipline in your unit should have been something that never occurred in the first place? Then you would not have had to waste time with your company “rebuilding”…. Good thing you were in garrison because that “rebuilding” phase is not a luxury many will have in future combat. I have seen this issue in every single gender integrated unit I have encountered. To laugh it off as nothing more than a woman “clutching her pearls” is to demonstrate naïveté and immaturity towards the harm that can cause to an organization.
In regards to the paragraph on “injuries”. Yes, they are part of the job, but we do everything we can to prevent them. Women are injured at a much higher rate then men, largely this has to do with physiology, the exponentially different rates of muscle degeneration and bone structure and so on.. But THAT is the point. If we know that women’s bodies do not hold up as well as men’s in these environments and that they can and do get injured at a higher rate than men. What since morally or fiscally does it make to put those women in that environment when there are able bodied men who can serve in this capacity with a much lower likelihood of sustaining serious injury? Please I would like to hear the answer to that.
I do not understand why there is so much disassociation from reality in regards to this issue. Why is it that we insist on putting women in harms way unnecessarily, despite the facts, despite the evidence and despite the studies? Interestingly enough, Israel which is so often sighted as having integrated female line companies backtracked on this issue because of the problems it caused. For some reason no one brings them up anymore in these debate…I wonder why?
My believe is that ANY decision that reduces your units combat effectiveness unnecessarily is a bad decision, an immoral decision and one that you as a leader should fight against. This is one of those decisions.
What kind of nations sends its women to war when there are able bodied men who are capable? Have we lost our minds? Have we lost our morality? Have we lost both? Any man that would have no qualms with ordering someone’s daughter or mother to close with an enemy in ground combat when there is a capable male available to do the job has some serious moral defects as I see it.
Good for Heather Mac Donald for stating the truth in her article.
That's absolutely correct. Thank you.
I was with you until you mentioned that it was immoral to "send" women to war. Obviously if they enjoy the same equal rights at the male population and are free persons there wouldn't be anything morally wrong about a woman fighting in a war. Women's life are not more precious than a male's, it might have been the case back in the days for practical reasons such as reproductive factors, but increasing the population at the fastest rate possible is not exactly what we as modern humans prioritize, as indeed uncontrolled population growth could even threaten our survival. Losing thousands or even millions of woman barely makes a dent on your population's reproductive capabilities, and if we are talking about a total war we will all die anyways.
This however doesn't subtract from your other arguments.
In any case it's only a matter of time before technology advance far enough that biological physical difference between men and women become irrelevant, the male body is just as frail as the female's on the grand scheme of things.
Yes, I 100% agree with you
If a woman gets captured she will be brutally raped on camera and the entire mission will be rerouted to her rescue thus putting our primary objective of winning the war in jeopardy.
That's going to be the same exact thing if a man was captured and then tortured. It doesn't make a difference if it were a man or woman
But men don't get pregant.
When your army is make-believe you can afford this. Diversity and empowerment is all well and fun until …shit my legs are gone.
wow i cant belive that she fought anyway
seems a bit ironic. The laundry list of ailments and injuries this writer experienced from day one after commissioning, yet pushing on anyway may seem like a triumph of sorts (and it is commendable in a personal development sort of way) but in truth it serves as a perfect example of one of the main reasons why proponents of the ban support it: Prone to injury at a rate of 6 times that of male counter parts. Furthermore, pretending that you aren't critically injured and continuing an objective, when the lives of your team mates may depend on your ability being at its peak, is a disastrous way to behave. It hinders your ability to perform as well as those around you. Its dishonest, and all so that you can fake your way into a position you are obviously unqualified for. Way to cheat the system and put everyone at risk. Sad.
Physical Standards do not know gender. Take a random sample of 1000 males and through training make 97% combat effective. A random sample of 1000 females and % would be + or – 1 at the same standard.
incorrect. testing standards were changes 2 times during the obama administration. 1st was a gender differing test, where women had it FAR easier. After that, they made the majority of tests, “gender fluid”. Tests are far easier to pass for women. And the passing rate still suffers, especially for more important roles in the military. 90% of those failing marks are cause of physicality.
During my connected service in an airborne ranger training unit have witnessed infantryman from infantry units in great shape mentality and physically recycle ones and some cases twice before passing ranger school for what ever reason, and now our beloved female soldiers are going thru without a hitch so-to-speak! (Standard?) Personal i was trained by Vietnam and keoream veterans top knot soldiers i would have follow to war, because of those high standards set forth to weed out the soldiers that was not raw enough to meet the task. Train to go any where any time soldiers.
That's my story and sticking to it!
I fear any woman captured by the enemy would be repeatedly raped. That conversation is never brought up. Why?
And a male repeatedly tortured, I don't get your point.
Ms. Ables conveniently ignores that standards WERE lowered to allow females to pass them. They were handheld by expert trainers going over the required tests for WEEKS before having to test, were granted access to the courses in advance and were allowed to fail and retailers tests multiple times… privileges not enjoyed by males in the program. They also were allowed to pass off packs to a fellow squad member rather than having to lug their packs the required distances on hikes. Despite this hand holding and babying, they still scored much lower on ALL skills, including such tasks as weapon operation and target practice.
So no, there's nothing wrong with standards, there's a problem that they're not equally applied. This lessens greatly the lethality of u.s. forces and does the women no favors as it guarantees a much higher injury and fatality rate for females. It also guarantees a higher rate of injury and mortality rate for the other members of their units.
It’s hard to argue with the author’s logic here. I don’t see many logical arguments to anything she wrote. Gender neutral standards in every capacity are the only way we can truly achieve equality in this country. This seems an appropriate place to get that ball rolling.
But what are these " gender neutral standards" ? These are not the weighted qualities that the armed forces value the most per say , but the weighted qualities women are more likely to posses even if they are not as much required by the armed forces in reality . This is akin to lowering the standards .
gender neutral = standards don't depend on gender and instead depend on what standards are needed to carry out a war task.
aka- you need to be able to carry 100 pounds for 10 miles because thats about how much time you will be spending in a war zone.
see? gender neutral.
Meanwhile, if you said "the gals over there only need to be able to carry 50 bc arbitrary reasons" then that would not be gender neutral
The problem is in combat the is no such thing as gender neutral combat. GMC..
Great article and very well thought out especially given your prospective. My favorite one liner is “all combat soldiers should have to meet the same physical standards”. I couldn’t agree with you more and it’s comforting knowing you uphold and support those standards. Where we part way involves relationships that inevitably happen in mixed gender units. It’s difficult, to say the least, to avoid it. You then cite Army codes that do not support these relationships. Having been in combat myself I know that some codes are put on the back burner because there is an objective to achieve. Mission accomplishment above all else. Improvise, over come and adapt. I believe you are speaking from a position where a soldier or Marine is on barracks duty and not in the thick of combat. In addition it was my understanding there were and are hygiene issues with females. Where men can go without bathing for long periods of time females don’t have that luxury. In combat I went 4 months with out a shower. Is this still an issue and how is it being handled? Would you be opposed to all female combat units? Thanks again for your article and invaluable I site
Bryce Jacobson, MBA
USMC 90-94 A 1/11
The 'Elephant in the Room' still seems to be sexuality. Is it actually a problem that impacts capability? I would contend that we do not know because we have not conducted the research to find out. Researchers are wary of being thought to have a misogynist agenda and policy makers are fearful of the implications of discovering that sexuality is a problem. Have a look at the 2013 'culture edition' of Australian Army Journal. There are a range of articles on the broad topic of gender and mine exploring sexuality.
Sexuality, cohesion, masculinity and combat motivation: Designing personnel policy to sustain capability. Australian Army Journal, Volume 10 Issue 3 (2013)
Abstract: How might mixing the sexes affect the capability of small combat teams? As Australia integrates women into its combat arms, the policy challenges that sexuality presents may prove more enduring than those of gender. Objections to integration based on women's capabilities are expected to quickly become redundant, although the masculine culture of combat units demands careful management. Hyper-masculinity can undoubtedly be hostile to women, but is a long-established way to meet the profoundly unnatural psychological demands of close combat. Effective integration therefore appears to require careful adjustment of Army's methods of building team cohesion. Furthermore, even gender-neutral approaches to generating the cohesion that is so vital for combat arms will not change the potential for sexual interaction that mixing genders creates. The social dynamics involved represent some level of risk to the trust on which cohesion depends.
This sounds good but much of this simply does not work in a combat situation. This is the kind of BS that is turning a military force that was at one time second to none into a weak, second rate fighting force. So if u don't like the standards put forth that are proven to work you just change them to accommodate someone who wouldn't have even qualified 20 years ago. This is what what will be the next step in the denise of our armed forces. I'm not against woman serving in combat zones but they should have to pass the same standards as men sorry, the battlefield is a unforgiving arena and doesn't care about your feelings. They lowered the basic requirements for recruits now they are lowering them again for woman. You would be do best to let the military run their own business. Listen to the ranking commanders who voice their opinion. Not some politicians or social justice warriors dictate military policy. We did that in Vietnam and that did not turn out to well.
I’ll refuse to serve in any infantry unit with a woman. Complete liability and I haven’t met a women who can carry 75lbs rucking 20-25 miles.. Not to mention the sexual issues that will arise. No I don’t care if you think it’s guys fault. Guys make the infantry. Maybe a completely separate infantry unit with women only to do some defense work. I’ll never feel at ease going on a long distance patrol with a woman on board. Also, what’s horrible is the lowering of standards to let women into special operation units. I can only imagine the military is tired of women complaining about not being special. Women these days are used as a political weapon, and if integrating them into any special operations unit happens. Special operations will loose the title “special” . Maybe a trans woman can do it, but that’s an exception to the rule. I’ve met great women in the military, intel officers to one of the best trauma surgeons I’ve ever met. Keep them there, that’s where they can shine and display their attention to detail and professionalism.
The military is a man's job, and should stay that way.
Interesting comment considering there are roughly a couple hundred thousand women currently serving in our military.
My female cousin is in the military and is way better than most of the men in her unit (not my opinion, was said by her commanding officer), so shut up
Her comMANding officer might have different reasons to say something like that.
The fact that it costs a lot to fix someone who was broken in combat doesn't mean that it makes sense to pay more for women to keep them on the battlefield. Or to put it another way, it's still a savings to have all men. Your analogy is like asking; Why fix the leak in the roof because the plumbing is leaking too?
The fact that so many women drop out of these schools tells me that women shouldn't be sent there. That training is valuable and shouldn't be wasted on a group of people who can't hang. It ticked me off every single time we sent a soldier who failed. Those ranger slots are not easy to come by and everyone wants their chance to go. Why send women when they have such a huge chance of failing? That would be like asking me to pick the least qualified guys from my platoon to send, why would I do that when I can send guys who will pass and actually benefit from it? Our whole unit loses out when any of our soldiers fail at any class. That means we have to deploy with one less qualified person. And do you know what it does for morale to send people who fail? It ticks off every single person who wanted the slot for that school but didn't get it. That experience isn't just about promotion points either although it does matter when you have a family to feed. Am I really expected to send someone who has a significantly higher risk of failing and if so please explain how that's fair to the guys who I know stood a better chance of success?
As for Sex; you can wish that the world was perfect and that your soldiers will obey your commands but it's hard enough to get young men to do that without sex involved. I served in the infantry and I'm personally glad that we didn't have that distraction. Yes we like to think that our young men are professionals but let's face it, many of them are still basically children, who need a lot of supervision, heck they can't be legally trusted to drink (which they do anyway). Find me a unit that stops young men from drinking and I'll maybe think that you can add sex into the mix without creating problems. I won't hold my breath waiting for the end of underage drinking in the barracks. LOL
She wishes she had a woman with her because she would be less menacing? How often do you think that would happen vs the amount of times you would wish you were surrounded by the most menacing people you have ever seen? Have you ever actually had to menace people to make them do what they are told? It's not always easy and having women with you makes it a LOT harder, especially in certain cultures. (They liked to hit units with visible women) The few times we had to put up with women on patrol was the occasional MP and every single one of them was a PITA who would have been better off left behind. Sadly most of them were unnecessarily confrontational and then didn't have the muscle to back it up themselves which always left me and my guys stuck in the middle of a mess.
I don't think it's progress to change the infantry for what amounts to a handful of women who it will cost way more on average to keep fit and trained. I'm not interested in giving away valuable schools on the off chance that a few women will manage to make it through, usually after multiple tries and a fair amount of coddling. I'm also not interested in hearing about wishful thinking in regards to the sex drives of 18yr olds who we can't stop from binge drinking.
This is exactly how I feel. I was a Drill Sergeant and Recruiter. The people we recruit “prey” on are socially awkward kids who just want to belong. They may have never had a real girlfriend. Then they buy a lot of stuff for a 42A who likes him for 2 weeks and she stops talking to him. He acts a fool trying to get her back. Now he’s harassing her. The kid doesn’t know any better. We don’t know them that well to mentor them or talk about life stuff. Like it or not, that kid is the backbone of the Army. HE is the one who wants to do the hard stuff. He’ll fight and die and do anything to please his Sergeant. I saw enough times where a female was thrown on our gun line and saw how it degraded morale. Is it right? No. But when liberals, and socially enlightened people join the Army, I’ll change my mind.
This is a great rebuttal to Macdonald's "Women Don't Belong in Combat Units" which is overly focused on females perceived frailty and the males inability to control their sexual impulses. Moreover, on the heels of the new gender-neutral ACFT requirements this is a good read. These requirements state if you can physically do "X" then you can give any school a shot so long as you have the aptitude scores and command support as well (interestingly enough, no one seems to be arguing that the new ACFT gender-neutral standards are too easy in fact, soldiers are down right scared of it) whereas the old system added that this school or that school also required the right anatomy. In this meritocracy we shouldn't be limiting individuals based on the birth lottery, leave that to the "real world".
A good number of people are bothered over how low the standards are on the ACFT. 200# DL? For the highest category? 1 of those leg raises to pass? Sure, maxing the whole thing is impressive, but simply meeting the standard? Embarrassing. I’m more convinced than ever that “gender-neutral” is simply a code for lowered standards.
Hate_me: Then you have not taken the ACFT… or at least not seen a 105lb female try to do the sprint-drag-carry.
I've taken the ACFT. It is pitifully easy to pass even for the females. As long as they keep moving they will pass the sprint-drag-carry easily.
As of yesterday, a google search revealed that about 18% of the army is female. It doesn’t look like anybody’s actively turning anyone down at the door, so there was no point in writing this article.
This will probably seem a sort of out-of-left-field question, but why the heck were those soldiers ALLOWED to heckle some poor woman trying to ask for help? That sounds like a huge failure of conduct.
And, yes, I know soldiers seem to be expected to be rude/crude/etc, but they're still representing their country and things like heckling someone in need (as well as worse offenses against local civilians in any given war zone) are what people remember as much, if not more, than any good those soldiers did for the region.
I'm hoping there's more to the situation than you had time to address – given that what you were writing about was something completely else. Also, thanks for writing this; it sounds like you're doing your best to do your job well and honorably.
The problem is not the standards at all. As a matter of fact, training camps are lowering the standards for women. One example of this is at a fire station in Idaho, during a training session where there was a women engaged with. One of the requirements in the training was to be able to carry a dummy that weighed about 200 lbs down a flight of stairs. The women could not complete this task, however, the trainers dismissed this "little dilemma" and had her still pass through the class to become a firefighter. Now I want you to imagine a situation where the women has to carry a person that is about 200 lbs or more to safety. She wouldn't be able to do that.
The question that we are trying to answer is not weather a women involved in combat is OK, but weather it's morally right and safe for our country.
As a strong christian, I believe that people should not change their appearance (and most importantly, their gender) because God creates men and women in His image and likeness (example is found in Genesis 2: 26-27). Even many non-believers would agree with this statement. Now, in the military, everyone is to shave off their hair, which doesn't make that big of a difference, however, after some time in battle and training, a women's uterus can fall off, which is a big change.
Now, here is the deal, women are not as strong as man. Studies show that training and combat are hard on women and they will "break down", in a sense, much quicker than a man, and they take longer to train than men. One of the two women to have recently passed Ranger Training Camp is Shaye Lynne Haver. Before she went through with the training camp, the Rangers hired the best trainer to prepare her for the harsh camp, which took about 6 months, while the other men who participated got no training. Here is an example that i would like to share: imagine you have 2 different tanks, both of which you invest $25,000 in. The first tank will last about 5 years with much mechanical work before hand and will not perform it's duties as well. On the other hand, the second tank will be ready in a short amount of time with little repairs and will perform it's function well. Men are more efficient than women in combat. This gets us to the reason why this fact show the morality of weather women should be in combat. The purpose of a military is to protect it's nation, and we want to pick the most capable and most efficient people in our society to fill out this purpose. This being said, women are not the best choices for combat.
Some people ma argue that "Women are equal to men." I fully agree with this statement, in the sense that women are equal to men in value. A women's value is just as equal to that of men, however, their strength, efficiency, and capability are not equal. In the bible, the women has different attributions to the family than the man's. She was and is to care for the house, nourish the children, and care for their husband and more. When a women is in combat, she isn't at the house to take care of it, she can't nourish her children, and she can't care for her husband either. If combat takes these requirements from women, then it is morally wrong to try to participate in the military.
You nailed it.
Spot on, CPT. One Unit, One Standard, One Mission.
In this LookAtMe climate, which includes everyone from Baby Boomers to Millennials, less than 1% of the population is serving or has served. Unfortunately, the majority of civilians cannot fathom the life of 'inconvenience' those of us serving/who have served are willing to sign up for. Yes, the days are long and difficult, but you suffer in silence together. That's the job. The camaraderie is irreplaceable and something most outsiders could never understand. The needs of the many outweigh those of the individual, which means you fall in line, do your job, and aspire to surpass, not barely meet, the standards. Failure to do so earns you the coveted title of Blue Falcon. If you can't keep up, it's not for you.
Inappropriate relationships between service members, regardless of rank, gender, orientation, religion, race, etc. have always been the biggest killers of morale and efficiency. Which all equates, as you said, to a lack of maturity.
The article and comments are correct that a standard, regardless of gender or age and enforced across the board is the solution. The problem is that the standard has already been lowered to allow females recruites to pass. The standard assessment and not to mention many of the unwritten physical demands of SOF training have been lessened or removed to allow this to happen. The standard today compared to when it was all male recruits is laughable. Sorry but that's the truth of the current situation.
You are correct, a few years back I went to see about joining and they practiced the fitness while going through meps and all that. They had just went to a standardized test and it was laughable. The actual male fitness test was brutal, the female one was laughable. Pushups on the knees and just hang from a bar instead of pulling up.. Then that standardized test I was able to pass with flying colors it was easy even the fat out of shape kids could do it no problems.
To quote Reagan "all my well meaning liberal friends" the one question that always is answered "that's irrelevant" by liberal commentators in my discussions on women in combat is when I ask this. "Why do we not legislate that gender shoulder be excluded in all sporting competitions, no more male or female just the best!" Yet we legislate in the arena of warfare where the outcome is kill or be killed and not a podium finish!" Equality is only pushed for ideology reasons regardless of performance outcomes. Little is mentioned by many pro women in combat individuals of the studies of all male, all female and mixed gender marine platoon results. When a platoon is going up against an enemy platoon in real life I doubt the enemy whilst looking over the bodies of the vanquished gender neutral and highlight the progressiveness of their policies.
I do not see any recommendations from you on how the standards should change. All I see in here is you telling war stories, critiquing someone else's article, and identifying problems. You are a Commander. Commanders fix problems, or recommend how to fix them….not just identify them. Where are all the ideas, or putting forward the change you so passionately desire? When Females are allowed to fight in UFC Cages with Males, or play on the same field as Males in professional football, or compete directly with men in the Olympics (just 3 examples), where there are referees, to stop someone from dying (we don't even let women do this in a controlled environment), yet we expect the same thing in an uncontrolled environment, where there are zero referees? Makes for a lot of confusion, and boosting someone else's Political Agenda – quite possibly by a person who never spent one day in uniform. Also, just some professional advice……DO NOT EVER STATE OR SAY MY COMPANY, because it is NOT your Company. You have responsibility, command, and ownership, yet it is not yours, nor ever will be.
Wow. Semantic crap in the last sentence, which doesn't even make any logical sense. He's not claiming he owns the Company, even though you bizarrely claim he has ownership, just a few words earlier in the same sentence. He's using the standard English word "my" to refer to the Company he is a part of and leads.
People who say "my school did X" don't mean they own the school.
These articles are like war stories. And war stories are like fairy tales. The difference is, a fairy tale starts out as , "Once upon a time." A war story starts out as " No squit guys, this is the way it was."
Such a refreshing perspective and communicated like a true leader.
My son joined the Marines because their boot camp still wasn't Male/Female integrated. I served in the Army in a support unit with a support MOS. We had women and they slowed the men down. What the women couldn't do caused the men to carry that extra weight and slowed progress. Help perform or quit being an obstacle and get out of the way of progress in action. I recently read that the Army was doing away with the grenade qualification as part of the requirement to pass basic training. The reason being because of women. Throwing like a girl comes to mind. Grenades are not effective if you can't deliver them to their targets. Their isn't enough time to properly teach someone to throw in a 2-3 months when you have a flurry of other activities in what is basic training. So the Army is teaching recruits how to use grenades; but qualification in their use is out the door. That is lowering standards and is a direct result of throwing the girls in with the boys. Just like the women slowed the men down in my Army support unit, they will also slow the pace of training in BT or combat schools: Marches will take longer, obstacle courses will take longer, male trainees will be the weaker female's beasts of burden, etc. Just as their is an ASVAB test and a physical at MEPS to enter the military. There should also be PFT to measure physical ability before putting anyone in boot camp or in a combat school. Weed out the incapable ones instead of lowering the fighting effectiveness standards. Carrying the burden of extra weight because someone can't perform and do their job is going to get people killed.
cant believe they let your truth be published
they will not mine
you cant compare people that are NOT looking to serve with those that are
as you did in your first example
men are NOT the only ones who assault women
first off,, the definitions of assault needs to be changed
just like your article here is demanding the same for your pov
women not only physically assault men
but can ( same as men can do to a women) verbally assault
THERE IS NO NEED TO MIX MEN AND WOMEN IN THE SAME UNITS
that Fact wont stop women from serving
But women for some reason demand to serve along side of men
why is that even an issue
If you want to serve why must it be in the same unit as males??
women are great at their jobs
but the continued convoluted "logic" as your article clearly shows is just another power play
Let's examine this logically: If, as Women-In-Combat advocates so clearly believe, INDIVIDUAL females are truly as capable and combat-effective as INDIVIDUAL males in a MIXED unit, it follows logically that an ALL-female unit will be as capable and combat-effective as an ALL-male unit, which is a thesis we can easily test by establishing provisional ALL-female Marine and Army infantry and Special Operations units — trained to WHATEVER STANDARDS they themselves set up –and deploying them into active war zones. I know personally a highly-decorated Marine infantry officer who was tasked with setting up and training ALL-women infantry units and after it was all over, he said simply "It was just what we expected, an absolute disaster!" and I challenge anyone to find where the USMC published my friend's report of that PC experiment. I'm looking forward to the book he is writing on his career which will be published when he retires, probably about eight or ten years from now, when all that truth will come out.
what nation is left to fight for? We are just an international flop house at this point, America in name only. Anyone who serves today and puts their life on the line will just be branded racist, sexist, fascist, an occupier, evil and so on. And God forbid if anyone erects a statue in your honor you better hope to not live to see it ripped down in the name of "inclusion". America was shot in the hip on 9/11/2001and has been bleeding out for almost 20 years now. Just give whats left to the 3rd world and stop asking our young to go and fight in the name of nothing.
Ridiculous anecdotal evidence. My favourite: Seal training has a 20% pass rate but we don’t ban men from trying… what’s the alternative? Leto g women give it a go because only 20% of men make the cut?
You call Mac Donald's Logic faulty but this whole piece is just your opinion.
The facts are
-all male combat units perform better than mixed
-women get injured more frequently
-The average untrained male shoots more accurately than a trained female.
-You completely ignore the fact that they had different fitness test requirements for men and women, the female fitness was incredibly easy. Recently they have gone to a standardized test for both sexes and its incredibly easy, I was able to pass with 0 training and prep.
Yeah equality is cool but this isn't something trivial, people lives are on the line and there's no room for how you feel to affect the facts.
These aren't unsubstantiated claims they've been proven through studies.
They already have different standards for fitness requirements and its much more lenient for women. All the claims she makes are true all male combat teams are more effective, the trained female shoots less accurately than an untrained male, women get hurt more often which is kind of a big deal when you're lugging gear around trying not to die, an injury could put everyone at risk. I agree though they need to change the standards so that men and women have to pass the same exact fitness test. Laxing standards based on your gender is counterintuitive. Basically says to the men they're weaker than you, therefore they are a liability because they didn't have to display the same physical standards that means they physically cannot do what males need to do and if the army needs a man to do 17 pull ups and a women to just hang there what does that accomplish? Hang there until your male counterpart comes and lifts you up? However I feel like you would want to go in the opposite direction and lax all standards so its easier for the women….. no they should all have one standard, otherwise you have a DOUBLE STANDARD. Which is funny because women hate that when its them at the disadvantage…..,
Yes, standards have dropped in the infantry, but if this argument is about utility, then why don't we just recruit child soldiers? Only the weakest men in a society advocate allowing their women and children to fight their wars for them.
adding women to a combat team lowers their combat effectiveness. men are drastically superior to women physically in every way. mentally they handle violence much better as well. women cant pass the male PT test on average, a very small few can, and those are the only ones that need to be in combat with men, providing they have the stamina to prevent combat effectiveness from dropping. there is no excuse to force women into a roll they cant handle and cause unneeded deaths in combat. if they cant make it, there are other rolls in the military that need filled. get woke, go broke is a common saying in the business world, and it turns out its fact. getting woke in the military will be a horrible idea. get woke, get entire squads killed will soon be the new saying
It actually isn't true at all that men are superior to women in every way physically. Like at all. I'm not sure why men have created such discourse. I'm also not sure why if a woman happens to be able to perform, she shouldn't be considered. You're not gonna convince me that isnt good old fashioned sexism because it is.
People here are calling it woke propaganda, but they won't be calling out sexist lies. If you were to raise women in a culture where they were allowed to reach their maximum performance the same way, then they may be better suited for some positions men will claim only they can be suited for. In the case of combat, considering there have been cultures where female warriors were honored, you can't rationally convince me either that only men are suited for combat mentally or physically
At this point, it's just ridiculous. If they can do it and want to, allow them. No one has a good argument against it. They also don't account for the fact most men aren't actually suited for it, but they get a pass because they're men
This article completely ignores the goal of achieving the most deadly fighting force possible. Yes, if we are simply attempting to give people a place to work, standards could, and should, vary. As far as combat specific units, no, they shouldn’t, and no amount of intellectual gymnastics should ever change that. This argument utilizes an erroneous shift of logic which in this case has disgraced the author through the use of comparison to social injustice causes. This is about being deadly, not giving everyone a chance to wear camouflage.
This is dishonest, woke propaganda because you are trying to insinuate that those two female army rangers passed the normal ranger qualifying standards. And that’s not true! Everyone knows people up the ladder were hell bent on “Change” and they were going to do anything to get at least 1 woman to graduate so they could feel some sense of feminist victory. At least be honest about those women who passed ranger school! They were taking to the courses to view them and learn them ahead of time and no one else was! So many things like that is what allowed them to get through ranger school! Many things were adjusted to accommodate someone’s woke dream of women in combat. If you are so hell bent on doing this, then women should ONLY serve in all women units. I have a feeling this would end really fast because people are unfortunately going to die. And that is my problem! If women want to risk their lives and serve this nation, we will all thank them for their service and welcome that. But we men are not going to be willing to die so someone else can take a victory lap at a feminist March! So if women are willing to go into combat with no men around to support them, then great. Because I am 6’3 210 lbs & I know if I’m wounded you are not going to be picking me up and making sure I don’t end up on a ISIS propaganda video with my head being sawed off with a knife. The question women should be asked when signing up, is are you willing to go into combat with all female units and no men around to help? If it’s a yes, then let’s do it and see what happens. But you can’t endanger men to help women win a victory lap. This same thing is happening at a different level and it’s horrible. And that is trans women who were born men competing in women’s sports. Records that haven’t been bearing in decades are being shattered the moment these “New women” compete as women. That speaks volumes & correlates in more way than one to this issue.
PS: I’ve been raped by more than 1 woman In my life, but I wasn’t mad about it. (Truly raped! Not meaning some one came on to me. I woke up two different times drunk and passed out with girls blowing me. That is the difference between men and women. Yes it’s fu*led up and weird. But one way you go to prison, and the other way it’s like “Guess what happen the other night when I passed out drink?” No way dude that’s awesome! “No really, I didn’t even know here and she was not pretty! AT ALL”
There are many instances in history where women performed, very successfully in combat roles. If women wish to continue this role then these policies have to be a must. All physical standards should remain the same across the board. Expectations must remain the same with both genders with few exceptions (pregnancy). Lastly, women must also be a part of the draft.
Side note: If we have to have our hair shaved then women must do the same.
Women competing with men on the battlefield is ludicrous. A tremendous waste of time and money that could be spent on strengthening our military instead of weakening it just to satisfy a political agenda. Not saying that women are not vital to the military but not in combat arms on the ground.
The army has changed their position on standards based on the job you perform (“Military occupational specialty”). Now it is again age and gender based. So a female that wants to be in a tank crew as a loader has a much easier physical fitness test compared to a man. The fifty pound round that is required to be loaded while sitting and rotating ones upper torso weighs the same for a man or a woman, yet the woman is required to have roughly 1/2 the upper body strength of the man, based on the push up standards.
The reality is that very few female soldiers on a good day can load a tank or artillery round, or any other number of physically demanding tasks, as the average male soldier can do on a bad day for that soldier.
Standards will erode. Convince yourself otherwise. To have them meet a job required physical standard will never happen. Sure a few percent of females that strive to be infantrymen, or some other very physically demanding job in the military, will be able to attain the standard. That day. But not every day.
Women have a place in the military. Many of the jobs that are available for them they are mentally, physically equal to a man. But not all. As my mom used to say in regards to women’s rights; “equality not sameness”.
Women should not be in the military regardless if she can fiscal handle it or not or at the least not be able to serve in a combat environment you can’t tell me that if she gets captured that she won’t be raped or abused worse then a man will because I know that it will happen and I know that no woman is prepared for that kind of experience plus women who want to join in a combat situation are most likely just trying to push there I just as good as a man agenda just be a woman except the fact that your a woman and act accordingly we all have a place on earth and a woman in a combat platoon isn’t one of them
Relaxing standards so the weak aren't weeded out causes an overall weaker fighting force. Only an idiot would want that. What good is a rescuer if they only end up being another victim, also in need of a rescue?
exactly. keep the standards high so only a few women can make the cut.. and why is that? becuase women are NOT as physically capable as men. If they were, they would be there but in small numbers
Please, for the love of god, do research in your opening statement.
Starting off: "It took the US infantry fifty-five years and thousands of deaths to abandon the idea of trench warfare." No, no it did not. I'm assuming you're talking about WWI, however no army practiced trench warfare before the conflict, as you can see the opening stages were based on mobility. For example, if we look at the US conquest into Mexico a few years before WWI, it was all open landscape, similarly to the Indian wars. During these conflict, the Army held mobility much higher than static defenses. If we go forwards after WWI, the US was in the "Banana Wars", where, again, we didn't use trenches all that much. Defenses usually were made from compounds, not trench systems, especially not in the jungle. If we go further along to WWII, The US never employed trenches as a large tactic, which isn't to say they weren't used, but the US didn't have a "Trench Doctrine". The most common defensive act would be to dig a foxhole, not a complex trench system. We start to see a comeback of trenches During Korea, however it was for good reason. The Korean war was very static at times, and trenches gave extremely good protection. Also, no one was just marching into machine gun fire anymore, so it was a genuine tactic. Then after that, we get to the Vietnam war, where the US basically just stayed at large bases (Yes, surrounded by trenches) and sent out patrols to contact the enemy. Again, not a war of trenches, but instead mobility. You can always point to war and see trenches, even today in Afghanistan, most armies use trenches, but it's not a doctrine of massive trench systems, and charging over top.
Next one: "It took the US cavalry twenty-five years to accept that armored tanks were better than horses against a machine gun" Alright, the first modern tanks were created in 1916 with the British MK I, which was a slow, heavy target that was used for breakthroughs, not the goal of the cavalry. They, we get the French FT, which was the first tank to have a modern layout, rotating turret, separate crew compartment, and engine in the back. While a slightly better fit, it had a measly 4 mph speed, and adopting it would actually hinder the mission of the cavalry, which usually was reconnaissance. Despite this, during the early 1920s, the US Cavalry started working on the "M1 Combat Car", which was a light tank (The Defense act of 1920 barred the Cavalry from designing tanks). Granted, they would finish the project in 1934, however you can very clearly see Cavalry wanted a heavier armored vehicle. You can argue that the US used horses in WWII, however that was purely stateside, only one US cavalry unit in WWII charged the enemy with horses, in the Philippines… And it worked… Against tanks. Anyways, the article said it took the US 25 years to adopt a tank for the cavalry, however that would be 1942, and the US adopted the M2 Light tank in 1935.
Anyways, don't just lie in the first 2 sentences, because now I'm taking your article less seriously.
You've been out-historied by a 16 year old bored in Sociology class, congrats.
Well I'm a big military history buff and yes you are correct about everything, from what I know, you just wrote except the US and CS both used earthwork defenses and trenches in the later stages of the American Civil War most notable at Vicksburg(1863) and PetersBurg(1864-1865), here is where I found that(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trench_warfare#cite_note-15). though after the Civil War the US didn't use trench warfare in the Indian wars, the search for Pancho VIlla or Spanish-American war but did use trenches on a small scale in the Philippine insurgency.
A few things:
1) Kicking out senior experienced officers because they can't keep up with 22 year olds is ludicrous. And women have enough problems keeping up with the physical demands at peak age, and it gets much worse with age.
2) Your take on squad degradation through co-ed operations only serves to prove the problems with a) women in the ranks and B) gays in the ranks. neither of which should be serving for obvious reasons.
Feminism is much worse than Cancer now that is caused by women.
"But an average is no reason to categorically ban a population."
I'd like to see the military apply this logic to age restrictions. Why exclude applications over a certain age? "Ageism" is as discriminatory as sexism.
Clearly, this inconsistency is down to political concerns. One of these groups has an effective lobby, and the other doesn't.
I would say this whole argument is just wasting a lot of energy. People are going to believe that they believe. Military leaders a lot of times fight the next war with the previous war's strategies and ideas. The proof test of who or what's right or wrong will be proved in the next major ground war we get into. Then, the stark truth, which ever way, will become apparent and obvious, by whether we win battles or lose them, accomplish missions or don't, and in the casualties.
I totally agree on the standards issue, there should be one standard for all genders and ages, if there are any standard differences it should be based on the MOS or job that they perform. However I disagree with the issue of sexual dynamics. It's not culture, it's built in mammalian instinct. You cant change a million years of evolution with a regulation. Combat arms rely on the male warrior ethic that places women and children as family that must be protected and they are the guardians. From my own experience I observed that when my all male unit received female medic support, I saw male soldiers neglecting their duties to assist the females, I saw men talk to women in a way that was more like a social club than a field environment. I saw women who were good at their jobs as well but seemed to enjoy all the attention they were getting. I haven't been in combat with women but as a police officer working with female officers found that in tense situations i found myself more concerned with protecting the female officer than I was with the job at hand, nothing i could do would change that. I feel it was male instinct, not culture.
As a Marine ground combat infantry and reconnaissance veteran, the litmus test for anyone to enter ground combat/special operations units should be a simple test—run 5 miles with foul combat load, then immediately recover a dummy weighing 300 lbs (representing the load of a wounded soldier or Marine with gear on) and then carry/drag it for 100m under time pressure.
If we cannot reasonably count on our fellow soldiers/Marines to get a wounded comrade out of a firefight, that is a huge morale buster as well as a lack of moral courage for military leaders to fail in their duty to do all they can to ensure our wounded are not left to their fate because of political pressure from those who have agendas other than mission accomplishment and minimizing friendly casualties.
12 Australian Army Combat Enegnree I believed if you can do the job you should be allowed to do it. But after talking to women who try most have twice the injuries as the men in some training and build-up training they also said they stop having periods meaning they may never have children and shortened their life spans. I was medically discharged from a broken back. I thank there needs to be a shift in thinking with the robots being the focus many countries have declared they are going to automate their armed force. This will make the argument of women in combat roles is obsolete I going to use a point you raised at the start of your article about changing culture takes time. It will only take one country to start using them to change the world's arms races. The government needs to focus on tech as paying medical in a new world war is too much. When did gender politics become more important than the job?
YOU ARE ON THE SAME TEAM! Relate part of this to sports – You train to a certain level that you are strong, fit, and resilient not to destroy and break your own damn team down so they can't play when needed. Mental and physical toughness is of course a part of the job but remember the core values and that again, you are all on the same team. If there is no trust, assurance that your own team/combat family has your back, I would think you're pretty damn screwed in the actual field. If anyone can't control themselves not to violate another person, you should probably be locked up, not representing and serving. There are strengths and weaknesses in EVERYONE and this is why 'wins' don't happen alone. The culture to challenge each other is needed but the ego to destroy within your own when the bigger picture still exists and can be called upon at any time needs to change. Like it or not, we are all human and many of the same toughest guys blow their brains out after deployments, do you want to contribute to that or help fix that? There will be people that can out fitness others but have zero other skills to make critical decisions and vice versa. Of course, a certain level needs to be met and there are also reasons why there are different branches, roles, and duties because people offer different skillsets and potential. The preparation and mentality that PEOPLE regardless of gender/sex/age are indestructible are ridiculous. This is why bionics have to be used – because people are not machines. Adjust the training and recovery, adjust the culture, and when the time comes to get out there against the real opponents, resiliency, teamwork, and winning during and after will be more assured.
Men are more emotional than women? No reason to read anything after that fairytale nonsense.
What you people are not getting. The DIFFICULTY of the tests were lowered so women could join. THINK about that.
What exactly is "EQUAL" about this? One does more, the other does less?
Remember the whole equal pay thing? LESS.
Are you better or less than men by only doing less than men? You shouldn't be proud of this. You should be infuriated, cause all that this is saying is that Military thinks you can't handle it and what are you doing? You're supporting this view an think that's "empowering", when it isn't.
Would you call a man "brave" for doing less than you? Think about that. I'm not the one saying you're weak, THE MILITARY IS and you are agreeing with them!
Articles that did not age well… lol
FTR, not an anti-female in the military zealot. However, adamantly opposed to women serving in front line infantry – combat arms units. # LETHALITY IS COMPRISED = MISSION FAILURE = DEATH /SERIOUS INJURY.
See below re: results From a Marine Corps study, which reinforced previous findings about the range of male and female physical performance and musculoskeletal injury.
Bottom line…women should NOT, repeat, NOT serve in front line infantry – combat arms units…PERIOD.
“- – – among the participants of this study the top 25 percent of women matched the bottom 25 percent of men in anaerobic power; and the top 10 percent of women overlaps with the bottom 50 percent of men in both aerobic and anaerobic capacity. The study also points to the disparate impact on male and female anatomy that the types of tasks these Marines were called on to perform can have. For instance, musculoskeletal injury rates were 40.5 percent for women, compared to 18.8 percent for men.”
It proved to be Very helpful to me and I am sure to all the commentators here!
I want females to derve frontline in the military
in their own all female units
the author defeats her own argument when she states:
standards are the problem
so in other words
lower them and all would be good
no doubt the c0mmunists of the world ..the defunders
so much for oaths, targeted individual & gangstalking
Theres a reason why there isn't an all-female unit in any country
Women in the Army do not have it easier. Like their male counterparts, day-to-day life for women in the military is mostly training and working out. Depending on the rank and position, there may be other activities, such as attending classes. It is hard to go into the specifics because there are over 800 different jobs across the branches of the U.S armed forces, which will entail a distinct military life.
I will make this short. Women do not have their place in the military as many said it and described it pretty well. Most of them can't do the physical work or carry their own weight and can't handle the stress. Furthermore, this does not only applies to the military, this also applies to office work as well. I have worked with many women and I can assure you that they do not know what their are doing or how to apply anything that they learned. They are real poor leaders as well.
There are some great talking points in here that can be used for all those job interviews spouses seem to be going on.
Women are disruptive of male institutions and don't need to be allowed in at all. Not everything has to be for everyone. I am pro-discrimination. Free association > equality and fairness.