Given that our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan (esp Iraq) are already battles without fronts, women confined to logistical support roles are already exposed to combat.

As Chris Rock once said, "hell yeah let 'em fight. Because I ain't fightin!"

I don't have a problem with women serving in combat roles if they are qualified. Sure some things will have to change, but Israelis have figured it out.

But does that mean women will have to register with Selective Service when they turn 18? Does that mean they could be subject to a draft? I doubt feminists or non-feminists will go for that.

@rpg: Good point about the draft, but what makes you doubt support for it?

I'm female and I disagree. I think the selective service should be equally applied, either abolish it (because we're not likely to ever use the draft again, just back door drafts as we do to the miliary right now) or require both men and women to register at 18.

I've felt that way since I could read. It isn't fair and undermines the equality of both sexes.

As a veteran, I'm not opposed to women in combat, with one proviso -- the women have to meet the same physical fitness standards as the men serving in those combat units.

Currently, for a male Soldier age 17-21 those standards are (Minimums, to pass the physical training test):

59 push-ups in two minutes

58 sit-ups in two minutes

Running two miles in 16 minutes or less

For a female Soldier age 17-21 they are:

19 push-ups

37 sit-ups

Run two miles in 19 minutes or less.

Saletan places a lot of emphasis on assymetrical conflicts, but the fact remains that an Army unit can move only as fast as its slowest member, and can carry on average, much less combat materiel if it doesn't have a similar strength ability among all its members. No one is saying that women shouldn't be armed -- but can they be as effective on patrol as their male counterparts? Obviously not. They can't carry as much weight or move as fast.

Do away with the double standard. Otherwise, keep women out of combat units -- they are literally not fit to be there.

The people killed were in the Medical Unit on a BASE IN AMERICA. NO WEAPONS ARE CARRIED INTO THE MEDICAL CLINIC. Perhaps that is why they did not shoot the Muslim themselves.

No matter how much spin a feminist wants to put on it...men and women are different.

Thanks for posting the comparison, trapdoor. I have a quick question for ya: are these measures used for all army units, or only the "forward" combat units? I'm guessing, given the specialization of labor in the military right now, that different roles will have different prerequisites for determining whether a soldier is fit for said role. That's disturbing if such a wide disparity between fitness minimums occurs soley with combat units, and even more disturbing if the minimums are the same independent of unit role.

@trapdoor

Not sure where you got those numbers, not that it's the point, but you are incorrect. Check out Army Field Manual 21-20, Physical Fitness Training:

Push-up standards, 17-21
Male: 42
Female: 19

Sit-up standards, 17-21
Male/Female: 50 (standard is the same for both)

2 mile run standard, 17-21
Male: 15:54
Female: 18:54

Again, this is hardly the point, as the APFT is rather abitrary and certainly antiquated. Just wanted to clear up those incorrect (exaggerated?) numbers you provided.

I agree with apropos1, women in the United States should also be subject to constription, as in Israel. The Israel Defense Forces are a perfect example of why women should and CAN serve in direct combat positions alongside their male counterparts. To suggest ALL women should be barred because SOME are not as physically strong is sexist at best, misogyny at worst. You realize there are plenty of men who also cannot meet the physical demands necessary for direct combat roles? But they have the opportunity to try. We'd also like that opportunity.

trapdoor:

As a veteran, I'm not opposed to women in combat, with one proviso -- the women have to meet the same physical fitness standards as the men serving in those combat units.

Currently, for a male Soldier age 17-21 those standards are (Minimums, to pass the physical training test):

I agree that women should be able to meet the physical standards necessary to perform their jobs, but I disagree that the performance standards need to be the same for men and women. The physical standards are in place partly because a certain minimum level of physical fitness is required for the job and partly to motivate soldiers to train hard. I think the main reason why men have to do 59 pushups in two minutes instead of 19 is because the average man could probably do 19 without any physical training. The real question is how much strength (as indicated by the number of pushups the soldier can perform) is necessary for the soldier to be effective in combat? As long as both men and women meet that minimm level of strength, I think it is okay for men and women to have different physical standards. In other words, it's possible that 15 pushups is the minimum required to be combat effective for both men and women, but a 59 pushup standard forces 99% of male soldiers to train hard and a 19 pushup standard forces 99% of female soldiers to train hard. I think that would be okay.

trapdoor:

Saletan places a lot of emphasis on assymetrical conflicts, but the fact remains that an Army unit can move only as fast as its slowest member, and can carry on average, much less combat materiel if it doesn't have a similar strength ability among all its members. No one is saying that women shouldn't be armed -- but can they be as effective on patrol as their male counterparts? Obviously not. They can't carry as much weight or move as fast.

The question is not whether women on average can be as effective on patrol as men on average. Of course they can't, on average, assuming that combat effectiveness is primarily derived from soldiers' physical strength (a big if, I think). The question is whether individual women (not average women) have enough physical strength for the unit to achieve a certain level of combat effectiveness. The combat effectiveness of a unit is not just a linear function of the number of pushups you can do. Let me ask you this: if, by accepting women into combat units I could field two mixed-sex units instead of one all-male unit, and the presence of women in those units made them each 10% less effective than an all-male unit, have I increased or decreased my fighting strength? That leaves aside the question of exactly how much physical strength contributes to combat effectiveness and whether women possess other attributes that enhance combat effectiveness rather than detract from it.

I couldn't agree more. We have lots of female cops here in Santa Cruz, Ca, and whenever they have any kind of even sem-dangerous duty they always have a man with them babysitting them. Many of the female cops are very fat too. Although you'd get into trouble saying that. Women are NOT as strong as men so they'd get all the cushy jobs in the military, leaving all of the undesirable jobs to the males, it's not fair and it never can be fair. The vast majority of women simply can't compete with males physically. If they can compete then great. Remember the videos going around about the female so-called fire-fighters that were so hilarous. The women couldn't carry a ladder, they couldn't carry (or even drag) a body. So who's supposed to bail out a man if he runs into trouble? Two or three women? Oh that's smart, let's hire 2 or 3 times as many people as we needed before so we can look like we're being fair. What a load of bs.

@malibuniki: Well put! "You realize there are plenty of men who also cannot meet the physical demands necessary for direct combat roles?" I wonder who among us would want to be dragged out of a firefight by a male soldier who's 5'8" and 135 lbs--- well above the Army minimum--- who's also burdened by gear that weighs 70 lbs (or 100, 120, 150 lbs of gear--- the number grows like a legend)?

Malibuniki: I may have found an out-of-date chart by accident, but the point still stands. Women aren't expected to perform at the same physical level as men. That's not very important in the garrison, but it is important in combat.

I'm not suggesting that all women be barred -- I'm suggesting that the standard be the same for men and women. Men who can't meet the physical standards of direct combat (meaning they can't pass the physical fitness standard for men) aren't placed in other jobs in the military -- they are ousted from the military for failing to meet the physical fitness standards (and that's true even if they could PASS the standards for set for female troops).

I don't agree that the fitness standards are antiquated. They test upper body strenght, core strength, and speed to provide an overall standard of fitness. The Army's means of determining whether a Soldier is overweight or meets the weight standard is antiquated, but that isn't really the topic at hand.

Shusaku: The Physical Training requirements are an "entire-army" standard -- there isn't one set of standards for infantry and another for clerks.

Other than that, I agree. If we are to have even a chance of conscription (and I should add here that I've always believed the draft to be unconstitutional) it should be distributed without regard to gender.

Thanks for this post, malibuniki. It points to the question that occurred to me - how many situps do you need to do in the average firefight in Iraq or Afghanistan? The issue is can a person, male or female, do the job - the measure of the job is, if I'm not mistaken, not pushups/minute, but how effectively you can carry out various kinds of battles in various kinds of environments, with various gear and various other requirements. As you indicate, some women and some men can do what's needed - some can't. Those who can, either gender, should be equally permitted/required to do it.

trapdoor:

Shusaku: The Physical Training requirements are an "entire-army" standard -- there isn't one set of standards for infantry and another for clerks.

Then good grief - that's how you get sucky clerks. They can do the situps, but they can't read or add. All you've proven is that the admissions testing is useless in estimating whether the men/women can do the job, because it bears no relationship to the job requirements. Do you need to do X situps/minute to learn to aim and fire a gun? What do those very general requirements really tell anyone about the ability of a woman (or a man) to do the specific tasks they might be required to do in combat (which, if I'm not mistaken, are not situps and pushups)?