Replies

One of the problems I have in conveying this information is that I am regarded in some circles as a sexist, misogynist, male chauvinist, you name it.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I am married to a strong, extremely intelligent woman, and I have worked for many to whom I would readily defer to in a tight spot or decision of importance, and have great respect and admiration for them. Mental toughness is not an issue. The issues for me with women in combat (and this includes naval combat vessels) is threefold:

Physical Strength
- Physical strength in combat matters.
- There is no question that there are individual women who could physically outperform many average or below average men, but the military cannot operate on that basis. The military in general deals with the average performance in large numbers, and as the previously posted graph shows, those few women who might be able to qualify cannot overcome the drawbacks of deploying them.
- Women's bodies break down under the physical stresses more often than men's bodies do, largely due to the differences in muscle mass and bone structure that no amount of exercise can make up for.
- Even though a woman can exercise her body to the upper tip of that physical prowess attainable for a woman, if she leaves training for even a short time (for example confinement to a hospital for injury, leave, or pregnancy) her fitness level will rapidly decrease and it will take her far longer to regain it than it would for a male in the same situation.
Unit Cohesiveness
- This is not mentioned in the article, but it is important: the dynamics between a large group of men, and a large group of intermingled young men and women in a dangerous and lonely environment far from home introduces psychological factors that have no positive effects, only negative and potentially serious ones.
Operational Supply Chain and Infrastructure
- The military operates on averages over large numbers, and complicating the supply chain to accommodate both sexes is an unnecessary strain. Birth control pills, feminine hygiene, separate facilities and so on.

I have never been in combat. But I study history and read of the physical demands that combat makes on a person, I have spoken with a number of combat veterans on this subject, and universally their response is: women should not be in combat. Even the fittest of women would have difficulty in real combat and would result in people being killed, missions failing, and battles being lost.

But again, the closing section of the article explains it best:

"...Meanwhile, the argument to maintain the combat exclusion makes itself easily in every aspect. Including women in combat units is bad for combat, bad for women, bad for men, bad for children, and bad for the country. The argument for the combat exclusion is provable all the time, every time. Political correctness has no chance against Nature. Her victories are staring us in the face at all times. The men just keep being able to lift more and to run faster, harder, and longer with more weight on their backs while suffering fewer injuries. They just keep never getting pregnant. The combat units have needs that women cannot meet.

Women have needs that life in a combat unit cannot accommodate without accepting significant disadvantage and much greater expense. Where 99 percent of men can do the heavy-lifting tasks typical of gunners, but 85 percent of women cannot, there is no gap women need to fill. Women are already utilized where they are needed in the combat zone, such as for intelligence gathering, or what I did, frisking women for explosives.

Military women are strong, tough, and dedicated in their own right. Women do not need to be in the combat units to prove they are important or to serve honorably and well, and they do not need to be there to gain career opportunities..."