Women should be allowed to serve in combat

[rdowns]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/15/military.women/index.html

Washington (CNN) -- A Pentagon commission on diversity is recommending the U.S. military end its ban on women serving in direct combat roles -- a restriction the group says is discriminatory and out of touch with the demands of modern warfare.

In its draft report, the Military Leadership Diversity Commission said the military should gradually eliminate the ban in order to create a "level playing field for all qualified service members."

The commission, comprised of senior military officers, businessmen and academics, must now release a final report. Its findings would then need to be sent to Congress and President Obama before any changes to policy would be implemented.

The draft report said the military's "combat exclusion policies" do not reflect the realities of the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and create institutional barriers to women, who are prevented from getting key assignments that could lead to career advancement.

"Service policies that bar women from gaining entry to certain combat-related career fields, specialties, units, and assignments are based on standards of conventional warfare, with well-defined, linear battlefields," the report said. "However, the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have been anything but conventional."

More than 200,000 women have served in the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since those wars began, 132 female service members have been killed, and 721 have been wounded.

Proponents of the commission's recommendations agree that technology and circumstance have drastically altered modern warfare. They say it is difficult to distinguish between combat and non-combat roles on the front lines of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described women's changing wartime role in a speech in November, saying: "I know what the law says, and I know what it requires. But I'd be hard pressed to say that any woman who serves in Afghanistan today, or who served in Iraq over the last few years, did so without facing the risks of their male counterparts.

"In a war where there is no longer a clear delineation between the front lines ... and the sidelines ... where the war can grab you anywhere, this will be the first generation of veterans where large segments of women returning will have been exposed to some form of combat," Mullen said.

National Organization for Women President Terry O'Neill said she is "thrilled" by the commission's recommendations because the ban is "completely unfair to women who are already risking their lives for their country."

"Since 1990 [NOW] has been calling for fair treatment of women in the military who are in fact at risk but are not getting combat pay or opportunities for promotion," O'Neill said.

The commission also dismissed concerns that allowing women to serve in combat units would negatively impact troop morale, saying there is little evidence to support the theory.

"One frequently-cited argument in favor of the current policy is that having women serving in direct combat will hamper mission effectiveness by hurting unit morale and cohesion. Comparable arguments were made with respect to racial integration, but were ultimately never borne out," the report said.

Established by Congress in 2009, the Military Leadership Diversity Commission was tasked with assessing opportunities for the promotion and advancement of minority members of the military.

[r.j.s]

Since female Soldiers are already directly experiencing combat, this only makes sense.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

But what about their ... you know... menstration?

[dscuber9000]

I never understood why women couldn't be foot soldiers if they really want to. I have pretty much the same view of women in the military as gays in the military. I don't see "sexual tensions" threatening the safety of the country. :p But if it is that big of deal, why can't their be male and female units or something?

[CorvusCamenarum]

As long as anyone can do the job, I don't care about their gender, color, whatever.

But while they're at it, they need to require women to sign up for Selective Service as well.

[OutThere]

I'm all for equal rights in employment, but I think the general concern is that women are on average naturally smaller and physically weaker than men. Seeing and hearing about the insane physical toll that two tours of Afghanistan took on my former recon marine buddy, I think suitable candidates would be hard to come by. Now, assuming it's based on merit, fine, but few things are these days.

[Rodimus Prime]

I have no issue with it as long as the physical requirements for men and women remain the same.

Yes I know the physical part is not exactly fair but at the same time I would not want to put others at risk just because some people strength and what not was not up to the what is required in combat. It kind of a tough cookies for women on that part.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I'm all for equal rights in employment, but I think the general concern is that women are on average naturally smaller and physically weaker than men. Seeing and hearing about the insane physical toll that two tours of Afghanistan took on my former recon marine buddy, I think suitable candidates would be hard to come by. Now, assuming it's based on merit, fine, but few things are these days.

This argument has no basis. The military trains, sees how candidates preform, and are then cast. Maybe more women end up in kitchens, hospitals, and as computer technicians, that doesn't mean they all have to.

[NickZac]

I have worked in the past with a young lady who actually saw active combat. I found my own prejudice when at first I was really stunned to hear she knew about guns, especially the M4A1, which is one of the more prominent primary long gun of the US Armed Forces. If you are curious the M4A1 is the most recent evolution of the AR-15 which people constantly call the M16 but the M16 is simply a military term for AR-15. AR-15 is ArmaLight Model 15 (Armalite is the original creator of the AR-15, which rights to produce were then bought by Colt in the early 60s. Today, at least 10 larger companies make the AR-15 at a production level for both recreational shooters and military usage around the world.) The AR-15 is one of the most produced of all of the 'Black Guns' (don't call them 'assault rifles' as not all are and don't call them 'assault weapons' as that shows intent to use it as a murder weapon) and probably the most popular gun in its caliber of 5.56x45mm (AKA .223 or 556 NATO). It is available in single shot mode (semiautomatic) to civilians only; ones produced today are only up to a 3-round burst auto fire where as the fully automatic ones are slightly older and are less popular for in true 'battle' usage as they do not have all the modern advancements of current models.

Anyway, after learning that this girl saw and participated in active combat and had witnesses the atrocities of war, I was well, speechless. I realized I was utterly unprepared to find this out and I got kind of angry at myself for my reaction.

[NickZac]

The physical strength and capability aspect is something from the times past guys; most war is fought with technology these days ;)

Oh and BTW, you Europeans are the ones that make the good guns and most of YOUR armed forces have much better 'tools of the trade' than us Americans...where the hell all that money goes we spend I sometimes wonder.

[Rodimus Prime]

The physical strength and capability aspect is something from the times past guys; most war is fought with technology these days ;)

Oh and BTW, you Europeans are the ones that make the good guns and most of YOUR armed forces have much better 'tools of the trade' than us Americans...where the hell all that money goes we spend I sometimes wonder.

You could not be more wrong for soliders on the ground.
Remember they have to carry all their equipment with them. The total weight has not changed in since WW. All that as changed is the amount of stuff they can carry has increased due to weight of the objects being reduced. But the lb they carry gear wise is still about the same.

They still have to be able to run march and move on foot just as long as they have since WWI.
They have better tools but the physical requirements has not changed because they still have to be able to do the same physical stuff for the good of the unit and to survive. A unit can only move as fast as their slowest person.

[iJohnHenry]

But what about their ... you know... menstration?

That's the risk their enemies have to deal with.

PMS for the win.

And who the Hell says that women can't shoot as well, or better, than men??

[TuffLuffJimmy]

And who the Hell says that women can't shoot as well, or better, than men??

Certainly not Annie Oakley.

[Moyank24]

You could not be more wrong for soliders on the ground.
Remember they have to carry all their equipment with them. The total weight has not changed in since WW. All that as changed is the amount of stuff they can carry has increased due to weight of the objects being reduced. But the lb they carry gear wise is still about the same.

They still have to be able to run march and move on foot just as long as they have since WWI.
They have better tools but the physical requirements has not changed because they still have to be able to do the same physical stuff for the good of the unit and to survive. A unit can only move as fast as their slowest person.

I have no doubt that this is the case. I have cousins in the military and I wouldn't be able to carry their equipment a foot.

On the other hand, not every man can meet those physical requirements either. At least in this instance women would be on equal footing if that was an area they wanted to concentrate in, and they demonstrated the fitness that is required.

[Lord Blackadder]

The physical stature/endurance argument does not hold water...some ethnicities (certain Asian groups are a good example) are noticeably smaller in stature than Euro-Americans, on average. Yet they make excellent soldiers.

Women are generally smaller and less muscular than men, but they are still large enough and strong enough for military duty. This has been proven on numerous occasions in the past. The Soviet Union used female combat soldiers in WWII, and there is no indication that they were anything less than effective. The Viet Cong employed women in combat roles, as did the communist Chinese.

Women can fight.

[Rodimus Prime]

I have no doubt that this is the case. I have cousins in the military and I wouldn't be able to carry their equipment a foot.

On the other hand, not every man can meet those physical requirements either. At least in this instance women would be on equal footing if that was an area they wanted to concentrate in, and they demonstrated the fitness that is required.

Exactly not even all men can meet the requirement. Big time for special forces and my view is men and women in combat should have the exact same physical requirement.

The physical stature/endurance argument does not hold water...some ethnicities (certain Asian groups are a good example) are noticeably smaller in stature than Euro-Americans, on average. Yet they make excellent soldiers.

Women are generally smaller and less muscular than men, but they are still large enough and strong enough for military duty. This has been proven on numerous occasions in the past. The Soviet Union used female combat soldiers in WWII, and there is no indication that they were anything less than effective. The Viet Cong employed women in combat roles, as did the communist Chinese.

Women can fight.

I do not think people are arguing that they can not fight. But we are saying that they should have to meet the exact same requirements the men have to. For lack of a better term making them weaker for women.
In ethnicities some ethnicities even in the army just are going to be a much smaller number in combat areas because they do not meet the physical requirements as often.

[184550]

But what about their ... you know... menstration?

I read somewhere their periods attract bears. Bears can smell the menstruation.

[Moyank24]

Exactly not even all men can meet the requirement. Big time for special forces and my view is men and women in combat should have the exact same physical requirement.


I agree...and can't imagine that they wouldn't have the same requirements. I know a few women who are FDNY, and they had to meet the same requirements as men (talk about heavy gear). So I don't see why the military would be any different.

[NickZac]

You could not be more wrong for soliders on the ground.
Remember they have to carry all their equipment with them. The total weight has not changed in since WW. All that as changed is the amount of stuff they can carry has increased due to weight of the objects being reduced. But the lb they carry gear wise is still about the same.

They still have to be able to run march and move on foot just as long as they have since WWI.
They have better tools but the physical requirements has not changed because they still have to be able to do the same physical stuff for the good of the unit and to survive. A unit can only move as fast as their slowest person.

For infantry, yes, but you know what I mean. However, look at how much of armed forces is around technology. You need advanced degrees for some positions, years of training, political endorsements, etc. There are many people who have to coordinate those people on the ground to help them succeed and stay alive. Yes, some positions do require physical capability but my point is that many positions exist which don't; I did not mean to imply all.

I would argue the physical beating of the current situation is worse than WWII due to the extremely hot temperature, which almost no one is prepared to wear armor (which if you ever worn it is sooo hot and itchy) for extended periods of time in that type of heat. It destroys the body and if you don't stay well hydrated, it will kill you very quickly. The only climate more dangerous is the extremely cold ones in which you freeze to death in.

[OutThere]

This argument has no basis. The military trains, sees how candidates preform, and are then cast. Maybe more women end up in kitchens, hospitals, and as computer technicians, that doesn't mean they all have to.

I'd be inclined to agree, but I'm opposed to the bar-lowering that often accompanies an aggressive push for equality when faced with a large discrepancy in ability. Women were up in arms at the FDNY with this kind of complaint last year: http://gothamist.com/2010/02/20/women_firefighters_say_fdny_discrimi.php

This site is absurd and bad, but there are some figures that are pretty hard to argue with: http://www.heretical.com/miscella/frcombat.html


Either way, faced with a large-scale ground war, the final calculation that would have to be made would have to take into regard the preservation of the society we're fighting for...which presents an argument against letting women fight: a population's continued success depends more on having enough females than enough males.

[Rodimus Prime]

For infantry, yes, but you know what I mean. However, look at how much of armed forces is around technology. You need advanced degrees for some positions, years of training, political endorsements, etc. There are many people who have to coordinate those people on the ground to help them succeed and stay alive. Yes, some positions do require physical capability but my point is that many positions exist which don't; I did not mean to imply all.

I would argue the physical beating of the current situation is worse than WWII due to the extremely hot temperature, which almost no one is prepared to wear armor (which if you ever worn it is sooo hot and itchy) for extended periods of time in that type of heat. It destroys the body and if you don't stay well hydrated, it will kill you very quickly. The only climate more dangerous is the extremely cold ones in which you freeze to death in.

but guess what most of those spots you are talking about are not front line combat spots. Minus pilots who fly in to hostile areas which do need that physical training and requirements in case they go down.

As for physical the only area hot wise is Iraq. Afiganistan is quite cold in the mountains so not a good argument.
The weight limit that solders have to carry has not changed since WWI and WWII. We are physical limited to how much weight we can put on the human body. Stuff get lighter but means you can pill on more stuff.

Also your entire point on the physical requirements has nothing to do with the point I was making.

[NickZac]

but guess what most of those spots you are talking about are not front line combat spots. Minus pilots who fly in to hostile areas which do need that physical training and requirements in case they go down.

As for physical the only area hot wise is Iraq. Afiganistan is quite cold in the mountains so not a good argument.
The weight limit that solders have to carry has not changed since WWI and WWII. We are physical limited to how much weight we can put on the human body. Stuff get lighter but means you can pill on more stuff.

Also your entire point on the physical requirements has nothing to do with the point I was making.

What is considered combat seems to vary.
I was referring to Iraq as far as heat. We are both smart people and obviously both know of the climate variation.
And the point I am making has a lot to do with your post as I was attempting to agree with your argument as you want the best qualified people which for infantry need strength and endurance and I agree. Women generally have less muscle mass than men. I talked about technology to point out that since women do have anatomical differences than men that may give cause to not participate in front line infantry, the varying specialization allows them to still participate.

[mgguy]

I don't think it should be a right for women to serve in combat as much as it should be a requirement. Why shouldn't they have to do the same duties as men?

[Sydde]

But what about their ... you know... menstration?

You would use that to your advantage: if the other guys are a misogynistic type culture, dip your bullets in it and make sure they know you are doing it.

[NickZac]

You would use that to your advantage: if the other guys are a misogynistic type culture, dip your bullets in it and make sure they know you are doing it.

See Sambia (http://faculty.mdc.edu/jmcnair/Joepages/The%20Sambia.htm)
-the Sambia believe that semen, male sexual fluid, is all important to human life, is in short supply, and must therefore be circulated through people, through both males and females, very carefully.
-Semen is male essence of course;
-A female's sexual essence is her menstrual blood ‚ which is very scary to men ‚ it along with vaginal secretions and lubricants during sex are the stuff of elaborate prohibitions and avoidances for men

[Peterkro]

I have worked in the past with a young lady who actually saw active combat. I found my own prejudice when at first I was really stunned to hear she knew about guns, especially the M4A1, which is one of the more prominent primary long gun of the US Armed Forces. If you are curious the M4A1 is the most recent evolution of the AR-15 which people constantly call the M16 but the M16 is simply a military term for AR-15. AR-15 is ArmaLight Model 15 (Armalite is the original creator of the AR-15, which rights to produce were then bought by Colt in the early 60s. Today, at least 10 larger companies make the AR-15 at a production level for both recreational shooters and military usage around the world.) The AR-15 is one of the most produced of all of the 'Black Guns' (don't call them 'assault rifles' as not all are and don't call them 'assault weapons' as that shows intent to use it as a murder weapon) and probably the most popular gun in its caliber of 5.56x45mm (AKA .223 or 556 NATO). It is available in single shot mode (semiautomatic) to civilians only; ones produced today are only up to a 3-round burst auto fire where as the fully automatic ones are slightly older and are less popular for in true 'battle' usage as they do not have all the modern advancements of current models.

Anyway, after learning that this girl saw and participated in active combat and had witnesses the atrocities of war, I was well, speechless. I realized I was utterly unprepared to find this out and I got kind of angry at myself for my reaction.

She didn't have an Irish accent by any chance did she?

[IntelliUser]

DADT repeal chain reaction!

[Mord]

I'd be inclined to agree, but I'm opposed to the bar-lowering that often accompanies an aggressive push for equality when faced with a large discrepancy in ability. Women were up in arms at the FDNY with this kind of complaint last year: http://gothamist.com/2010/02/20/women_firefighters_say_fdny_discrimi.php

This site is absurd and bad, but there are some figures that are pretty hard to argue with: http://www.heretical.com/miscella/frcombat.html


Either way, faced with a large-scale ground war, the final calculation that would have to be made would have to take into regard the preservation of the society we're fighting for...which presents an argument against letting women fight: a population's continued success depends more on having enough females than enough males.

That argument is absurd, it's not like we really have an issue maintaining population and the implication that women are just for popping out children is horrifyingly misogynistic

I do agree that physical requirements should be identical as they should be based upon what's required for the job but it's insane to discriminate like that just because you risk losing a productive womb.

I'll also go along with pointing out that women often do extremely well in combat roles, bizarrely one of my greatest natural talents is on the battlefield, whenever I've played paintball I've utterly dominated, co-ordinating my team, personally making insane flag runs through enemy territory without being shot once. Admittedly I would not go as far as to say that paintball and actual warfare are remotely the same thing, I've no experience of the latter.

Women may not typically have the same muscle mass but we are entirely capable of being valuable assets in a direct combat roles. On a personal level I *know* that I could attain the level of fitness and ability requisite.

[coochiekuta]

any one who can pull his own (or her own) weight should be allowed in direct combat. that goes for midgets who are able to overcome their height limits. fat people who can still run with the best of them. and transexuals. i threw transexuals into the mix cause i needed a 3rd group but like the others, they cant even join the armed forces.

[glocke12]

Of course a "diversity panel" would vote in favor of more diversity. A few potential problems I see with this:

1) Would allowing women to serve in combat units require the lowering of any physical fitness standards that already in place to weed out those who are unifit to serve in a combat role ?


2) Whether we like to admit it or not, sexual tensions/relationships are a fact of life and definitely have an impact on how we behave. What impact would this have on a combat unit ? How would a sexual relationship between two soldiers affect unit moral ?

3) Would female combat soldiers have less of a physical advantage in hand to hand combat against a male enemy?

I guess it is fair to say Im kind of against this, but than again Im not in the military so do not know all of the factors that go into deciding what makes a good combat soldier. Also, I do think diversity has its limits. Diversity just for the sake of diversity is not that great of an idea IMO.

[Huntn]

But what about their ... you know... menstration?

That's the risk their enemies have to deal with.

PMS for the win.

And who the Hell says that women can't shoot as well, or better, than men??

Lol!

I think the policy of not letting women participate in combat was back when society had them up on a pedestal as the fairer sex who could not possibly stand exposure to the brutalities of war. However that kind of special treatment no longer seems appropriate in a modern equal rights society. Don't you know as it is women are taking over the world. :p

[citizenzen]

But what about their ... you know... menstration?

Wasn't it Barry Goldwater who said, "I don't care if you menstruate. You just have to shoot straight."

[NickZac]

She didn't have an Irish accent by any chance did she?

Like most of us Americans she is a mutt, but a large portion of her is indeed Irish

I'm Irish, but I have blond hair in the summer, dirty blond hair in the winter, and a red beard (with a dark blotch in the middle)...tell me that isn't a conflicting trait of my German v. Irish v. English v. Scottish v. 10 other various cultures :p




Wasn't it Barry Goldwater who said, "I don't care if you menstruate. You just have to shoot straight."

LOLOLOLOL

[OutThere]

That argument is absurd, it's not like we really have an issue maintaining population and the implication that women are just for popping out children is horrifyingly misogynistic

I do agree that physical requirements should be identical as they should be based upon what's required for the job but it's insane to discriminate like that just because you risk losing a productive womb.

I'll also go along with pointing out that women often do extremely well in combat roles, bizarrely one of my greatest natural talents is on the battlefield, whenever I've played paintball I've utterly dominated, co-ordinating my team, personally making insane flag runs through enemy territory without being shot once. Admittedly I would not go as far as to say that paintball and actual warfare are remotely the same thing, I've no experience of the latter.

Women may not typically have the same muscle mass but we are entirely capable of being valuable assets in a direct combat roles. On a personal level I *know* that I could attain the level of fitness and ability requisite.

Yet on the website I linked there is evidence that women cannot attain the required level of physical fitness. As for my horribly misogynistic viewpoints: I qualified my assertion by saying that it'd be a rational move by a population faced with large scale war. If a population is facing a war to protect itself where many may die, how is it strategic or rational to put women on the front lines when they are the ones capable of giving birth and fueling a recovery after the war?

[Macky-Mac]

I don't think it should be a right for women to serve in combat as much as it should be a requirement. Why shouldn't they have to do the same duties as men?

women should be expected to defend their country just as much as men

[Mord]

Yet on the website I linked there is evidence that women cannot attain the required level of physical fitness. As for my horribly misogynistic viewpoints: I qualified my assertion by saying that it'd be a rational move by a population faced with large scale war. If a population is facing a war to protect itself where many may die, how is it strategic or rational to put women on the front lines when they are the ones capable of giving birth and fueling a recovery after the war?

With a war of that scale I imagine you'd need every soldier you could muster, I can easily cite WW2 as many countries allowed women in the military and had no problems at all with a shortage of women or population production afterwards.


As for the evidence colour me skeptical.

[Sydde]

Honestly, I think women should be drafted and required to accept front line duty. Because then the men who run the country would be more hesitant to send our daughters to war.

I remember seeing a little womens' world cup soccer, those women were bad-ass, they would scare me. Add typical feminine cunning to that, I have a hard time understanding why you would want to keep them off the battlefield.

[Mac'nCheese]

Great. Women on the front lines. What's next gay guys? God help us all!

[Tomorrow]

Does this mean it's okay to hit a woman now? I mean, if they can get shot, and all.

:rolleyes:

[citizenzen]

Does this mean it's okay to hit a woman now? I mean, if they can get shot, and all.

If you met them on the field of battle, then yes, it would be permissible to hit them.

In the civilian world, it would still be considered battery.

Sorry.

[MyDesktopBroke]

It would be nice to have women signup for Selective Service, too. Having women in the same position as men military-wise would make people think about war in a slightly saner light. America has always been more protective of their daughters than their sons, and if equality would make all combat less likely, it's a good thing. We'd probably resort to combat only as a last ditch effort – just like we always should.

[NickZac]

The argument of women having less physical strength capability to men has at least some truth. The reason for this is testosterone. This isn't like allowing gays to serve in the military because gay men will not compromise the security of their units. If women are selected because they are women, and have less capability than the capability of available men, that can result in many people being harmed or killed. This is a really gray area.

[citizenzen]

The argument of women having less physical strength capability to men has at least some truth.

There is also truth in the standards that have evolved have been based on a man's size and strength. If women were the gender that fought in battle you can be assured that everything would be scaled to fit them.

It doesn't make sense to pack a woman down like a man and then say, "See? I told you they couldn't cut it." If women need packs that weigh 75lbs. instead of 100, then find a way to make that pack. If they need M16s that fit their average body size, then make the guns smaller.

An army is looking for smart, courageous soldiers. I'm sure there are plenty of women who can do the job and should be given the chance.

[Rodimus Prime]

There is also truth in the standards that have evolved have been based on a man's size and strength. If women were the gender that fought in battle you can be assured that everything would be scaled to fit them.

It doesn't make sense to pack a woman down like a man and then say, "See? I told you they couldn't cut it." If women need packs that weigh 75lbs. instead of 100, then find a way to make that pack. If they need M16s that fit their average body size, then make the guns smaller.

An army is looking for smart, courageous soldiers. I'm sure there are plenty of women who can do the job and should be given the chance.

even if you did that there would be things you have to assume that can not changed in weight. Moving an injured body or carrying an injured solder. that is going to not changed in weight.
The amount of water/food carried per day is going to stay the same.
Ammo amount and load will still be the same.

Those physical requirements just can not changed. They still need to be able to carry a 175-200lb man along with carrying the own personal gear with them.

Those are some basic requirements that can not changed. Still have to meet them for the safety of the unit.
I have no problem with them serving front line as long as the physical requirements are not changed.

[glocke12]

There is also truth in the standards that have evolved have been based on a man's size and strength. If women were the gender that fought in battle you can be assured that everything would be scaled to fit them.

It doesn't make sense to pack a woman down like a man and then say, "See? I told you they couldn't cut it." If women need packs that weigh 75lbs. instead of 100, then find a way to make that pack. If they need M16s that fit their average body size, then make the guns smaller.

An army is looking for smart, courageous soldiers. I'm sure there are plenty of women who can do the job and should be given the chance.

This is really nothing more than an argument in favor of lowering the standards so that women can pull their weight.

I have not served in the military, but have read my share of things related to the military.

In terms of gear, soldiers actually carry what is critical and essential, nothing more. Its not that women "do not need 100 lbs of gear and can use 75 lbs of gear", its the fact that the gear they are required to carry and need to fulfill their mission weighs 100 lbs. To remove 25 lbs is to remove items that may be needed to save their lives or their fellow soldiers lives.

As for your "give them a smaller gun" statement, thats pretty ignorant. They don't have "different sizes" of guns to choose from, and more often than not you are probably required to use an issued weapon unless you are part of a specialized outfit.

I understand that in this day and age "diversity" and "fairness" for all is the new "equal rights movement", but come on people, this is the military and warfare that we are talking about, not paint ball. To institute a new set of standards and come up with new equipment to issue that are more appropriate for women to use, is silly. Especially if it involves lowering standards and using things that are less effective.

I can see women fulfilling some combat roles in the military such as combat pilots, and to be honest think it would be reasonable to admit women to ground combat operations if they can meet the CURRENT physical requirements, but not if it requires a lowering of standards and using less effective equipment.

There is precedent for using women as ground combat troops however. During WWII the Soviets used women as snipers during the siege of Stalingrad, but they were also very, very desperate and needed anyone that could shoot a rifle to keep the germans from winning.

I'd love to hear the input from some former and current members of combat units on this one. Also, just out of curiosity don't the Israelis use women in ground combat outfits?

[glocke12]

Those physical requirements just can not changed. They still need to be able to carry a 175-200lb man along with carrying the own personal gear with them.
.

Actually when they lighten the combat load and issue smaller guns, they could just make another requirement that sets the weight limit at 125 lbs for a soldier.

[citizenzen]

I have no problem with them serving front line as long as the physical requirements are not changed.

This is really nothing more than an argument in favor of lowering the standards so that women can pull their weight.

If you can't think of creative ways to use 50% of the population, then that's your loss... and the military's.

Me, I try not to get my mind stuck in cement. The world is constantly changing. Those that learn to change with it and adapt have a better chance of surviving.

I'd suggest you two consider that.

[Eraserhead]

In terms of gear, soldiers actually carry what is critical and essential, nothing more. Its not that women "do not need 100 lbs of gear and can use 75 lbs of gear", its the fact that the gear they are required to carry and need to fulfill their mission weighs 100 lbs. To remove 25 lbs is to remove items that may be needed to save their lives or their fellow soldiers lives.

If 100 lbs are required then that seems a good reason to exclude anyone who can't carry 100 lbs, I mean noone would make it weigh that much if it wasn't needed as carrying less weight than that is good for everyone.

[glocke12]

If you can't think of creative ways to use 50% of the population, then that's your loss... and the military's.

Me, I try not to get my mind stuck in cement. The world is constantly changing. Those that learn to change with it and adapt have a better chance of surviving.

I'd suggest you two consider that.

Sorry, and Im not trying to be mean but your thinking is incredibly naive.

There are physical, weight, and equipment requirements in the military for a reason. A combat soldier is required to carry a certain amount of ammo and gear to ensure their survival, the survival of the fellow soldiers, and to be able to complete their mission.

If someone, male or female is not able to meet those requirements they do not belong on the battlefield, it puts their lives and others lives at risk. Are you willing to lower the physical requirements of a combat soldier even if it means increasing the likelihood that other soldiers will be killed ? It is not about finding a "creative way to utilize someone" ( in this case I am assuming you mean changing requirements and gear so that they are suitable for women), it is about finding personnel that are able to meet the requirements of a combat soldier.

Has anyone here seen the movie "Restropo" ? It is about a combat unit serving in Afghanistan. I suggest renting that and than chiming back in.

Anyway, Im all for women in the military, and women in some combat roles, I think they would make excellent combat fighter pilots, but to argue in favor of lowering requirements so that can serve in combat roles is silly.

Like I said before though, if they can meet the current standards of combat personnel than by all means let them serve in a combat position.

[NickZac]

Read my previous posts about how the military has numerous positions that are not physical strength dependent. As stated, certain things cannot change weight wise. Armor is ALWAYS going to be heavy, especially when you add on the trauma plates as they are. The current long range rifles such as the Barret .50 BMG are heavy as hell but they cannot get lighter. Water is always going to be heavy, ammo will always be heavy, etc. I am for equality and I agree women should have the CHANCE. But if there is reason to believe that they are not capable of doing what it considered a satisfactory job, it is NOT right to proceed as you are risking everyone's life that they are involved with.

[Rodimus Prime]

If you can't think of creative ways to use 50% of the population, then that's your loss... and the military's.

Me, I try not to get my mind stuck in cement. The world is constantly changing. Those that learn to change with it and adapt have a better chance of surviving.

I'd suggest you two consider that.
problem is this is front line combat. You can use them in the back line non combat. Front line combat you have certain requirements you need to be able to meet. Big ones is the strength requirement. Carrying a mans body is one of those requirements plan and simple. That can not change.

It is one of those tough cookies. Go talk to women firefighters who pass the the mens test. They are oppose to lowering the bar because they physical demands do not changed male or female out in the field. Same goes for combat solders. Regardless of sex there are certain physical demands that must be met.

[OutThere]

Read my previous posts about how the military has numerous positions that are not physical strength dependent. As stated, certain things cannot change weight wise. Armor is ALWAYS going to be heavy, especially when you add on the trauma plates as they are. The current long range rifles such as the Barret .50 BMG are heavy as hell but they cannot get lighter. Water is always going to be heavy, ammo will always be heavy, etc. I am for equality and I agree women should have the CHANCE. But if there is reason to believe that they are not capable of doing what it considered a satisfactory job, it is NOT right to proceed as you are risking everyone's life that they are involved with.

This is my feeling also. I'm all for giving them a chance, but I'm against modifying the standards to encourage diversity in this case.

[MyDesktopBroke]

Of course bars should not be lowered. The potential problem is that equally capable people are still being treated differently based on gender.

[citizenzen]

Of course bars should not be lowered.

Bars are often set based on arbitrary measures and accepted customs are resistent to change and instead clung to because "that's just the way things are."

But if you are unwilling to change anything, then that's cool. Change usually has a way of happening anyway... dragging the unwilling behind it.

Instead of merely accepting the status quo, especially in light of this current discussion, I would ask naive questions and try to find out if current standards are truly necessary and based on what's best for the soldier, or more likely, relics of past practices and simply accepted out of habit and inertia.

[Pink∆Floyd]

But what about their ... you know... menstration?

http://cdn0.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/092/439/list/1289787513873.png?1294536226

I believe that might be a problem

[Rodimus Prime]

Bars are often set based on arbitrary measures and accepted customs are resistent to change and instead clung to because "that's just the way things are."

But if you are unwilling to change anything, then that's cool. Change usually has a way of happening anyway... dragging the unwilling behind it.

Instead of merely accepting the status quo, especially in light of this current discussion, I would ask naive questions and try to find out if current standards are truly necessary and based on what's best for the soldier, or more likely, relics of past practices and simply accepted out of habit and inertia.

The bar is based on what is physically required of them for front line combat. One of the big things is to be able to carry a 175-200lb man on your shoulders and move a certain pace. This is required for the safety of the unit and the solider. That can not be changed.

The bar for combat soldiers is based on the need. Hell a lot of men can not met the physical demands.

[hulugu]

Read my previous posts about how the military has numerous positions that are not physical strength dependent. As stated, certain things cannot change weight wise. Armor is ALWAYS going to be heavy, especially when you add on the trauma plates as they are. The current long range rifles such as the Barret .50 BMG are heavy as hell but they cannot get lighter. Water is always going to be heavy, ammo will always be heavy, etc. I am for equality and I agree women should have the CHANCE. But if there is reason to believe that they are not capable of doing what it considered a satisfactory job, it is NOT right to proceed as you are risking everyone's life that they are involved with.

I agree with you.
However, everyone seems stuck on the idea of women serving as Infantry and that's actually a small group of soldiers. Currently, some women are serving in roles traditionally considered non-combat roles that are because of modern warfare are just as dangerous as combat roles, however, women typically do not get the benefits of rank and pay that their male counterparts due despite the actual danger being the same.

Female helicopter and fighter pilots have served for years successfully where their ability to hump a rucksack is less important than their acuity. However, the military treats them differently than their male counterparts even though they're already doing the exact same job.

Worrying about Infantry isn't really the point, rather it's how the military treats women across the entire Armed Forces.

[Rodimus Prime]

I agree with you.
However, everyone seems stuck on the idea of women serving as Infantry and that's actually a small group of soldiers. Currently, some women are serving in roles traditionally considered non-combat roles that are because of modern warfare are just as dangerous as combat roles, however, women typically do not get the benefits of rank and pay that their male counterparts due despite the actual danger being the same.

Female helicopter and fighter pilots have served for years successfully where their ability to hump a rucksack is less important than their acuity. However, the military treats them differently than their male counterparts even though they're already doing the exact same job.

Worrying about Infantry isn't really the point, rather it's how the military treats women across the entire Armed Forces.

for me combat applies to front line combat, basically boots on the ground.
As for fighter pilots the carry load might not be as bad but in my book the survival training requirements need to be the same. All those requirements must be met.

[shinji]

However, everyone seems stuck on the idea of women serving as Infantry and that's actually a small group of soldiers

This study, and its recommendation regarding combat mentioned in the article, specifically refers to "direct offensive ground combat."

http://mldc.whs.mil/index.php/draft-final-report

[hulugu]

for me combat applies to front line combat, basically boots on the ground.

Sure, but that's the point of the review. There's no such thing as the front-line anymore, so a flight-nurse should get the same combat pay as the pilot, even if the flight-nurse is female and the pilot is male. It's not about requirements, it's about how the military treats men and women differently despite the reality.

As for fighter pilots the carry load might not be as bad but in my book the survival training requirements need to be the same. All those requirements must be met.

Again, I agree that requirements should be realistic and similar, rather I'm arguing that the obsession with rucksack-carrying is a red herring to a real issue the military faces.

The military already allows for some disparity even among Infantry, bigger guys tend to carry the M-60 or M-249, smaller guys tend to carry the M4.

Simply put, a 160-pound guy won't be able to pull the same weight as his 230-pound brethren, but he should be able to perform a reasonable minimum. Being able to carry the largest dude in your platoon on your back might be less important than being smarter, faster, or a better shot.

[hulugu]

This study, and its recommendation regarding combat mentioned in the article, specifically refers to "direct offensive ground combat."

http://mldc.whs.mil/index.php/draft-final-report

Good catch, my point still stands. Women should be able to serve where they can be effective and not barred just because of their sex.

[r.j.s]

Sure, but that's the point of the review. There's no such thing as the front-line anymore, so a flight-nurse should get the same combat pay as the pilot, even if the flight-nurse is female and the pilot is male. It's not about requirements, it's about how the military treats men and women differently despite the reality.

The pay is already the same.

Currently, women are not allowed to be in "combat arms" military occupational specialities (infantry, armor, air defense artillery and artillery). That is what the study is looking to change.

I say go for it. If a female wants to be infantry - more power to you - just don't come back later talking about how hard it is.

[citizenzen]

Again, I agree that requirements should be realistic and similar, rather I'm arguing that the obsession with rucksack-carrying is a red herring to a real issue the military faces.

Thanks for the confirmation. I was feeling like the only rational voice in the wilderness.


This study, and its recommendation regarding combat mentioned in the article, specifically refers to "direct offensive ground combat."
http://mldc.whs.mil/index.php/draft-final-report

And thank you for the link to the report, which does indeed make that recommendation. From the report...

Additionally, panel members on this topic at an MLDC meeting cited the need to bring to bear all talent: The blanket restriction for women limits the ability of commanders in theater to pick the most capable person for the job. For example, Colonel McSally commented that
If you want to have the best fighting force, why would you exclude 51 percent of your population from even being considered for any particular job? I've seen recent statistics that say 75 percent of our nation's youth between the ages of 17 and 25 are not even eligible to be in the military based on whether it's mental, medical, or other—criminal issues or whatever. So we just have a very small pool to pick from. So if we're trying to have the most ready force, why would we just exclude 51 percent of the population from even competing? (McSally, 2010)


Colonel Martha McSally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_McSally) was a pilot in the United States Air Force. She was the first American woman to fly in combat since the 1991 lifting of the prohibition of women in combat. McSally is also the first woman to command a USAF fighter squadron, the 354th Fighter Squadron (354 FS) based at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. McSally is an A-10 Thunderbolt II pilot.

And in 2007 her article Women in combat: Is the current policy obsolete? (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:BPBrHQTE5OwJ:www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl%3F14%2BDuke%2BJ.%2BGender%2BL.%2B%26%2BPol'y%2B1011%2Bpdf+%22Women+in+combat:+Is+the+current +policy+obsolete%3F%22&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjNYnOrFEr1DtQb4vI9oFTShOCy6-A4myTVDwrtFZqd_nDFxKUAJ8BC483MTOs0kuuDKeHJ2lVKIppjJ8wr_QBjTFgoLgPXYpVEkys8ONwtFWXD7g45Kc42jA5pOcmqYp h8iPli&sig=AHIEtbS__3VvJc_8TQ5-x7cWmFZViXtNKA) was published in the Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy and later used by the Military Leadership Diversity Commission in their report.

In her paper, Colonel McSally directly addresses the issue of women's strength ...

[B]A. PhysicalStrength

On average, men are stronger than women. As the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces stated,

[t]he evidence before the Commission clearly shows distinct physiological differences between men and women. Most women are shorter in stature, have less muscle mass, and weigh less than men. These physiological differences place women at a distinct disadvantage when performing tasks requiring a high level of muscular strength and aerobic capacity, such as hand-to-hand fighting, digging, carrying heavy loads, lifting, and other tasks central to ground combat.

The Commission then admitted that it also heard testimony from women with tremendous physical ability who desired to serve in ground combat.116 Nonetheless, the Commission recommended excluding women from combat aircraft and ground combat, basing its recommendations partly on the issue of physical strength.

Closer inspection of the argument from “physical strength” reveals two troubling double standards. First, as discussed more fully below, the argument that women should be excluded from combat because they do not possess the requisite physical strength is both over- and under-inclusive; many women have the physical strength to engage in ground combat while many men do not. Second, the Army does not submit male recruits to physical strength examinations before assigning them to ground combat positions. Male recruits are assigned to combat (or non-combat) positions based on a combination of aptitude scores, medical evaluations, and personal preferences. While each Army job is assigned a physical demands rating, the rating is used only to give recruits an idea of the rigors of the job. A male recruit’s physical strength is tested only informally by whether he can complete the training required for the combat job. The double standard here is glaring: Male recruits are not disqualified from entering combat career fields for lack of physical strength, but all female recruits are peremptorily disqualified from such fields regardless of their physical strength.

While many men possess the physical strength and stamina to be in “ground combat” positions, many other men do not. Men should not be deemed qualified for physical demands of combat positions on the basis of their gender and women who possess the requisite physical strength and stamina should not be excluded from combat assignments on the basis of their gender. Instead, eligibility should turn on whether the recruit—male or female—meets the physical qualifications for the job. Again, physical qualification is currently based on whether the recruit can complete the initial training for the assigned specialty.


2. This argument was used to keep women out of fighter aircraft in the early 1990s and proved to be wrong.

During the debate on whether women should or could be fighter pilots, many people used the “physical strength” argument to advocate the continued prohibition on women. Five members the Presidential Commission made this argument in the Alternative Views section of the Commission’s report. They quoted many experienced male fighter pilots who discussed the physical strength and stamina required to be a combat fighter pilot and how women had yet to prove they were physically capable of the rigors of aerial combat. For example, when asked about women who were already flying F-18s in the Navy as test pilots and instructors, one Navy Top Gun instructor pilot stated:
[Y]es, we do have women flying F-18s today, and that is a fact. They are currently not flying the F-18s that any of us have flown in the fleet or out in the combat missions. To compare the missions that they are doing today to what we are doing is like comparing driving the L.A. Freeway to driving the Indianapolis 500. It’s just not the same.
The Commissioners with alternative views also quoted Lt. Gen. Buster Glossen, USAF, (who was responsible for air campaign strategy and execution in DESERT STORM) extensively on the stamina, which he defined as strength and endurance, needed to be a fighter pilot. He described the strength and endurance that fighter pilots need to sustain high G-forces without losing consciousness as well as to fly seven to nine hour grueling combat missions on a daily basis and said “the jury is still out” on whether women have the requisite stamina.

It does take a great deal of strength and endurance to be a fighter pilot. But notwithstanding the Commission’s and Glossen’s doubts, at least forty-nine women in the active-duty Air Force have completed fighter pilot training successfully and most, including the author, have flown long, demanding combat missions for Operations SOUTHERN WATCH, NORTHERN WATCH, DESERT FOX, ALLIED FORCE, ENDURING FREEDOM, or IRAQI FREEDOM. Air Force women fighter pilots have earned sixteen Distinguished Flying Crosses in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. Critics who claimed that women do not have the strength and stamina to be fighter pilots in combat have been proven wrong by women’s actual performance. Some, like Elaine Donnelly, were eventually forced to concede that women fighter pilots “seem to be serving very well” and “appear to be competent and well qualified, and by all accounts are doing well.” Despite this positive experience with female fighter pilots, critics continue to use arguments based on physical strength and stamina as justifications for keeping the current combat exclusions in place.


And here's her real key point...

3. All relevant qualities should be considered.

All personnel wearing the uniform must have some basic level of physical strength to ensure they can defend themselves in battle. However, a capable combat soldier must possess more than just physical strength. Skill, motivation, and a fighting spirit are just as crucial for the warrior, and all of these characteristics are gender-blind. Army and Marine leadership have recently been emphasizing additional crucial traits like judgment, discipline, restraint, and intellect, to name a few. Former Marine Corps Commandant General Charles Krulak has spoken and written about the “strategic corporal” who has to be ready to fight a three-block war. On any given day, in any contingency, that corporal may be dealing with hostile acts on one block, intervening to prevent conflict on another block, and providing humanitarian assistance on the third block:

The inescapable lesson of Somalia and of other recent operations, whether humanitarian assistance, peace-keeping, or traditional warfighting, is that their outcome may hinge on the decisions made by small unit leaders, and by actions taken at the lowest level. The Corps is, by design, a relatively young force. Success or failure will rest, increasingly, with the rifleman and with his ability to make the right decision at the right time at the point of contact. . . . [T]oday’s Marines will often operate far “from the flagpole” without the direct supervision of senior leadership. . . . [T]hey will be asked to deal with a bewildering array of challenges and threats. In order to succeed under such demanding conditions, they will require unwavering maturity, judgment, and strength of character. Most importantly, these missions will require them to confidently make well-reasoned and independent decisions under extreme stress—decisions that will likely be subject to harsh scrutiny of both the media and the court of public opinion.

Warriors must be strong, but they must also possess these other vital qualities that are more likely to affect the strategic outcome. In 2005, the Secretary of Defense commissioned the RAND Corporation (a non-profit research group) to study various factors that determine military performance. The study primarily investigated experience, training, and aptitude. It is interesting to note that the RAND study did not even include physical strength as a relevant factor in measuring military aptitude. The study found overwhelming evidence that aptitude (as measured by AFQT scores) was a crucial factor in determining effectiveness in combat forces. For example, replacing a tank gunner who had a Category IV AFQT score with one who was Category IIIA129 improved the chances of hitting their targets by thirty-four percent. The Army almost doubled the number of Category IV recruits in 2006. Women recruits are generally brighter than their male counterparts and they have fewer disciplinary problems. In order to get the best team of ground combat warriors based on physical strength and all other relevant qualifications, it is not logical to include marginally qualified CAT-IV males while excluding physically qualified CAT-I–III females.


So there you have it. The military is moving forward while some of you are leaving fingernail scratches in the floor from being dragged unwillingly into the future. It doesn't matter what the issue is: women's suffrage, civil rights, gay rights, women in combat, there's always a segment of the population that's resistant to change even when there is no rational basis to it.

[NickZac]

It doesn't matter what the issue is: women's suffrage, civil rights, gay rights, women in combat, there's always a segment of the population that's resistant to change even when there is no rational basis to it.

Yes, but rational basis for this particular issue does exist. How rational, we can debate, but this is a VERY gray issue. Do people deserve equal opportunity? Yes. Do people deserve the right to be given exceptions because of who they are? Absolutely not, which why I oppose things such as Affirmative Action.

[citizenzen]

Do people deserve the right to be given exceptions because of who they are? Absolutely not, which why I oppose things such as Affirmative Action.

What exemptions are mentioned below? If women pass their training they're qualified... something that men have done for years. As Colonel McSally points out, that is the only strength test ever required of men.

[NickZac]

What exemptions are mentioned below? If women pass their training they're qualified... something that men have done for years. As Colonel McSally points out, that is the only strength test ever required of men.

I am saying hypothetically. I don't believe that it should be argued "well since the infantry is 99% men, we are going to hire 30% of our new staff as female because they are female", where as that 30% may or may not be as well qualified as men.

With that said, I feel that saying you wont hire women because they are women is completely wrong.

If you want to be completely objective, give all potential applicants a number and have their credentials evaluated and recorded by someone other than the person who makes the call. Then you don't know race/gender/age/etc and you are judging only on the level of qualified someone is.

[citizenzen]

I am saying hypothetically. I don't believe that it should be argued "well since the infantry is 99% men, we are going to hire 30% of our new staff as female because they are female", where as that 30% may or may not be as well qualified as men.

Did you read the part of my post that included the Rand study on what makes the best soldier...

In 2005, the Secretary of Defense commissioned the RAND Corporation (a non-profit research group) to study various factors that determine military performance. The study primarily investigated experience, training, and aptitude. It is interesting to note that the RAND study did not even include physical strength as a relevant factor in measuring military aptitude. The study found overwhelming evidence that aptitude (as measured by AFQT scores) was a crucial factor in determining effectiveness in combat forces. For example, replacing a tank gunner who had a Category IV AFQT score with one who was Category IIIA129 improved the chances of hitting their targets by thirty-four percent. The Army almost doubled the number of Category IV recruits in 2006. Women recruits are generally brighter than their male counterparts and they have fewer disciplinary problems. In order to get the best team of ground combat warriors based on physical strength and all other relevant qualifications, it is not logical to include marginally qualified CAT-IV males while excluding physically qualified CAT-I–III females.


I believe you concerns could be easily turned around (as the army is now concluding themselves) and ask, why we are not utilizing our women and instead giving these positions to men who may not be as qualified.

Inertia's a biotch. The military's trying to not become a victim of it.

[iJohnHenry]

Female fire-fighters have to do the same dead-man carries down a ladder as a male fire-fighter does.

If they can't, they can't serve. ;)

The U.S. is not yet conscripting woman into the Armed Forces, so if those that do apply can't cut the mustard, then they should be sent packing. Simple.

[H00513R]

Yes, get them to the front line like everyone else. They have equal rights now and that should include seeing action as well as dying in the service of their country.

[citizenzen]

...if those that do apply can't cut the mustard, then they should be sent packing. Simple.

Thank you, Dr. Obvious. :rolleyes:

[MyDesktopBroke]

Bars are often set based on arbitrary measures and accepted customs are resistent to change and instead clung to because "that's just the way things are."

But if you are unwilling to change anything, then that's cool. Change usually has a way of happening anyway... dragging the unwilling behind it.

Instead of merely accepting the status quo, especially in light of this current discussion, I would ask naive questions and try to find out if current standards are truly necessary and based on what's best for the soldier, or more likely, relics of past practices and simply accepted out of habit and inertia.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear - I am 100% for women being able to serve in combat roles. I didn't know that men weren't giving a physical test in order to be assigned to the positions women are universally barred from.

If there was a test, the bar shouldn't be lowered based on sex. But since there isn't a test they either need to allow equality among service members or put a test in place.

I also think girls should sign up for selective service. It would insure the draft would never come back unless absolutely unavoidable.

[citizenzen]

If there was a test, the bar shouldn't be lowered based on sex.

If this link (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armyjoin/l/aaarmybasic2.htm) is accurate, it already is in a way...

There's one exception, however: the Initial PT Test. For males, this consists of 13 push-ups, 17 sit-ups and a one-mile run in under eight and one-half minutes. For females, the test consists of 3 push-ups, 17 sit-ups and a one-mile run in under ten and one-half minutes. If you fail this test, you'll get to spend some time at "Fat Camp," where brand-new Drill Instructors get to practice on you for awhile.


Oh, the horror! Oh, the inequity!

Ten push-ups.

Want to go to war over it?

[NickZac]

Oh, the horror! Oh, the inequity!

Ten push-ups.

Want to go to war over it?

Only if we are fighting over seedless watermelons or Lindt Chocolate Truffles

[iJohnHenry]

Thank you, Dr. Obvious. :rolleyes:

Honourary, unfortunately. :o

[szark]

Oh, the horror! Oh, the inequity!

Ten push-ups.

Want to go to war over it?

I'd be willing to bet that's just a typo, especially considering that both have to do 17 sit-ups.

[Huntn]

This is really nothing more than an argument in favor of lowering the standards so that women can pull their weight.

No worries, due to their higher dexterity they will be the ones operating the mech suits kicking arse. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9k4oUNHLJs