Battleland

Women in Combat: The Numbers Racket

  • Share
  • Read Later
Stephen Morton / Getty Images

A female Marine trains for combat at Parris Island, S.C.

The Pentagon will detail Tuesday when women will be eligible to train for and join the U.S. military’s most elite units, including Army Rangers and Navy SEALs.

But it’s not those dates on the calendar – 2015 for Rangers and 2016 for SEALs — that are going to be the most important.

These are the numbers to keep your eyes on:

– How will separate physical-training requirements for men and women be changed to a single set that both men and women will have to pass to gain entry to such units. The Army will spend the next two years developing gender-neutral Ranger standards. The tougher the numbers, the smaller the number of women who will be eligible.

Under a 1993 federal law, the defense secretary:

(1) shall ensure that qualification of members of the Armed Forces for, and continuance of members of the Armed Forces in, that occupational career field is evaluated on the basis of common, relevant performance standards, without differential standards of evaluation on the basis of gender;

(2) may not use any gender quota, goal, or ceiling except as specifically authorized by law; and

(3) may not change an occupational performance standard for the purpose of increasing or decreasing the number of women in that occupational career field.

– The calculation of such standards isn’t always clear-cut, as a May report from the Congressional Research Service noted:

A plain reading of the term suggests that men and women would be required to meet the same physical standards in order to be similarly assigned. However, in the past, the Services have used this and similar terms to suggest that men and women must exert the same amount of energy in a particular task, regardless of the work that is actually accomplished by either.

For example, the Air Force Fitness Test Scoring for males under 30 years of age requires males to run 1.5 miles in a maximum time of 13:36 (min.:secs.): the female maximum time is 16:22. A female who runs at this slower rate would actually receive a higher score than a male who runs nearly three minutes faster. The minimum number of push-ups for males and females in the same age group is 33 and 18, respectively. In the case of push-ups, males and females who achieve the minimum passing number of push-ups receive the same score.
As written, this language can be the subject of differing interpretations. Since no standards exist for women in the then-closed occupations, would women be required to meet the current existing standards, would separate standards be created, or would the existing standards be re-evaluated?

What is lacking is a clear definition of “gender-neutral” vis-a-vis the goals to be attained…

Although it can be argued that there are women who can meet and exceed many male physical standards, the experiences with the Canadian military and recent Marine Corp Infantry Officers Course (IOC), suggest that large numbers of women will not succeed if held to these same higher standards. In addition, forcing women to continuously meet higher standards has been found to increase their injury and attrition rates

– There is acknowledgement in the military that many such requirements have little relationship to the actual combat billets they’re designed for. But any relaxation of such standards will elicit cries of a “softening” military from some quarters.

– These numbers all will play a major role into the creation of the most important number of all: just what share of special-operations units needs to be female in order for such units to have any females in the ranks.

There is widespread agreement that in any gender-integration effort the minority needs to reach a certain level – often from 10% to 20% — to ensure the optimum chance of that integration taking root and ultimately succeeding. But maximizing that number by minimizing standards will doom the effort.

Women today account for 14% of the U.S. military and – given widespread and growing charges of sexual assaults – that number may not be high enough.

45 comments
MFFJM2
MFFJM2

The standards will change because the prospective female soldiers wanting to wear the Ranger Tab will be unable to meet the present combat-proven standards.  The standards will be gender-normed, meaning they will be reduced.  Just as they were for airborne training when women were allowed into Basic Parachutist Training.  The military is not a Jobs program.  The military defends the nation, and her national security interests.  Anything that degrades that ability should be resolutely resisted, and fairness should not be a consideration.  The people that suggest women should be permitted to conduct ground combat operations "if they are physically capable" have no understanding of modern ground combat.  Modern ground combat is not an individual exercise, but rather a team accomplishment.  The reason combat teams fight and die for and with each other is called esprit-de-corps, and that is reduced once sexuality is introduced into a unit.  Jealousy, sexual liaisons, sexual harassment, sexual assault, real or imagined preferential treatment, and trying to protect the weaker sex, sometimes at the degredation of the mission, are the changes likely to occur with this monumentally stupid change to US military operations and training.

andrewj.karaffa
andrewj.karaffa

This issue revolves around much the same as any other equality argument.  If we EVER expect equality to truly take hold in our society, then we will have to an OPEN mind about these kinds of issues.  Simple as that.  I remember a time when folks in our country were opposed to women in the workforce....because it would make our workforce weak.  I remember a time when folks were opposed to women voting....because it would make our society weak.  NONE of that has been proven to be true.  The same goes for women in combat.  If they can do the training, and prove they can do what is required, it shouldn't be an issue.  If your daughter joins the military, and proves she can handle being in the infantry....are you going to say "no sweetie, women don't fight"  Are you really going to express sexism and discrimination against your OWN child??  How sad that some will answer yes.

tom_hilroy
tom_hilroy

I can feel the sexism here. They don't have to change the male standards at all, they don't have to change them at all I know plenty of women faster, stronger, & better than men at physical tasks & shooting, it just depends on the individual. Years ago people like you wouldn't let African Americans in combat roles or allow women to have support roles besides medical. I bet none of you could complete some of the militaries most demanding & vigorous training. There's more women than men in the world, eventually women are gonna have to pick up a gun & fight, they have every right to defend their country. If we lost the majority of American 18+ males you guys would rather put foreigners or children out their before women. It's true men do have more muscle than women, but tons of women are in good shape. Plus he's saying slots are opening for Navy Seals & Rangers most women probably won't do as good as men with large amounts of muscle, but women can excel men as regular infantry, the basic requirements for regular U.S. soldiers wouldn't be too demanding for fit & in shape women. You all act like a gay guy couldn't rape a straight guy and that it's perfectly normal of men to rape to get their daily vagina, especially soldiers. You can blame women for the act of psychopaths the military has no control over because 1. They don't know he's psycho & 2. The military is becoming more pansy orientated they keep lowering standards especially during the Afghan war. They nurture & treat these privates like their children in some places. Tons of men are not good enough to get into seals, rangers or marines. I would rather have a fit women who has had experience with guns & close quarters fighting than some 400 pound out of shape guy who couldn't walk the length of a football field or hold a gun without shaking his arms like his having a seizure.

Medic5392
Medic5392

Here are just a couple of blurbs from the MoD in the United Kingdom Report on Women in the Armed Forces (2002') that was reviewed in 2010'-Page 4, Paragraph 10, 11 from the Summary Report. The test compared women and men side by side and did not change the standards for their Infantryman Tasks.

Physiological Factors

10. The physical capacities demanded of personnel serving in close combat roles are necessarily high. Any reduction in standards would pose unacceptable risks to the operational effectiveness of our forces, and must therefore be avoided. The physical tests taken by potential recruits measure their ability to carry out the tasks that they will be required to perform after appropriate training. The testing standards that are set are justified by the demands of the job.

11. The Women in the Armed Forces report examined the differences in the physical abilities of men and women which are relevant to military performance and observed, unsurprisingly, that they differ significantly. Differences between women and men in their capacity to develop muscle strength and aerobic fitness are such that only approximately 1% of women can equal the performance of the average man. In lifting, carrying and similar tasks performed routinely by the British Army, this means that, on average, women have a lower work capacity than men and, when exposed to the same physical workload as men, have to work 50-80% harder to achieve the same results. This puts them at greater risk of injury. In load marching, another fundamental military task, and in all other simulated combat tasks, women were found to perform worse than men, and the greater the load, the greater the discrepancy. The study concluded that about 0.1% of female applicants and 1 % of trained female soldiers would reach the required standards to meet the demands of these roles.

There is loads of information out there on the increased numbers of ortho injuries, the unit cohesion problems (you will have folks having sex when they should be working and lose about 10% of your female force to pregnancy, the branches average between 9-15% losses for pregnancy of female military service members), loads of info about the differences physically and now even the genetic differences that cause higher rates of PTSD in females. No, this is not close to black integration, not a lot of losses due to pregnancy, no rise in ortho injuries due to actual physical differences the women have, etc....etc...the comparison is  a false one.

Medic5392
Medic5392

Mr. Thompson, your writing basically advocates for the weakening of our military and hence endangering the lives of the males in those combat units already by advocating for increased numbers and you do not apparently care that lower standards would have to be instituted. I am at a loss of such moral cowardice, I use that term because you are willing to sacrifice the men for a "political dream" of increased opportunity for women. Not only would you sacrifice males who currently serve by endangering their lives through lower standards and softer preparation for the battlefield, you would also endanger the country itself by allowing this. How? This is the entire military you are talking about, not support roles, you are talking about combat too, the folks who actually do the fighting. Lack of proper physical preparation and training combined with lower standards will put out a poorer product that will lead to increased failure on the battlefield. Why would you or any of the other advocates care though, not like you will be doing the fighting right? Doubt your kids will do any of the fighting either, after all that is for other peoples kids. I am just glad you can feel self-satisfied, because that is what it is really all about in the end-YOU.

mattdula
mattdula

Why do we need woman in the military? Who is fighting for this? Can those women come join me in the corp? when they can hike 20 miles with 120 pack with a rifle and some mortar gear while getting shot at running of 3 hours a sleep a night for weeks on end i will shut up and let them in.

MikeKelter
MikeKelter

Women in the military have served our country well.  As we look forward to assigning women to combat roles, traditionally dominated by males, we need to think our way through this in a manner better than the current chain of command has done.

Combat duty in the military is not a social issue.  It is physically and mentally demanding in manners not understood by academics who have never been to war.  It requires an enormous amount of strength and stamina on the part of every member of a unit--a weak link in a unit gets people killed.

In the past, the military has tolerated a dual physical fitness standard for men and women.  Currently a male NCO or officer is required to possess greater body strength and aerobic capacity than a female NCO or officer--same pay but different physical standards.  This has been tolerated because of the greater opportunity that male-dominated combat arms roles affords to males in uniform. 

Now that those opportunities are being afforded to females, the dual physical fitness standards need to be eliminated.  We can go the right way or the wrong way on this issue.  We can lower the standard to accomodate the physiological differences between men and women.  This would be the wrong approach since the rigors of combat roles are not likely to change.  The best solution would be to elevate the women's physical fitness standard to that of their male counterparts.  This is apt to cause wailing and gnashing of teeth from the sociologist-types who look for equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity.

The Israeli Defense Force has been struggling with this issue for years and I don't know that they've come up with the best solution.  The solutions require a strong and thoughtful chain of command that will look past the politically-correct and strive for an outcome that best serves the military imperatives.


emeraldseatown
emeraldseatown

Women will now have the opportunity to try out for the Rangers and the SEALs.  Lots of the men don't make the cut to begin training, largely for physical aptitude reasons.  Many more fail out of special forces training for a variety of reasons, many physical.

I will support any woman's right to try out for a unit, and I will fight to ensure that she is given the exact same opportunity as her male competition.

To suggest that there should be a quota or critical mass of women in special forces units is suggesting we choose between the good of the unit, and the good of the women, and while the PC police may hold sway at Time magazine, mission effectiveness is the requirement of the military.

MichaelBusby
MichaelBusby

I am a Vietnam vet with 8 years in the Marine Corps. At one time I opposed women in combat roles. Now, I now longer care. Make all combat roles 100% women. I kept my three sons out of the military because of the direction this country is headed. I no longer support the United States of America's government. If the Chinese, or any other invader, arrive at our shores, send the the women and children to meet them because I am not. I will no longer defend this liberal/progressive/communist country.

Reaper3
Reaper3

"Gender-neutral standards"? Oh, please. What may they (that) be? Females are absolutely intellectually as capable as their male counterparts, and in some situations, vastly superior. But, serving in a specialized infantry unit in a forward area? There is no room for any compromise in that environment. The Marines have it right. Here are the standards of acceptance. You pass, you're in. No compromise. With any downgrade in the requirements, you put the mission in danger, and the lives of the troops on the line, lousy plan to pander to what may be considered by some as "socially correct".  Obviously the  proponents of this effort never "been there, done that".

pendragon05
pendragon05

Why any woman would want to be surrounded by a forest of men is beyond me. And I use that word 'forest' rather loosely.

ScottStewart
ScottStewart

Your citation here doesn't support your contention:

"There is acknowledgement in the military that many such requirements have little relationship to the actual combat billets they’re designed for. But any relaxation of such standards will elicit cries of a “softening” military from some quarters."

[http://nation.time.com/2013/06/18/women-in-combat-the-numbers-racket/#ixzz2War9f8TM.]

In fact, the physical strength, speed and stamina requirements for elite military units is absolutely necessary. Ignoring this -- or watering those standards down to allow MORE women (and men previously deemed unfit) in -- will put lives at risk.  I'm sorry you don't like this message.  But sometimes the truth hurts.

I have no problem opening these units up to women. But no one, man OR woman, should be allowed in unless they can pass the appropriately tailored physical fitness tests.

n7specops
n7specops

The idea of putting more women in combat is a stupid idea. The idea of putting women in special forces brackets is a stupid. idea

nedlybenner
nedlybenner

Women today account for 14% of the U.S. military and – given widespread and growing charges of sexual assaults – that number may not be high enough.---REALLY!! The assault numbers are rising because the predators aren't being properly prosecuted. No women is going to want to be in Special forces alone because it's then assault is expected. Which is 110% not ok, however that's another issue in itself. 

The problem with letting women to special forces and infantry units is the infantry men and the lack of standards that we have. They don't want us there and there is no standard for us to train to to achieve a higher standard of physical fitness. Look at the Marine corp, they are setting the example of women in combat but not making huge public fits about it because it's the right thing to do. Equal opportunity, shouldn't mean having to petition congress so you can have the same career opportunities as a man. 

JosephLoudon
JosephLoudon

Here's an absolutely insane idea. How about the U.S. trying to actually go a few years or decades without sending anyone, male or female, into combat?

mary.waterton
mary.waterton

This nation hasn't won a war since WW2 and the reason? Left wing politics. When the purpose and the focus of your military becomes social engineering, then you're not fighting wars to win.

In the last 10 years it's gotten worse with stuff like women in combat, homosexuals in the military, etc. A young man would be foolish to join the today's US Military because if they aren't fighting wars to win, then it's very likely they are going to get you killed ... and for no good reason.

Vindicated2
Vindicated2

ANNEX Mars already, Obama!  So your Muslim brothers and sisters can persecute the Martians!

Vindicated2
Vindicated2

I suggest they take this up with Charles F. Bolden, Jr.

snewsom2997
snewsom2997

Women can barely be basic infantry, they did not evolve to kill people with their bare hands, they evolved to nurture and care for children. If they can pass the same tests as the men by all means let them, the problem is there are only maybe a couple dozen women in the whole of the armed forces who could pass the same tests as the men, to become a SEAL or Ranger, and the military is not talking bout the same test, but new tests that both men and women can pass. Which would lower the standards and make the Force less effective, ending in more busted missions, and more dead American soldiers.

adbirds
adbirds

We are seeking qualified applicants who can perform, "X".  So do we lower the standard to "x"?

Medic5392
Medic5392

So, are you going to push for females in the NFL next? Perhaps no more gender differences at the Olympics or in the NCAAs? If there is no difference and you really want true equality, have them compete head to head in everything. No more Title IX, no more quotas, no lower physical standards, let the chips fall where they may. Are you really advocating for lower standards or do you really think there is no difference physically between men and women?

andrewj.karaffa
andrewj.karaffa

@Medic5392  I don't think you are giving people enough credit.  Your last paragraph about people having sex may be a bit of an exaggeration.  You really think, that in combat training, rather than the soldiers learning what to do, to save their lives or others' lives that they would have sex instead?  That's a bit of ummmm immaturity don't ya think?  Perhaps we should understand the gravity of the situation, and have an adult conversation, rather make grade school comments like...."people will have sex."  So, our soldiers raping middle east women is ok...as long as NO WOMEN are integrated so that they don't have sex with one another??

Furthermore, for your comment below about lower standards.  So, an 18 year old boy can join the military and learn to kill others...and that's ok because he's a boy.  And, he should be able to adapt and accept such a thing. But an 18 year old girl?  Nope.  It's different.  Being trained as a solider, is being trained as a solider.  And, the way things are currently in our society...I see an awful lot of effed up males committing mass shootings....ALL of them with previous military experience.  Hmmm..perhaps BOYS can't adjust, and adapt.

You also make a piss poor generalization about "that's for other peoples kids".  Actually, I have a son, and daughter, who are contemplating joining the military.  And if they do, and that role takes them to a specific theater to fight....I embrace them, tell them to be safe, and leave it in God's hands that come home, unscathed.  Because in our house, we teach our children...PUT OTHERS BEFORE SELF.  Suppressing your childs want's or needs, or desires only leads to them NOT being able to live in a grown up world.  Then, bad things happen.  Take notes, pay attention.

~A

andrewj.karaffa
andrewj.karaffa

@mattdula hmm....interesting comments.  Because I'm sure YOU have so much influence in what the US Military does. What's the matter, you afraid of a woman out-performing you?

n7specops
n7specops

Why on Earth would someone ever water down training even more when they have to realize it will water down the force that is being trained. It will result in less than lackluster performance, less than lackluster mission success rates, less than lackluster everything. So much for the few and the proud and the best and the brightest, right? Lets weaken the whole system and make it less effective and make sure it produces less effective people... That makes no sense to me.

cjh2nd
cjh2nd

@nedlybenner

"Equal opportunity, shouldn't mean having to petition congress so you can have the same career opportunities as a man." 

i know you were raised in a pussified america where your feelings were more important than imparting a realistic world view on you, but guess what? the world is an unequal place, and nowhere is that more evident than on a battlefield.

also, your argument loses some credibility when the branch of the military you're referencing doesn't exist.  The Marine corp implies a maritime corporation. the Marine Corps, however, is about to water down the finest fighting force in the world thanks to a government and general public with no military experience thinking they understand how war works.  guess what? they don't 



Misty6
Misty6

@nedlybenner OK then, let's say you are absolutely correct.  Would you agree to send in to battle, woman-only units?  That is the only way to truly measure their effectiveness.  

 BTW, Are you aware that most of the sexual harrassment claims are from MEN?

mtngoatjoe
mtngoatjoe

@mary.waterton I would argue it's right-wing politics that are causing the problems. Like say, fighting in Iraq for no good reason (and killing and maiming so many of our soldiers). We were in Afghanistan for MANY years before a left-wing president took office and sent more support. Also, Nixon shut down the Viet Nam war, not the left-leaning Johnson.

Oh, and women and homosexuals have always been in the military. Just because you have preconceptions (and limited historical knowledge) about their abilities doesn't make their sacrifices and heroics any less significant.

The problem with this country is all the people who think the "other" political part is the problem.

pendragon05
pendragon05

@snewsom2997 Is that why the highest number of post-natal abortions are committed by women in the United States?

JenniferBonin
JenniferBonin

@snewsom2997 Women "did not evolve to kill people with their bare hands, they evolved to nurture and care for children," you claim.  By that logic, doesn't it imply that almost no men should be able to care for children well, since they "evolved to kill people with their bare hands" instead?  Yet I know a lot of excellent dads and had some very good male elementary school teachers.  That suggests to me that the opposite might be true as well.

When you start out your argument with questionable logic, you undermine yourself from step one.  Why should I listen to or believe anything else you say, if it's possibly just as poorly thought through?

cjh2nd
cjh2nd

@adbirds

we shouldn't but we will. instead of making women live up to certain standards that men must currently meet (like we should do), we'll lower the standards so we don't hurt anyone's feeling or upset the PC police (because god forbid anyone have their feelings hurt).  and then more Americans will die in combat and the same liberal morons pushing for women in combat will be up in arms over the fact that more Americans are dying in combat and female POWs are being raped and tortured by whoever we happen to be at war with, while completely ignoring the fact that it was their pushing for this idiotic inclusion that caused it in the first place. the battlefield is NOT the place for social/gender-equality experiments

Medic5392
Medic5392

It won't allow for sequential posting and not going to bother to take the time to go in reverse, it broke it up, you can follow it. Hope you understand what you and others are advocating for, it is not equality, it is not fairness, it is not setting people up for success. It is short sighted, setting units up for failure and doing so without looking at the real physiological differences between men and women. Hey, it is just 30 years of studies, gender is just a social construct right?

Medic5392
Medic5392

7.) "Suppressing your childs want's or needs, or desires only leads to them NOT being able to live in a grown up world.  Then, bad things happen"-Actually, no, your job as an adult is not to embrace every desire and need, it is called discipline and being the grown up. You are right though, you shold "take note, pay attention".

I would close with this, you seem to think this is about gender bias, it is about real physical differences between the genders that matter in combat and about the inability of the US Military to have ever actually held a standard when it comes to women. Women are held to a far lower level of physical fitness, will break more easily due to orthopedic differences well documented and are in fact actually different. It is called biology, read it, you will like it I think. If you are advocating for this idiocy to go through that women and men are in mixed gender combat arms without thinking about the actual differences and realities of combat then you essentially putting your son's life at risk for the career opportunities of your daugter and setting them both up for failure in combat by doing so. If this continues and your daughter and son both join, I actually hope they do not go into combat units, it would be a terrible burden for you to have on your shoulders knowing you advocated for lower standards and unrealistic training.

Medic5392
Medic5392

6.) "You also make a piss poor generalization about "that's for other peoples kids".-No, I don't, the people who decide these laws in Congress and in the White House and in the vested special interest groups will have no skin in the game.  

Medic5392
Medic5392

4.) "So, an 18 year old boy can join the military and learn to kill others...and that's ok because he's a boy.  And, he should be able to adapt and accept such a thing. But an 18 year old girl?  Nope.  It's different.  Being trained as a solider, is being trained as a solider."-No, the point is that your girl will never meet the same physical standards and will be in fact a detriment to those "boy" soldiers you talk of. Try to read and comprehend what is written.

5.) "And, the way things are currently in our society...I see an awful lot of effed up males committing mass shootings....ALL of them with previous military experience.  Hmmm..perhaps BOYS can't adjust, and adapt."-I would call BS, but there is no need for that since the fact do not support it and the facts will do that for me.

Medic5392
Medic5392

Andrew, I will try to take your post point by point.

1.) "You really think, that in combat training, rather than the soldiers learning what to do, to save their lives or others' lives that they would have sex instead?  That's a bit of ummmm immaturity don't ya think?"- Oh, but were that only true. Between 9-15% of females deployed or about to deploy get sent home due to pregnancy. I have seen the high school antics in both theaters. While I think that it is nice you are going to get young, healthy, fit men and women living in austere and isolated environments to ignore that pull, it is nice, not realistic.

2.) "Perhaps we should understand the gravity of the situation, and have an adult conversation, rather make grade school comments like...."people will have sex." "- No, it is just one of many factors that should be looked at and is not, you also obviously do not understand the bigger problem beyon pregnancy, the one of frat. Frat is a toxic problem for a military unit and can cost lives in a crisis, I do not expect you to understand the impact of frat in a military unit, but I would ask that you try.

3.) "So, our soldiers raping middle east women is ok...as long as NO WOMEN are integrated so that they don't have sex with one another??"-Only and idiot would try to conflate the two and only and idiot would post a hyperbolic, inaccurate statement like that blanketing troops.

n7specops
n7specops

As someone stated below. Don't lower the standard what-so-ever just because one group can't reach that goal or the number of individuals in a group are not achieving that goal. Either you can pass or you cannot pass, if you cannot then you don't get in the club. It's that simple.

RodFingles
RodFingles

@cjh2nd@nedlybenner well said, most of the people that advocate this garbage have never been anywhere near a boot camp let alone the Marine Corps.

Misty6
Misty6

@JenniferBonin @snewsom2997 Jennifer, I think you have the logic problem here.  Snews never said either way whether men could be good dads or teachers.  Being an efficient killer as a soldier doesn't prevent good dadism.  Lionesses are ruthlessly efficient killers but nurturing mothers however they are far stronger compared to their prey than any woman is compared to the average male soldier.  One fact that seems to escape this thread:  Not one male soldier in a hundred can meet Special Forces standards, so how many women can?

snewsom2997
snewsom2997

@JenniferBonin @snewsom2997  

 The standards of being a Dad or Teacher are far lower than that to be a trained soldier. I never said women cannot compete mentally with men, I have no problem with them commanding ships, or planes, But i Have serious doubts about the ability of most women to be able to keep up with the required pace of most missions, as well as the more bloody aspects. Women can be great leaders of men, great inventors, a great many things,but  most are not cut out to be soldiers. Like I said if they can pass the same test by all means let them, but we should lower standards to be more inclusive, and never in military matters.

Misty6
Misty6

@cjh2nd @adbirds  Are you aware that every woman captured in both Iraq wars was sexually assaulted?  This is an unpleasant fact that the media played down.

cgodfrey585
cgodfrey585

@cjh2nd @adbirds This is all BS.  I know plenty of big women and puny men.  Keep all the physical standards and don't let in anyone who can't attain them even when you run out of fit men.  But also cut men who can't pass the academic and psychological tests where women excel and men don't and don't give the excuse that you don't need 'book learning' to kill.   

cjh2nd
cjh2nd

@cgodfrey585

i don't recall ever saying all men are stronger than women, or that being intellectual is a hindrance to performing in war. the whole point of my post wasn't that women are weaker, it's that this is war and you can't lower the standards or people will die. if the point you took from my post was that all men are bigger/stronger than all women you're an idiot.

Misty6
Misty6

@NotDisingenuous @cgodfrey585 @cjh2nd @adbirds Of course you are absolutely right, this is not Title IX sports, it's life and death.  I doubt ANY women have both the desire and ability to be SEALs.  What is sad is to see is feminists who who don't care if it kills an entire team as long as they make their point.  The guys on these teams have wives and children - We should not sacrifice them on the altar of political correctness.

NotDisingenuous
NotDisingenuous

@cgodfrey585 @cjh2nd @adbirds "Big women" have a lot less muscle mass than men.  The physical gap between the sexes is greater than commonly thought.  So the number of women who could pass rigorous standards is small, small enough that the considerable costs of retrofitting combat units to women soldiers is not worth the cost.  Make no mistake, this is about checking feminist boxes, and the costs are greater than the rewards.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,107 other followers