Replies

KateatRFM,
There are people of both sexes at the top of the physical pyramid who may be able to best someone of the opposite sex. That is not the issue. A woman who is 5'10" and 165 lbs is WAAAY in the upper percentile of body size for women.

People bring up the straw man argument of "We're not supposed to have women in combat zones because women can't handle seeing all the brutality of war..." which is just crap. No competent person says that. Women can and have shown that is not an issue. That women have the mental strength and capability is not in question.

It is mainly a physical issue, unit cohesion and logistical issue.

On a physical level, people who think women are the equal of men physically are either ignorant or ego-driven. Men and women are built differently with respect to bone structure and musculature, and it makes a difference. The incidences of lower extremity injuries under physical stress are FAR higher in women than men, and upper body strength in men far surpasses that of women. Women CANNOT hump 80 lbs of equipment the way a man can. Are there women who can?

Absolutely.

But on average, absolutely not. And if I am unconscious in a smoke filled compartment on my ship, I do not want a woman in a damage control party trying to throw my 215 lb body over her shoulder to take me up three ladders to safety. It is no coincidence, and not unfair discrimination, that the VAST majority of Special Forces troops and firemen are men.

I have worked in the medical field since I got out of the Navy, and as most people know, with the exception of the MD's (and that is changing) medicine is primarily a female occupation. Most techs, nurses, lab people are women.

I have had the privilege of working for some outstanding women. I would pledge fealty to them, they were (and are) that worthy of my loyalty. Excellence is not a male monopoly, as true "neanderthals" think.

But that does not mean I regard them as physical equals. (not that they are not equal to me, but that the average female is no match, hands down, for the average male in a physical contest)

And we hear some argue against women in combat because they would be overly protective. That is just plain bunk. The issue is not that men might be "protective" of women. I don't think that would be an issue at all. Hell, men are pretty darn protective of their male buddies in combat, how could they be more protective towards women?

Men are men, women are women, and biology is biology. If you get military age (young) men and women together in large numbers in boring/dangerous environments, the horizontal bop is going to ensue no matter what. And women will still get pregnant, no matter what, unless the tubes are cut and tied.

And furthermore...remember, it is NOT just the guys leering and chasing around after the non-compliant women in these units (as some "neanderthals" might like to think)...women do just as much leering, flirting and chasing as the men.

I heard a woman advocating combat roles for women who said "They just have to have the willpower to say no to the men, and then they can be treated like one of the men." Sure. It CAN be done if one has the will. However, next to the urge to eat, drink, and breathe, those "biological urges" are the most powerful there are.

Heck, all you have to do is look at the risks to their family, job, friendships, finances etc. that some people will take to satisfy those urges to realize just how powerful they are. There is a reason the cynics say "sex sells".

The point is, and I am guilty of it as well, we tend to look at our men and women in uniform and think of them as formed from a mold, which is what the military and basic training tries to do. It is easy to do, when you look at how well trained and proficient they are at what they do. They are the best in the world.

But they are human beings first. And the biggest problem with addressing the problem of sexual relations between members of a unit by saying "be responsible adults and don't do it" or by making regulations against it is that...is just will not work.

You can threaten to smack them with violation of UCMJ article 12345, you can hand out condoms like chocolate bars with each MRE, and you can physically grab each womans hand as you give her the paycheck and place birth contol pills in them, and subject them to hour long indoctriation each month and have it checked off that they attended in a log, but...women will still get pregnant by choice or by accident.

And a pregnancy is the functional equivalent of a combat wound, actually more serious. Some combat wounds can be treated and the soldier returned to the unit. Unless abortion is mandated in cases of pregnancy, that cannot be the case for a pregnant woman.

Phyllis Schlafly has cogently outlined these issues in her book "Feminist Fantasies". Many leftists dismiss Phyllis Schlafly as a "womans place is barefoot in the kitchen" kind of woman, but she is so far from that she makes the feminists look that way in comparison. She is a formidable intellect, and if I could ever work for her, I would do so in a heartbeat. Read a bio on her sometime, and you will see what I mean.

She wrote an article, which can be found at http://www.townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/ps20040517.shtml

While I abhor nearly any editorial related to U.S. Army Pfc. Lynndie R. England, (not because I hate her or anything, I think she was just a dumb young person, as many of us are at some point, and she just did something...dumb-it is because I am so sick of the media hype on the "prison scandal") I think this article makes some good points. But check out the book from the library, it is worth the read.