Posted on Oct 19, 2016
If we really want women in combat, men must do more
4.15K
44
46
3
3
0
Would appreciate others' thoughts on this.
My own opinion is that if we do all that MAJ Spencer requests, then we must reply to the title of the piece with a "Perhaps we don't really want this." The driving sentiment and rationale of expanding women's integration into the armed forces for the last forty years has been "equality". With all due respect to MAJ Spencer's experience and combat tours,, he seems to be making a case that women need more than their male peers to meet just the minimum standards and to gain critical mass in combat arms. He admits--while reducing the extensive USMC study to a mere " the average man was stronger than the average woman"--that women are weaker, need female role models, necessitate specific marketing, and require different/more physical training regimens just to meet the standard and be accepted in desired numbers. If women are indeed equal, no matter the other skills and talent they may bring to the table, then why do they need these extra hands up and encouragement from their male counterparts whose time would ostensibly be better spent assisting minimally performing males who are already in the pipeline and nevertheless are at the threshold physically almost by virtue of their sex.
Maybe the better question is, why are we changing the rules so that we can add this "pittance" of female participants who, one could argue, were given this opportunity in part because a tiny minority of women at the highest levels wanted to go a few more rungs on the ladder. Using his numbers, we are currently trying to improve upon a transition rate of about 1/3 of 1% of the infantry force (assuming all went into the infantry). Would the goal be doubling that? Ten times? Even at 20 times, we are still talking about 3% of infantry being female and at what cost to get there?
And besides the need for some females to accompany units for culturally- or operationally (e.g. peacekeeping) sensitive, why do we so expressly *need* more women in combat arms? Should we not ask our commanders to simply demand a certain standard, a defining character, and a diversity of skills without regard for sex? If the force is as effective and efficient as it can be and be 30% female or .000003 %, it shouldn't really matter. Maybe the author's query was completely sincere, or merely rhetorical with a wink toward the Socratic Method, but either way he has done us a service by at least raising the questions he has.
My own opinion is that if we do all that MAJ Spencer requests, then we must reply to the title of the piece with a "Perhaps we don't really want this." The driving sentiment and rationale of expanding women's integration into the armed forces for the last forty years has been "equality". With all due respect to MAJ Spencer's experience and combat tours,, he seems to be making a case that women need more than their male peers to meet just the minimum standards and to gain critical mass in combat arms. He admits--while reducing the extensive USMC study to a mere " the average man was stronger than the average woman"--that women are weaker, need female role models, necessitate specific marketing, and require different/more physical training regimens just to meet the standard and be accepted in desired numbers. If women are indeed equal, no matter the other skills and talent they may bring to the table, then why do they need these extra hands up and encouragement from their male counterparts whose time would ostensibly be better spent assisting minimally performing males who are already in the pipeline and nevertheless are at the threshold physically almost by virtue of their sex.
Maybe the better question is, why are we changing the rules so that we can add this "pittance" of female participants who, one could argue, were given this opportunity in part because a tiny minority of women at the highest levels wanted to go a few more rungs on the ladder. Using his numbers, we are currently trying to improve upon a transition rate of about 1/3 of 1% of the infantry force (assuming all went into the infantry). Would the goal be doubling that? Ten times? Even at 20 times, we are still talking about 3% of infantry being female and at what cost to get there?
And besides the need for some females to accompany units for culturally- or operationally (e.g. peacekeeping) sensitive, why do we so expressly *need* more women in combat arms? Should we not ask our commanders to simply demand a certain standard, a defining character, and a diversity of skills without regard for sex? If the force is as effective and efficient as it can be and be 30% female or .000003 %, it shouldn't really matter. Maybe the author's query was completely sincere, or merely rhetorical with a wink toward the Socratic Method, but either way he has done us a service by at least raising the questions he has.
If we really want women in combat, men must do more
Posted from latimes.com
Equality
Infantry
Combat Arms
Women in the Military
Personnel
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 12
5
5
0
I disagree. Men and women are different, but women are not "weaker" than men, they are weaker "in some measurements", actually stronger in others, and equal in most things that matter for modern military duty.
Men definitely have more upper body strength ON AVERAGE, but we don't fight with sword and shield anymore. These days, we fight with rifles, which men and women are absolutely equal in the use of. Modern soldiers also have walk and run, sometimes longish distances, and the differences in run times for those athletic enough to seek careers in combat arms are close enough, and easily regulated with realistic PT standards.
So long as standards are consistent for all soldiers in the MOS or branch, there is no reason not to allow women to serve if they can meet those standards. Will as many women as men pass those tests? Who cares. If a woman is able to, then she should have the right to.
Men definitely have more upper body strength ON AVERAGE, but we don't fight with sword and shield anymore. These days, we fight with rifles, which men and women are absolutely equal in the use of. Modern soldiers also have walk and run, sometimes longish distances, and the differences in run times for those athletic enough to seek careers in combat arms are close enough, and easily regulated with realistic PT standards.
So long as standards are consistent for all soldiers in the MOS or branch, there is no reason not to allow women to serve if they can meet those standards. Will as many women as men pass those tests? Who cares. If a woman is able to, then she should have the right to.
(5)
(0)
MAJ Bill Darling
LTC (Join to see) - "Substantially" was the operative word. While we have shifted from melee weapons (mostly) to firearms, of course it has. But a Roman legionnaire would probably recognize and be adaptable to the requirements of today, point being that there are different fitness and endurance levels expected of an infantry soldier versus, say, a personnelist for obvious reasons.
"On average" is the same term I used. Sorry if it wasn't clearer.
Endurance is just as broad as "strong". Yes, SOME women are better (perhaps not on average though) than SOME men in very specific sports like free diving or long distance endurance runs, but we are talking about aerobic activity that is related particular to infantry such as carrying a % of weight over long distances, lifting one's body weight up repetitively (IMT), climbing inclines/hills, climbing into windows and breach points, etc.
"On average" is the same term I used. Sorry if it wasn't clearer.
Endurance is just as broad as "strong". Yes, SOME women are better (perhaps not on average though) than SOME men in very specific sports like free diving or long distance endurance runs, but we are talking about aerobic activity that is related particular to infantry such as carrying a % of weight over long distances, lifting one's body weight up repetitively (IMT), climbing inclines/hills, climbing into windows and breach points, etc.
(0)
(0)
CPT Nicholas D.
MAJ Fishkin, I'm sorry, I agree with you whole if we are talking about taking the kids to Laser Tag for an MWR event, but the implication that modern infantry combat doesn't require any significant quantity of upper body strength is not an accurate assumption. Just as medieval times, we are still wearing armor, we have seen combat action go to hand-to-hand, and the tools and weapons that we carry are not that different in weight/mass. Unlike medieval times, we are more inclined to carry out our dead or wounded. I'm sorry, infantry combat has very much retained the physicality required to kill the other person. I always cringe when I hear folks say "How strong do you really have to be to push a button or pull a trigger." (shutters)
The argument on endurance is not terribly accurate either. If we are talking about the body's efficient use of oxygen versus pulse rate versus tissue absorption... there may be medical data that hands anatomical endurance to the female sex. When it comes to "sports performance," I think we are going to get back to a more commonly held understanding that the male sex is biologically more adapt to physical activity over time. (Of course I am limiting my population selection to those serving in the military. I wouldn't be shocked at all if the average female college student is "healthier" than the average male college student.... too many video games...not enough zoomba/tai bo/hot yoga, etc)
The argument on endurance is not terribly accurate either. If we are talking about the body's efficient use of oxygen versus pulse rate versus tissue absorption... there may be medical data that hands anatomical endurance to the female sex. When it comes to "sports performance," I think we are going to get back to a more commonly held understanding that the male sex is biologically more adapt to physical activity over time. (Of course I am limiting my population selection to those serving in the military. I wouldn't be shocked at all if the average female college student is "healthier" than the average male college student.... too many video games...not enough zoomba/tai bo/hot yoga, etc)
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
CPT Nicholas D. - Again, that is why we have PT standards. If a woman can run as far and as fast carrying a standard load, then she is fully equal to the task with her male counterparts.
Men used to use arguments of temperament to explain why women couldn't be fighter pilots, astronauts, or even vote, but people have always resisted progress or a loss of any perceived advantage. Whites resisted racial equality, and men have and continue to resist gender equality.
Men used to use arguments of temperament to explain why women couldn't be fighter pilots, astronauts, or even vote, but people have always resisted progress or a loss of any perceived advantage. Whites resisted racial equality, and men have and continue to resist gender equality.
(0)
(0)
CPT Nicholas D.
The only "problem" with our current PT standards is that isn't true equality. Two 18 year old privates graduate infantry OSUT. Both take an APFT arriving at their first unit. Both perform 41 Pushups, 78 Situps, and run a 16:00 2 mile run. One despite maxing situps just failed both the pushups & the run, is administratively flagged, put on remedial PT, and will have 180 days to re-take the APFT and meet the minimum standard before being processed out of the Army. The other just scored a 98 in pushups, maxed situps and got a 95 on their run. This second private will be awarded the Army Physical Fitness Badge, receive glowing remarks on their annual evaluation, and applauded for their performance.
The difference between the two privates is their reproductive organs. Everyone says "if they meet the standard, then let them do it." Ok, but why two standards? If we have an expectation of what a Soldier should physically be able to perform, then the solution is one standard. Most of our female comrades wouldn't be happy about a policy change like that.
I do agree that human kind is prone to limit other humans from doing things. The idea that a woman can't be a fighter pilot, astronaut, or vote to our society is ridiculous. I have flown with exceptional pilots, both male and female. Aviating (and for all cases Astronaut-ing) are two examples of positions that were closed to women for unsubstantial cause. The heaviest load I have to carry to an aircraft is my headset and a binder. I don't see any biological difference between men and women when it comes to Aviation.
The Infantry (and most Combat Arms, SOF, etc) do have biological performance requirements that will limit who will be able to do the job. It's not insensitive to say "this is the expectation." But with our current fitness standards... one segment of the population is given a biological alibis (which I think most of us are smart enough that we recognize the scientific differences). Yet that doesn't matter, because as I said in a comment above, this isn't an issue of combat effectiveness... this is an issue of sociology (and politics). Our infantry isn't suffering performance pitfalls because we don't have enough women in it (which was the gist I got from the original post). We are as a society looking for gender barriers and sociological imbalance and drawing big target signs on them in the name of "progress." Not performance.
Voting is a right. Serving in the Infantry is a privilege. We don't let people with genetic and developmental disabilities serve in the military. Heck, We don't let kids with metal screws in their knees join the military. Why not? Why are we preventing faithful and patriotic Americans from receiving the glory and honor received through military service?
The answer at the end of the day is: Are we ensuring that the people we send to foreign soil to close "the last 100 yards" with the enemy are the most physically, mentally, and emotionally effective warriors we can provide from our 350 Million person population.
The difference between the two privates is their reproductive organs. Everyone says "if they meet the standard, then let them do it." Ok, but why two standards? If we have an expectation of what a Soldier should physically be able to perform, then the solution is one standard. Most of our female comrades wouldn't be happy about a policy change like that.
I do agree that human kind is prone to limit other humans from doing things. The idea that a woman can't be a fighter pilot, astronaut, or vote to our society is ridiculous. I have flown with exceptional pilots, both male and female. Aviating (and for all cases Astronaut-ing) are two examples of positions that were closed to women for unsubstantial cause. The heaviest load I have to carry to an aircraft is my headset and a binder. I don't see any biological difference between men and women when it comes to Aviation.
The Infantry (and most Combat Arms, SOF, etc) do have biological performance requirements that will limit who will be able to do the job. It's not insensitive to say "this is the expectation." But with our current fitness standards... one segment of the population is given a biological alibis (which I think most of us are smart enough that we recognize the scientific differences). Yet that doesn't matter, because as I said in a comment above, this isn't an issue of combat effectiveness... this is an issue of sociology (and politics). Our infantry isn't suffering performance pitfalls because we don't have enough women in it (which was the gist I got from the original post). We are as a society looking for gender barriers and sociological imbalance and drawing big target signs on them in the name of "progress." Not performance.
Voting is a right. Serving in the Infantry is a privilege. We don't let people with genetic and developmental disabilities serve in the military. Heck, We don't let kids with metal screws in their knees join the military. Why not? Why are we preventing faithful and patriotic Americans from receiving the glory and honor received through military service?
The answer at the end of the day is: Are we ensuring that the people we send to foreign soil to close "the last 100 yards" with the enemy are the most physically, mentally, and emotionally effective warriors we can provide from our 350 Million person population.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
Women have been used IN combat fro many decades...
The Russians Had entire Brigades 75 years ago from commanders to Privates of women ... in fact some of them were the most dangerous and feared Units by the Germans, were the Russian women infantry Battalions ... they were merciless and excessively ruthless... they too very few prisoners... who survived the war...
The Israelis have been training their women and men side by side for over 50 years... and go into battle that way... and as many of you have seen the IDF allows the Troops including to cary weapons even off duty... and have done this for over 40 years...
US women in Combat can be done ... bit the mental mind set has to Change and not just in the Congress and Military... But through the entire spectrum of American Society... and that will not happen any time soon...
There a few trailblazers out there and Just Like in the mid 70's when they started taking women into the Service academies it's going to take time ...
The women are going to have to accept The standards that are set, at a level to succeed and win... and they will have to meet or exceed them... and the " OC's" and the "evaluators " and "instructors " have to rate all the candidates on the same scale...
The Russians Had entire Brigades 75 years ago from commanders to Privates of women ... in fact some of them were the most dangerous and feared Units by the Germans, were the Russian women infantry Battalions ... they were merciless and excessively ruthless... they too very few prisoners... who survived the war...
The Israelis have been training their women and men side by side for over 50 years... and go into battle that way... and as many of you have seen the IDF allows the Troops including to cary weapons even off duty... and have done this for over 40 years...
US women in Combat can be done ... bit the mental mind set has to Change and not just in the Congress and Military... But through the entire spectrum of American Society... and that will not happen any time soon...
There a few trailblazers out there and Just Like in the mid 70's when they started taking women into the Service academies it's going to take time ...
The women are going to have to accept The standards that are set, at a level to succeed and win... and they will have to meet or exceed them... and the " OC's" and the "evaluators " and "instructors " have to rate all the candidates on the same scale...
(4)
(0)
MAJ Bill Darling
While I recognize that the USSR and Israeli's resorted to female infantry, I don't think the comparisons to nations in dire need of *all* combatants should be compared to a modern hyperpower all-volunteer force. The Russians quickly changed their policies after WWII and the Israeli experience is frequently mischaracterized and misunderstood.
I agree that women should meet the so-called standards, and that goes for women not in combat arms as well.
What are you thoughts on MAJ S's suggestion that men need to step up and do more and encourage women to participate in bigger numbers?
I agree that women should meet the so-called standards, and that goes for women not in combat arms as well.
What are you thoughts on MAJ S's suggestion that men need to step up and do more and encourage women to participate in bigger numbers?
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I disagree with the weakness/strength points. I have met female soldiers that can give any male in the unit a run for their money. Some great peers and leaders of mine have been female. But I do agree with maintaining standards. We shouldn't lower them to meet a quota. I feel that if a woman wants to join a combat MOS then send her through the training. If she passes then she earns that position. If she fails send her somewhere else to fulfill the needs of the army just as we do with men.
(3)
(0)
MAJ Bill Darling
I apologize if it wasn't clear, but I usually consider strength comparisons a given that we're talking about averages. Clearly, across the spectrum, the average man is stronger, has better aerobic activity, suffers less injuries, et al than the average woman.
Do you think that females in noncombat arms MOSs should meet male standards? Or should the universal standard be lowered to the women's? If so, what if the percentage of women in the force drops?
I appreciate your thoughts and taking the time to comment.
Do you think that females in noncombat arms MOSs should meet male standards? Or should the universal standard be lowered to the women's? If so, what if the percentage of women in the force drops?
I appreciate your thoughts and taking the time to comment.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
As much as people talk about MOS specific physical requirements, it seems like it would be the best standard. I know for my job it isn't I don't exactly need to have the same physical requirements as soldiers in combat arms. I personally feel that if we had an Army standard and then an MOS standard and if an individual wants to join an MOS they should meet that standard. That would give everyone the opportunity to do what they feel they can without downsizing the force. I also believe that the army should not have to meet a required percentage of gender/race in a MOS.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google