Replies

You are ignoring the reason that "gender-normed" PT standards were adopted in the first place. It is to ensure that politically acceptable numbers of women will qualify under the new PT regimen. Without gender normed standards 40-50% of women in the service would have to be discharged. I have seen studies that consistently show that the upper quintile of women's PT scores at WEST POINT!!!(women who are likely to be the most highly motivated and physically fit) scored equivalent to the bottom quintile of men taking the test. Had they been men achieving those scores, they would have been seperated from West Point by their junior year. We as a nation must decide that for the good of the service and combat readiness, all personnel should be held to the same standard and let the chips fall where they may, even if that means 40-60% fewer women than now.

As to them serving in roles for "which they are qualified", all I can say is that a man achieving the PT scores that most women do would be most likely seperated, while the woman in the identical role and with identical PT scores is not.

As to my personal experience, I am a served 16 mos. in Vietnam in a Mech Inf. and a tank outfit. Following my discharge, I served an additional 20 yrs. in the National Guard. Physical fitness is an absolute imperative. Not only do you have to haul 80-100 pounds of gear around on your back through muck and mire, but you often have do do so while suffering from varying degrees of ilnesses (malaria, diahrrea, dengue fever, scrub typhus, dysentary, etc.) which further deplete your strength and energy. I saw many capable and dedicated women who were excellent soldiers. I did not see ONE who I felt would be capable of frontline infantry combat duty. They just couldn't carry a heavy load any appreciable distance, and it always took four of them to carry a casualty on a stretcher in training. I do not recall many men who were simply unable do do heavy basic grunt tasks after suitable training, while I NEVER saw a woman who could perform them, even after intensive training.
I saw many who could not perform unassisted basic tasks such as clearing a stoppage on a .50 cal. heavy machine gun, changing a flat tire on a 2 1/2 ton truck, lifting a tool box, carrying a loaded duffel bag, or packing up the HQ for rapid deployment. Again I am speaking of the large majority of them.

For me the issue is not denying them opportunity. For me the function of an army is to fight. If the present intergration of women in the service enhances that ability than it should continue. If it does not, it should not be continued. If all our future conflicts are like the last one, the discussion is moot. On the other hand, if a large number of personnel (15%) are not deployable in certain positions than we might find ourselves in trouble in a protracted conflict. We can not expect that such an eventuality can never happen again.

I understand your points. But you are really discussing infantry roles, and infantry related roles. But consider the other side - the Air Force. Women fly bombers, refueling planes, work as mechanics, electronic techs, radio techs, navigators, comms officers and techs, etc. Air Force types don't go grunting through jungles, and mainly work at air bases here in the US or else far from enemy action. When was the last time we had an air force base overrun -- the Korean war?

Look up higher in the thread and see the maps I posted of US bases. Consider that the Air Force base personnel almost entirely stay put here. Yes, a few forward deploy. But the vast majority do not. So there, right there, exist a huge range of roles women can fill. And most of them require no more physical strength than that required to carry a toolbox (heck, lots of them require no more strength than carrying a pencil and a cup of coffee.)

:-)