Nobody disputes that there are boodles of Unfit Joes. But there are boodles of Fit Joes in line right behind Unfit Joe, ready to take his place. But there are very few Basass Sallys.
The worst WNBA player can smoke me in a pick up game. But I’m not the standard. The best WNBA player, however, couldn’t beat the worst NBA player. Should we abolish the WNBA?
The 200# ranked male fighter in the world could move up 3 weight classes and beat the best woman boxer in the world. Should we abolish women’s boxing?
When you drive by road work, the person handling the 200 pound jackhammer will be a man, always. A woman may be handling the flags, or driving the trucks----and she may own the company----but its not demeaning to women that there are certain roles that are suited to the strength that men possess.
Who delivered your refrigerator? It was a man.
There are tons of these examples that we see every day of our lives and never give them a second thought.
But it’s silly to cite the extreme, one in a million, way off the charts woman who might be able to get around on Justin Verlander’s fastball and say, “Look I found a woman who can hit a fastball, and it would be unjust to not let her play in the MLB.”
Wait, just why is physical strength still a qualification for soldiers, anyway? We’ve moved past pushing sword blades into people, and it takes essentially no strength to pull a trigger. I can see how high endurance might be valuable, but that’s much closer to equal between the sexes.
This is a real question, by the way, not rhetorical. I expect there is an answer; I’m just not sure what it is.
Actually, a woman was one of the two people who delivered my fridge to a second story walkup and down a 45+ foot hallway (shotgun apartment), but whatever.
I still have my doubts. If it can be done elsewhere, it can be done in the good ol’USA landofthefree. Money is a hurdle, fine, but the USA has one of, if not the, most highly funded military in the world. Money isn’t really an issue, is it? I mean, the rules can’t change overnight, I can buy that, but a 10 year plan isn’t really impossible for financial reasons. I think that’s a red herring. It is doable, it’s just that people don’t want to.
I’m off for new year’s eve stuff now, but I’ll still feel that none of the arguments are actually persuasive. They are excuses, but not valid enough for me. If a woman can’t do the job, then she shouldn’t get the job, but if she can do every step and meet every criteria and DO THE JOB, then the lack of accomodations is, IMHO, a bullshit excuse. It boils down to “we don’t want to” and that’s not really acceptable to me.
It might surprise you, but I actually agree with you.
What I don’t think you’re seeing, however, is that the sheer number of women—either as a percentage of the force or raw numbers-----is so small (tiny) that its totally impractical.
I think you’re grossly overestimating the amount of women who would want to do this, and the even smaller amount of that would qualify.
mnemosyne, why should the United States Military be the experiment? There are no women playing in the NFL. Why is that acceptable, but the fact that there are none in the infantry is sexist and such a disgrace?
There is probably a woman out there who can perform at that level, right? Then why not allow her to? Fully integrate the rest of the country, where the outcome is not as important to security of the nation and to the safety of lives on the battle field.
You are asking why we can’t integrate the infantry, when it is clear we can’t even integrate professional sports.
Start with college sports, then professional sports, and THEN integrating the infantry will be far less of an obstacle.
The man was 50% of the work force who delivered that refrigerator. He was more than 50% of the energy needed to haul that unit.
(from experience. I’ve moved heavy things with women that I couldn’t have moved without their help. But…A) I did most of the lifting, and B) all of the men I know would have been more proficient. )
Yes, but a little more to that story from my my link above:
Major Cornum, a 37-year-old flight surgeon and biochemist from upstate New York, had broken both arms, smashed her knee and had a bullet in her right shoulder as a result of the downing of her Army helicopter. She screamed in pain when the Iraqi tried to pull her flight suit down over her untreated and swollen arms. Before the ordeal was over, she told a Presidential commission on women in the military this month, she was “violated manually – vaginally and rectally.”
Altho I see a point that maybe women aren’t the best suited for front rank infantry combat, why not driving tanks? Small, with fast reflexes is much more important there than upper body strength.
But you just picked a job that requires a great deal of strength. When that tank throws track or needs a pad changed in the field, its going to require some heavy lifting! And during deployments the driver can stay in that seat for days, shitting and pissing in that small little space. None of that is impossible for a female of course, but there is more involvex than just driving around.
The ability to schlep around the overabundance of gear is the primary concern, as I understand it. Plus the generally-larger bodies of strong people tend to get injured less often (I mean twisted ankles or strained ligaments, not combat wounds).
I don’t think the Soviets had as much choice in WWII as to who was available to fight. If the US is invaded and men are dying like flies, no doubt we can use women as a fall-back. How many of the Speznaz are women?
And where are the pursuasive arguments in favor of such a change? Military strategy should not be based on what is nice, or what is politically feasible, it should be based on what is necessary. Changes to the military should be made based on strength, lethality, and combat effectiveness. If the proposed change does not make the military stronger, then it should not be implemented.
Where is your pursuasive argument that this would make the military more effective at it’s job of killing the enemies of the United States?
No, it boils down to “why should we”, and your lack of reasons are not really acceptable to anyone.
The problem, as I have mentioned earlier, is much deeper than a simple Y/N, GO/NO GO metric. They are not just physiological. There are logistical, and more importantly cultural, barriers at play.
FWIW, I am not against women in the infantry. I am against the methods in which women would be integrated. If, as in your perfect world, a female recruit desires to be infantry, and she is fully capable, then she should be allowed. She should be placed in the same line as other infantrymen, and shown to her bunk. She will shave her head like every other infantryman, and she will sleep in the same room along side the other 50 infantrymen in her training company. If she is indeed equal, then why does she need a seperate facility guarded by a firewall, an audible alarm, panic doors, and video surveillance? Those are things the Army requires. The Army’s “Seperate and Secure” policy stinks like “seperate but equal” to me! Let her do that if she choses. I am fine with that. But that is not how it’s going to happen. And that is what people have a problem with.
You are talking about an Army that mandates segregated Port-O-Johns for crying out loud. You are talking about a population of soldiers who see no issue with a Sergeant First Class holding the door open for a female privates solely because she is female and “that’s the proper way to treat females”. We are talking about an Army full of people who cuss and swear all day long, but then in the presense of a female soldier say, “Hey! Watch your mouth, there’s a female over there!”
Change that culture, ensure the standards will not be lowered for the sake of politics, and allow for perfectly equal treatment to include living arrangements, and then you will have accomplished what you want without weakening the nation. Anything less than that, and we are only making changes because it feels good for some people.
pure gibberish. sexist crap disguised as discussion. the majority of jobs in the military do not require humping 100 pounds 50 miles, women can pull a trigger just as well as a man.
I had a girlfriend once who claimed to have been an Army MP. I didn’t know her when she was in the Service, but I knew for sure, that at about 5’10" and 160 lbs, she benched 250lbs and had been in numerous bloody fistfights. She might have qualified for some sort of combat … but even so, as a average 5’10" 180lb guy with no major athletic history, I could realistically throw her around like a ragdoll. I admit I’m a muscular guy, but no bodybuilder.
Maybe a gender-blind physical test should determine combat suitability … same rules, gender ignored.
Kind of like how the Nazis didn’t have much choice in WWII as to who was available to fight, which is why they were throwing 60 year old men and 14 year old boys onto the front lines, yet refused to even utilize women in the work force until later in the war, much less use them in combat roles? Seems it did bother them if any of their snipers had vaginas.