I for one, as an American citizen, am not mentally ready for our young women to be coming home maimed and in body bags in the same numbers as our men have, and continue to do. . .there must be another way to level the playing field for equal opportunity toward advancement?

...is to level the playing field.

That is the way the world works, they will make them meet the same standards...sure........and then, like magic, the GOs will all of sudden care about the health of the force more than their careers too.
Hey Ducky, if women and men are the same how come we have different chemical make ups? Can I have kids? Do I lactate and have a period? I mean, we are interchangeable in your view, right?
What do you base this assessment on exactly there "skipper", all of your time spent on a mixed crew? Was it all the time you spent humping kit for 10-15k? Room entries? Doing damage control on a ship with a mixed crew? Or do you base it on the common "idea" that civilian work and military work is the same? Perhaps you will use the "it's their right!" line? If that is true, then it should be a person who is in a wheelchairs right to be in the military, I mean, since physical ability obviously has nothing to do with it.

Members of the US Armed Forces swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, a document which establishes equality before the law and is the foundation for equal opportunity in our government and our society. Servicemembers don't get to pick and choose which parts of the American System they like. They uphold it all.

And really, equality is not such a difficult concept. Yes I admit differences. Girls can't write their names in the snow. Boys have never been good at childbirth. But when it comes to opportunity, arguments against gender equality flow from the same foul well as racism.

That is it, cannot argue against facts so go for the "I'll call those who do not agree with me racists". Last time it was the I just don't like girls. Glad you can't make a real argument based on anything else but passion and name calling, I should be used to that by now though. Hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good accusation? You should work in politics Ducky, oh, you are a retired Captain, you already did.

My oath is to the Constitution and the Military is allowed to be different than the general population, something the SCOTUS has continually held. It goes a little deeper than peeing in the snow but then hey, I do not expect you to use logic or argue out of anything else than screaming "it's their right!", it will not be you who dies because someone could not carry them up a ships ladder in a fire, it will not be you whose kid dies because the flank could not be held in close in fighting, it will not be you whose kid dies because they could not drag him back to the helo. It won't be your mission that fails because your female member got thrown around like a rag doll doing room entry, it won't be your mission that fails because your female member couldn't hump as much weight or go as long. Nope, that will always be someone else's kid, so why should you care.

Eric, you're not good at analogies, are you? He didn't call you a racist. He said your rationalization flows from the same rationalization as racism. He did not call you a racist. I've seen you and a few others on here miss the forest for the trees when debating. Look at the form of an analogy, not the particulars.

But unfortunately, the immediate battlefield to the front (not the battle space) is a very unlevel playground. . .and besides, like the girl tells the boy urinating against the side of a tree. "vous etre si pratique."

I am well aware of what an analogy is, if you do not think his intention was to say that I was a racist then I think you are missing something, not me. What does someone intend to infer when they say that if you do not agree with the full integration of women then what is preventing you from doing so flows from the same place that racism flows from? Really? You do not see that? Ha! Dude, you walked by the forest and stumbled over the trees if you missed that.

Otter, we have plenty of loggers on the blog. What we need are more forestry experts. . .keep that in perspective if you would, when looking at the trees for the forest.

This issue has much less to do with women assaulting into a fortified position or ambush, than it does equaling-out the two sexes as a whole, so that one isn't judged non-competitive and held back, by what she isn't allowed to do.

However, if it makes you feel any better, I am against mixing the sexes in that most intimate relationship outside marriage. . .that of infantrymen moving to contact.

That is simply not the way it works. I wish it were and I had posted that below and many times over the years on this topic. Everyone want's "equality", no one wants it to matter it seems that this conflict we are talking about, not trading stocks, not being a CEO, combat.
Holding women back? How about we talk about the practicality of women in combat instead of "it's their right!", it is my life and perhaps the life of a future son who will be put in danger because of Political Correctness.

One, they are in the military due to a "goal", quota, of 15%.

Two, there has never been nor will there ever be a standard that they will be held to that is the same as males. It is just the way it is. See it time after time. Our Officer and Senior NCO Corps are terrified of holding them to the same standard, if they do their job they get accolades galore. I have seen it more than once. A lot of that stems from what we have called lack of "moral courage".

Three, PT standards? Basically with the studies that have been done about 1.5% of females can meet the notoriously low standards we already have for our troops. I want our standards raised as it is, what do you think will happen once females are allowed into the combat arms? They will be lowered and quotas will be made. They have them at the Academies why would they not have them then in the combat arms? Heck, the Congressional report advocates for quotas. Name me a time in our past we have held them to the same standards here? It has not nor will it happen.

Four, none of the studies mentioned by the author have anything to do with why it is to our advantage to have women involved in direct combat. It is all to do with rank and career advancement. Once again why I have no reason to have a lot of faith in my officer corps and not sure why anyone else does knowing the history of this topic.

Five, we talked about Frat earlier on another article, think that does not have an effect on your troops? It is bad enough on a FOB, I would hate to see what it would be like in the field.

I greatly respect you TY, you often help me "soften" my view. I have about another 4-6 years of operational time and I do not think it is worth my life to give women their chance at what they think is a "right". It just isn't worth my life or the security of a nation and a comparison to races or other groups is not valid, a man is still a man. We are not interchangeable like sprockets or wheels. If I had an iota of faith in my General Officer Corps to raise and hold standards I would not be so opposed but they have not ever given me a reason to have that faith and continue to do nothing but lose what little is left. Look at the Army Professional Pamphlet on the CAPE site, they have an obviously overweight female DI on the cover, how serious are they about professionalism if that is the image they are projecting?

On one note, I think this might be the first conspiracy I believe in, i.e; that Tom intentionally threw up this article to see what the giant push button on my head would let out! ha! Just because your paranoid does not mean they aren't out to get ya ;)

Eric: I am not in the military but I am a woman and this is the same gender argument that goes on in the male physician-dominated health care field. Men don't have babies probably because God knew they just weren't up to the task. Individuals play to their strengths male OR female in every situation so don't presume women can't cut it in combat!

I am generally favorably inclined towards women who can meet the standards, serving in combat units. But your apparently angry and offended reply works, if anything, to suggest to me that Eric has a point. The arguments that would be valid w regard to combat units are wholly irrelevant to health care professionals (they may be relevant to firefighters though).

Swolfson6, women DO have a burden of proof here. It is an easily demonstrated fact that men are considerably stronger physically than women (do you want to arm-wrestle over that?), that they have higher endurance when both fit and that both matter in combat units. I think there is every scientific reason to think that a small number of women actually can meet the requirements necessary to make them good combat soldiers. But it will be a small number. And any efforts to try to lower standards when it could mean the loss of life, and this guy's support is gone. Therefore, the "aggressively offended" is, IMO, the most counter-productive you could adopt. If you want to persuade people, argue the facts, not the "correct politics."

I am generally favorably inclined towards women who can meet the standards, serving in combat units. But your apparently angry and offended reply works, if anything, to suggest to me that Eric has a point. The arguments that would be valid w regard to combat units are wholly irrelevant to health care professionals (they may be relevant to firefighters though).

Swolfson6, women DO have a burden of proof here. It is an easily demonstrated fact that men are considerably stronger physically than women (do you want to arm-wrestle over that?), that they have higher endurance when both fit and that both matter in combat units. I think there is every scientific reason to think that a small number of women actually can meet the requirements necessary to make them good combat soldiers. But it will be a small number. And any efforts to try to lower standards when it could mean the loss of life, and this guy's support is gone. Therefore, the "aggressively offended" is, IMO, the most counter-productive you could adopt. If you want to persuade people, argue the facts, not the "correct politics."

"Members of the US Armed Forces swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, a document which establishes equality before the law"

No, the US constitution promises nothing of the kind. This is a common, yet completely faulty, misconception. The US constitution promises "equal protection." If it promised "equality before the law" Ahnull would have the right to run for president. He does not because politically, "naturalized" Americans are second-class citizens at the top of the US government. (If they specifically dream of becoming president (not such an uncommon daydream I suspect) they are effectively not citizens at all in that regard)

If Americans are big on "equality" I think repealing the natural born clause is more important than letting women try out for Navy SEAS.

"I do not think it is worth my life to give women their chance at what they think is a "right"."

I can appreciate your truthfulness about not being able to accept women in combat arms. Women have been in harms way, what about the women in the civil affairs and MP units? We just have to lead in a different way and work twice as hard to defeat stereotypes. I had a hell of time being attached to combat arms and leading a team, but in the end it made me stronger and more confident as a leader and a woman.

Jay, as per M.O you throw out a whine combined with righteous indignation add a little passion and add nothing to the conversation. You continued inability to take things in context or make a coherent argument gets boring, have visited your webpage too, conjecture and hyperbole galore. I take an oath to the Constitution and those rights granted in that document not to risking my life so women can get a job opportunity. Your inability to see how this also could make our defense weaker and threatens the very Constitution you imply you think this is about.
There is no "right" to combat career advancement in that wonderful bit of paper, try and find it for me.

Walrus, it is simply not true, no one has to work twice as hard to defeat stereotypes. Read all of the posts in here and think of the context they are in and also as it relates to your comment about women being currently engaged in ground combat. It's a misleading comment, they are simply not out and doing the grunt job.

You are confusing equality with being the same. Women should be excluded not to protect them, but to protect men. Women are a liabilty because they are biologically incapable of matching the physical performance of a man. It is the same reason women do not compete against men in the Olympics. The same reason female boxers do not fight men even if they are in the same weight class. My 63 year old father can be killed in combat too, but does that mean that the military should recruit men his age? Is it age discrimination?

Maybe you're not ready for it, but that's not the question. Are women up to it and if not, why aren't they? Where has the military failed them?? BTW, if you're a dad to young daughters, rather than trying to protect them (insulting), work on making them self-reliant. Females are strong, mentally and physically. If they're not, far too often it's because they've been "nutured" by well-meaning but clueless parents and society not to be.

It is due to "nurture" tactics by parents that women have half the VO2 Max of men, that men have almost twice their overall physical strength, that men are less prone to musculoskeletal injuries, that women are more prone to PTSD, men are bigger, can do more load bearing, etc... Yup, if only they get raised as boys, that will change things. ;)

The whole "women don't have the physical strength" argument could be easily circumnavigated by having only one standard for physical fitness and scoring both men and women against it. Nothing too complicated there? Why is sexism still so deeply entrenched in our military?

That's been a common response to the females in combat arms question for years. It made sense to me when I was in the infantry before I actually deployed into combat. The APFT standard for infantry is ___, meet it or go fix radios or whatever.

Now, the more I see it flung back at the female question, the more I think it really doesn't make as much sense as I once thought. The APFT standards don't really reflect the skills needed in combat. Fitness and the ability to keep up on a dismounted movement is important. Doing 49 pushups in two minutes isn't important. Sprinting for cover is important. Running five miles in 40 minutes isn't important. It also doesn't account for the randomness of combat. I knew plenty of PT studs and duds who got hit regardless of their ability to score high on the APFT.

I've heard that the Army is considering updating the APFT to reflect the combat demands more and long-distance endurance less. Sure, we could make the standard something like a 200 lb. simulated casualty carry or something else likely to give female Soldiers trouble, but we're still fooling ourselves in the end. Why can't we simply recogize that there are inborn differences between females' and males' physical abilities and then make a decision based on that reality?

I don't know that I'm totally sold on integrating women into combat arms, but I don't think that the APFT standards are a good argument against it either.

Are you familiar with the concept of "disparate impact"? Any realistic uniform physical fitness requirements would be failed or barely passed by the vast majority of women in service, resulting in a spate of lawsuits, with predictable results.

No, I am not really famaliar with that term. Could you explain the process for a female Soldier bringing a lawsuit against her chain of command? I think many of them would be surprised to discover that they could do that.

If the physical fitness test doesn't accurately reflect the demands of combat, it should probably be replaced by one that does. And then all genders who pass it should be eligible for combat arms. As far as disparate impact goes, there are a number of supreme court cases that affirm the military's status as a special butterfly, and given that these hypothetical standards are in place to ensure the ability to accomplish missions, the hypothetical lawsuits are a waste of time.

Granted, the military coming up with a physical fitness test that's an accurate test of ability is not likely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact

Basically, by creating a standard that has a disparate impact on a protected class (as a uniform APFT certainly would for females in the military,) an organization is engaging in discriminatory behavior. Since the thin edge of the wedge here is that the military's policies on women in combat are adversely affecting women's career progression, enforcing a relevant physical fitness standard would only exacerbate the issue.

Nothing in this system is a waste of time. All it takes is one case making the military not a special butterfly anymore, and that's that. Fire departments and police departments have had to toe the line for disparate impact, and I see no reason that our progressive society won't eventually impose the policy on the military. If you have the time and money to keep rolling the dice, why not keep rolling them? The amount of sophistry that can be brought to bear on whether or not a given PFT is combat-relevant is basically infinite.

that there is plenty of sophistry to go around. However, I doubt we will see a judicially mandated integration of women into combat arms. I'm not sure you have a good grasp of how sovereign immunity works in the U.S. if you think that the policy can be sued away.

The APFT and the Marine Corps PFT are baseline measurements of physical fitness that have almost nothing to do with combat. Once upon a time perhaps, a Navy bubba had to take some physical fitness test at Great Mistakes in order to pass and graduate from that most basic of 8-week courses. He then gets orders to BUDS and finds that his boot camp PFT (possibly taken entirely under cover in a gym because of the blizzards on Lake Michigan that fall 11 months of the year) in no way was indicative or predictive of the immense demands placed on him at Coronado. Then, maybe, he was able to improve his fitness, meet the new and ever-higher standards set by WarCom for all budding combat swimmers/operators and push himself to the point that physically, anyways, he became qualified to graduate. He then finds himself at SQT and later in a Team where the demands and the high standards never go away.

Now let's posit that infantrymen and to a lesser extent possibly tread heads, cannon cockers and mine-finders need to have physical fitness abilities that are beyond those required for the jobs of a 92A or an air wing MOS. Seems to me that SOI, its Army counterpart, jump school and other combat arms MOS schools need to be selection processes, not cookie cutter factory mills. I know certainly that the physical demands placed on us in the Fleet far exceeded those which we had to meet at MCRD. If we're serious about creating the absolute best soldiers and Marines we can, then let's get serious about putting them through selection, like the British Paras. Hard, realistic, stair-stepped training. One standard (including for women, if the currents and winds push us that way). We're about to downsize the force, right? Let's take the opportunity to create hard-as-nails, technically proficient, highly motivated professional combat arms soldiers and Marines. Hell, send the Army bubbas from Benning to Camp Geiger to see how it's done.

Having females take the same PT test will not work. The standards will be lowered after the first inevidible sexual harassment charge. Some chick will cry about a hostile environment and the spineless Generals will create "dual standards" and pretend men and women are still judged the same. The uniformed and civilian leadership are not above lying to please the feminists. The same thing happened after after the tailhook , Aberdeen, and other incidents in the 90's. Hostile environment charges will happen because women and a lot uninformed men do not comprehend that infantry training is by definition a hostile environment.

Having females take the same PT test will not work. The standards will be lowered after the first inevidible sexual harassment charge. Some chick will cry about a hostile environment and the spineless Generals will create "dual standards" and pretend men and women are still judged the same. The uniformed and civilian leadership are not above lying to please the feminists. The same thing happened after after the tailhook , Aberdeen, and other incidents in the 90's. Hostile environment charges will happen because women and a lot uninformed men do not comprehend that infantry training is by definition a hostile environment for the purpose of preparing men for the mental and physical rigors of war.

You have a point, although it is sexist. My guess is you're an older man or some woman has really done you wrong.

Women in military and other roles in life have rights not to be sexually harassed by men, most of whom are ignorant and/or insecure about their own masculinity. Sexual harassment in the military has long been ignored. Within the past 12-18 months a group of service women (and two men) filed a class action suit against Rumsfeld and Gates because of violent sexual attacks by their fellow service men in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their reports of the attacks were ignored by top commanders. These were not casual sex-oriented remarks or a touch on the behind. These were rapes. Violence. The two defense secretaries are safely retired, and the big general of those failed wars in now our CIA Director.

I forgot to mention that the Red Army, under some of the toughest conditions any army had to face in the modern era, used women in combat extensively. If women could serve effectively on the Eastern Front of WWII, including as renowned and feared snipers, I think the general prohibition against women in combat seems to be discriminatory because there are valiant examples to suggest they can be very effective.

That said, I think it is extremely important to avoid any temptation to use "affirmative action" on physical standards for women. Someone mentioned the heavy lifting engineer troops have to do to assemble a bridge. Standards in recruitment for these engineers should then clearly demand serious endurance and physical strength. On average, men have a rather significant advantage in muscle strength. Why not determine reasonable criteria for how strong one has to be to serve effectively in these units and let both women and men try to met them? More men that try out will pass than women but that is literally biology for you. And the women who pass the muster should be able to serve IMO.

The Russians used them in the Air and tried to use them on the ground, they did not do well and they did so because they had no choice. The only success they had was in the Air, on the ground they did horrible with the exception of some snipers but it is hard to ascertain how accurate the stories are due to the time and what emerged as a lot of propaganda about Soviet Snipers. The Army Sniper School has an entire section, or at least did, dedicated to female snipers, the Russians at the time did at least have some success with Snipers though in regard to females, I will totally concede that. Still, different context, time and locations. Big difference from blending in as a civy and then taking pot shots and killing folks, the VC did that too. Not the same as humping weight, getting into hand to hand (this still happens all the time, more so with limited ROEs) and the other things I mentioned above.

And I can be persuaded that the average female recruit would serve better in a non-combat role. The issue, I think, is with the few women who have very imposing (perhaps even masculine if you will) physiques. Why should they not be allowed to try out for combat units provided they meet the same requirements as everybody else? It is true about risk of fracture (men have more massive bone structures) and that is hard to test for safely but as for strength and endurance, if they can meet the requirements, why not let them serve. If it doesn't work out for them, put them somewhere else. But to rule them out simply on account of the "accident" of being born girls, I don't see the need.

If you really wanted to go unPC, you could make similar comments about the unfitness of many males on the face of their cohort: Asian males tend to be slighter of statute than Caucasian and black males. Black soldiers could presumably go with less facial camouflage cream than white soldiers. Jewish soldiers may not eat pork in rations of tolerate milk and meat together. Yet, they are all allowed to try out for the service. I think women should have the same chance. That most of them will not be able to meet realistic requirements for combat units does not disqualify the few women that can. Let them try and if they fail, let them fail on their merit, not on some general discrimination.

One, your comparison to races and other groups is a bit of a downward spiral and more than a bit fallacious. As for unfit males, dude, I bitch about low standards all the time on this blog. Read the entire post again, I do not think you did or in your rush to make a counter argument you missed some of it. I have also posted some more myths below, will be happy to post the citations and more commonly held beliefs that tend to float around on this topic. As for giving females a chance, please tell me when and where we have ever held equal standards for females? Give me a precedent.

My mention of the different races was deliberately provocative but one "chooses" one's gender no more than one "chooses" one's race which, to me, makes discrimination based on gender a highly undesirable thing if it can be avoided. And as a physician (that's how I landed in Africa in the first place) I fully agree with you that training will not remove the differences in physical strength between men and women and I actually believe men gain MORE strength than women from training although I don't have an immediate reference for that. So allow me to make an observation (as a non-soldier and (to the extent it's relevant) non-American): The failure of equal standards being applied is very central to your case against women in combat units, which I think you make quite persuasively, btw. Now, call me naive but I really find it hard to imagine that rigid physical standards that are relevant to predicting satisfactory service with combat units, cannot be established and I find it almost unbelievable that PC bozos, who desire a particular outcome, could not be kept out of this. So, let me assume for argument's sake, that such equal standards could be applied. Then presumably men and women' s strengths are normal distributions which mean that on the right tail end of women's curve, there will be a very low number of women who CAN meet the requirements for combat service. I fail to see that they should not be given the chance if that is what they want. If this small number of women actually can do the job, why should they not be given the chance?

So let me ask you, first, if you believe this small number of women that have the physique to be good combat soldiers is different from zero?
And, provided equal standards are applied (in other words, no cheating to help women, which it lower standards would be), would you support that they are given the chance to serve in combat units?

Also, this case really illustrates the problems with affirmative action; that it will cast a shadow of doubt over those members of a discriminated group that fully meet the requirements on their merit. People who want women allowed in combat could probably lose their case (and certainly my support) if they try to fiddle with standards to get a nice, fluffy PC result.

Your assumption that the top females would be able to meet all of the male standards is misguided. Look at the Army's new flavor of the month, the CSTs. They aren't allowed to fast rope because they kept burning in on the FRIES tower(and breaking or fracturing their leg bones) and these females are the cream of the crop, pulled from the whole Army. My 135 lbs RTO had no such issues with the same equipment plus 25 lbs of additional equipment. If you're hypothesis was correct Simba, where's the data from TBS that women are meeting or surpassing their male counterpart's standards without a higher rate of injury with the same loads. And if you think women among the combat arms ranks in the field won't cause issues, you've never walked among a WLC class with NVGs at night during a field training.

ESIII- You and I look at the inclusion of women in combat arms issue as a tactical/mission issue. No one cares about the tactical implications of the policy. The majority of people feelings on this issue are based on this as an "rights" issue. Women's groups want that 1st female Chairman, 1st female cdr of the 82nd, 101st, Big Red 1, etc

I took out a female search (Soldier) during my raids in the big Army in Iraq during the surge. We specially selected the females from across the task force. Most of the time they stayed in the vehicles until the objective was secured whether we did rapid containment or an offset infil. On the few times we did take the female search on offsets(based on the vehicles being unable to get to the target area), they slowed us down(more than my worst private) and one broke her leg. Inductive reasoning and a small sample, but an example none the less.

CSTs have value on target; the amount of value is based on your point of view. But for crying out loud, lets not pretend they're leading the patrol to target or anywhere else besides the back of the formation or at the location deemed furthest away from probable contact or that they are anywhere near the target objective until everything is secure. Lets not pretend that they're interchangeable with another member of the assault force. Lets not pretend you're missing a PVT and you toss them the SKEDCO, a ladder, or breaching equipment.

As others have stated with the pending reductions in the Army and Marines forces, now is the time to raise(not lower by adding women to combat arms) all the standards; physical(PFTs, combat focused PFTs, physical appearance, reestablish rucking standards), mental(ASVAP, GTs, high school diplomas), and ethical(entrance ethical waivers, drug use before and while in the service). I think I'm pissing the wind though.

Hopefully I'll be complete with command and back in SOF before this craziness starts.

I wish you were right but the powers that be will never enforce that standard. If I honestly believed that first they would raise standards (I hate fat troops/sailors/marines/airmen, period) and then hold them I would be ok and you might not see anything like the posting I have been doing. I would still be concerned with the frat problems but not about there physical performance. At least four decades of female integration have proven that not to be the case though. Our Military is brutally politically correct and the reports that are attached to this article only go to re-enforce my view that the integration of females will only be more of the same. There is a poster on here named Hunter who is pushing and I think hoping for a professional model for the military, I wish him luck but when I see some of the statements by my Generals and Admirals I think he will be doing the work that Sisyphus was cursed with. A professional would look at combat in practical matters and want his people well trained over politics or diversity but that is unfortunately not our way right now.

I think we are both pissing in the wind. And sorry that Olson was fine with the addition of females to SOF and invented the CSTs, I died a little inside when he did that, never figured him to play "Fredo".

Well, if no women can meet the standards they shouldn't be in the units. But does standard infantry have to fast rope? I thought that was more SF curriculum.?
I have to admit to being surprised, to say the least, if no women could meet realistic physical requirements although I can easily believe most could not. If true that would settle the issue for my part.

I would be inclined to say that I'd like to see more data before I can believe that NO women can meet the standards one should expect of combat soldiers. On the other hand, if a woman said she'd like to compete against some of my male students in MMA tournaments, I'd say "not likely." (and here serious injury, much less death, is far less likely, of course). If a woman wanted to join me on a spear-hunt to get lions out of a Tanzanian village? "Forget it." So Eric (not least) and you have given me pause for thought. I'd still say I lean towards letting the girls try out, but no lowered standards or any other lollipops.