I don't care if women are in combat. As long as the physical standards aren't lowered.

They have to be lowered. Otherwise, women cannot pass the physical regimen. That's why the service academies were "gender-normed."

I disagree with the overall point of this article. I do agree that women can meet or exceed the physical requirements made for men. There are many examples of this; this is not my dilemma with the article. My personal belief on why women shouldn't be involved in combat situation has nothing to do with equality and sexism and all to do with biology. If, for example, America was to be involved in a war in which millions were killed, it would be much better for the long term health of this country to have those deaths be male than female. When we look at reproductive cycles, the woman's is 9 months, while a man's is can be less than an hour. The population would there fore take a much larger hit if females were to die than if males were, because one man could impregnate several females easily (if the male population were to drop), but the opposite is not true. That is why I think males should be involved in combat, and it has nothing to do with politics, just math. I should note that I am guy, but I try my best to have an unbiased perspecive.

Slatereader, you make a very interesting point. I'm glad someone is actually thinking outside of the box.

By the way, do you know that even if women are not in combat situation but their country is in a state of war or other crisis, women will stop menstruation, i.e. producing eggs, and the birth rate will drastically drop. There are studies on this for WWII and WWI. Women stopped menstruating in the US at the start of the war, but then recovered. In Europe, it turns out women stopped menstruation when they were closer to the front lines. You should be able to check this on line and I believe there are books on it...

SteveHatchett:

I don't care if women are in combat. As long as the physical standards aren't lowered.

Older men also have progresively lower PT standards than 18-21 year olds. Do you have a problem with that too?

slatereader, I think you've watched too many screenings of "Dr. Strangelove."

SteveHatchett, I'm a woman, and I completely agree. I don't see a reason to relax standards unless they are arbitrary, and I'm sure there will be women who meet them. I am a middle aged woman with a bad back, a bad knee, bad hips, and a bum elbow from a car accident. I can easily do 100 situps in 2 minutes, and I can run two miles in about 13 minutes. Not so many pushups with the bad elbow, but I am sure there are plenty of women who can meet the men's physical requirements for military service.

However, we need to be careful about setting arbitrary standards. I'm reminded of the rationale for banning women from airline cockpits: They said women were too short, because the way cockpits were designed a person needed to be at least 5' 7" or 5' 8" or so for everything to be visible and accessible. The U.S. Court of Appeals even held up this absurd reasoning back in the 1970's. The problem was, these requirements excluded 25-30% of men, and, of course, most women. No rationale for this was given except, essentially, "that's the way we've always done it." Never mind that the average height of an American adult, if you exclude gender, is about 5' 6", and it is more expensive to build a cockpit for a larger person than for an average person. Never mind that excluding the majority of the otherwise qualified population probably resulted in a lowering of standards.

In the fire service, there were often requirements that a person be able to lift 160-180 lbs. Nice idea, except lots of people weigh less, and quite a few weigh more. Is it really worth having a standard that restricts the number of recruits that severely? Almost NO firefighters are able to lift everyone, and ALL firefighters can lift most people. I can lift (not drag) 140 lbs. alone with my bad joints. If I weighed 200 lbs., and a firefighter had to drag me, or get assistance, I'd just be happy they got me out. I wouldn't be screaming about the need for more rigorous standards.

SteveHatchett:

I don't care if women are in combat. As long as the physical standards aren't lowered.

I have to ask - are you really that sure that the physical requirements as they stand (situps, pushups, etc.) provide real proof that those who pass them will be effective fighting men on the field?

carlaclaws:

slatereader, I think you've watched too many screenings of "Dr. Strangelove."

Bwahahahah. "I think only men should die in wars to increase my chance to get laid. Thank you - slatereader."