Why Women Should Not Be Allowed In Combat
March 21st, 2005 | Published in Culture, Politics | 57 Comments
[The following has been adapted from Robert Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, pp. 218-223]
The two main arguments feminists advance for women to be allowed in combat are:
- Putting women in combat is crucial to women’s self-esteem and to men’s respect for women. (That has never been true in the past and it is impossible to see why it should be true now.)
- Combat roles are important to military advancement.
There are also significant arguments against putting women in combat as well—arguments that are far weightier than the above ones. However, in our culture the rights of women are increasingly put above the importance of human life (this can be seen most horribly in abortion). Therefore, feminists may shake off these arguments with their illogic and emotional fury by stating that their right to be in combat outweighs the damage they do to military readiness and fighting strength. However, the arguments must still be put forth:
- The inevitable result is that training standards are lowered, and then the facts are then ferociously denied. This has already resulted in one pilot death (Navy Lieutenant Kara Hultgreen) [I am sure more have resulted, as this book written in 1995]. Also, David Horowitz offers specifics:
- “Gender norming” is now the rule—women are measured against other women, rather than against men who outperform them.
- Even though West Point officially says there have been no negative effects from the admission of women, the sworn courtroom testimony of a West Point official says that women cannot perform nearly as well as men and that the men’s training program has, for that reason, been downgraded. For example, men are no longer required to run carrying heavy weapons because women are unable to do that.
- Even if a man is willing to lead women in combat, even the thought that it might not be suitable is sufficient to end your career. This happened with Lt. Commander Kenneth Carkhuff who was recommended for early promotion due to his “unlimited potential … destined for command and beyond,” but after a private conversation with his superior officer that his religious views made him doubtful about putting women in combat, though those views also required him to lead women into combat if ordered to by his superiors, he was discharged.
- Due to such threats as the above, career officers do not speak about the performance of women in combat positions, because to do so puts them at great risk of discharge—especially if they mention anything regarding women not performing as well as the men. This is an extremely dangerous policy and will result in the loss of lives and possibly wars.
- In physical fitness tests, very few women could do even one pull-up, so the Air Force Academy gave credit for the amount of time they could hang on the bar. Female cadets averaged almost four times as many visits to the medical clinic as male cadets. At West Point, the female cadets’ injury rate in field training was fourteen times that of men, and 61 percent of women failed the complete physical test, compared to 4.8 percent of men. During Army basic training, women broke down in tears, particularly on the rifle range.
- The pregnancy problem. Navy ships have had to be recalled from missions because of the pregnancy of female sailors. A male and a female sailor on the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, both married to others, videotaped themselves having sex in a remote part of the ship. There had been thirty-eight pregnancies since the crew went aboard the Eisenhower, fourteen of them after the ship was deployed. Only someone who has never been with troops could not anticipate this result or fail to realize that it will be a major problem forever. The troops in question are very young, at an age when their hormones are, to put it mildly, fiercely insistent.
- Effects on morale can be particularly adverse. The presence of women among male troops weakens combat readiness. All-male units in the field experience bonding that enhances unit cohesion and effectiveness. When women are introduced, men stop relating to each other and begin trying to attract the women. Men can quickly become on less-than-friendly terms with a mini-war over a woman. Nor can morale be improved when accusations of harassment are always a threat. An accusation of sexual harassment by the woman, even if unproven, would severally damage the man’s service career, and both the man and the woman are acutely aware of the fact.
- The Israelis, Soviets, and Germans, when in desperate need of front-line troops, placed women in combat, but later barred them. Male troops forgot their tactical objectives in order to protect the women from harm of capture, knowing what the enemy would do to the female prisoners of war. This made combat units less effective and exposed the men to even greater risks.
Our military seems quite aware of such dangers, but, because of the feminists, it would be politically dangerous to respond as the Israelis did by taking women out of harm’s way. Instead, the American solution is to try to stifle the natural reactions of men. The Air Force, for example, established a mock prisoner of war camp to desensitize male recruits so they won’t react like men when women prisoners scream under torture. There is a considerable anomaly here. The military is training men to be more sensitive to women in order to prevent sexual harassment and also training men to be insensitive to women being raped and sodomized or screaming under torture. It is impossible to believe the both efforts can succeed simultaneously.
Therefore, it is clear that mindless feminist ideology is inflicting enormous damage on the readiness and fighting capability of the armed forces of the United States. Every other career is open to women. There is no reason why access to combat roles, for which they are not suited, has to be open as well. But political intimidation by radical feminists is so powerful that there seems little prospect that the continuing feminization of the U.S. military can be reversed. At least not until some engagements are lost, or won at unacceptably high costs, and women and the men who tried to protect them being coming back in great numbers in body bags.
March 24th, 2005 at 7:55 am (#)
Politcal pressure by radical feminists? You mean, women can vote now? (Kidding!) I think that the threat to American security by feminism is highly overestimated: better to worry about our troops facing American-made weaponry at the hands of former allies, or the threat to morale by corner-cutting military contractors, higher-paid “private security forces” (cough*mercenaries*cough) in their midst, hyperextended deployments, diminished medical care for the wounded, backdoor drafts of IRR troops, lowering of physical/medical/academic standards to meet recruitment goals…
Honestly, you point your finger at men more often than women for exacerbating the problem, and most of your issues seem to be the caused by an extreme gender imbalance rather than anything inherent to women — but the hammer falls on women as a group nonetheless. I have a question: would it be acceptable to you if there were all-female divisions in the military, rather than mixing them? And if the female troops proved more effective in combat, would you advocate for banning men from combat positions? I ask, because it seems that you are projecting “natural roles” upon different genders, and in doing so, forgiving men for the having the same indiscretions you curse women for displaying.
March 24th, 2005 at 11:33 am (#)
I would not want an all-female division. Females do not prove more effective in combat–but, of course, if the evidence was different then some of Bork’s arguments would be incorrect.
Personally, however, I would argue based on the biblical view of men and women, and that the men should be protecting the family and the women should be talking care of the children/family while the man is away.
March 24th, 2005 at 8:00 pm (#)
When mixed together, both men and women “prove” ineffective in combat. Men have been proven alone, while women haven’t — there is no “proof” until there is a “test.” I suspect they would operate in a radically different way — but who’s to say who would be more effective at fighting others and keeping fellow soldiers alive?
Since your post wasn’t just channeling Bork, but rather stating your own opinion, it seems our arguments are two ships passing in the night… I think we need very little “biblical view” in the way the American military is run.
April 12th, 2005 at 10:28 pm (#)
“Personally, however, I would argue based on the biblical view of men and women, and that the men should be protecting the family and the women should be talking care of the children/family while the man is away.”
Seperation of Church and State applies to the military as well. So take your personal views and mute them. Not all agree with the “biblical view”, because if im correct, that for christians, not the land.
All i can see is a inferiority complex, i mean common, men do not nessisarily perform better than women, and to say as such, is just unbased and biased. Since there has been more men in the military over its life span, and the natural biased of some of its officers and head officials, its no wonder the statistics stand as they should. So instead of making such a ‘to do’ out of women in the military, maybe you should go on this logic: “If she can cut it, she is in” just like we do with the boys. Hey, im sure women can figure out how to fire a gun, probably alot better than you can make a point. So in simation, Women SHOULD NOT be treated differently, nor should anyone. Give each the same chance, regardless of race/sex/religion. If you keep that kind of additude about women, YOU might be at home cleaning, for a lack of a caring woman to be nice and do it for you.
April 28th, 2005 at 11:14 am (#)
“i mean common, men do not nessisarily perform better than women, and to say as such, is just unbased and biased. ”
No it’s not. Look at any physical tests of both men and women. On average, the man will significantly outperform the women.
May 3rd, 2005 at 11:09 am (#)
“On average, the man will significantly outperform the women.”
the key word is average. the military should allow the few women (and there will always be a few who preform overagverage, just as some men will preform underaverage) who can meet the standards have the opportunity to protect the country if they wish.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:36 pm (#)
Women must be allowed to serve in military combat!!! We have equal rights to men. This article should not say some of the things it does. Women can be just as good as men. WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SERVE IN MILITARY COMBAT!!!
February 6th, 2006 at 3:00 pm (#)
I think it is quite clear that MOST women cannot perform as well as men. Did you even read the article most women could not even do one pullup… In some ways I agree with Lauren in that if a woman can meet the same standards that the men are required to meet (without the standards being lowered) then she should be allowed to defend her country if she chooses. Furthermore if a division of women can outpreform a division of men then yes men should not be allowed in the military. However i think we can all agree that physically the majority of women just cannot compete with the men and as such it would be highly unlikely that a division of women could in fact outpreform a divison of men. Ultimately since male divisions are more effective than female divisions, male divisions are more effective without female members, and female members are less effective than male members I see no reason why females should be allowed in the military. If an able bodied male was a disruption to the division and causes more harm than good he would be let go in a similiar fassion though not necessarily her fault a female who can meet the male standards unfortunantely does more harm than good and thus should not be allowed.
February 7th, 2006 at 12:14 pm (#)
I think if we want to go into combat, we should. We have every right to go. We know the risks of fighting in combat. Some get raped or violated. They know that it is a possibility. We are in the military to fight for our country. We will take every risk to make that happen. God bless every woman in the military!!!
March 4th, 2006 at 2:18 am (#)
Hey Rian nicole. 65,000 stand-up commedians out of a job, and here you a feminst is trying be one. The military is not a right ,but a privilige to serv. the military is not obligated to give you a job.
The good lord created man the way he did, and the woman they way he did. There is no changing about it. Women are not suited for combat. other countiries have attempted it, and found they had to abort from it because they saw they were losing the stinkin war. bottom line. History just repeats it self with this issue.
March 4th, 2006 at 11:59 pm (#)
I am getting ready to do a speech about this so i have read many different aspects. I think that women should be allowed in combat in the want to be and are able to do everything that is required. I read on this site that most women could not even do a pull up but on another site i have been to said that 75% of 41 women were able to do everything that a man cold do
March 5th, 2006 at 9:53 pm (#)
I am writing a paper on this subject and have found this thread very helpful. Thanks to all that have contributed! Personally, I think that the military is working well the way that it is set up now. In that women are allowed, just not in special forces, direct combat, ect. I am not a traditionalist by anyone’s standards, but in this case I believe there is no question. As John Walsh said, serving in the military is not a right but a privelage, as are most professions. I do think however that a few select all-women squads should be tested, because, contrary to what I have read here, in Israel I have heard that thier “special forces” are all women platoons due to the debatable fact the women in general are better at multi-tasking and therefore make better fighter pilots as has been shown here in America. As far as the relevance to this topic is concerned, I’m not exactly sure…
April 15th, 2006 at 10:15 pm (#)
Im doing a speech on this and i would like to also say thankyou for putting your opinions i go to highschool and we test every person in the gym class on physical fitness and i have not seen one girl not able to do at least on pulll up. that fact is clearly untrue. I believe that there should be a test and if women can pass they should be able to be in it. obveously the women that tryed to be in and couldnt do a pull up werent trained and werent prepared im a 16 year old girl that doesnt work out and weighs 130 i can do 8 pull ups when told its all a matter of drive and they should be looking for those women who have that drive not shunning them all out and not giving any a chance.
April 23rd, 2006 at 11:03 pm (#)
I’m doing a required project for my highschool. If i do not pass i will not graduate. I chose “women in combat” for my topic. I am in the delayed entry program for the United States Mairne Corps. I will serve my country and do so proudly, and along the sides of my fellow Marines… including women. Women can handle it, if they want it. I believe that if the standards are raised in boot camp to what the men have to endure that women are more than welcome to give it a shot in my book. As far as crying on the gun range or not doing a pull-up, train until you can handle it. And if you can’t then you’re out, just as the men do if they can’t take it.Thank you. Semper Fidelis.
April 25th, 2006 at 6:20 pm (#)
You can take an ordinary man and make a soldier of him, but you have to have an extraordinary woman to be a soldier
its obvious that school girls can do 10 pushups. but can a 130lb woman or even a 160lb woman carry a 245lb man a mile? oh yeah…by the way she has to defend both of them at the same time..people get hurt…you have to carry fellow troops long distances. most women cant. that simple, its not about who has what “RIGHTS” its about who can meet the physical standards. most women cant and its sad to say that most men cant nowadays but hey guess what? men train hard and long for the chance to go to the military….you think we should fill his spot with a woman who thinks she has the “RIGHT” to go?
April 27th, 2006 at 8:30 pm (#)
“its about who can meet the physical standards. most women cant and its sad to say that most men cant nowadays but hey guess what? men train hard and long for the chance to go to the military….you think we should fill his spot with a woman who thinks she has the “RIGHT†to go?”
She DOES have the right to go, and who says that the military is so full that they will just replace an able-bodied man with a woman? Why couldn’t they take both? I’m not saying that the military should just let in any silly girl because she thinks it will be fun, no. I think that if a woman can meet all of the same standards as a man then she should be allowed to fight. So if women want to fight in combat then they’ll just have to work harder and earn it. “Most” can’t, but what about the ones who can? Why turn down someone who is willing and able to fight and risk their life for our country?
Anyway, in these times of war, combat consists of mainly strategizing, bombing, and shooting- and it doesn’t take incredible strength to fire a gun. Skill, yes, and a level head, but these things can be learned. And yeah, people get hurt, but a woman will be able to handle it if she is physically trained to, right? If they can make it through the same training, then the same rights should apply. And who cares about the ones who can’t- because they won’t make it, will they?
Let’s give the ones who can a chance.
May 19th, 2006 at 6:02 pm (#)
i do believe that women should be allowed in combat. We live in america and anyone in this country should be allowed to do whatever they set their minds to. If i wanted to fight in combat and serve my country i should be able to. Why should the women stay home and take care of the children and men get to go out and be the hero. The equal rights amendment to the constituion stated that everyone has equal rights including gender has not yet been passed and i think we should improve this and strong able women should be allowed in combat!!!
June 3rd, 2006 at 6:10 pm (#)
To me, women are their own person with their own opinions. Who are other to say that they can’t join the combat. Women arn’t stupid. They know what thay are getting themselves into. If they want to join the combat then they should be able to whether one agrees with it or not.
June 26th, 2006 at 11:54 am (#)
I just got in a ”debate” with my friend about this issue. I wish I would have read this prior to the instance…
“Most” women may not be able to keep up, but for the ones WHO CAN, why should be deny them the right!???
As for the men being worried about protecting the women with extra care… that’s on the man’s will power. DON’T blame women for that.
June 26th, 2006 at 2:43 pm (#)
i agree with lauren there are a few women who can meet the standards and those women should be allowed to protect their country if they so desire. David also has point as far as the men protecting the women, thats on the mans willpower. oh and by the way not all women are emotional basket cases, and some of us acually enjoy shootting. About the pull-up thing if you cant do it than train till you can and if its to hard than out you go, just like the men who cant. i think that some men dont want women in combat because they are afraid that they just might shown up by a women.
June 26th, 2006 at 9:37 pm (#)
I think women should be allowed in combat; however, I am a big fan of seperated both sexes in combat and special forces. I think mixing both sexes might cause too much weakness. If we seperate both sexes, we might achieve something better and more effective?
July 19th, 2006 at 9:39 am (#)
Agreed.A single sex combat team will likely be more effective than a co-ed. Reasons being stated by Bork, the sexual attraction thing, mainly. However, even if the women underperform the men in terms of physical strength as the main reason,there are ways to counter this. Perhaps lighter weapons or equipment? Besides,it seems to me that bork is basing his views on the ‘natural’ roles of me and women.If the women can withstand the training, and coose to join the army, why not? They can be utilised in battle, and depending on the other sex all the time is rather inferior to us women, i feel. I mean, would you want to rely on others all the time knowing u can’t serve the nation and let others do so? So give women a chance in combat) ‘Skill, yes, and a level head, but these things can be learned. And yeah, people get hurt, but a woman will be able to handle it if she is physically trained to, right? If they can make it through the same training, then the same rights should apply. ‘So yeah, it ultimately depends on the women. ROAR!!
November 1st, 2006 at 12:59 pm (#)
There seems to be a common reoccurance of this argument that most women do not perform as well as men in physical tests.
I would like to ask you a question: Why do you believe these differences occur?
Think about this: There ARE women out there that become just as physically capable as men, correct?
This means that the biological tools women need to perform physically are there. So, why do most women choose not to use these tools?
The answer is simple: Sexist and biased gender roles, which are created by this type of view that ‘women are weaker.’
This fact that most women are outperformed physically by men is perpetuated by this sexist mindset you are advocating. Right now, there is a social mindset that women should not become physically strong, and that is the very reason why most women are outperformed, NOT because of a biological difference.
Allowing women in combat will begin to break down these gender roles in society, making it more common for women to be physically capable, therefore adding skill to our military.
November 7th, 2006 at 9:49 pm (#)
Ok, here we go… I’m a female in the Army and i outperform most guys. I almost max the APFT (Army Physical Fitness Test) on guy’s scale. I run 1300 min 2 miles, i do 59 pushups in two min, and 99sit ups in two min… I can also do about 5 pull ups. I’m currently training to get better/stronger. I attended Airborne school and i earned my wings being one of the few females that actually made it though the training. I can run with 30, 40, 50lb of equipment longer and faster than many guys in my battalion.
However, i do not think women should be allowed to serve in combat. IT will create unwanted pressures among the males and might lead to unwanted sexual relationships. Also, men and women communicate differently and in mostly male team it would create communication gaps/misunderstandings… etc. IT does not take away from women’s rights, nor does it take away our liberties. Those women that are fighting for this right, are they they ones who will go to combat? Are they the ones that can hack the same intensity men can? What about natural physical differences between men and women? Just because men do it doesn’t mean women should want to do it as well….
November 15th, 2006 at 2:42 pm (#)
Women shoud be allowed to be in combat they have a better state of mind and figuer ot thing out things faster than men!
November 30th, 2006 at 4:25 pm (#)
I am 13 and I do swim team. I am in alot better shape than alot of women that try to join the army. I think it is quite sad that most women can only do 1 pull up. I don’t think the bar should be lowered for women. We can be tough! If women want to join the army then they should pass the men’s standards and not wimp out because “they are pysically weaker.” I don’t see why women should not be allowed to be in military combat positions if they can pass the physicall test. We have the right to serve our country!
November 30th, 2006 at 10:14 pm (#)
My friend and I are doing a debate on “Women should not be allowed to fight in combat.” I am also going against my boyfriend, which is really hard. We have a few good reasons as to why they shouldn’t 1:Sexual Harassment 2: Women are easily persuaded 3: Men or naturally more strong and physically fight. Please does anyone have any other good reasons?
December 6th, 2006 at 10:19 pm (#)
my friend and i are also doing a debate on why “women should not be in combat” and we think that another good reason why women should not be allowed in combat is that the military lowered the standers on the qualifications and preformence level that women had to meet in order to join, it is not logical to say that if we don’t let women in, that it is not equal rights, because the standerdes are not eqal. and who said someone has the right to fight in combat? even men don’t make the cut. fighting in combat is a priveledge to protect our country. (key word for all you feminist is “priveledge” not “right”)Also, i dont know this for a fact, but don’t you think that if there was a small squat team sent in agianst the ememy of only 5 people, and four of them were women, that if the 20 other men they were giong up against would have a far greater advantage than if it were five men? not to say that five men agaist 20 would win, but it would not be as easy a victory. lets say that they capture the one man with the four other women, and five men atack each women. lets also say the take them away and rape and beat them on camera to show to the one man held hostage. if i were a man i would be more prone to give up information if it were women they were hurting, rather than men. just think about it. and feel free to respond.
January 16th, 2007 at 1:53 am (#)
Now while this is sligtly off topic.
If men and women are created equal and women can produce the same physical qualities as men. Then why not have mixed olympics?
Why have mens and womens, these ppl would be the elite of the elite in the physical sense.
So why are they not mixed?
Do women produce the same times for the 100M sprint, swimming, weight lifting as men?
My point is that we make exceptions so that its fair for women to compete whether it be the olymics or training for the mititary.
Can this really be denied?
With regard to a mans willpower in his need to protect women. It is also society who puts this pressure on a man.
Peace
January 31st, 2007 at 9:18 pm (#)
Women should be able to fight for their country if they want. If a women can meet the physical standards, then why shouldnt they be able to honor their country and stand beside the men that are trying to do so as well. Men aren’t born with a 6 pack and big biceps. They have to work for their strenght. Women are able to do the same. Yes, many women wouldnt meet the physical standards, but that is because its not something they want to do. Not every women wants to run out and fight, but the ones that do should have the opportunity. This is not an all men country. There are women and men. So women and men should have the same options.
February 2nd, 2007 at 3:31 pm (#)
As long as women are able to make the physical standards that are required, then they should be allowed to be in the military. Women are just as capable as men.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:56 am (#)
I don’t know a whole lot about war and womens rights to being in war. But from what I’ve been reading and what’s been said I personally think that a women’s place is where her heart and God guides her. If it is in the military then God guide her and may St. Michael protect her. I have been thinking about joining the military, but I know that in the future I wnat to have kids and who am I to prevent life from happening who is any one to prevent that? I am not a feminist, but I do believe that women have right to do what their heart desires them to do in a postive way. Don’t let that be misleading there are some things women can not do, but I think that the fact of the matter is that men under estimate the strenght of a women. Yes God made men to be stronger then women so they can protect the females, but the world today and socity have changed that now men are not polite or considerate to a women now a days it’s hard to find a decent man who will actually treat a women the way she was meant to be treated. I think that is part of the reason why women think that they can do just as much as men because, not to blame it all on the men, We have all forgot what it is to true love as a friend and as a person God created, we’ve thrown common curtsey out the window and have started treating people like crap. I do have say some women think they can do it all, they so by thinking they can be in combat with the others they think their invinceable. A woman was created to keep the man company, to be fertile and multiply. As said in the First book of the BiBle Genius. so I am not joining the military to do just that to keep the man company and take care of our children while still fulfilling my other dreams. Sorry if this goes on a tangin.
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:48 pm (#)
The military is privilege
What about situations in which there is a “Draft” is the military a privilege then?
I don’t want to take part in this debate because I’ll start typing and won’t stop, but I had to comment on that military privilege commment. And I am patriotic.
March 20th, 2007 at 7:04 pm (#)
All of these femenists need to just shut up. If women can do anything men can do (and I’m not pushing Men over women I’m just trying to prove a point) why don’t we have mixed professional sports teams or olympic sporting events? Why are men competing against men and women against women? I mean even college sports are separated. This talk of women in combat is so dumb. Women should be allowed in the military but not combat for PROVEN reasons.
March 25th, 2007 at 11:39 pm (#)
There is a difference between a feminist and a self-confident female. I am a female in the military, I am physically fit and do outperform 90% of the men in my squadron. I AM treated differently, I HAVE heard every lame pick-up line there is, I AM more intelligent, and quicker on my feet than most and yet I am incapable of performing the same tasks as these boneheads? I think NOT–I can carry a 230lb man over a mile. Am I still incapable….oh did I mention I do look like a female and I work with other females who are capable of the same and still maintain their sexuality ( Not manly women)? No, I am not the average female, but I am looked at like a belowar female just based on gender and it is bulls*it! There are men out there overweight, sexual predators, overall worthless men that get the jobs over me. WHY? Because I am fragile woman? Say that to my face and see who wins. It is ok to make assumptions but don’t put down the people who are actually out there protecting your freedom. Your freedom to say women shouldn’t be in combat, think about that. Get to know someone in the position you are so against and I bet you will think differently
March 26th, 2007 at 8:27 pm (#)
Wow, Ladies. Not doing much to help your own cause here. Several of your arguments seem to be along the lines of ‘We have the right to fight, so let us in!’ Try having a at least a vague or general idea of what you’re talking about here. Here goes me trying to solve at least one of the issues raised by Bork. THE STRENGTH ISSUE:
Ah yes, the strength issue. It seems to get dredges up every time someone brings up the women in combat line. It happens to be one of the few valid points I think can be made against women in combat. Men are stronger than women. So says the world, so it must be true. But if I may quote from the following link:
“The strongest men are stronger than the strongest women, and the weakest women are always weaker than the weakest men, but in between are legions of men and women who are strength equals.” This would explain the separation of the Olympics, the ’strongest’ men and women. I personally have younger twin siblings, a boy and a girl, and from personal experience (this is the lament of a mercilessly tortured older sibling) , I can assure you that they are strength equals. If anything, Katie is stronger. Also, studies do indicate that, if trained correctly, women can shorten or close their physical gap with men. According to stats, weight training can increase your strength by 72% during the first four weeks, regardless of age or gender. Also, current technologies are gender neutral. So women carry lighter guns. As far as I’m concerned, If you get hit in the head with a bullet, your probably still gonna die. However, until war fare moves completely into the realm of virtual reality, or until geneticists create super-humans, I agree that physical strength is still important in combat. However, when is the last time you heard of a soldier having to do pull-ups in the front lines? Also, the thing about the lady pilot, Navy Lieutenant Kara Hultgreen. This is taken directly from Robert Bork’s texts, yet it is no in here. Hultgreen believed that there should only be one standard, and was forced into combat by political pressures, and her death is not one to be used against women in combat, as she herself did not want to enter into combat unless she passed the same standards as the males. I would go on more, but I am already taking up too much space. Hopefully, this has cleared up, at least partially, at least one issue on women in combat. My personal view is that yes, women should be allowed in combat, but they would have to pass the same standards as men. (Of course, this is only one of the many points that have to be resolved.)
May 18th, 2007 at 10:30 am (#)
” legions of men and women who are strength equals”? That’s ridiculous! On the the n.y. city police dept. physical, men have to bench press 92% of their body weight. Women have to bench press only 53% of their body weight. Can we have some honesty please? The difference in strength is huge. Put political correctness to sleep. If any of you fems out there want to put this to a test, let mew know. We can go to any high school, pick males and females at random and see how they compare physically. All bets taken! Please dare.
July 27th, 2007 at 1:42 pm (#)
Why can’t we just have it so that men can’t join the military if women are so distracting? Makes no sense, right? Well, it seems here that it’s the men that can’t control themselves. The women shouldn’t be banned just because the men in the military can’t handle working or being around women on the job. I can understand if the women aren’t in enough physical shape for a position, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to join that certain spot. The standards are made by men, so how do we know that the women won’t do an excellent job on the battle field or the ship just because they couldn’t do enough pull ups? It’s actually really rediculous to ban women. How dare you say there are plenty of more jobs out there for women? Every job should be able to hire a female or a male. Feminists go out of their way and sometimes act out of line (from your point of view) because they are so outraged at the ignorance still going around. They have had it, and personally so have I. I have no intention to join any forces, but I know women who do and these bounderies have to be taken care of. I hope you understand where I’m coming from and that there needs to be equal rights for every job.
August 13th, 2007 at 8:10 pm (#)
The majority of the responses of Bork’s argument seem to be by folks who have NEVER had any kind of military experience. I am an Army ROTC Cadet attending Capital University. I’m gonna make this straight to the point! There are many responses here saying things like “Women Can Be Equal!!!” Well listen to me as a man who has experience in a REAL military environment. I do not disagree with the fact that women have the potential to be as strong or stronger then men. However, I have never seen a woman in the Army who demonstrate that the have the ability to handle or exceed the amount of physical activity that a man can. Not a spec of evidence that a woman can do the same things period! The reason: physiology. If God or mother nature wanted women and men to be the same then we would all have TESTOSTERONE, and none of us would have ESTROGEN. There are also psychological differences between the sexes that allow men to cope better in extreme environments, the kind of environments where people are cut to ribbons in blink of an eye. I’m a psychology Major so I do have some credentials in this aspect of the dispute, but thats a different topic. Its just nature, deal with it. Men and women should use the advantages to the max. thats why we are different to dive life’s workload so that men do what they do best, just as do women. Woman have advantages that men don’t, mostly psychologically and intellectually.
November 20th, 2007 at 12:55 pm (#)
I strictly believe women shouldn’t be allowed in the military, if they’re not up to the same qualifications as men then they should stay the hell out.
It’s like art… if your not up to the specifications then don’t do it, and even some guys are out of shape in the service, they need to get out too… anyway ladies are great otherwise… lazy guys piss me off.
November 20th, 2007 at 12:59 pm (#)
one more thing… i do a military boot camp, and i smoked both women and men in the service… im 16 ok, my physical abilities were much higher on weights, cardio, and strength training… not one of them even came close to competing.
December 16th, 2007 at 5:28 pm (#)
The feminists claim combat service is a “right.” Nonsense.
A battlefield is not a boardroom, a courtroom or an operating room. WOMEN DO NOT HAVE A “RIGHT” TO SERVE. Military service for volunteers is a privilege; for draftees, it is a duty. No one has a “right” to serve, a civilian idea equivalent to having the “right” to be a doctor or lawyer that has no place in the military, whose principal purpose is to kill the enemy and destroy his capacity to fight.
I was married to a Marine that had women in his squadron. The only thing those women did was make the squadron weaker and cause problems aboard ship. My husband’s unit was assigned to an Air Craft Carrier and he was an ordnanceman. The women in the Ordnance shop could not lift the bombs they had to load on the F/A-18s. They did not learn or know the things they needed to, to succesfully load ordnance on the aircraft without the help of the men - how is that advantageous to ANY military unit.
Women can be in the military, BUT THEY HAVE NO PLACE IN COMBAT ZONES.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:21 pm (#)
i am also like many doin a project on this topic… im doin mine for my term paper in english class… i think that women should do what they want… women might be smaller and have some strength disadvantages but women are just as capable as men to do anything they put there minds to…
women should be allowed to do anything they want in the military…in america we are suppose to have equal rights no matter the race sex or anything else that might make us different…so why can men do things in the military that women are not allowed to do? doesnt seem right to me… but my opinion…
but if i do think that women have every right to do whatever men do… thats why we live in america and have the rights we do… and thats why women want to be in the military to keep america how we are now…
December 21st, 2007 at 5:15 pm (#)
Here’s one last thing about the strength issue…
In general, men ARE stronger than women. I’m sorry ladies, but it’s the truth and you know it. Out on the front lines, we’re talking about life and death situations, and all of your “I got the right to fight” just ain’t gonna fly. I’m all for equal rights between men and women, seeing as I am a female, and I plan on going into the military some day. But sorry, I just don’t give a damn about our so-called “right to fight” if it endangers my life, and more importantly, the lives of my fellow soldiers. If I can’t hold up my own end out in the field, than I am a risk to the entire group. Ladies, remember that it’s not just YOUR life that your gambling with out there, but your squad members as well. Are you prepared to risk other peoples lives for the sake of your egos? How many of you actually plan on entering the military? How many of you are trying to allow women on the front lines so you yourself can actually go out there and fight on them? Ladies, if you’re just trying to right some “sexist injustice” that you feel has happened, and haven’t actually looked into the reasons of WHY things are the way they are, and you don’t actually plan on going out to fight on those front lines that you’re do adamant about being restricted from, than you have no place saying a word. If you’re the incredible hulkette, and can pass the strength requirements for men, if you aren’t a liability to your fellow soldiers, if you CAN hold your end up, then I have no problem with you being on the front lines. But don’t go crying foul play just ’cause boys and girls are built different. This isn’t some chauvanist rule, it’s there to keep our soldiers alive, and I know everybody wants as many of our boys as is possible to come home safe. There are enough dangers out there already without making it so they can’t rely on a fellow soldier to do what needs to be done. Of course, I’m only 14. I’ve never actually seen military combat. I’ve never lived in a war zone, or seen what’s needed to survive out there. I’ve posted comments here before, and then went out and did more research, changed my mind a bit, and this is what I’ve come up with. If any of you disagree with what I’ve said, and can prove me wrong, than I’ll change my mind. But I just don’t think commando Barbie’s gonna be able to do the job right. So, ladies, if you can pass the strength requirements needed for men, and do the job right and just as well, than go for it. If not, than stay out and shut up.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:12 am (#)
I’m doing this topic as a research project as many people might be doing. I honestly think that women should be allowed in combat situations only if they can handle the situation and that they meet the physical requirement that have to be met. I’m a 17 year old high school student and I plan on joining the army and I’m going to be a linguist and I also want to be able to fight in combat situations. I think that I’ll be able to handle the situation and the physical standards. I also agree that this isn’t a right, this is a privilege that can be taken away, but if women can meet the physical requirements, they should be allowed. I read that men also abandon their mission in combat to protect women that might get captured, I think that men need to mind their own business and stick to the mission. But my moto is: THOSE WHO BREAK THE RULES ARE CALLED TRASH, BUT THOSE THAT ABANDON THEIR FRIENDS ARE EVEN WORSE THAN TRASH. I know that what I just put in the sentence before that last one goes against my moto, but they need to stay out of a womans business. I also think that even if some women can out perform men, that women shouldn’t have to do less because they can’t do a pull-up, they should train until they can do that pull-up. I train every day and I’m getting close to my goal of 5 pull-ups, man they are evil. I personally am a master at blades, I can throw them and always hit the mark. I think that women should train themselves before thinking of entering the military in any branch, because there will always be a great need in the physical strength of women and men together. I agree on the separation of men and women in squads, this’ll keep men not worrying about the women and keep to their mission or what ever they have to do. Us women that want to be in combat also know what we’re getting ourselves in and we’ll always take that risk if we need to. But those that can’t handle the situation need to not join in the first place.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:16 pm (#)
I personally think that if a women is able and willing, she should be allowed in combat. However, females should be forced to meet the same requirements as men or shouldn’t be allowed into the military at all. It is true that most men ARE stronger than women, both physically and emotionally, but there are those few cases where women can meet the standards. So, all I have to say is: If you’re tough and comitted, go for it. If not, don’t waste America’s time.
Thank you. God bless America and the USMC
February 10th, 2008 at 6:28 pm (#)
Someone show me how the inclusion of women in combat or combat related roles has improved our military effectiveness and I will re-think my position that it has not. Do we all agree that military effectiveness is the most important issue?
February 17th, 2008 at 3:21 pm (#)
How sad that we’re even discussing these issues. No decent person should ever want to see a woman die in combat. No one should ever want to see children losing their mothers this way. End of story, the rest is intellectual BS. Woman propagate life, that makes them more precious-that’s why women were first given the life boats on the Titanic. This is why men protecting women makes sense, not the other way around. Wow, chivalry really is dead. Where are the real men on this blog making the chivalry argument? Who gives a crap about all this strength training debate?
February 23rd, 2008 at 6:40 pm (#)
Francesca, the reason why us men don’t use the chivalry tactic is because there’s nothing that ticks off a feminist more than the idea that men are supposed to protect women (and that takes away from the current issue). I agree with you, I open doors/pull out chairs/carry things for women, but the reason most men do not is the result of the feminist outcry. That being said, what so many of you fail to realize is that we are talking about matters of life and death, not something that should be discussed casually with salary/job opportunities. I’ve heard many times that women should be allowed to fight if they want to… well not if it risks the lives of many other soilders. Your beliefs on men and women do not merit putting our troops’ lives at risk. I’ve also heard, if women pass the same standards as men they should be allowed to fight… this is ignoring much of the information in this article. Did you all miss the part about the risks of women in combat outside the physical strength issue? Bottom line is that men will react differently if women are in combat with them. Many of you say that this is the men’s fault, and you’re right, but does that make it any less true? We live in an imperfect world, and no matter what men SHOULD do, they WILL act in a way that jeopordizes the troops. Like I said, this is a matter of life and death we’re talking about, and you have to be a realist in this regard, whether it’s the men’s fault or not… that’s what’s going to happen. That’s why they’re denied the right if they meet the same qualifications. What many of the feminist posts I’ve read seem to not understand is that women ARE allowed in the military, they are not banned or excluded from this as a career option. There’s just one thing they aren’t allowed in, and studies done by people much smarter than you or I deteremined this as the safest method. Another thing no one seemed to comment on was the pregnancy issue… a VERY compelling argument in my opion. You can’t just pick and choose the issues you want to address so it makes your case sound better.
I want to personally thank each and every man and woman in the military who is defending my right to voice my opinion. God bless every single one of you.
February 23rd, 2008 at 6:49 pm (#)
I would also like to add that I don’t see an good argument against an all-female division. An all-female division would negate many of the reasons why women aren’t allowed in combat, and there is a good argument out there please let me know. Of course this would have to be tested to see if it was effective before I would support the idea, but in theory it seems to melike it would work just fine.
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:59 am (#)
Women should be barred from military combat units because women lack the strength and endurance needed for combat duty.
March 2nd, 2008 at 8:55 pm (#)
First, let me say that I am in the military and do have experience with female soldiers. In my experiences, training is significantly degraded by the presence of female soldiers because of the strength issue. The current battlefield is not full of robots and satellites. Instead, it is the infantryman kicking in a door to search a building that is the norm. Strength plays a huge issue still on the battlefield. Weapon systems are HEAVY. Lighter weapons for females are less effective weapons. Soldiers routinely have to carry loads of up to 75 lbs for days, not including the 23 lbs of body armor.
Women require medical attention in training up to 6 times as often as men. Women have less dense bones and are more susceptible to chemical/poison attacks (rate of death is higher). All of this points to women not being physically able (in general) to deal with the stresses of combat operations.
Many posters have said that “if some women are able to pass, then we should let them fight.” This is incorrect. The military runs on being uniform, especially in combat operations. Units pack their gear in all the same way, eat the same food, and dress the same way. Differences become very apparent in this environment. Female soldiers (especially in groups of 95% male soldiers) are …. different. They stand out. They are not part of the group because they are different. Right or wrong, it is the truth. Since they are different, they are not treated like just another part in the big military machine. Rather they are a special piece that must be preserved and protected, rather than expended when the time comes.
I do not think that a all female division will ever be attempted due to the costs of such a unnecessary test. And all female squads are just unnecessary due to plenty all male squads. Support positions for women, yes. Away from the front lines and closer to the admin offices are the best place for the female soldier who wants to serve, and not put her brothers and sisters in harms way.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:07 am (#)
I’m a veteran and I have had experience with female soldiers. Women actively seeking out and destroying the enemy (that is real combat)is not a good idea. The women who argue for it need to join the military and spend a good 4-6 months in a combat zone. I think they’d have an entirely different view if they did. I don’t give a damn about strength or mental ability to cope with pain, loss, stress, guilt, or atrocity. If you’re a mentally and physically strong woman who can meet the standards, you should be proud of yourself, but does that mean you should be in combat? NO. I’m tired of women who spout out rhetoric like a broken record player, but refuse to examine the facts that really matter. Since ancient times women have been kept out of combat because they are valued, not because they are inferior. Women are our mothers and our life givers. Most male animals will protect their females, because they know without them their species will not survive. In this same way the human male wants to defend and protect his life givers. Is this a woman’s fault? HELL NO! But that doesn’t make it any less true. Show a group of men footage of a woman being physically abused and I guarantee you most of them will be very angered by it. Now imagine those men are soldiers in a life or death combat situation and they’ve just witnessed a fellow female soldier killed or wounded in action. What do you think happens? Do you think that benefits anyone? Oh and by the way, I don’t know if any of you know this, but our enemies DON’T surrender to female soldiers. It hardens their resolve and makes them fight to the death, which only leads to more killing. Stop with all the intellectual bull butter and look at the reality of it! There are plenty of positions open to women in the military, but direct combat should not be one of them.
May 3rd, 2008 at 7:23 pm (#)
Still, the effectiveness of the female divisions in the Tamil Tigers should suggest that in certain roles women are just as effective in military combat. They may not be able to carry a wounded man for miles upon miles but the tasked they have been assigned to are executed professionally and with the sort of mental steel you would expect of any other fighting force.
I think that relying on history as so many here have done in their arguments suggests only that introducing women into male positions and roles on the battlefield doesn’t work. Allow for a little innovation and look around at where women have been effective in struggles. From Algeria to Asia and South America, women can be fighters with steely grit.
May 25th, 2008 at 11:19 am (#)
If women want to, sure they can. They have the right to go if they want to. But they have to be aware of all the risks. Rape, violation. Mabey some studies are holding the goverment back by throwing in a female division. I guess some people find it… unethical.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:37 am (#)
all this women in combat is messed up! if women want to go in combat let them but i agree with alot of people women need to train themselves before going into combat. they will need to be fit and ready for almost anyting in war.it seems as though men think we aren’t as strong and fit as them! i dont thnk that men need to be so judgemental about how women are in combat, they deserve the right to go if they want…
August 1st, 2008 at 12:18 pm (#)
You know our country is full of femenist ideology when they are pressuing our military to get our women killed in combat for the glory of women in power. We should be a Nation that goes to war to protect our women and children. What good is it for a man to go to war, what is he fighting for, the latest Ipod or HDTV?