Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Walter Williams: Women in Combat
http://townhall.com ^ | February 6, 2013 | Walter Williams

Posted on 02/06/2013 5:41:08 AM PST by NKP_Vet

A senior Defense Department official said the ban on women in combat should be lifted because the military's goal is "to provide a level, gender-neutral playing field." I'd like to think the goal of the military should be to have the toughest, meanest fighting force possible. But let's look at "gender-neutral playing field."

The Army's physical fitness test in basic training is a three-event physical performance test used to assess endurance. The minimum requirement for 17- to 21-year-old males is 35 pushups, 47 situps and a two-mile run in 16 minutes, 36 seconds or less. For females of the same age, the minimum requirement is 13 pushups, 47 situps and a 19:42 two-mile run. Why the difference in fitness requirements? "USMC Women in the Service Restrictions Review" found that women, on average, have 20 percent lower aerobic power, 40 percent lower muscle strength, 47 percent less lifting strength and 26 percent slower marching speed than men. William Gregor, professor of social sciences at the Army's Command and General Staff College, reports that in tests of aerobic capacity, the records show, only 74 of 8,385 Reserve Officers' Training Corps women attained the level of the lowest 16 percent of men. The "fight load" -- the gear an infantryman carries on patrol -- is 35 percent of the average man's body weight but 50 percent of the average Army woman's weight. In his examination of physical fitness test results from the ROTC, dating back to 1992, and 74,000 records of male and female commissioned officers, only 2.9 percent of women were able to attain the men's average pushup ability and time in the two-mile run"

(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: infantrywomen
Democrat men hate women so much, they even want for them to have the option of murdering their babies in the womb so they don't have to be connected to them for the rest of their useless lives.

"This takes it one step further. Now Democrat men just want to send the women out to die.

If this reduces the stock of available sows for them to copulate with, that's ok, they will just go for the boars".

1 posted on 02/06/2013 5:41:18 AM PST by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

2.9 percent

About what I would of guessed.

Only 2.9% of women are freakishly strong enough to match up with the weakest of men.


2 posted on 02/06/2013 5:44:13 AM PST by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama lied .. the economy died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

I think before they start lowering the standards to allow more women into the armed forces, they should first start lowering them for the secret service.


3 posted on 02/06/2013 5:46:42 AM PST by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama lied .. the economy died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
Ask the Liberal/Progressives if they are comfortable with Pregnant women in Combat, if they are OK with Mommy being drafted, and the women fought over by our men in foxholes?

Ask them if they are OK with Gay men preying on young boys in the boy scouts as Obama wishes?

Obama and his Liberal/Progressives are corrupting America at a break neck speed.

4 posted on 02/06/2013 5:47:19 AM PST by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

“This takes it one step further. Now Democrat men just want to send the women out to die.

In case you missed it the past 10 years, military women have been dying in hostile action zones. You can disagree on if women should be there or not just don’t neglect to realize that they already are.........


5 posted on 02/06/2013 5:54:30 AM PST by SECURE AMERICA (Where can I sign up for the American Revolution 2013 and the Crusades 2013?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SECURE AMERICA

Yes, but the numbers will increase by a high percentage.

Iraq(female deaths) 2.5%
Afghanistan (female deaths) 2%


6 posted on 02/06/2013 6:27:36 AM PST by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

A battlefield is not a “gender-neutral playing field”. It is a place to kill people and break things. Now, if your goals were to make sure the U.S. would never win another battle and to ensure that the last vestige of civilization vanishes within U.S. borders, then the decision makes perfect sense.


7 posted on 02/06/2013 6:54:42 AM PST by Pecos (If more sane people carried guns, fewer crazies would get off a second shot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Demthink:

Women in infantry is only “fair!”. After all, we will never have a female Joint Chief if the glass ceiling starts at the Private level. /sarc

But don’t let boys play football. That’s too dangerous.


8 posted on 02/06/2013 7:08:43 AM PST by maica (Welcome to post-rational America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SECURE AMERICA

“You can disagree on if women should be there or not just don’t neglect to realize that they already are.........”

They are not in infantry units and they are not in Special Forces. The ones that are there are in support roles. The ones that are flying any type of aircraft in direct combat have been put there in DIRECT VIOLATION of stated Congressional law.

If I had my druthers there would be no women at all in the military. I am a retired Air Force senior NCO and in all my years of active service never saw one job that woman could do better than a man. Fighting wars is a man’s responsibility. We have enough men to go off and do the fighting for this country, without sending women to die because feminist and politically-correct chickenhawk democrats want to see them die alongside men. It’s all BS. A nation that sends it’s women to fight it’s wars ain’t worth defending. The Kenyan King is destroying this country from within, starting with the mission effectiveness of the US military. He wants to see us relegated to a third world country.


9 posted on 02/06/2013 7:21:18 AM PST by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SECURE AMERICA

“You can disagree on if women should be there or not just don’t neglect to realize that they already are.........”

They are not in infantry units and they are not in Special Forces. The ones that are there are in support roles. The ones that are flying any type of aircraft in direct combat have been put there in DIRECT VIOLATION of stated Congressional law.

If I had my druthers there would be no women at all in the military. I am a retired Air Force senior NCO and in all my years of active service never saw one job that woman could do better than a man. Fighting wars is a man’s responsibility. We have enough men to go off and do the fighting for this country, without sending women to die because feminist and politically-correct chickenhawk democrats want to see them die alongside men. It’s all BS. A nation that sends it’s women to fight it’s wars ain’t worth defending. The Kenyan King is destroying this country from within, starting with the mission effectiveness of the US military. He wants to see us relegated to a third world country.


10 posted on 02/06/2013 7:21:39 AM PST by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

This notion of placing woman is just so easy to refute. Many of you may have heard of a little dustup called World War II. At the peak of United States involvement in that war there were 16 ½ million personnel in uniform, many of them women. We also had over 400,000 personnel killed in the line of duty, against the toughest battlefield enemies this country has ever had to face, ones that were capable of and often did inflict shattering BATTLEFIELD defeats upon our sea, land and air forces. Despite this no one saw any need to place women into combat roles that had the responsibility to directly close with, engage, and destroy the enemy..

Today with a much smaller and almost hand picked elite Armed Forces, and a population base that is more than twice as large as that during World War II, there is even less need for it now than then.

This entire idiocy is being propelled by the demand for selfish feminists to qualify for chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, nothing more and nothing less than that.

This has absolutely nothing to do with enhancing the ability of the Armed Forces to fight, rather it will weaken it if for no other reason than the logistics strain that it will place on the Armed Forces for separate housing and the like.

The effort required to obtain a relative few qualified women will not result in anything remotely resembling any accepted model of effeciency, but since that is NOT the object any way, why worry about that? This is merely another sop to the perverted Cultural Marxist notion of fairness and equality and another step on the road of “fundamental transformation” of the vital institutions of this nation.


11 posted on 02/06/2013 7:40:05 AM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

“to provide a level, gender-neutral playing field.”

I guess the American Supreme Soviet must think that war is a “playing field.” How sad for the young women who will be turned into cannon fodder.


12 posted on 02/06/2013 7:44:34 AM PST by Wordkraft (Remember who the Collaborators are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
Fighting wars is a man’s responsibility. We have enough men to go off and do the fighting for this country, without sending women to die because feminist and politically-correct chickenhawk democrats want to see them die alongside men. It’s all BS. A nation that sends its women to fight its wars ain’t worth defending.

That bears repeating!
13 posted on 02/06/2013 7:45:19 AM PST by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DMZFrank

Bravo!!!


14 posted on 02/07/2013 3:14:57 AM PST by neverdem ( Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DMZFrank; NKP_Vet; SECURE AMERICA
This notion of placing woman is just so easy to refute.

Indeed! For a number of reasons, but Dr. Williams gives hard numbers illustrating two that can be critical in combat: physical strength and speed.

The minimum requirement for 17- to 21-year-old males is 35 pushups, 47 situps and a two-mile run in 16 minutes, 36 seconds or less. For females of the same age, the minimum requirement is 13 pushups, 47 situps and a 19:42 two-mile run. Why the difference in fitness requirements? “USMC Women in the Service Restrictions Review” found that women, on average, have 20 percent lower aerobic power, 40 percent lower muscle strength, 47 percent less lifting strength and 26 percent slower marching speed than men.

William Gregor, professor of social sciences at the Army’s Command and General Staff College, reports that in tests of aerobic capacity, the records show, only 74 of 8,385 Reserve Officers’ Training Corps women attained the level of the lowest 16 percent of men. The “fight load” — the gear an infantryman carries on patrol — is 35 percent of the average man’s body weight but 50 percent of the average Army woman’s weight. In his examination of physical fitness test results from the ROTC, dating back to 1992, and 74,000 records of male and female commissioned officers, only 2.9 percent of women were able to attain the men’s average pushup ability and time in the two-mile run.

In a January report titled “Defense Department ‘Diversity’ Push for Women in Land Combat” Elaine Donnelly, director of the Center for Military Readiness, points to U.S. Army studies showing that women are twice as likely to suffer injuries and are three times more undeployable than men. Women are less likely to be able to march under load — 12.4 miles in five hours with an 83-pound assault load — and to be able to crawl, sprint, negotiate obstacles with that load or move a casualty weighing 165 pounds or more while carrying that load. Plus, there are muscle-challenging feats, even for men, such as field repairs on an M1A1 Abrams tank.

SECURE AMERICA, it's not about the chance of being killed or wounded. It's about what they can do. IIRC, those who join ROTC are usually given two or four year scholarships. Those female officers probably had two years advance notice, yet "only 2.9 percent of women were able to attain the men’s average pushup ability and time in the two-mile run." I think that explains why I don't remember ever seeing any female furniture movers.
15 posted on 02/07/2013 11:56:49 AM PST by neverdem ( Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has pretty much admitted that the standards will be lowered, despite Panetta lying and saying they wouldn’t be.


16 posted on 02/07/2013 8:20:40 PM PST by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SECURE AMERICA
In case you missed it the past 10 years, military women have been dying in hostile action zones. You can disagree on if women should be there or not just don’t neglect to realize that they already are.........

I see nothing wrong with neglecting what is irrelevant to the debate. All manner of human being has been killed in hostile action zones including children, murderers, pedophiles, transvestites,and homosexual sex practitioners to name a few. In fact, children have been killed in hostile action zones -should for instance children be placed in service of our combat efforts too?

In case YOU missed it, what it comes down to is that this irrelevant argument is mainly employed by delusional utopian leftists promoting the leftist 'equality' agenda.

17 posted on 02/07/2013 9:15:20 PM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Aetius
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has pretty much admitted that the standards will be lowered, despite Panetta lying and saying they wouldn’t be.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has shown by actions that at best he is a spineless kiss ass and at worst a leftist himself. Regardless his treasonous activities he too will suffer at the hands of his leftist master -I am sure he will be replaced eventually by an affirmative action female transsexual bull dyke that will further decimate the US military 0that is the leftist plan.

18 posted on 02/07/2013 9:21:18 PM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

What is the fuss here? Israel has had frontline women soldiers in the IDF for years.


19 posted on 02/07/2013 9:38:05 PM PST by this_ol_patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: this_ol_patriot

“What is the fuss here? Israel has had frontline women soldiers in the IDF for years”

Do the research. Israel tried it and it didn’t work. No women are in front line combat roles now.

http://www.wnd.com/2001/08/10269/


20 posted on 02/07/2013 9:50:42 PM PST by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
LOL WND from 2001, tell that to my future daughter-in-law's sister. She is indeed a frontline IDF soldier at this time. she is US born, married an Israeli soldier and is now a soldier herself. BTW while she is or could be on the frontlines, her hubby is a jet mechanic and never will be.

My son met her when he was doing contract work on a base near Be'er Sheva.

21 posted on 02/07/2013 10:01:30 PM PST by this_ol_patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

They should have a few all-female combat units to see how it’s going to work out, so as to achieve a true gender-neutral baseline.

Obviously.

Freegards


22 posted on 02/07/2013 10:07:22 PM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: this_ol_patriot; DMZFrank; DUMBGRUNT
What is the fuss here? Israel has had frontline women soldiers in the IDF for years.

That's not true. That only happened in 1948.

'Equality' on the Battlefield

--snip--

The experience of the Israelis, a democratic nation that has deployed women to combat zones, is instructive. Phyllis Chesler reported in a symposium on Islamic Terror and Sexual Mutilation:

"Soon after the establishment of the IDF, the removal of all women from front-line positions was decreed. Decisive for this decision was the very real possibility of falling into enemy hands as prisoners of war. It was fair and equitable, it was argued, to demand from women equal sacrifice and risk; but the risk for women prisoners of rape and sexual molestation was infinitely greater than the same risk for men."

During the same symposium, Dr. David Gutman said:

"During the Israeli War of Independence Jewish fighters, including female soldiers captured by Arab irregulars, were routinely tortured and mutilated in the most obscene ways (by contrast, water-boarding would have furnished a pleasant interlude), and IDF officers warned their troops against being taken alive."

John Luddy of the Heritage Foundation cites the demoralizing effects on unit cohesion, another vital consideration. Male soldiers who saw their fellow women soldiers mutilated in obscene ways were devastated. Luddy writes:

"For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield."

23 posted on 02/07/2013 10:20:22 PM PST by neverdem ( Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
That's only special forces and commando operations, look up Nachshol Reconnaissance Company or Caracal Battalion, about 4% of the IDF combat units are women.

I'm not saying that the US needs to follow this model, Israel of course is vastly out-numbered by the Arabs and needs all the personnel they can muster.

24 posted on 02/07/2013 10:37:42 PM PST by this_ol_patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: this_ol_patriot
That's only special forces and commando operations, look up Nachshol Reconnaissance Company or Caracal Battalion, about 4% of the IDF combat units are women.

In recent years, the opportunities open to women in combat units have grown, including through the establishment of the mixed-gender Caracal Battalion, in which women and men serve together as combat soldiers. The IDF reached a new milestone in 2006, establishing its first company consisting entirely of female combat soldiers – the Nachshol (Hebrew for "giant wave") Reconnaissance Company.

The Nachshol Company is part of the 80th Division of the Southern Command and is stationed along the Egypt-Israel border. This unit's central mission is to patrol and gather field intelligence in real time, requiring long hours of camouflaged undercover scouting. Nachshol soldiers sign up for an extra year of military service, serving a total of three years instead of the two years required of Israeli women.

The source claims to be an IDF blog. That company is not co-ed. Do they need an extra year of physical training?

By contrast, 60 percent of Caracal’s soldiers are women.

--snip--

In line with its policy not to discuss troop deployment, the military declined to provide the battalion’s size.

--snip--

Resolving logistical issues like building separate sleeping quarters and bathrooms were a first hurdle.

That's not co-ed. Both the company and the battalion sound more like the exception and not the rule by organization, not just by sex.

Is this an infantry battalion with the usual number of personnel? I have to wonder if there are any mixed gender rifle companies, rifle platoons, rifle squads or fire teams. How about mortar platoons or antitank platoons?

In the U.S. it may vary slightly whether it's Marine Corps or Army, e.g. airborne, airmobile, mechanized, motorized, etc., but the typical infantry battalion has three rifle companies each with three rifle platoons. Assorted crew served weapons are distributed according to their particular tables of organization and equipment.

25 posted on 02/08/2013 2:54:03 PM PST by neverdem ( Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: this_ol_patriot

Women in combet roles in the IDF are a direct result of left wingers in the Knesset forcing the change. The leadership of the IDF are under fire for dragging their feet to get more females in combat positions. The generals don’t want them there.


26 posted on 02/08/2013 5:23:16 PM PST by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson