There is no way you can support keeping women out of combat and not be considered a sexist

Really, there is no difference in the backwardness in saying "women shouldn't be in combat," than in saying "whites shouldn't be in combat."

Thanks to this thread for reminding me about this. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6316599

certainly say I don't belong in combat.

I can barely lift a Xerox box of paper for goodness sakes.

their gender doesn't matter.

If women can become professional fighters and engage in physical feats such as the Olympics or being in pro-sports like soccer or basketball, then it is possible the minimum physical requirements could be met by women.

I couldn't even wave signs in 60 mph winds. I got blown away, literally. I don't think I could handle recoil from a gun/rifle etc. Maybe a pea shooter.

My mother, for instance, is only 5 foot even in height. She couldn't carry a squad machine gun, for instance, but I've seen taller and stronger women who could do some heavy physical activity.

Seriously, the issue with combat is strength to carry a heavily loaded pack, and stamina to carry it all day.

And strength for hand to hand combat.

Carrying a couple hundred pounds of gear, maybe not.

Full combat load for infrantry = rucksack, ammo, weapon, body armor, medical gear = 85 lbs.

Now that is the problem.

The kick from an M-4 or M-16 is virtually nothing that is (one reason) why it was chosen.

same level as the males, but lets be honest there are physical differences between the sexes and combat is very physical (not that some woman cant and do excel in it) the difference is this and how we used to put it, if im on the ground whos more likely to be able to pick me up, the average women or average man, so therefore if your wounded you want the average man there to carry you before the average women.. I think women are better served in other capacities than in the more physical aspects.

I'd get us both killed. :(

that said, not every male in the armed forces is physically qualified for the Light Infantry either.

My view is, if you can do it, and you can hack it, go for it. Don't care a woot about gender.

There wasn't a thing a woman couldn't do. (Writing one's name in the snow isn't required.)

You owe me a keyboard... that IS funny

If you did, then you are the expert here and the rest of us are expressing our theories.

Do you really think a female has the strength to carry all her gear and do what needs to be done to win a battle?

Even in the infantry, the 'gear' varies and the physical strength/endurance of the infantryman varies. No, I was not awarded a CIB ... since I was in an HQ unit (USARV HQ). I served alongside (not behind) combat arms soldiers while under fire. Again, however, the 'gear' carried by police can be comparable to the 'gear' carried by soldiers in the combat arms. If folks want to argue about the qualifications of females to serve in the military on that basis, then I would suggest they ALSO argue about females serving in law enforcement all over the country. (See how far that goes.)

Just as there are SOME males incapable of meeting the physical demands of certain roles, there are SOME women. To either generalize that to 'all' (men or women) is fallacious and to apply the general to the individual is equally fallacious. In short, there is NO valid, rational reason to discriminate against (all) women in such service. None.

which is common in infantry units. And if you want to compare physical fitness standards--let's just say the law enforcement community doesn't stack up well. Riding around in a car all day =/= humping a ruck over hill and dale. Women fighter pilots--absolutely. Women in any number of other combat and quasi-combat roles--absolutely. Women in the combat arms--infantry, armor, artillery, combat engineers--you'd have to prove to me that more than the occasional olympic-caliber athlete would qualify, and whether it would be worth training up hundreds, if not thousands of candidates to find one or two qualifiers.

Women are strong. In some areas the average woman is stronger than the average man. But not in the ways required for close combat. That's a biological fact, and it's not sexist to recognize it.

heavy labor in the military. And they do it quite well.

not be in combat."

To which the female protagonist replies "Neither should men."

"War doesn't determine who's right, only who's left."

There are some women who are indeed physically strong enough to hold the own in physical combat situations. Some simply are not because of their size and strength - this does not make them any less a soldier they just cannot out physical the average male opponent.

That being said, there are some women who are stronger than some men. There are some men weaker than some women. There are women who are just strong as the average male or even stronger.

The problem arises if a woman on average cannot physically overtake the enemy. If they are at a strength disadvantage then it is simply suicide for them to be thrown into the fire like that. If weaker women put the other soldiers at risk then it is not fair to all of them.

There are plenty of jobs women can do to assist in the cause within the military and should be allowed to do so.

It is not sexist to recognize the biological differences between the sexes - that's just the way it is.

As far as I know, there are women cops all over the country. :shrug: So, if that argument holds even a drop of water, we'd better get rid of all the female cops before we use it to disqualify women in combat.

(The hand-to-hand combat scenario is EXCEEDINGLY rare ... the stuff of movies.)

I held my own... and you are right, it is RARE.

People do not realize, the fixed bayonet, charge into the line is mostly gone, even if the army still trains for it.

But every field mostly dominated by men has seen these exact same arguments. Police, Fire, the military... does it ever change? Will it ever change?

I could have done it when I was younger as I am very tall and very strong. My sister - now way in hell. My point was it depends on the individual woman. So, saying a 5'2" petite woman who is not physically strong can help defend bigger stronger men & women doesn't make sense to me. On the same note there are men too that aren't physically strong and would not be a logical pick for ALL jobs needed in the military.

True that hand to hand combat is not as prevalent, as before but policing streets of Baghdad for example, might require levels of physical strength a slight woman could not handle.

Again, it's something that is to be determined on an individual basis and to acknowledge some women (or men for that matter) do not qualify for some more physically demanding jobs does not necessarily mean one is sexist.

combat involuntarily whether men or women. Probably most women would opt out because common sense would tell them it isn't the best place for them to be, not only for them but for the other people in the combat zone. A lot of guys would too, depending on what kind of war it is. If it's one they don't believe is really about defending their country, most likely they would opt out. If they felt like in WWII that the fate of the world depended on it, they would overwhelmingly volunteer and many women would too if they felt they could be an asset in the conflict. Many nurses in WWII and later wars were in combat and were necessary for the war effort and many had to pick up a gun to defend their base. Putting your life on the line needs to be voluntary, not just when you sign up but when you sign up for combat. Just MHO. Yes, I already can feel the flames on my back from the military types.

How do you feel about that?

in place and all my male cousins had to go into the military, I felt left out. I have a weird idea and it is weird, so most people don't agree with me, that every kid should do a couple of years of military service like they do in Israel. Where the voluntary comes in for me is going into war or combat. Everyone should volunteer for that. I really believe that there would have been no volunteers for Iraq other than some Rambo types but they were Blackwater, weren't they? However, I know from WWII that Americans will volunteer in droves if they feel that there is a just reason to defend the country.

it is demeaning to humankind. No one should be in combat. That should be the premise from where we start.

taking initiative when necessary, obeying commands when given, keeping your head down while looking for an opening.

Simply, the Marines wanted to see if females in combat was realistic. They went through lots of tests.

The results were that they found the women met or surpassed the men in almost all areas EXCEPT physical. And the Marines also came to the understanding that a big strong dumb Marine would survive and prevail better than a smart Marine who is not as physically strong. And almost all women are not strong enough.

fullfill certain roles, such as lugging heavy machinery around, or firing high recoil weaponry accurately. This statement isn't sexist at all. To fullfill those roles, you need highly muscular people who have weight trained and built high amounts of muscle. Women cannot build that much muscle.

However, other combat roles are perfectly acceptable for everybody, and shouldn't be exclusive.

not sure what the psychs call it though, i noticed that anytime we had a female attached to a squad that suddenly the guys were looking out for her more than an average member of the squad, they were all trying to either get lucky or protect her, the number of times i reprimanded people for taking gear and adding to their loads when it wasnt neccessary was unbelievable. Personally i am not for females serving in the teeth of the army...

Different groups have different duties. Special forces do a different job than satellite technicians. To be fair, it should be based on ability.

I don't know what the physical standards are now, but I do know they were being driven down by the presence of women when I was in the military.
The women couldn't come close to meeting the standards, so they lowered the standards. I was there, I saw it.

In all honesty, the enemy is almost certainly going to amuse themselves with raping the female soldiers if captured. That doesn't really sit well with me. But if the females are ok with the fact they will be raped and the male soldiers will not, then I guess that should be their choice. But they should be fully informed about the realities of war.

I'm guessing it is very very rare.

In other cultures it is normal for the soldiers to rape women.

If so, that's stupid.

Males have much more muscle mass, strength and endurance. FACT.

It's not the same as race..

Men and women are quite physically and mentally different, unlike race. It's just a scientifically proven biological fact.

Men have evolved in the role of physical combat, from before we were even classified as human.

Evolution itself has designed men more for that role physically as well as mentally.

That said I know many women who who would do as well as I would as a man.. And there's no reason a woman should be kept from combat roles if she can pass the same standards.

issues. I mean, how much energy does it take to pull a trigger? And Jessica Lynch may not have done everything they said she did, but just surviving that fire fight is impressive to me. But women should definitely be given the option. It would have freaked me out to have to sign up for selective service, though. Thank God I am over the age for that.

to their maximum ability and perform to their maximum ability.

Let me ask you this. Say your family moves. You rent a truck and whatever else you need to move yourselves. Does the wife sit and do nothing because she's not as strong as her husband? No. She moves as much as she can as long as she can. Just like her husband. And the move gets done.

Anybody who's thinking a woman can't rescue a wounded 200-pound soldier obviously hasn't seen what even female nurses can do. Nurses are trained to move and lift. Soldiers are trained to move, lift, carry. There's a lot more to it than brute strength.

move, lift and carry someone whilst under fire, for distance and still being able to fight if neccessary, we have to face the fact that at the high end females still cant compete physically with men, or we would have co ed NFL, basketball, soccer etc... we are different species in a lot of ways..

to another soldier from time to time if the distance is great. And if there is no other soldier around, you rest. That's life and death in war. There may not even BE another non-wounded soldier nearby.

And your sports analogy is fitting but for the opposite reason. Nobody in war tallies up at the end of the day exactly how much weight a soldier carried and for what distance. Soldiers simply do what they have to do, male and female alike, to stay alive and keep their buddies alive.

saying you rest is fine and dandy, but if you are in the middle of a firefight and you are being carried the guy carrying you is your lifeline, its nothing to do with scores, the question is can the average female carry me the 200yards to safety ( i would say no from experience, she may only carry me 30 yards, but if the nearest cover is 50 yards thats no good) no matter how people try to dress it up or use extreme examples men and women are different, men are physically stronger then women on average, therefore if your life depends on it you are going to hope that the person who grabs your ass is the average guy rather than the average women as it could be the difference in living or dieing.

But women in combat infantry, not so much.

is what a woman wants to do then she should be allowed to do it.

Honestly, I am against sending men into combat too... don't know if that makes me sexist or not but there it is.

How does the size of the average American woman compare with the average Southeast Asian male?

The Canadian Army did a test in either the 1980s or 1990s--I got this information off a Canadian soldier, and that was a long time ago...There were women's groups in Canada claiming women should be in the infantry, that they could do anything men could, all that. The Canadian Army said, okay prove it. They recruited 200 women for a female infantry test platoon and sent them through the Canadian Infantry School. The catch was, they required the women to meet the same standards as the men if they wanted to graduate as infanteers--the new non-gender-specific term for grunts. At the end of the training, three women walked across the stage at graduation. Three out of two hundred.

If the US Army decided to bring women into the infantry, the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS) would start demanding quotas--25 percent of all infantry soldiers will be women, say. This will cause the Army to lower standards to meet the quota set by outside forces, like they've done every fucking time someone imposes a number on them. Next thing you know you've got women showing up at Fort Benning who absolutely should not be there, but who Fort Benning can't drop and send to a more suitable career field because DA is on their ass about putting women in line units.

There are combat jobs a woman can do. Women would make good forward observers and air defense artillery soldiers. But humping a ruck all day as a grunt? No.

but then I'm a Progressive. It seems to me that if we can work so hard to wage war then we can work just as hard to wage peace.

Because real peace isn't just the lack of war. Real peace is about making it happen by fighting against the things that make war so easy. the cycles of poverty with the ever attendant causes of greed and power mongering. It can be done but we have to work at it as hard as we work at waging war.

IF the cause for feminism was to treat women as absolute equals, with no rule bending or exceptions, then you are 100% correct.

:nuke:

There are simply some jobs for which a female is highly unlikely to be able to perform adequately just due to physical size differences. If this were not so then we would see co-ed pro sports teams instead of sex segregated ones.

I think that it is common sense that the vast majority of women are not physically strong enough for certain jobs in infantry, artillery, armor or special forces - indeed many men are not either - and NO a few weeks of physical training in boot camp are NOT going to make up for the fact that you are 5' 2" and weigh 100lbs vs someone who is 6' 2" and weighs 220 lbs.

That said, if a woman can pass the SAME physical fitness tests as a man for these jobs and beat out the men for the position then fine but there shouldn't be a double standard in testing, equal means equal.

As for other combat jobs such as fighter pilot, helicopter pilots, navy ship jobs, etc. I don't see where physical strength or size are as relevant to these positions in the first place.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

or role, nor did I say that any standards should be altered.

I imagine many people feel they know what I can and cannot believe.

the combat arms: Infantry, Armor, Artillery, Combat Engineers. Those roles require an entirely different skillset, with heavy emphasis on physical strength. A few elite female athletes could probably handle it. Most women couldn't, even with all the training in the world. Women are strong in many other ways, but not in the ways required of troops in close combat. It's not sexist to recognize a biological fact. Flame suit on.

There are some situations where discrimination on grounds of sex is justifiable - off the top of my head, rape counselling, acting, profesional sports, undercover police/intelligence work, toilet/changing room staff and midwifery all leap to mind as areas where I think sexual discrimination is justifiable.

There are also some few areas - acting and undercover work are the only ones I can think of - where discrimination on grounds of race is justifiable. There are far fewer of those, though, because the difference in the distribution of most measurable characteristics is lower between races than between genders.

So, yes, if you define all discrimination on grounds of sex as sexism then not letting women serve in combat is sexist. However, if you define it that way then not all sexism is wrong.

For what it's worth, I'm cautiously in favour of allowing women to serve in combat, but arguing that they shouldn't be is certainly not as stupid as arguing that whites shouldn't.