Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Right, and Congress does not enact laws, even though the US Constitution says they do.
I can only point out the facts in black and white. If you choose to completely disregard those facts and remain ignorant, that is your problem, not mine. Whether you like it or not, Congress establishes the training requirements of the military, and the US Constitution gives them that authority. Your denial of that fact does not change that reality.
No, your failure to show even one example shows your disconnect with reality. Its a pretty simple task, and your inability to do so speaks volumes.
I would be interesting to note the number and type of injures sustained during training, broken down by gender, so we could see if there is a statistical difference. It should be actual physical factors that determine whether women should be allowed to serve in combat related MOS'. If there is a significant percentage of women who are getting injured during training, when compared to the men performing the same training, then it does not seem like a good idea to incorporate women into a combat related MOS.
The number of women who pass or fail training is of less concern. The tougher the training, the more people are going to fail, and that includes men as well as women. In the Navy, for example, two out of every three men fail to complete the BUD/S Phase 1 training for the SEALs. BUD/S Phase 1 training is the physical conditioning phase, and is seven weeks long. The first two weeks prepare candidates for the third week, also known as "Hell Week." During Hell Week, candidates participate in five and a half days of continuous training, each candidate sleeps at most four hours during the entire week and runs more than 200 miles and does physical training for more than 20 hours per day.
Agreed!
Another interesting article
"This is to say nothing of unit cohesion, which is imperative and paramount, especially in the combat fields. When preparing for battle, the last thing on your mind should be sex; but you put men and women in close quarters together, and human nature is what it is (this is also why the repeal of DADT is so damaging). It doesn’t matter what the rules are. The Navy proved that when they started allowing women on ship. What happened? They were having sex and getting pregnant, ruining unit cohesion (not to mention derailing the operations because they’d have to change course to get them off ship.)
When I deployed, we’d hardly been in the country a few weeks before one of our females had to be sent home because she’d gotten pregnant (nice waste of training, not to mention taxpayer money that paid for it). That’s your military readiness? Our enemies are laughing – “Thanks for giving us another vulnerability, USA!”
A vindictive woman wants to destroy a man’s career with a false accusation (yes, folks, this happens too); and it’s poison to the unit. All this happens before the fighting even begins.
"Beyond individual sex differences are the equally important effects of adding women to male combat groups. Combat units are intensely cooperative and placing a scarce resource (women) within them creates a disruptive competition. Moreover, trust is the foundation of cohesion, and men are disinclined to trust women in dangerous situations, worried that they will lack either the will or the wherewithal to back them up. The rough camaraderie that men engage in to build cohesion will lead to sexual harassment charges by women, so women will be excluded from these important activities.
This is a disastrous decision made by people (a re-elected president and an outgoing secretary of defense) who will not have to bear its consequences. Instead theywill be suffered by the soldier on the ground, and in some cases they are likely to be fatal."
Having never been in the military, I'll withhold speculation about the specific conditions which may arise in combat situations, and the question of whether or not the training regimen accounts for those hypothetical situations.
From a logical and egalitarian perspective, a few things seem obvious to me:
1--Military combat has the potential to exert an enormous, even indescribable, physical and psychological strain on those involved.
2--Training should be designed, as best as possible, to simulate those combat conditions.
3--Training exercises and basic physical requirements should be the same for all potential candidates, regardless of any demographic group to which they may belong.
4--The vast majority of women do not have the ability to compete with the average man in regards to physical size, strength, endurance, speed, and aggression; all of which are key components of effective combat troops.
5--A very small percentage of women will be able to successfully compete with their male counterparts in the above qualities.
6--Anyone who is capable of successfully completing a training regimen which is legitimately reflective of potential combat conditions, should be allowed to do so.
Having never been in the military, I'll withhold speculation about the specific conditions which may arise in combat situations, and the question of whether or not the training regimen accounts for those hypothetical situations.
From a logical and egalitarian perspective, a few things seem obvious to me:
1--Military combat has the potential to exert an enormous, even indescribable, physical and psychological strain on those involved.
2--Training should be designed, as best as possible, to simulate those combat conditions.
3--Training exercises and basic physical requirements should be the same for all potential candidates, regardless of any demographic group to which they may belong.
4--The vast majority of women do not have the ability to compete with the average man in regards to physical size, strength, endurance, speed, and aggression; all of which are key components of effective combat troops.
5--A very small percentage of women will be able to successfully compete with their male counterparts in the above qualities.
6--Anyone who is capable of successfully completing a training regimen which is legitimately reflective of potential combat conditions, should be allowed to do so.
A couple of things.
A. The military is not egalitarian. The military--when it operates efficiently--is a meritocracy.
B. Nobody has a right to combat occupation in an effective meritocracy.
C. The only thing the military has to do right is to win its battles.
These three factors really make up the true difference of viewpoints in the debate.
I linked a testimony from a woman Marine officer in which she spoke of a particular issue that I've mentioned before: Recuperability. This is a dealbreaker in the field, but it isn't something that can be set as a training standard. Either a person has a sufficiently high testosterone level, or a person does not.
Recuperability is the reason why there is an age limit on enlistment at all. I'm in my 60s, and I can still pass the Army PT test once a week, maybe, and that for perhaps a month before I'd be injured enough to need a long period of healing. But a young male can be trained to it, and then can do it over and over and over again without incurring injury.
That is what is required of someone who is going to hump 80 pounds of gear day after day after day, or load 50-pound artillery rounds day after day after day. You can't train for that, and meeting a training requirement in basic doesn't mean you can do it.
A. The military is not egalitarian. The military--when it operates efficiently--is a meritocracy.
B. Nobody has a right to combat occupation in an effective meritocracy.
C. The only thing the military has to do right is to win its battles.
These three factors really make up the true difference of viewpoints in the debate.
I linked a testimony from a woman Marine officer in which she spoke of a particular issue that I've mentioned before: Recuperability. This is a dealbreaker in the field, but it isn't something that can be set as a training standard. Either a person has a sufficiently high testosterone level, or a person does not.
Recuperability is the reason why there is an age limit on enlistment at all. I'm in my 60s, and I can still pass the Army PT test once a week, maybe, and that for perhaps a month before I'd be injured enough to need a long period of healing. But a young male can be trained to it, and then can do it over and over and over again without incurring injury.
That is what is required of someone who is going to hump 80 pounds of gear day after day after day, or load 50-pound artillery rounds day after day after day. You can't train for that, and meeting a training requirement in basic doesn't mean you can do it.
Nothing in my previous post contradicts what you're saying here. By all means, recuperability should be part of the testing process.
I just told you, recuperability can't be tested for--except as a destructive test.
Actually, I suppose they could run blood tests for testosterone levels, but that's not cost effective when testostrone levels across broad groups are already statistically known--and nobody has a right to go into a combat occupation.
See, that's the part you miss. Nobody has a right to go into a combat occupation, and the military's only mission is to win its battles. Achieving egalitarianism is not a military mission.
The military can weigh the pros and cons of missing out on the very small percentage of women who have the strength, recuperability, and will to be combat troops equal to the average young male versus the cost and inefficiency of trying to find them and accommodate them and make it's judgment.
There are many excellent airline pilots who wear glasses. I wear glasses. I could possibly have been an excellent Air Force cargo pilot. But the Air Force doesn't accept anyone for pilot training who wears glasses, largely because they want to retain the ability to cross-train any pilot into any cockpit as necessary. I don't have a right to be a pilot, even if I might have been a very good one.
See, that's the part you miss. Nobody has a right to go into a combat occupation, and the military's only mission is to win its battles. Achieving egalitarianism is not a military mission.
Maybe it is not a mission, but the military has been one of the most egalitarian institutions in history: integrating African Americans and other minorities, and equal pay regardless of gender or ethnicity.
"[Congress shall have the power] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" --- Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, of the US Constitution.
Maybe it is not a mission, but the military has been one of the most egalitarian institutions in history: integrating African Americans and other minorities, and equal pay regardless of gender or ethnicity.
No. That's where "meritocracy" comes in, which is not the same thing as "egalitarianism."
Combat enforces military meritocracy. Even though there has been a great deal of racism in the military, ultimately the iron meritocracy of combat has worked in opposition to racism. When the services integrated in 1948, it was the services themselves that provided the justification: Segregation was detrimental to winning battles.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
