Veteran Sergeant wrote:Here's the thing, and I'm very hesitant to dive into this argument, but the main problem most people have with females serving in line units is just basic physiology, not psychological or skill based. The average woman just cannot carry the same load, lift the same amount, or maintain the same level of load bearing endurance as the average man. There will be the armchair naysayer who talks about how modern warfare is mostly mechanized, but that person has never been to Afghanistan, lol. The best female Marines I knew when I was on active duty were only as competent at necessary infantry skills as my most mediocre of male Marines. Women can do plenty of jobs in the military with equal skill to males, but line combat units have certain physical requirements. And a 130-140 pound woman isn't going to be able to carry her share of an infantry squad's load, won't be able to carry/drag a full sized wounded male, etc. That makes them liabilities. It isn't about being able to shoot, or able to withstand the rigors of combat. There is so much more to combat than simply being there and returning fire.

This is before you explore readiness issues like pregnancy and the subsequent maternity leave and the time period new mothers are given to get back into PFT shape. All three statuses make a military member non-deployable. I was attached to a unit once that had a female who had been pregnant twice in three years. You can imagine how much training she had actually engaged in with the rest of the unit, lol.

I'm fine with the idea of putting women into roles where they might be exposed to combat. Properly trained, women can operate most vehicle mounted crew served weapons, or shoot back out of a vehicle with a rifle. But the infantry platoon is not a place to play social experiment. Those guys depend on one another for their lives, and if women are going to be introduced into combat units, they need to be held to the exact same physical standards as their male counterparts, which includes readiness (meaning they'd have to give up reproductive rights to stay in such a unit; a male Marine wouldn't be allowed to be on Light Duty for upwards of a year) something which does not happen now, at least in the US military.

im2randomghgh wrote:
On a related note, something most feminists seem to overlook with pay for physical labour jobs is that a 225 pound man who carries more crates (for this example) per shift than we can count is more productive than a 125 pound woman would be doing the same job, assuming these crates are heavy burdens. Are you going to give more pay to the more productive worker?

Although the physiological advantages of height, strength and endurance are not to be discounted when talking about the effectiveness of soldiers. And the fact that militaries are almost exclusively men means that it isn't so much an advantage for men as a disadvantage for women.

Joey wrote:

im2randomghgh wrote:
On a related note, something most feminists seem to overlook with pay for physical labour jobs is that a 225 pound man who carries more crates (for this example) per shift than we can count is more productive than a 125 pound woman would be doing the same job, assuming these crates are heavy burdens. Are you going to give more pay to the more productive worker?

Although the physiological advantages of height, strength and endurance are not to be discounted when talking about the effectiveness of soldiers. And the fact that militaries are almost exclusively men means that it isn't so much an advantage for men as a disadvantage for women.

I used to work in a supermarket and plenty of times I was the only guy on shift and therefore the only one who had the physical strength to actually do half the jobs required.
Anyway women in the military is irrelavent. I think SOB could be scrapped and people are free to disagree.

Lynata wrote:Oh boy, here we go again. I reckon it'll take another two to three generations at least until the last vestiges of the medieval Church's efforts to suppress the role of women have been removed.

Yes, men on average are physically stronger. Women on average are better shots, better drivers and better pilots. I'd say that all of these things are important for frontline combat. Ranged weapon accuracy perhaps even moreso than brute strength, at least in these times. And please, nobody act as if every soldier on the front, including tank drivers and whatnot, would carry a 50 kilo backpack all the time. That doesn't even apply to all patrols. Newsflash: the Silver Star was awarded to a female U.S. soldier who killed a number of insurgents whilst storming a trench whilst on patrol. But apparently, according to some people in this thread, she's a lousy soldier and shouldn't be allowed to serve on the front lines, because after all she's a girl, and that's all people have to know to judge someone's value as a warrior. Mankind sure likes to put people into categories; makes everything easier.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/jun/04/TDOPIN02-5-myths-about-women-in-combat-ar-1084330/

But hey, if your country prefers segregation and is too afraid of this, feel free to send your female volunteers away. I'm sure there's a number of industrialized nations whose military would welcome them with open arms, judging by actual qualifications and not by some general biological denominator like gender. And the list of these countries seems to grow with every passing year.

For the record, though, I do advocate the application of same-score requirements. Equality means equality. In position, qualification and salary.