I was looking for a blog post on the DC gun ban--specifically, one I vaguely recall having argued that gun-control activists should have pressured DC to repeal its ban rather than let the case go to the Supreme Court, because DC sidesteps the incorporation question, and is therefore likely to produce a more sweeping ruling than a state case would.
But I got sidetracked onto Volokh, where Kingsley Browne is guest-blogging about whether women are simply too physically weak to be in combat.
This strikes me as an argument deserving serious consideration. But this segment of it seems weird:
Advocates of integration of women into combat forces often downplay the sex difference in physical capacity, correctly pointing out that some women are stronger than some men. In fact, however, there is little overlap between the sexes in terms of strength.Women, on average, have only one-half to two-thirds the upper-body strength of men. The probability that a randomly selected man will have greater upper-body strength than a randomly selected woman is generally between 95 and 99 percent, depending upon the measure and the sample. Most of this difference is due to differences in the quantity of muscle tissue, a difference attributable primarily to sex hormones.
Although most discussion of physical sex differences focuses on strength, the sexes also differ on a host of other performance measures, such as running speed, aerobic and anaerobic capacity, endurance, and throwing speed and accuracy. These abilities are all potentially important in combat.
Some assert that these large physical differences can be overcome through training. In fact, however, training often increases the sex difference. Both sexes benefit from strength training, and in samples of out-of-shape individuals, women may initially gain more from training than men. Nonetheless, the overlap between the sexes decreases, because training not only increases the strength of both groups, it also decreases the variability within the groups. When males and females both start out in good physical condition, women gain less from further conditioning than men do, so the gap between the sexes actually increases.
Is this actually an argument made by large numbers of people? Because it's completely, obviously insane. Being on the tail end of the size distribution, this realization was perhaps delayed slightly for me--but not past the age of sixteen, when I playfully snatched a hat from the head of a male companion who was a year younger and five inches shorter than I was, only to have him calmly and without visible effort use one hand to pin my arms behind my back while with the other he retrieved his chapeau. I'm both (very) large and strong for my gender, and yet I'm not sure I've ever met a (healthy) man who wasn't stronger than me; even the 130 pound scarecrows I've dated were clearly my superiors in physical strength.
My understanding, though, is that most advocates of fully integrating the military simply argue that strength doesn't matter that much, or that the rare superwomen who can meet the basic male requirements should be allowed the chance to serve in combat. I've never heard anyone deny that men are, on average, stronger than women.
"Some assert that these large physical differences can be overcome through training."
I don't know if people make this argument or not...if they do...it's wrong. Basic Training, for example, trains men and women to different physical standards given a specific weight. Why?
What would happen to graduation rates if the standards were raised to equal levels?
even if strength weren't an issue, soldiers would still have to read maps.
"I've never heard anyone deny that men are, on average, stronger than women."
You haven't spent enough time around academics.
perhaps the issue stems from the percieved need to make it all or nothing. Women in roles that are not physical in nature should have no issue... a pilot for example. Infantry on the other hand, you put on 60# worth of equipment, flack jacket and such, and there will be issues... if you need the personal take, email me direct, and I will get you in touch with a female friend who is just getting out, and spent a lot of time in country Iraq.
The issue becomes a problem because you expect a guy to perform regardless, but if you make exceptions for which things a woman can do, and you might have some perceptual problems with them getting off too easy, or being stuck with girl jobs.
Seems like the Isrealis have overcome many things here, how do they do it?
It strikes me that most of those arguing that on Volokh are trying to argue fundamentally illogical biases, one way or another, and trying to justify them with a veneer of reason or statistics.
It's quite obvious that the number of women physically suited to being ground infantry soldiers is vanishingly small. The question then is whether the problems of integrating this tiny percentage of women into the infantry is worth the disadvantages, but this isn't really all that fun an argument, it seems.
Thus, the vast majority of the argument has been largely off-topic. Kingsley Browne and many that agree with him seem to be coming frankly from an innate, a priori position that women should not be in the military. Reasoning and statistics may bolster their position in some instances but they are not the cause of it.
On the other side of the argument are those for whom the equality part is more important than any practical difficulties.
Kingsley et al. have spent an absolutely inordinate amount of time over there trying to stretch the defensible position that women should not be in the infantry to extend to pretty much every not-on-base task in the armed forces, on the theory that in extremis, all of these people might have to stand in for infantry, so the most important part is suitability for hand-to-hand ground combat.
The other argument being deployed a lot is that 'women aren't aggressive enough for combat', which is even more flawed than the other reasoning. It might be reasonable, again, for the infantry role, but there are plenty of military roles in which aggression and risk-taking are in fact exactly the wrong mindset for the task in any case.
Especially right now, when the military is having trouble reaching its recruitment targets and is already cutting corners on recruit quality, to have the mindset that the armed services are deliberately rejecting qualified men to take on women for PC reasons is rather silly. The issue might exist in some specialties, but in today's volunteer military, to replace the women with men would mean admitting men who would be inferior recruits in pretty much every way except physical strength.
I don't think it's denial of the average, it's a matter of arguing of where the gap comes from. I seem to recall that there was an author (or a few) that argue(s) that young girls simply aren't trained from youth for upper body strength. Their reasoning suggested that more training from a younger age would close that gap.
I will note that social pressures certainly play some role in all of this. I've personally witnessed some men who are not sexually attracted to women who is a little broad-shouldered and clearly have reasonable or slightly-above average levels of upper-body strength. It's certainly not causative, but an interesting phenomenon nonetheless.
This conversation leads to some rather interesting guest commenters; Megan's post on "From the Archives" about this very subject brought a number of crowing men from (I think) a body-building bulletin board.
When the Canadian military integrated women into combat roles, the biggest reason by far was the decreasing numbers of volunteers. There was a concern that restricting the forces to only men forced them to accept sub-standard men.
Arguments about physical strength etc. are predicated on the notion that every trooper in the army keeps himself in tip-top shape. Which is...not the case. In Canada in particular, there was a huge outcry about reducing physical standards, not just to accommodate women, but mostly to prevent declaring a large percentage of the force unfit for duty.
Now, in the more elite units, there is no problem with physical discipline, and those units would be embarrassed to just meet the CF standard. But in the forces at large, physical fitness was and remains a huge readiness risk. I suspect the same is true of most modern armies.
The other major issue with integration was that even when it was opened wide, only a handful of women ever WANTED to be in combat roles. The CF began forcing qualified women into combat arms occupations. (Most of them left. I was one of them. Having dreamed of a naval career, a life spent in a trench was not going to cut it.)
I should note though, that there are women in Afghanistan currently with the CF in explicit combat roles (infantry, armour, artillery). I have not heard any specific complaints about performance or strength, and the CF has seen plenty of combat recently.
MM wrote: I've never heard anyone deny that men are, on average, stronger than women.
Except that once the doors are opened wide to both sexes, what should be purely a capability issue (can Jane Doe perform that necessary physical task, or can't she?) instead becomes a political issue (is Jane Doe's gender qualifying in sufficient numbers?). The inevitable result is that the basic physical qualifications are whittled down until the politics are satisfied, and proponents of coed combat then turn around and claim, "See? They're equally capable!", which in fact begs the question.
In roles that depend primarily on gender-agnostic traits, such as being a fighter pilot, women generally excel. Roles requiring heavy physical labor (or the possibility of physical labor suddenly being thrust upon someone due to a mechanical breakdown, loss of a squad mate, etc.), not so much, because only a limited number of women are sufficiently above their gender mean as to compete equally with men in sustained upper body strength.
Klug wrote: I don't think it's denial of the average, it's a matter of arguing of where the gap comes from. I seem to recall that there was an author (or a few) that argue(s) that young girls simply aren't trained from youth for upper body strength. Their reasoning suggested that more training from a younger age would close that gap.
Did their argument also include hormonal therapy to increase the levels of endogenous testosterone in women? It's not exactly a mystery of medical science that the male ability to build and maintain greater muscle mass on average is, in fact, a product of gender chemistry.
Yes, women can maintain an above-average muscle mass with a suitable physical regimen, especially starting from a young age, but the plateau is invariably lower. One of my cousins was an aggressive tomboy who could out-swim, out-tennis, and out-whatever most of the boys starting from a young age. In adulthood, she maintains a strong and well-honed physique, but at the same time, the boys became men and are generally stronger than she is, and her overall profile -- though again, stronger than many other women -- is nonetheless feminine.
Hormonal chemistry bows to nobody's fuzzball ideas about "cultural distinctions" of the sexes, and the only way to get different results is to directly interfere with the cocktail.
My understanding, though, is that most advocates of fully integrating the military simply argue that strength doesn't matter that much, or that the rare superwomen who can meet the basic male requirements should be allowed the chance to serve in combat
Read through the comments on those Volokh threads. A number of active duty servicemen explain why strength is absolutely crucial in everything other than say, support or radar operation. I find the whole thing fascinating in its specificity.
Summation of Volokh commenters: infantry may need to carry a fallen brother out of combat while both wear 80lb gear, it takes five strong, healthy men to change a tank tread, most women can't load artillery because the shells are too heavy.
They do seem to acknowledge that, say, Nicole Bass might be able to perform these functions and that they have no problem with women serving on Naval vessels as long as they quit getting themselves qualified for pregnancy leave to the tune of 30% per year (huh!?).
I've personally witnessed some men who are not sexually attracted to women who is a little broad-shouldered and clearly have reasonable or slightly-above average levels of upper-body strength.
Oh yeah? Well I've personally witnessed women who don't find men with generous man-boobs attractive.
"This conversation leads to some rather interesting guest commenters; Megan's post on "From the Archives"" - klug...
heh, we all know she's uncommonly strong :D
I think that we've only touched on the critical point (Ginna did anyway).
The US military has far too many volunteers, they can afford to be picky. I can't tell you how many 16 year olds I've met who are just bubbling at the prospect of turning 17 so they can enlist.
Women in roles that are not physical in nature should have no issue... a pilot for example.
Oh, yeah. According to the Volokh commentors, women have different reaction times than men (I am not aware whether that is true or not), which, they say, sometimes gets women killed in the cockpit.
Seems like the Isrealis have overcome many things here, how do they do it?
Very, very good question. I've also wondered how the Israelis are able to control a far greater level of terrorism without wire-tapping or data-mining their loyal, peaceful citizens. At some point, someone needs to ask them questions like these.
I seem to recall that there was an author (or a few) that argue(s) that young girls simply aren't trained from youth for upper body strength. Their reasoning suggested that more training from a younger age would close that gap.
I'm not from a bodybuilding board, but as something of a gym rat, nonetheless, I can say that, at least in my personal observations, this is false (absent performance enhancers). I've seen some women train much harder/smarter than men and show significantly lower comparative strength gains after, say, six months. But I've also never been in a gym with Serena Williams or China Doll.
Rob, the worst part is that these were man-boobed guys saying this. It's reminiscent of the Jason Alexander character in "Shallow Hal".
"I've never heard anyone deny that men are, on average, stronger than women."
You haven't spent enough time around academics.
Please, please, please quote and cite a single academic who argues that men are not stronger than women. One quote. Just one.
Oops! By asking for you to provide evidence to support your tired cliche about political correctness at the university, I'm acting like... an academic.
Please, please, please quote and cite a single academic who argues that men are not stronger than women.
The right and the libertarian right sometimes overgeneralize about academia. Having said that, I did, personally (way back when), have both an Anthropology professor and a Philosophy of Literary Analysis professor who each said (though not in writing) exactly that. I can't say I remember names, though.
Shinyk: I don't find those arguments (that women have worse reaction times, etc) all that convincing. When it came to the female pilots, the anti-women-in-combat people were rather shaky in their arguments against.
Shaky when they weren't just outright wrong, as well, e.g. the insisting that the Navy's first female carrier pilot died fundamentally because she was female, rather than simply a poor decision that many inexperienced pilots have made coupled with sheer bad luck.
The insistence that she ejected too late because of feminine over-caution/indecision paralysis was exceptionally offensive - turns out that the plane in question always ejects both crewmembers if either pulls the handles, and ejects the rear-seat guy first and then the front at a pre-defined interval, so that the debris from the front can't impact the guy behind.
As you may know, many Asian nations have conscription for their male citizens, so I have some experience in this matter.
I think one thing that was ignored by the original poster, and many of the commenters on the Volokh thread is the very heavy emphasis any military places on standardization.
Many of the commenters with military backgrounds alluded to it, but even more important that individual ability is uniformity of ability across a unit. Unit cohesion depends on each individual maintaining a certain standard. To give a concrete (but trivial) example, a unit cannot march faster than the slowest soldier. Unequal soldier ability affects combat effectiveness and morale. Even if you've never served in the military, think about any team sport you've ever played, and you can instinctively understand this.
Thus, the military doesn't care about the exception, it deals with the average. It deals in numbers and statistics. Soldiers must be interchangeable. Combat units must be interchangeable.
Let us pretend, for a moment, that the Army were to integrate its front-line combat units. If the women were allowed to carry lighter loads, the loads for all soldiers must be reduced. Each soldier must carry his standard load of water, munitions, and equipment. It is from the standard load that the army decides how long a unit can maintain combat effectiveness without logistical support. The military cannot make exceptions without horribly complicating the supply chain to handle such exceptions.
Let us take the humble sidearm for example. In the civilian gun market, gun frames and grips of different sizes are marketed. This is important for accurate shooting, since the index finger must rest on the trigger in a specific way to minimize gun deflection from trigger pull.
In a all-male army, the standard-issue sidearm would be optimized for the average male hand. To integrate the army, we must either create a second sidearm optimized for women (complicating logistics), adjust the standard sidearm (reducing its effectiveness for men), or do nothing, and let women cope with a sidearm designed for the average man.
You can repeat this example with driver-seat position, MRE-portion size, howitzer design. The point is, introducing a second bell-curve into the soldier population has many, many costs, with little benefit.
It is sexist, and it is unfair to the 1% of women who can meet standards developed for men. But given the nature of the military, fairness and morality take a back-seat to effectiveness and efficiency.
The question about upper-body strength is not whether strong women are anywhere as strong as strong men, the question is whether or not they are strong enough for the mission. Period. In war, unlike the in the marketplace, your peers are not your competition.
also the question is not whether women are suited to "combat". The mission is all that counts. If combat is so central to you, just go get a paint ball gun. There is no one-sized fits all standard for what suits you to the mission, because there is no standard mission. Since humping artillery projectiles is a task for a type of warfare we will not see for at least a generation, heavy maneuver warfare*, big upper-body strength is not that important a criterion.
We are entering an era of asymmetrical warfare, when humping jo's and being able to carry 100 lb. rucks is less important than having basic load of Conversational Arabic or whatever the local langauge is. And that doesn't apply just to women - who is better suited to house to house searches with squalling kids and wailing women - a 20 year-old or a 40 year old guy who is used that crap from home? How helpful would it be in that situation to have an Arabic-speaking American woman along on the patrol? Ask the guys who have been on those patrols.
This is the real transformation the Army is going to have to go through, not the bogus transformation of idiots like Rumsfeld, from one kind of toy-heavy military to another, from expensive armored vehicles to expensive armored storm troopers, but from an army of weapons systems to one with soldiers who can operate in the "human terrain" everyone is talking about these days.
*Because there is no doubt in anyone's mind anywhere in the world that facing off with us in that kind of war is national suicide.
"...trains men and women to different physical standards given a specific weight."
I don't know if the other services use weight in computing PT averages, but the Army grades based on sex and age. A copy of the table can be found here (The official table is on DA Form 705 if anybody cares)
You are given two minutes each for push-ups and sit-ups to do as many repetitions as you can, and run two miles as fast as you can. Then you take the number of repetitions and run time and look it up under the appropriate age and sex columns. A passing score for the regular forces is 60 in each event. You need to get 50 points in each event to graduate Basic Training, and the full 60 in each to graduate Advanced Individual Training.
You can see from the table that the requirements for push-ups and the two-mile run is significantly less stringent for females, but that there is no difference between males and females for scoring sit-ups.
Sorry, the URL for the table didn't take
http://www.usd.edu/msc/pt/ptchart.html
big upper-body strength is not that important a criterion
I don't know about that. When house-to-house becomes hand-to-hand, you might start to care again.
"Infantry on the other hand, you put on 60# worth of equipment, flack jacket and such, and there will be issues..."
There was a time when women, and men too, for that matter, carried that much hanging from a tumpline across their foreheads. Then we domensticated other pack animals. People can still do it necessary, with enough training.
Ref theissue of standardization - the US Army uses the Beretta 9mm. Women have no problem with it. It does the job - will blow your brains out very well. One size fits all, whether or not maximized to a man's hand.
Another point about standardization - some white girl's hand is not necessarily going to be any smaller than some little Asian guy's.
"The issue becomes a problem because you expect a guy to perform regardless, but if you make exceptions for which things a woman can do, and you might have some perceptual problems with them getting off too easy, or being stuck with girl jobs."
This is a very valid concern. This kind of thing results from stupid accomodations a force makes for soldiers who shouldn't be serving in the first place.
Oponents to women in combat have a burden of brain-damaged objections over the years to overcome before I am going to believe any more of their objections:
1) They'll get cramps and be ineffective.
Answer: Take two Midol and gut it out, troop.
2) They'll get pregnant.
Answer: Take your ass to the TMC and get scraped, and don't give me any "Our bodies ourselves" horseshit; the Army owns you body, soul and asshole. Next time get permission before you get knocked up.
Etc............
It isn't the soldiers' fault that the leadership gets wobbly and ineffectual when these things come up.
Re: Jim (Dec. 5, 6:14PM)
Layered misconceptions. Let's peel them one at a time.
"the question is whether or not they are strong enough for the mission."
This is a common argument. The problem is, the mission changes, and even if the mission doesn't change, the requirements do. Soldiers can't just be "strong enough for the mission." They must be strong enough for all circumstances they could be reasonably expected to encounter.
Most units through most of modern history fought understrength. Let's take a 13-man marine rifleteam. Subtract six men. The seven men left must perform the functions of the original unit - covering the same ground, maintaining the same volume of fire, while staying in communications with the flanks and command. This means that the radioman is also carrying a machine gun, and the rifleman is also carrying ammunition for said gun.
Missions can change at any time. A truck convoy can be ambushed. Again, this is why standardization is essential. The military cannot have a motley collection of units each "strong enough" for a specific task. They all must be strong enough to perform any of the tasks.
"Since humping artillery projectiles is a task for a type of warfare we will not see for at least a generation, heavy maneuver warfare*, big upper-body strength is not that important a criterion."
Name one 20-year span since the invention of artillery that has not seen the use of artillery in state-to-state conflict.
With regards to your asterisk - How does US dominance in conventional warfare become an argument for reducing US dominance in conventional warfare?
"We are entering an era of asymmetrical warfare, when humping jo's and being able to carry 100 lb. rucks is less important than having basic load of Conversational Arabic or whatever the local langauge is."
Asymmetrical warfare makes uniform physical standards more important. With no well-defined FEBA, even support and rear-echelon personnel can find themselves in close-quarter combat. An interpreter will need the strength to carry the wounded body of his/her driver when the truck is struck by an RPG. If anything, asymmetrical warfare makes physical prowess more important. Again, a standard requirement gives military planners the flexibility to assign any unit to a task and expect it to be able to deal with any situations that arise.
"Since humping artillery projectiles is a task for a type of warfare we will not see for at least a generation"
I keep hearing this rationale, both within and without the military, for "we don't fight conventional wars anymore" That, of course, is utter crap. We aren't fighting a conventional war right now, but the next war will start out as a regular old humping shells-and-rucksacks high-intensity conflict, just like this one did.
Remember, this insurgency thing didn't work for Saddam Hussein--he's dead. He may have gone to his grave chuckling about the casualties inflicted on US Soldiers, but I don't doubt that he would have preferred to still rule Iraq. If we were to invade (for example) Iran, they're going to do at least try regular tank-on-tank battles to stop us. Having their planted insurgents kill Americans on the streets of Tehran only works if there are Americans on the streets of Tehran and by that point it's too late for the current regime.
Also that "oooeee! The wimmins can't do COMBAT!" also seems a little silly when female soldiers are put everywhere else but official "combat areas", plus the fact that in places like Iraq a "non-combat" territory can shift to having IEDs, snipers, and the whole mess pretty damn quick. Or are the Volokh people going to claim that no female soldier has been killed in Iraq yet?
The problem is, we've got this scenario:
Men, on average, are stronger than women. (True)
We need soldiers to be able to carry a lot of heavy things.
Therefore we should have men rather than women as soldiers.
This then morphs into a "well, because men are fighting as soldiers and women aren't, men should have more power/are more important/should be hired first/whatever."
It really pisses me off when people try to claim that men have more "knowledge" of war than women and thus should be listened to more than women. To which I respond: who do you think comprises the population in which the war is being carried out, you idiots? The average woman has far, far more to worry about from an invading army than the average man. He might be shot. She'll be raped and then shot.
RE: Jim (Dec. 5, 6:38PM)
Ref theissue of standardization - the US Army uses the Beretta 9mm. Women have no problem with it. It does the job - will blow your brains out very well. One size fits all, whether or not maximized to a man's hand.
If you don't immediately grasp the importance of proper grip in handgun accuracy (pardon the pun), there is no point in further discussion. Anyone who has even dabbled in pistol marksmanship understands the point I was making.
If you want to blow my brains out very well, you're going to have draw, aim and fire more quickly and accurately than I can. That requires proper grip.
Another point about standardization - some white girl's hand is not necessarily going to be any smaller than some little Asian guy's.
"Not necessarily" - I'm not talking about the exception, I'm talking about the average. And it's not just hand size. It's average weight, height, build, caloric intake, et cetera. You can find a few women who are similar to men in some respects, but it is exceedingly hard to find a women who is the same as the average male in ALL respects.
Let me make it very very simple, since the point of my first comment post was obviously lost to you. The military requires interchangeability, which requires standardization. The more variation there is among soldiers, the harder and more costly it becomes to standardize, both in terms of logistical complexity and operational flexibility. Does the benefit of an expanded recruitment pool outweigh those costs. The militaries of the world seem to say no.
perhaps the issue stems from the percieved need to make it all or nothing. Women in roles that are not physical in nature should have no issue... a pilot for example.
Ha. I'd suggest you talk to some pilots before you go around spouting "it's not physical in nature". Nobody pulls Gs in a desk.
OK, Listen up.
After about 27 years of playing ARMY I can state authoritatively that:
A) Some women can't hack tough physical challenges or the high stress of combat and lack the character required to be a good soldier.
B) So do quite a few men.
C) We have this quaint custom called BASIC TRAINING [been there, done that, and later I commanded a piece of it] that exists solely to MAKE THAT DISTINCTION! We are supposed to filter out those that cannot perform with ruthless efficiency and anything less than that should be considered cold-blooded murder.
D) Eliminate all of the PC nonsense, especially the sexist "easier" physical training requirements, and the women[however few or many]that come through Basic Training will do just fine. That's what I did in 1979 [on the sly] and EVERY single female troop I had came up to standard [5-miles, 40 minutes, nobody falls out], even the Company Fat Guy, who happened to be a girl-type person. Drop the phoney quotas, set rational standards and enforce them and we get a good quality armed forces of well-trained volunteers. They may not meet some people's notions of what the perfect racial, gender, religious, sociological make-up should be, which is fine with me.
E) Most of the few real shortcomings among the current crop of females in uniform can also be chalked up to the "soft tyranny of low expectations". Look at the difference between Army and Air Force gals and those from the Marine Corps: the training and the discipline are worlds apart, and so are the results. You get what you ask for [OK, more like "demand in a loud shrieking voice", but you know what I mean].
F) Every arguement used against including females in the military is IDENTICAL to the ones used against "Colored Folks" in 1942 [in lieu of the pregnancy issue they used the traditional "sex-crazed potential rapist" canard]. All the nonsense about "bonding difficulties", "close proximity causing friction" and "discipline problems" was racist nonsense dressed up to look like pragmatic concern for military efficiency [mostly from people who never seemed to care before].
G) In all those 27 years, I NEVER broke 200 on the AFPT [that means I'm a very poor athelete - 180 is the minimum and RANGERS regularly break the 300 maximum just for show] but I was considered Completely FIT for combat due to the presence of testicles! This made little sense to me.[OK, I also shot EXPERT with everything up to and including tank cannon.]
G) No less an authority than Robert A. Heinlein has fully endorsed the concept of females in the front lines - which Erases All Doubt, for me at least. No, not in "Starship Troopers" [the goofy movie does NOT count!], but in "Friday" [look it up: the scene with the mercenary outfit on the river boats].
H) ONE valid arguement can be presented against letting women into the front lines: The average female in moments of stress has often demonstrated a degree of cold-blooded savagry that would make the "pomo tranzies" at the UN faint dead away. Even then, I believe that with proper training, females can be taught that War Has Limits - unlike Divorce Court, apparently.
I) We cannot afford to limit the pool of talent by gender, religion, or racial group. Good leaders are handling mixed-gender units in nearly-continuous combat operations today [there is no safe rear area in Iraq] - most of the noise on women in combat comes from the civilian chattering class.
Consider that advocating public policy on what "feels wrong" is no less dumb than making policy on what "feels good".
Shinyk: I don't find those arguments (that women have worse reaction times, etc) all that convincing. When it came to the female pilots, the anti-women-in-combat people were rather shaky in their arguments against.
Arguments of servicemen, not mine. I don't know whether they are accurate or not (especially skeptical about the reaction time one), but I do tend to doubt that there are many women who can drag a wounded 180 lb man, wearing 100 lbs of gear, to safety, while they, themselves, wear 100 lbs of gear.
Bill Murray on SNL:
Let's say we have a war with Russia and the women fight. If we win, that's OK. And if we lose, we can say to the Russians: "Wow, you beat a bunch of girls. You must be really proud of yourselves. You Russians are real tough guys, yeah." Can you imagine how embarrassed the Russians would be?
There hasn't been much controversy about women lacking the physical strength to be police officers. Cops don't carry 75 pounds of equipment, but on occasion they have to use physical force.
I don't really buy the "mission shift" argument either.
Yeah, there's a danger of extending ourself beyond our means, but it seems like if you have the option of, you know, having a SAM installation staffed w/ women, or not having one at all, you'd probably go w/ the women, even if they're not quite as capable of hoofing it 60 miles across the desert if everything goes to hell. It's not as if we're turning away more capable applicants, after all.
Megan,
In answer to your question, it was widely believed during the feminist heyday in the 1990s that women would soon be about as strong as men. In an opinion poll just before the 1996 Olympics, 66% claimed "the day is coming when top female athletes will beat top males at the highest competitive levels." The most publicized scientific study supporting this belief appeared in Nature in 1992: "Will Women Soon Outrun Men?" Physiologists Susan Ward and Brian Whipp pointed out that since the Twenties women's world records in running had been falling faster than men's. Assuming these trends continued, men's and women's marathon records would equalize by 1998, and during the early 21st Century for the shorter races. It was then commonly argued that this showed that co-ed combat roles made sense.
I debunked that line of argument in a National Review article in 1997 called "Track and Battlefield," when sports physiologist Stephen Seiler and I showed that the gender gap in running got larger after the collapse of the East German Olympic chemical-industrial complex in 1989 and the imposition of better steroid testing in the wake of the steroid scandals at the 1988 Olympics. Women have less natural testosterone than men, so female runners were getting a bigger bang for their buck from shooting up with steroids. You can read all about it here:
http://www.isteve.com/gendrgap.htm
It's hard to remember just how stupid feminism made people talk back in the early and mid-1990s. Nobody takes feminism seriously intellectually any more (although it obviously still has vast institutional power, as the Larry Summers wind-ding showed), which shows that human beings actually can learn things.
OldFan said "Eliminate all of the PC nonsense..."
And that is key. Most of those arguing for women in combat assume that this will be done. Many of those opposed assume it will not. If it is not, degradation of standards to achieve proportionate outcomes will happen. It has happened already. If you read the Volokh threads, you find many comments on firefighter and police experience with gender integration and its failures, as well. Me, I agree with OldFan that it CAN work, but disagree insofar as our ability to extablish the conditions under which it WILL work. Political pressure will come into play and the result will be lowered standards.
The really interesting area for speculation is: Assuming that gender integration and (therefore) lowered physical standards WILL happen, how can you maintain an effective military? What do we need to invent to make such a military work? Would powered suits ala RAH "Mobile Infantry" equalize this?
The best women in combat argument was made, not surprisingly, by Martin VAN CREVELT with a good deal of reliance on the Israeli experience with women in a system of universal military training and militia-type civic rights and militia obligations. In fact, Israeli military men and women are comfortable with combat exclusion but also with military inclusion.
Benyamin NETANYAHU suggested ending conscription of women to save money and buy stuff from the Americans. He was promptly booted out of office by women who recognized they would instantly become second-class citizens in a country where they participated in a robust meritocracy and heroic military myth-history.
Women may be well-suited for some sorts of siege warfare but not for expeditionary warfare. And, that is sort of how it breaks down in the IDF where practical distinctions but not moral distinctions are made in a military organization with no trace of aristocracy or privilege.
Another perspective might be that of John BOYD, -- a mere Colonel but a universally recognized military genius -- only he died before getting to this topic. He organized military thinking into "moral, mental, and physical" planes, where any military question has to be considered.
My guess is that the moral case for military integration is compelling in any society that accords equal moral status and identical civic responsiblities to women. That is I think a compelling case for integration of women into either "all volunteer" or "militia" type military organizations without overt or covert discrimination.
After that, combat integration would have to be very specific to mental/physical roles. But, I cannot see why some women would not be wonderful combat pilots and, indeed, some have been.
Where I think we miss a good bet here in the US today with our anglicized military institutions and British-style cadet/line system of command preferment, homophobia, rank-inflation, and aesthetical pretense. This discriminates not just against women, but against all men other than high-school and college "jocks" at the entry level and political-economic family-type or social connections thereafter.
A Leonard WOOD could not happen today: He won the Congressional Medal of Honor as a contract doctor for colored troops in the US Army, was hastily commissioned by an embarrased Army, and went on to be Chief of Staff based on both combat, staff, and political leadership.
Admiral Grace HOPPER in my day never got a ship to command, although she was a charismatic leader -- a grand-niece of Admiral PORTER, I believe. She thought like a fighter, talked like a master, and inspired men to work and courage. What else is there?
But, she was not a male and had a "restricted" commission. Actually, she lived in the same Congressional ghetto as Admiral RICKOVER.
What bigotry! -- more Victorian than the actual Victorians!
Peter -
Please don't bring up cops/fire fighters - one can of worms at a time.
(BTW, if I ever start posting regularly to my blog and add advertising, I'm going to bring up this topic in as many different ways as possible, as often as possible - there doesn't seem to be much better comment bait out there!)
very arguement used against including females in the military is IDENTICAL to the ones used against "Colored Folks" in 1942
If only my grandfather were alive, I could ask him if the arguments against a racially integrated military included:
1) Black men have low upper body strength
2) Illicit sex with black unit members is a likely morale problem, especially if the relationship sours
3) The white boys will have love triangle/jealously issues with the new black guy in the unit
4) Young white men are likely to do reckless/stupid things in an effort to impress their black colleagues
5) The white members of a unit are likely to act overly protectively towards black members rather than relying on them as equals
6) Officers may show favoritism towards black enlistees to whom they are likely to be attracted.
Without taking a position on the answer, I would point out that there is a valid concern in that women would require accomodations for the gender that would impose a cost. That cost needs to be compared to the benefit of having however few women actually meet the requirements.
As noted above, this only applies to combat troops where few women would qualify. But requirements for privacy and female medical issues will require some additional costs.
Someone in the military would actually have to work up the numbers to determine if it's an issue.
If we allow women in combat (there are already women in the military), add me to the list of skeptics that believe that standards would be lowered to accomodate them and that this would be a bad thing.
Having said that, I'd love to see a close study of how women are integrated into the Israeli military. Of course, they are probably a lot more desperate for bodies.
EI
Megan,
Browne spends the entirety of the article beyond what you cited arguing reasons that strength differences are actually important in modern warfare. He merely begins by establishing the difference between the sex with a basic set of facts, with the three paragraphs you quote out of a twelve paragraph post. I'm not sure what your point is here.