Women have often proven their mettle in combat, and this incident drives the point home, as Mr. Saletan rightly points out. So we will now see the anti-feminists dig up "new" reasons why we should keep women from protecting us, like: "Well, they can fight, but what about when they're not fighting? Our men soldiers can't help raping the women, so let's seclude them instead of stopping the men." Or, "The women are distractions to readiness, because battle fatigues are the sexy item this year." Or, "Good thing she wasn't in her 'woman times' this week or she wouldn't have handled the situation." The list will get more and more desperate... it would be entertaining if these sexist excuses weren't hurting our nation's security and violating our core principles.

Actually, so far women have proven that they can operate weapons pretty well and deal with the stresses of combat just as well as men. Female chopper pilots have been able to send missiles into buildings just as well as men. They have not, however, proven that they are just as physically strong or have as much endurance, in general, as men. This is simply factual, and shown in the fact that female troops' training regimens are far less strenous than mens'.

It doesn't mean they should be excluded from combat (hey, let them get PTSD and lose limbs just like the guys!) but it doesn't mean that there is "no difference" between them and men, or that anyone who honestly believes that women are not equipped for combat are "haters." I disagree with them, but I don't think they have a bad agenda. I also don't think that the purpose of the military is to provide jobs.

T>hey have not, however, proven that they are just as physically strong or have as much endurance, in general, as men>

But isn't that the whole point of the article?? That "in general" should not exclude those exceptionally strong, fast, and fit women who *are* as physically strong, who *do* have as much endurance, and who can do the same situps/pushups/etc. as men? Women like this may be the exception rather than the rule, but why categorically exclude them because *other* women can't make the grade? It makes no sense.

If they were to simply maintain the same standards for combat troops, and some women made it, terrific for them. But there is an argument (and I think I hear it in the OP's "women haters" comment) that women have some inherent basic right to be in combat, even those who would not necessarily make the grade. It stems from an ossified feminist thing from the '70s.

.
@EarlyBird:

"it doesn't mean that there is "no difference" between them and men, or that anyone who honestly believes that women are not equipped for combat are "haters.""

I request you not put words in my mouth. I am not talking about people who just want to ensure that our soldiers are fit and capable. I'm talking about backwards-minded woman-haters masquerading as people who just want to ensure our soldiers are fit and capable.

A posteriori gender-based exclusion does not bother me, nor would it bother most people, I suspect. It does us well to exclude from combat those physically and mentally unfit for it. (Of course, a majority Americans would classify as "unfit" even after basic training, so God help us if we ever need the draft again). That said, there is no equivalence between being a unfit foot soldier and being a woman, as experience in many other countries and among our own "non-combat" troops has amply demonstrated.

And you allude to this fact yourself: Women certainly have no more problem with the stresses and cruelty of combat than men do. That hurdle seems cleared in the minds of our leaders, if not yet in policy. The question now is simply which combat units women should be assigned to. A lot of people worry about female soldiers not being able to lug a ton of gear around all day. But many combat positions do not require this: Artillery, tank units, mechanized infantry, and air support spring to mind.

Of course, including women in combat positions, but keeping the bar so high they're de facto excluded from foot soldiering raises another issue... will we see gender segregation, as stronger men get put in the trenches and weaker women put in fire support? Would that be a problem? Or would it be a benefit? Now, we can't cross that bridge until we get to it, but there's no plausible reason why we shouldn't be on our way there.

JJ in CA:

But isn't that the whole point of the article?? That "in general" should not exclude those exceptionally strong, fast, and fit women who *are* as physically strong, who *do* have as much endurance, and who can do the same situps/pushups/etc. as men? Women like this may be the exception rather than the rule, but why categorically exclude them because *other* women can't make the grade? It makes no sense.

Because one week you say "women who can meet the requirements", and then the next week it's 'the requirements are obviously sexist because fewer women meet them," and the requirements go out the window in the name of political correctness.

It's as inevitable as night following day - in fact, it's already happening.

It comes down to this: I'm 6' 4" and 210lbs. If I'm wounded, I know that a male soldier can carry me to safety while under fire. If a woman can do that, then fine she can fight at the front. Keep the physical fitness requirements the same for men and let the women meet them.

Would you feel as confident if that male soldier were 5'8" and 135 lbs.-- well above the minimum weight--- and already weighed down by 60 pounds of gear?

EarlyBird:

If they were to simply maintain the same standards for combat troops, and some women made it, terrific for them. But there is an argument (and I think I hear it in the OP's "women haters" comment) that women have some inherent basic right to be in combat, even those who would not necessarily make the grade. It stems from an ossified feminist thing from the '70s.

That's exactly the point.

So few women would be able to meet the standards that people would howl about "discrimination" instead of realizing the scientific fact that testosterone gives more mass, endurance, and strength than estrogen.

So to bring the percentages up, standards for females in combat units would be lowered, meaning women who have no place there would be there and be a burden on the unit.

This isn't about making the military better, it's about gender politics.

WinOne:

It comes down to this: I'm 6' 4" and 210lbs. If I'm wounded, I know that a male soldier can carry me to safety while under fire. If a woman can do that, then fine she can fight at the front. Keep the physical fitness requirements the same for men and let the women meet them.

I gotta ask - you know that any male soldier who's nearby will be able to carry you? Any one? Even if the nearest are wounded, or weak, or have panicked, or happen to have a slipped disc that means they can't carry you? You don't know. You cannot know. Men - even soldiers - are not all perfect.

So which would you rather have - one male soldier who just injured his back and can barely carry his gun, or two fit female soldiers who can carry you to safety?