Article: Is the US military man enough for women on the frontline?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

General Patton must be spinning in his grave

From the Guardian Newspaper

Within the next few months, the US marines will usher women into roles which, for the entire 236-year history of the corps, have been held exclusively by men. The announcement by General James Amos marks yet another milestone in the advancements of women in the military – advancements which, until this past decade, have been largely nonexistent.

That this announcement even qualifies as a milestone is indicative of a larger problem as far as gender equality within the armed forces is concerned. There should be no question that American women are entirely able to serve closer to the frontlines – and even on them. In Canada, Australia, Israel and New Zealand, they are already allowed to serve alongside men. Canadian women, in fact, have undertaken combat duties since 1989. And despite being denied combat roles, women in the US military have even been awarded silver stars – the third-highest combat military decoration – for their performance: 19-year-old Monica Lin Brown, in 2008, became the first such recipient after she saved the lives of fellow soldiers following a roadside bomb attack in Iraq.

The real question is not whether women have the capacity to serve to a greater extent, it is whether the US military, both in its policies and its prejudices, has the capacity for them to do so. Since the American revolution, women have toiled alongside men in America's armed forces. Their jobs, however, remained entirely outside the realm of combat. Women in earlier wars served as nurses, civil service pilots, cooks and mechanics, among other positions. Since 2001, the roles of women in the military have changed. More than 225,000 women have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and women now comprise 15% of America's armed forces. Many of these women served unofficially in combat roles. Women in the navy have, for the first time, served aboard submarines. An estimated 144 women fighting in these two wars have died.

Historically, the limitations imposed on women have been justified by top brass for a single primary reason: a woman's physical and psychological stamina simply could not withstand the rigours of direct combat. But today, even the department of defence has recognised – at least on paper – the archaic nature of this presumption. A recent report from the office of the undersecretary of defence recommended "the elimination of gender-restricted assignment". That report also mandated the development of "gender-neutral physical standards" so that women could be evaluated head-to-head with their male colleagues. In conjunction with that report, Pentagon officials earlier this year announced plans to open an estimated 14,000 additional military jobs to women – many of them of a more dangerous nature than what is allowed now (but top brass stopped short of permitted women to serve in combat, offering as rationale little more than that they continued to study the prospect).

This week's two-pronged marine corps announcement is of a similar nature: women (who comprise a mere 10% of the marines) can now participate in its gruelling infantry officer course, a three-month programme that's the necessary precursor to joining the infantry. But there's a catch: once women complete the programme, they still won't actually be allowed to join the infantry. Another 40 women will be assigned to roles previously held exclusively by men. But again, none of those roles will entail combat service. No doubt, any advancements in the regulations that govern women in the military is cause for celebration. But the sluggishness of the Pentagon's progress is difficult to understand, and also incredibly frustrating especially when, unofficially, women have increasingly found themselves in the very combat roles they're barred from. "Women are being shot at, are being killed, are being attached to these combat arms units," Anu Bhagwati, executive director of the Service Women's Action Network, told the BBC. "The policy has to catch up to reality."

Before it does, however, the military would be wise to make additional changes to accommodate any enhanced role for women in the armed services. For decades important issues that pertain to women in the context of military service – sexual assault, reactions to trauma and compensation, among others – have not been assigned the attention they both require and deserve. An astounding 3,192 women reported a sexual assault in 2011, according to a Pentagon report issued last year. Even worse? That figure is only 13.5% of the total assaults on women that likely occurred. Regardless of combat exposure, recent studies have concluded that deployed women in Iraq and Afghanistan are more than twice as vulnerable to post-traumatic stress disorder than their male peers. Women are also much less likely to qualify for disability benefits related to physical injury or trauma. Why? Because "officially" they aren't exposed to combat.

No doubt, thousands of enlisted women would tell the US military that they're more than ready to serve their country in the same capacity as men. Whether the military is ready for women, however, remains an open question.

**Nicorex**

I have no question that Women can and could serve in a combat capacity. I still dont want them too. I admit its a bit old fashioned but I belive that Women should be protected.

**Chongara**

Nicorex wrote:I belive that Women should be protected.

Why? What is your rational basis for this? Please explain the underlying justification and how it leads to that conclusion. I would also be appreciative if you could address some of the more common or obvious arguments that might used to try and prove that wrong. Finally if you explain a bit about why you think women are capable/fit for combat and how this forms a consistent view with your reasons behind the quoted statement that'd be just super!

Thanks.

**mattyrm**

Chicks shouldn't be on the front line.

My sexism no doubt doesn't sit well with some, but the simple fact is that men and women are not the same physically. Women can outstrip men mentally, but not physically. If you take a man and a woman of identical height and weight, the guy will still be 25% stronger than the woman, that's about the size of it.

Ergo, they can do almost any job in the military, but not be the tip of the spear.

They can be just as good Firefighters or Cops or pretty much anything, but no way front line combat soldiers simply because you can plan pretty much all the eventuality's in jobs like Firefighting, but not in war.

The plans only good till the shooting starts.

I was once stood on a rooftop in Afghanistan getting engaged by Taliban in about ten different locations, I could only see half of them, the air was alive with lead and we had three guys down with gunshot wounds due to a machine gun being set up to our rear thanks to the ancient tunnel system and a building not being correctly cleared. Half a section of lads grabbed them and started hauling ass towards the evac point while we tried to keep the enemies heads down, but there wasnt enough firepower for the job, and half the enemy positions were well hidden so we couldnt have managed it anyway.

I remember vividly watching them run with blokes tossed onto their backs, with all kinds of kit on, and seeing the ground around them erupt in puffs of dust as the rounds hit home all around them and just thinking "feth me, how did nobody else get hit?!" followed very quickly by "its a good job the lads are fit"

The day a woman keeps up with me on a run (I jog with my extremely athletic 105lb missus and absolutely destroy her) carries a bergen further or beats me in a fist fight Ill re-evaluate my position.

Women are awesome and excellent and professional soldiers, I would heartily recommend them for almost any job, but not the speartip. If they have less strength and endurance, im sorry, but this is one occasion when lacking that 20% might get someone killed.

But lets be honest, 99% of women will agree with me. Its only the naive/militant lesbians who think that what I have just said is unreasonable right?

**Frazzled**

Chongara wrote:
Nicorex wrote:I belive that Women should be protected.

Why? What is your rational basis for this? Please explain the underlying justification and how it leads to that conclusion. I would also be appreciative if you could address some of the more common or obvious arguments that might used to try and prove that wrong. Finally if you explain a bit about why you think women are capable/fit for combat and how this forms a consistent view with your reasons behind the quoted statement that'd be just super!

Thanks.

Very simple. If women realize they can kick our butts too, then we are doomed. DOOMED I tells ya!

**AustonT**

Screw protecting women, my concern will always be simple capability. If a woman can carry the same kit, plus extra ammo for the MG, extra food, At-4 etc like every other dude in the squad. The more power to her.
She also need to be able to provide aid to her squad mates. I wiegh 215lbs. With just my weapon, helmet, body armor, and basic load I'm tipping out 250-260lbs. Drop-ready closer to 300 lbs out the door. If I'm wounded and she can't drag me to safety she is a detriment to our team and a liability to me.
The physical limitation of women is a good and continuing reason to keep many of them out of combat arms. There needs to be a unisex physical standard to qualify for a frontline MOS. Because here are equally useless males. With that hurdle in place I welcome the gentler sex to the dirty, disgusting, dangerous, and wonderful world of killing things.

**Frazzled**

mattyrm wrote: Chicks shouldn't be on the front line.

My sexism no doubt doesn't sit well with some, but the simple fact is that men and women are not the same physically. Women can outstrip men mentally, but not physically. If you take a man and a woman of identical height and weight, the guy will still be 25% stronger than the woman, that's about the size of it.

Ergo, they can do almost any job in the military, but not be the tip of the spear.

They can be just as good Firefighters or Cops or pretty much anything, but no way front line combat soldiers simply because you can plan pretty much all the eventuality's in jobs like Firefighting, but not in war.

The plans only good till the shooting starts.

I was once stood on a rooftop in Afghanistan getting engaged by Taliban in about ten different locations, I could only see half of them, the air was alive with lead and we had three guys down with gunshot wounds due to a machine gun being set up to our rear thanks to the ancient tunnel system and a building not being correctly cleared. Half a section of lads grabbed them and started hauling ass towards the evac point while we tried to keep the enemies heads down, but there wasnt enough firepower for the job, and half the enemy positions were well hidden so we couldnt have managed it anyway.

I remember vividly watching them run with blokes tossed onto their backs, with all kinds of kit on, and seeing the ground around them erupt in puffs of dust as the rounds hit home all around them and just thinking "feth me, how did nobody else get hit?!" followed very quickly by "its a good job the lads are fit"

The day a woman keeps up with me on a run (I jog with my extremely athletic 105lb missus and absolutely destroy her) carries a bergen further or beats me in a fist fight Ill re-evaluate my position.

Women are awesome and excellent and professional soldiers, I would heartily recommend them for almost any job, but not the speartip. If they have less strength and endurance, im sorry, but this is one occasion when lacking that 20% might get someone killed.

But lets be honest, 99% of women will agree with me. Its only the naive/militant lesbians who think that what I have just said is unreasonable right?

How about everything but?
Artillery, air, everything but squeezing the trigger on a rifle?

**purplefood**

Frazzled wrote:
mattyrm wrote: Chicks shouldn't be on the front line.

My sexism no doubt doesn't sit well with some, but the simple fact is that men and women are not the same physically. Women can outstrip men mentally, but not physically. If you take a man and a woman of identical height and weight, the guy will still be 25% stronger than the woman, that's about the size of it.

Ergo, they can do almost any job in the military, but not be the tip of the spear.

They can be just as good Firefighters or Cops or pretty much anything, but no way front line combat soldiers simply because you can plan pretty much all the eventuality's in jobs like Firefighting, but not in war.

The plans only good till the shooting starts.

I was once stood on a rooftop in Afghanistan getting engaged by Taliban in about ten different locations, I could only see half of them, the air was alive with lead and we had three guys down with gunshot wounds due to a machine gun being set up to our rear thanks to the ancient tunnel system and a building not being correctly cleared. Half a section of lads grabbed them and started hauling ass towards the evac point while we tried to keep the enemies heads down, but there wasnt enough firepower for the job, and half the enemy positions were well hidden so we couldnt have managed it anyway.

I remember vividly watching them run with blokes tossed onto their backs, with all kinds of kit on, and seeing the ground around them erupt in puffs of dust as the rounds hit home all around them and just thinking "feth me, how did nobody else get hit?!" followed very quickly by "its a good job the lads are fit"

The day a woman keeps up with me on a run (I jog with my extremely athletic 105lb missus and absolutely destroy her) carries a bergen further or beats me in a fist fight Ill re-evaluate my position.

Women are awesome and excellent and professional soldiers, I would heartily recommend them for almost any job, but not the speartip. If they have less strength and endurance, im sorry, but this is one occasion when lacking that 20% might get someone killed.

But lets be honest, 99% of women will agree with me. Its only the naive/militant lesbians who think that what I have just said is unreasonable right?

How about everything but?
Artillery, air, everything but squeezing the trigger on a rifle?

That would seem fair...
People are rejected every day from the armed forces on account of various reasons.
Physical requirements are another one of these reasons...

**mattyrm**

Frazzled wrote:
How about everything but?
Artillery, air, everything but squeezing the trigger on a rifle?

Yeah that's fine. Basically Id only ban them from Top Tier Infantry and SF, I reckon they would struggle with some other stuff as well mind, but its workable.

**Nicorex**

Chongara wrote:
Nicorex wrote:I belive that Women should be protected.

Why? What is your rational basis for this? Please explain the underlying justification and how it leads to that conclusion. I would also be appreciative if you could address some of the more common or obvious arguments that might used to try and prove that wrong. Finally if you explain a bit about why you think women are capable/fit for combat and how this forms a consistent view with your reasons behind the quoted statement that'd be just super!

Thanks.

Why?? Because having been born in the South and raised with a certain set of values. I belive that women should be protected and watched over and kept from harm both Pysical and Mental. Like I said its old fashioned.. but its how I think. So no actuall rational basis. Im sure there are some circumstances where you can not and should not prevent a woman getting harmed, but I cant thnk of that many off the top of my head.

Now Matty does make some valid points about the pysical diffrences between men and women. But that is not always true. He may be a very fit and strong man but not every man is and I bet there have been many occasions where a woman has had to save a man and done a fine job of it. I have met woman that could bench press .. well me actually... I would still stand between her and a mugger. Just who I am.

Why are woman capiable and fit to serve in a combat capacity? Because they have and do already.

Your Welcome.

**Chongara**

purplefood wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
mattyrm wrote: Chicks shouldn't be on the front line.

My sexism no doubt doesn't sit well with some, but the simple fact is that men and women are not the same physically. Women can outstrip men mentally, but not physically. If you take a man and a woman of identical height and weight, the guy will still be 25% stronger than the woman, that's about the size of it.

Ergo, they can do almost any job in the military, but not be the tip of the spear.

They can be just as good Firefighters or Cops or pretty much anything, but no way front line combat soldiers simply because you can plan pretty much all the eventuality's in jobs like Firefighting, but not in war.

The plans only good till the shooting starts.

I was once stood on a rooftop in Afghanistan getting engaged by Taliban in about ten different locations, I could only see half of them, the air was alive with lead and we had three guys down with gunshot wounds due to a machine gun being set up to our rear thanks to the ancient tunnel system and a building not being correctly cleared. Half a section of lads grabbed them and started hauling ass towards the evac point while we tried to keep the enemies heads down, but there wasnt enough firepower for the job, and half the enemy positions were well hidden so we couldnt have managed it anyway.

I remember vividly watching them run with blokes tossed onto their backs, with all kinds of kit on, and seeing the ground around them erupt in puffs of dust as the rounds hit home all around them and just thinking "feth me, how did nobody else get hit?!" followed very quickly by "its a good job the lads are fit"

The day a woman keeps up with me on a run (I jog with my extremely athletic 105lb missus and absolutely destroy her) carries a bergen further or beats me in a fist fight Ill re-evaluate my position.

Women are awesome and excellent and professional soldiers, I would heartily recommend them for almost any job, but not the speartip. If they have less strength and endurance, im sorry, but this is one occasion when lacking that 20% might get someone killed.

But lets be honest, 99% of women will agree with me. Its only the naive/militant lesbians who think that what I have just said is unreasonable right?

How about everything but?
Artillery, air, everything but squeezing the trigger on a rifle?

That would seem fair...
People are rejected every day from the armed forces on account of various reasons.
Physical requirements are another one of these reasons...

Then set physical requirements. You know, actual real observable metrics. "Able to run for Y hours, at X MPH carrying Z KGs of Load". If a woman can meet those requirements, why not let her do the job. Clearly if she can meet the requirements her being a woman isn't relevant to the physical requirements by virtue of her meeting the physical requirements. Similar to how (already) a man who doesn't meet the requirements isn't fit to do the job just because he's a man. Seriously, I'm a dude about the only combat role I'd be suited to is "Human Shield" and even then I'd a heavy one.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Matty, fair point about frontline combat in a high intensity place like Afghanistan, but I remember my Northern Ireland days and my mistrust of all things female for reasons which are obvious. So there is a role for women in some sort of fighting capacity.

Back to the original point about women in the frontline, I may be a dreamer but I hope the day comes when we don't have anybody in the frontline, be they male or female.
I can just imagine Frazz saying 'people like you are the reason why the world is a dangerous place!'

**purplefood**

Chongara wrote:
purplefood wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
mattyrm wrote: Chicks shouldn't be on the front line.

My sexism no doubt doesn't sit well with some, but the simple fact is that men and women are not the same physically. Women can outstrip men mentally, but not physically. If you take a man and a woman of identical height and weight, the guy will still be 25% stronger than the woman, that's about the size of it.

Ergo, they can do almost any job in the military, but not be the tip of the spear.

They can be just as good Firefighters or Cops or pretty much anything, but no way front line combat soldiers simply because you can plan pretty much all the eventuality's in jobs like Firefighting, but not in war.

The plans only good till the shooting starts.

I was once stood on a rooftop in Afghanistan getting engaged by Taliban in about ten different locations, I could only see half of them, the air was alive with lead and we had three guys down with gunshot wounds due to a machine gun being set up to our rear thanks to the ancient tunnel system and a building not being correctly cleared. Half a section of lads grabbed them and started hauling ass towards the evac point while we tried to keep the enemies heads down, but there wasnt enough firepower for the job, and half the enemy positions were well hidden so we couldnt have managed it anyway.

I remember vividly watching them run with blokes tossed onto their backs, with all kinds of kit on, and seeing the ground around them erupt in puffs of dust as the rounds hit home all around them and just thinking "feth me, how did nobody else get hit?!" followed very quickly by "its a good job the lads are fit"

The day a woman keeps up with me on a run (I jog with my extremely athletic 105lb missus and absolutely destroy her) carries a bergen further or beats me in a fist fight Ill re-evaluate my position.

Women are awesome and excellent and professional soldiers, I would heartily recommend them for almost any job, but not the speartip. If they have less strength and endurance, im sorry, but this is one occasion when lacking that 20% might get someone killed.

But lets be honest, 99% of women will agree with me. Its only the naive/militant lesbians who think that what I have just said is unreasonable right?

How about everything but?
Artillery, air, everything but squeezing the trigger on a rifle?

That would seem fair...
People are rejected every day from the armed forces on account of various reasons.
Physical requirements are another one of these reasons...

Then set physical requirements. You know, actual real observable metrics. "Able to run for Y hours, at X MPH carrying Z KGs of Load". If a woman can meet those requirements, why not let her do the job. Clearly if she can meet the requirements her being a woman isn't relevant to the physical requirements by virtue of her meeting the physical requirements. Similar to how (already) a man who doesn't meet the requirements isn't fit to do the job just because he's a man. Seriously, I'm a dude about the only combat role I'd be suited to is "Human Shield" and even then I'd a heavy one.

That seems like a fairly sensible idea...

**Zyllos**

If the women in question can perform to the same standards as a man with no bias, then I see no issue.

But with this policy, this means maybe less than 5%, if not even less, of the military will be made of women due to the stringent requirements. No reason to have another solider suffer due to a policy that was scaled back due to bias. But this also has to mean the military needs to grow up and stand for the American female solider that is currently serving as the recent string of sexual assault and rape cases are not being handled fairly. But must also apply to women themselves.

**Chongara**

Nicorex wrote:
Why?? Because having been born in the South and raised with a certain set of values. I belive that women should be protected and watched over and kept from harm both Pysical and Mental. Like I said its old fashioned.. but its how I think. So no actuall rational basis. Im sure there are some circumstances where you can not and should not prevent a woman getting harmed, but I cant thnk of that many off the top of my head.

Well. I'm certain any woman would be grateful she has your beliefs with no rational basis to shield her from mental harm. Good to see chivalry is alive well.

**notprop**

We're miles ahead in our preparation for full integration of the sexes in the UK.

All of our armoured vehicles have tea urns already built in, sooner or later they will have to be staffed by mature ladies called Beryl dressed in camo tabards. As soon as the budget can stretch to rich tea bisuits and french fancies I can see the Ladies going over the top with the men.

Wat?

**Jumpin Jesus**

I honestly dont have a problem with this. If someone REALLY wants to serve there country and do a dangerous job, then they should be able to do it. I just dont understand why it took us that long to finally integrate women. xP

**Nicorex**

Chongara wrote:

Spoiler:

Nicorex wrote:
Why?? Because having been born in the South and raised with a certain set of values. I belive that women should be protected and watched over and kept from harm both Pysical and Mental. Like I said its old fashioned.. but its how I think. So no actuall rational basis. Im sure there are some circumstances where you can not and should not prevent a woman getting harmed, but I cant thnk of that many off the top of my head.

Well. I'm certain any woman would be grateful she has your beliefs with no rational basis to shield her from mental harm. Good to see chivalry is alive well.

What I want to know is why you seem to need a rational basis for it? Do you belive in God? Whats your rational basis for that? See how that comes off.

notprop wrote:We're miles ahead in our preparation for full integration of the sexes in the UK.

All of our armoured vehicles have tea urns already built in, sooner or later they will have to be staffed by mature ladies called Beryl dressed in camo tabards. As soon as the budget can stretch to rich tea bisuits and french fancies I can see the Ladies going over the top with the men.
Wat?

wouldn't your AFV's have to be like 4 times bigger then to fit the tea trolly?

**AustonT**

Jumpin Jesus wrote:I just dont understand why it took us that long to finally integrate women. xP

Human physiology.

**Chongara**

Nicorex wrote:
What I want to know is why you seem to need a rational basis for it? Do you belive in God? Whats your rational basis for that? See how that comes off.

Which god are we talking here? Zeus, Dhunia, Quetzalcoatl, Pelor, Anubis, Althena? Please clarify a bit.

**LordofHats**

There should be accepted physical requirements for combat units. I am not one to speak to the specifics of what they should be, but anyone who meets them shouldn't be denied the ability to serve in front line combat simply because of their sex.

If there are other practical/cultural reasons thats a different issue to be addressed. At the end of the day physical requirements are no more a burden on women than men in my mind. If you meet them you meet them.

Zeus, Dhunia, Quetzalcoatl, Pelor, Anubis, Althena?

I'm personally a huge fan of Quetzalcoatl. Them Aztecs knew how to name their deities

**Cheesecat**

I'm OK with women fighting in the frontline so long as there's unisex requirements.

**IcyCool**

Cheesecat wrote:I'm OK with women fighting in the frontline so long as there's unisex requirements.

I'm a bit confused here, so maybe some of you gents in the military can clarify for me. Don't we already have physical capability requirements for combat troops? And if so, why do those requirements suddenly need to be more stringent with the inclusion of women?

**Melissia**

Frazzled wrote:Very simple. If women realize they can kick our butts too, then we are doomed. DOOMED I tells ya!

As you would know from your wife eh?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:
Jumpin Jesus wrote:I just dont understand why it took us that long to finally integrate women. xP

Human physiology.

And the common person's complete and utter lack of understanding of it.

**AustonT**

IcyCool wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:I'm OK with women fighting in the frontline so long as there's unisex requirements.

I'm a bit confused here, so maybe some of you gents in the military can clarify for me. Don't we already have physical capability requirements for combat troops? And if so, why do those requirements suddenly need to be more stringent with the inclusion of women?

There are general physical fitness requirements. There are separate standards for women and men. The womens scale is a joke of epic proportions. There is no physical capabilities test for job qualification.

**Sasori**

AustonT wrote:
IcyCool wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:I'm OK with women fighting in the frontline so long as there's unisex requirements.

I'm a bit confused here, so maybe some of you gents in the military can clarify for me. Don't we already have physical capability requirements for combat troops? And if so, why do those requirements suddenly need to be more stringent with the inclusion of women?

There are general physical fitness requirements. There are separate standards for women and men. The womens scale is a joke of epic proportions. There is no physical capabilities test for job qualification.

AustonT has the right of it. The PT test for woman is not even close to what is required for men. For instance, I remember the Minimum score on the Run for an 18-21 year old Male, would grant a Female, maximum points on their run. They also have to do less pushups, that males do. I think if they want to start combat integration, then they should bump the females PT test up to the male standards, and there would probably have to be a minimum Height/weigh requirement.

**Bromsy**

Sasori wrote:
AustonT wrote:
IcyCool wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:I'm OK with women fighting in the frontline so long as there's unisex requirements.

I'm a bit confused here, so maybe some of you gents in the military can clarify for me. Don't we already have physical capability requirements for combat troops? And if so, why do those requirements suddenly need to be more stringent with the inclusion of women?

There are general physical fitness requirements. There are separate standards for women and men. The womens scale is a joke of epic proportions. There is no physical capabilities test for job qualification.

AustonT has the right of it. The PT test for woman is not even close to what is required for men. For instance, I remember the Minimum score on the Run for an 18-21 year old Male, would grant a Female, maximum points on their run. They also have to do less pushups, that males do. I think if they want to start combat integration, then they should bump the females PT test up to the male standards, and there would probably have to be a minimum Height/weigh requirement.

For the Army at least, the minimum standard for a male in the 17-21 bracket is 42 push ups in 2 minutes, 53 sit ups in 2 minutes, and a 15:54 two mile run time.
For females it's 19 push ups, 53 sit ups, and an 18:54 run time. Their max score for pushups and the run is 42 and 1536 respectively, or just about the minimum expected of males, you'll note.
Plus their standards drop off more sharply with age than males.

**Melissia**

They also need to continue (or in some cases, start) developing equipment and training that is designed for women.

Poorly fitting uniforms and improperly designed gear leads to fatigue

**Hazardous Harry**

Sasori wrote:
AustonT wrote:
IcyCool wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:I'm OK with women fighting in the frontline so long as there's unisex requirements.

I'm a bit confused here, so maybe some of you gents in the military can clarify for me. Don't we already have physical capability requirements for combat troops? And if so, why do those requirements suddenly need to be more stringent with the inclusion of women?

There are general physical fitness requirements. There are separate standards for women and men. The womens scale is a joke of epic proportions. There is no physical capabilities test for job qualification.

AustonT has the right of it. The PT test for woman is not even close to what is required for men. For instance, I remember the Minimum score on the Run for an 18-21 year old Male, would grant a Female, maximum points on their run. They also have to do less pushups, that males do. I think if they want to start combat integration, then they should bump the females PT test up to the male standards, and there would probably have to be a minimum Height/weigh requirement.

There is a difference between male and female requirements, but the article here was supporting a gender-neutral requirement if we are looking at putting them in combat roles.

Personally I have no issue with this. If a gender-neutral standard means that less women will be able to pass than men then that's just physiology. The fact is that currently there a women that are more than capable of taking part in combat duties, and the restriction against them is not for physical reasons.

**Chongara**

Sasori wrote:

AustonT has the right of it. The PT test for woman is not even close to what is required for men. For instance, I remember the Minimum score on the Run for an 18-21 year old Male, would grant a Female, maximum points on their run. They also have to do less pushups, that males do. I think if they want to start combat integration, then they should bump the females PT test up to the male standards, and there would probably have to be a minimum Height/weigh requirement.

Height/Weight aren't particularly relevant. About the only circumstances where height or weight are really an advantage are times you're fighting with things like swords, knives or fists. Once you've got anything that adds as much reach as spear, let alone a firearm it really isn't nearly as big a deal.

Honestly the masculine traits that people focus on as making supposedly clear and vastly superior to women in combat on some sort of fundamental level are body Mass and raw Strength. These are hardly game changers in ancient battles, let alone modern ones. The really important things: Endurance, Pain & Stress Tolerance, Cooperation, and good decision making are hardly strongly divided by sex.