Women In Combat: 80% Does NOT Equal 100%.

M2RB:  Goo Goo Dolls

I'm not the one who broke you
I'm not the one you should fear
We got to move you, darlin

Demi Moore in GI Jane

If women want to serve in combat roles on the front lines, then they should have to meet the same physical strength requirements that men must...and I say this as a woman.  I don't believe that men are superior to women, but I do think that, in most cases, men are stronger than women.  Why should this matter, you ask?  Well, if you were in a  the proverbial foxhole or injured in a burning building in the midst of a firefight, who would you rather be there if you needed to be carried away from the danger zone?

This IS not a sexist position.   It is no different than, say, which doctor would you rather perform your heart or brain surgery - the one in perfect health or the doctor with an advanced case of Parkinson's Disease.  Remember, one shaky slip and you could be DEAD.

Many feminists believe that men and women are equal and the same.  I, too, am a feminist, but I don't believe that statement can be made on a generalised, blanket level.  Obviously, men cannot have babies (unless they have had a sex change and retained their female reproductive organs).  Most women do not possess the physical strength of most men.  It is farcical, fantastical and delusional to believe otherwise.  Without a doubt, Demi Moore, either in GI Jane or today in a bikini could probably beat Pee-Wee Herman to a bloody pulp...provided, she isn't on whatever drugs she's been taking for the past few years (tragedy).  

Can a woman kill a man without any weapon at all?  Yeppers, and I covered a case of such the other day when a woman suffocated her boyfriend with here super-duper-duperest breasties, but there is a reason that women's preferred method of killing has been poison through out history.  In modern history, women do use weapons like guns, but they rarely if ever use their hands, other body parts, or implements that require physical strength.  On the other hand, men very often strangle use ligatures, break necks, or beat others to a bloody, pulpy death "with their bare hands."  Those are just the facts of life.  Ted Bundy killed dozens of women with a smile and his strength.  Sometimes, he used a tyre iron, but he never (to my knowledge of reported causes of death for Bundy cases), never used a gun.  He didn't have to and, if you study most serial killer cases, they didn't either.

  

The claim of the women's rights movement was that women were equal to men.  They are....under the law.  This is true of all persons - except for people like those named David Gregory and not former Army Specialist Adam Meckler - regardless of gender, religion, race, national origin, sexual orientation, etc.   Is there anyone who actually believes that Thomas Jefferson truly meant that all men and women are equal when he wrote in the Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."?  No, and neither did the other signatories...and it has nothing to do with women's equality, slavery or any other social condition. 

Jefferson - and the signatories - meant that "the Creator" created all men equally, as human beings.  They meant that "the Creator" did not create classes or castes of humans.  In other words, King George III was no better than the lowliest of blacksmiths in a rural part of the Colonies.  Verily, none of them expressed any belief that I would be the equal to Tiger Woods on the golf course, RGIII on the turf, Cristiano Ronaldo on the field, or Sachin Tendulkar on the pitch.  Yet, in the United States, all of us - even foreign nationals on American soil - are equal under the law.

If women want to serve in actual combat roles, then they should have to go through the exact same physical rigours and training.  Currently, this is NOT the case. 

In order to enlist into the military, future service members must pass the Physical Fitness Test (PFT).  Let's look at some of the requirements and how they differ for men and women, in some cases.

The Army PFT requires recruits to complete a 15:12 2-mile run or better.  The Rangers prefers a 2 miler in under 13 minutes.  For women in the Marine Corps, the PFT spots them 3:22 minutes off the top for the 17-26 age group, 2:30 minutes in the 27-31 group, 2:36 in the 32-36 group, etc., for the 3-mile run.   The Navy requires a time under 12:51 for males under age 30 and under 15:26 for women under 30.  (I've included all the PRT requirements for men and women below for purposes of comparison and education.)

Next, we can compare the unequal requirements for men and women with regard to push-ups and sit-ups.  While at least 80 are preferred, Army Rangers, who are only men at present, must perform a minimum of 49 push-ups and 59 sit-ups in two minutes.   In the Navy, however,  men under 30 must perform at least 29 push-ups and 38 sit-ups in under 2 minutes, while women the same age must complete 23 push-ups and 32 sit-ups.   Another few examples of the differences in the Navy PFT are that men under 30 must swim 500 yards in less than 12 minutes, while women, under 30, must swim 400 yards in the same time.  Women only have to perform at 80% of the level required of men.  Sorry, my girlfriends, performing at 80% does not represent "equality."

Now, if a woman is going into support services, intelligence, etc, then I don't really have a problem with her only performing at 80% because physical strength - as opposed to overall physical health - is not make or break for her or the lives of her fellow soldiers.   I have NO doubt whatsoever that Lynndie England could have beaten the shit out of Bradley Manning...any day, anywhere, and anyhow.  In contrast, if men and women are equal and both are going to be in combat, then there should be no differences in performance requirements.

I remember seeing a television ad back in the 1990s (I looked for it online, but couldn't find it) that featured a young boy jumping hurdles on a track.   I don't recall the music, specifically, but it was in the same vein as the theme song from "Chariots of Fire."  As the music majestically played,  the boy sailed over the hurdles, gaining confidence, smiling more broadly with each "victory" over a hurdle.  Then, all of a sudden, the loud, screeching of tyres punctured the sublime dream of a child conquering challenging obstacles.  The camera point of view changes from that of a proud parent/teacher/politician cheering in the stands to that of a surprised, shocked, frightened and unprepared child.  Why?

Because these hurdles...

 

aren't real life...

 

The combat zone is no place for Affirmative Action.  The enemy is not "child-sized" and neither is the 150-pound gear pack.

Just as lowering testing scores in schools and eligibility requirements for university and graduate schools harm students, who find that they cannot compete in the academic environment and are unprepared for “real life,” making 80% for women the equivalent of 100% for men in the military relative to physical requirements endangers both women and their male colleagues in the combat zone.   The field of combat, especially, is no place for affirmative action.

 

Finally, no self-respecting feminist or male supporter of women should EVER demand that standards for men be lowered to the 80%-that-counts-as-100%-for-women physical strength requirements.

  

“Weakening-down” the military in order to accommodate ANYONE should be an anathema to EVERYONE.  

There is no “right” to serve in the military.  The military can legally discriminate and even curb basic civil liberties such as free speech.  Men, who haven’t met military requirements, have been barred from the armed services for centuries.  Ever heard of 4-F?  How about "4-C" - the distinction given to Japanese-Americans during the first years of World War II?  "4-C" meant "enemy of the state" and remember that Medal of Honour winners like the late Senator Daniel Inouye, George Sakato, and Rodney Yano were declared 4-C and prohibited from service until 1943.  Discriminatory?  Absolutely, but President Roosevelt and the military had every legal right to discriminate, as repugnant as it was, because law controlling the armed forces is not the same as that pertaining to civilians.

To become a “Top Gun” jet pilot, for example, one must be a college graduate, meet the physical, psychological and intellectual requirements for admission to officer training school, pass a Federal background check, score a certain percentage on an aptitude test, master subjects such as meteorology, aeronautic theory, principles of flight, etc., become expert in flying - both in simulators on the ground and in planes in the air - pass a rigorous physical exam, succeed at flight assignments, rank at a certain level of proficiency, and “deal coolly with the stress of in-flight emergencies and the added stress of flying under combat conditions,” etc.

The Navy and Air Force can ban a blind African-American lesbian from becoming an Air Force pilot.  Is this discriminatory?  Of course not since sight is fundamentally necessary to function at the level required of a “Top Gun” pilot, including 20/20 vision.  An Army interpreter/translator must be able to translate between English and a foreign language.  Is it discriminatory of the Army to bar an Hispanic transvestite, who can only speak English, from being an interpreter/translator until the applicant can speak another language?  Of course not since being bilingual, at least, is a self-evident part of the job description. If a man or woman cannot meet certain qualifications, it is not discrimination to prohibit him or her from serving in a particular role.  So, then, why shouldn’t all of those that serve in the field of combat meet basic requirements and why should those qualifications be anything less than optimal? 

A woman must possess the strength required of a man in combat because the enemy is, generally, as strong as the man.   We’ve come a long way, baby.  That’s true.  Whether we are strong enough to physically fight in combat should be determined by the same standards used to certify men.  If we demand less or special treatment, then we not only have a long way still to go, we should stop it with the taunt that “We can do anything a man can do!”

“What difference does it make” that the military requires women to perform at 80%?  Everything…on the battlefield. 

 

Navy Male & Female Physical Readiness Test (PRT) Charts

Males: 17-19 Years of Age
Performance Level	Points	Curl-ups	Push-ups	1.5-mile run
Maximum	100	109	92	8:15
Outstanding	90	102	86	9:00
Excellent	75	90	76	9:45
Good	60	62	51	11:00
Satisfactory	45	50	42	12:30

Females: 17-19 Years of Age
Performance Level	Points	Curl-ups	Push-ups	1.5-mile run
Maximum	100	109	51	9:29
Outstanding	90	102	47	11:30
Excellent	75	90	42	12:30
Good	60	62	24	13:30
Satisfactory	45	50	19	15:00

Males: 20-24 Years of Age
Performance Level	Points	Curl-ups	Push-ups	1.5-mile run
Maximum	100	105	87	8:30
Outstanding	90	98	81	9:15
Excellent	75	87	71	10:30
Good	60	58	47	12:00
Satisfactory	45	46	37	13:30

Females: 20-24 Years of Age
Performance Level	Points	Curl-ups	Push-ups	1.5-mile run
Maximum	100	105	48	9:47
Outstanding	90	98	44	11:30
Excellent	75	87	39	13:15
Good	60	58	21	14:15
Satisfactory	45	46	16	15:30

Males: 25-29 Years of Age
Performance Level	Points	Curl-ups	Push-ups	1.5-mile run
Maximum	100	101	84	8:55
Outstanding	90	95	77	9:38
Excellent	75	84	67	10:52
Good	60	54	44	12:53
Satisfactory	45	43	34	14:00

Females: 25-29 Years of Age
Performance Level	Points	Curl-ups	Push-ups	1.5-mile run
Maximum	100	101	46	10:17
Outstanding	90	95	43	11:45
Excellent	75	84	37	13:23
Good	60	54	19	14:53
Satisfactory	45	43	13	16:08

Males: 30-34 Years of Age
Performance Level	Points	Curl-ups	Push-ups	1.5-mile run
Maximum	100	98	80	9:20
Outstanding	90	92	74	10:00
Excellent	75	81	64	11:15
Good	60	51	41	13:45
Satisfactory	45	40	31	14:30

Females: 30-34 Years of Age
Performance Level	Points	Curl-ups	Push-ups	1.5-mile run
Maximum	100	98	44	10:46
Outstanding	90	92	41	12:00
Excellent	75	81	35	13:30
Good	60	51	17	15:30
Satisfactory	45	40	11	16:45

The definition of "Equal" is:

1. as great as; the same as (often followed by to  or with ): The velocity of sound is not equal to that of light.

2. like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.; of the same rank, ability, merit, etc.: two students of equal brilliance.

3. evenly proportioned or balanced: an equal contest.

4. uniform in operation or effect: equal laws.

 5. adequate or sufficient in quantity or degree: “The supply is equal to the demand.”

The definition of “Equality” is:

1. the state or quality of being equal;  correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.

2. uniform character, as of motion or surface.

80% does NOT equal 100%.  

Period.  Story.  End of.

UPDATE:  Whoomp, here it is!

CNS News reports:

 

Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday that with women now eligible to fill combat roles in the military, commanders must justify why any woman might be excluded – and, if women can’t meet any unit’s standard, the Pentagon will ask: “Does it really have to be that high?” 

 

Dempsey’s comments came at a Pentagon news conference with Defense Sec. Leon Panetta Thursday, announcing the shift in Defense Department policy opening up all combat positions to women…

 

… Dempsey replied: “No, I wouldn’t put it in terms of operations, Jim. What I would say is that, as we look at the requirements for a spectrum of conflict, not just COIN, counterinsurgency, we really need to have standards that apply across all of those.”

He added: “Importantly, though, if we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high? With the direct combat exclusion provision in place, we never had to have that conversation.”

Here Is Gone - Goo Goo Dolls:

You and I got somethin
But it's all and then it's nuthin to me, yeah
And I got my defenses 
When it comes through your intentions for me, yeah 

And we wake up in the breakdown 
With the things we never thought we could be, yeah 

I'm not the one who broke you
I'm not the one you should fear
We got to move you darlin
I thought I lost you somewhere 
But you were never really ever there at all 

And I want to get free
Talk to me
I can feel you falling
And I wanted to be
All you need
Somehow here is gone

I am no solution 
To the sound of this pollution in me, yeah
And I was not the answer 
So forget you ever thought it was me, yeah 

I'm not the one who broke you
I'm not the one you should fear
We got to move you darlin
I thought I lost you somewhere 
But you were never really ever there at all 

And I want to get free
Talk to me
I can feel you falling
And I wanted to be
All you need 
Somehow here is gone 

And I dont need the fallout
Of all the past that's in between us
And I'm not holding on 
And all your lies weren't enough to keep me here 

And I want to get free
Talk to me
I can feel you falling
And I wanted to be
All you need 
Somehow here is gone 

And I want to get free
Talk to me 
I can feel you falling 

I know it's out there
I know it's out there 
And I can feel you falling 

I know it's out there
I know it's out there 
Somehow here is gone, yeah 

I know it's out there 
I know it's out there 
Somehow here is gone, yeah