Here is an article from Walter E. Williams of Townhall.com suggesting that the Defense Department should not have lifted the ban on women in combat. On January 24, Secretary of Defense removed the ban on women serving in combat. The services have until January 2016 to implement the changes:
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2013/02/06/women-in-combat-n1504759/page/full/
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.
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.
Then there's the pregnancy issue, which makes women three to
four times as likely as men to be undeployable. And once deployed, they
often have to be medically evacuated, leaving units understrength.
Finally, there's another difference between men and women rarely
considered in deliberation about whether women should be in combat. All
measures of physical aggressiveness show that men, maybe because of
testosterone levels 10 times higher, are more aggressive, competitive
and hostile than women. Those attributes are desirable for combat.
Here are a couple of what-if questions. Suppose a combat unit
is retreating in mountainous terrain in Afghanistan, where a person's
aerobic capacity really makes a difference, and the women in the unit
can't keep up with the men. What would you propose, leaving the women
behind to possibly be captured by the Taliban or having the unit slow
down so the women can keep up, thereby risking causalities or capture?
What if a male soldier is washed out of the Army's Advanced Infantry
Training program because he cannot pass its physical fitness test
whereas a female soldier who can't perform at his level is retained?
Should male soldiers be able to bring suit and be awarded damages for
sex discrimination? How much respect can a male soldier have for his
female counterpart, who is held to lower performance standards?
There's another issue. The Selective Service System's
website has the following message about draft registration: "Even though
the Secretary of Defense has decided to allow women in combat jobs, the
law has not been changed to include this. Consequently, only men are
currently required to register by law with Selective Service during ages
18 thru 25. Women still do not register." How can that, coupled with
differences in performance standards, possibly be consistent with the
Defense Department's stated agenda "to provide a level, gender-neutral
playing field"?
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Women in Combat
9:14 AM
No comments
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment