Recently the U.S. Department of Defense announced that it would lift
the ban on women in combat. Since Obama became president in 2008, the left has increasingly used the military for social experiments, from
allowing gays and Transgenders to openly serve to allowing beards,
tattoos, and religious garb to be worn. All in the name of equality of
course. They want a society where men
and women are equal in every respect, while ignoring important physical
and psychological distinctions that makes us different. At the risk of
sounding sexist, men and women are not equal. Men are better suited than women
at some things, and women are better suited than men at some things. Those are just the facts. These social experiments will ultimately weaken the military and cost more lives.
Historically men have done the hunting and fighting, while women have reared the children. There are always exceptions of course, but that's all they are. Rules should never be based upon the exceptions. In reality very few women could pass the same physical requirements set for men, even fewer could sustain those standards for extended periods of time under battlefield conditions. For this reason, the physical standards for women should not be lowered. The enemy won't discriminate, and bullets don't care if you're male or female. There are good reasons why men have always been the warriors and soldiers of society since time immemorial. The following is a partial comparison of the physical advantages men have over women:
*Men are taller.
*Have 40% more upper body strength and 33% more lower body strength.
*Have higher levels of testosterone, which allows them to have larger skeletal muscles.
*Have more Type 2 muscle fibers, which generate power, strength and speed.
*Have 56% greater lung volume per body mass.
*Have larger hearts, 10% higher red blood count, higher hemoglobin, allowing greater oxygen-carrying capacity.
*Higher circulating clotting factors, leading to faster healing of wounds and higher peripheral pain tolerance.
*Generally have denser, stronger bones, tendons, and ligaments.
*Convert more calories to muscle and energy reserves.
*Significantly higher hand grip strength.
*More aggressive.
These physical advantages give men an edge over women, which that makes them more suitable for physical combat. To further emphasize this point, the fastest women in the Olympics are still slower than the fastest boys in high school. Just to give you an idea, these are the current track records in the "world" for the women's Olympics compared to the United States records set by boys in high school track:
100 meters: 10.62 for women, 10.00 for boys
200 meters: 21.34 for women, 20.13 for boys
400 meters: 48.26 for women, 44.69 for boys
800 meters: 1:52.43 for women, 1:46.45 for boys
1500 meters: 3:53.96 for women, 3:38.26 for boys
Not only can high school boys outperform Olympic trained women, but the discrepancy becomes greater the distance. This is the reason men and women are segregated in sporting events, yet we feel the need to integrate them into combat, which is anything but a game.
There are other issues that are unique for women, which does not make them ideal for combat roles. To put it bluntly, women have specific hygiene requirements which could become problematic to maintain on the battlefield. Monthly cycles, while being an annoyance and inconvenience in civilian life, could impact performance, which is crucial on the battlefield. And if a woman is captured on the battlefield, not only are they subject torture like men, but unlike men they are also subject to rape.
With men and women working in such close proximity, romantic relationships are inevitable, thus changing the dynamics and effectiveness of the combat unit. This is also an argument against homosexuals serving in the military. And what happens if someone gets pregnant? In the Navy for instance, where men and women are stuck on a ship most of the time, unplanned pregnancies are higher than in the general population and generally more disruptive. And this despite having access to contraceptives.
Some will point to the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), as an example that female combat soldiers are possible. However, that doesn't make it ideal. What is under reported is that female soldiers in the IDF suffer injuries at twice the rate of males. One study indicated that 46% of female soldiers suffered injuries during their initial training period, as opposed to 25% of men. The injury rate for female soldiers in Karakal (infantry combat battalion) is 40% and a whopping 70% in the Artillery corps. The bone density of female combat soldiers is lower than that of men, which is why they suffer more injuries. In addition, women have 70% to 100% more body fat than men, which makes them slower and consume more energy, their muscle density is 33% is less, so they cannot carry as much weight as their male counterparts. What should also be noted is that Israel has female soldiers out of necessity. They are a small nation with greater immediate threats, so they need as many able-bodied soldiers as possible. This is the reason why men are required to serve a minimum of 3 years in the IDF, while women are required to serve 2 years.
As John Adams once said, facts are stubborn things. And the fact is, men are naturally more suitable for combat roles due to their physical and psychological makeup. I am certainly not opposed to women serving in the military, but for reasons previously stated, just not in ground combat. Men have historically done the fighting and faced the horrors of war so women wouldn't have to. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer it that way.
Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_records_in_athletics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_high_school_national_records_in_track_and_field
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_physiology
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/01/29/baby-on-board-us-navy-reacts-to-high-rates-unplanned-pregnancies-among-sailors/
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/198853
Historically men have done the hunting and fighting, while women have reared the children. There are always exceptions of course, but that's all they are. Rules should never be based upon the exceptions. In reality very few women could pass the same physical requirements set for men, even fewer could sustain those standards for extended periods of time under battlefield conditions. For this reason, the physical standards for women should not be lowered. The enemy won't discriminate, and bullets don't care if you're male or female. There are good reasons why men have always been the warriors and soldiers of society since time immemorial. The following is a partial comparison of the physical advantages men have over women:
*Men are taller.
*Have 40% more upper body strength and 33% more lower body strength.
*Have higher levels of testosterone, which allows them to have larger skeletal muscles.
*Have more Type 2 muscle fibers, which generate power, strength and speed.
*Have 56% greater lung volume per body mass.
*Have larger hearts, 10% higher red blood count, higher hemoglobin, allowing greater oxygen-carrying capacity.
*Higher circulating clotting factors, leading to faster healing of wounds and higher peripheral pain tolerance.
*Generally have denser, stronger bones, tendons, and ligaments.
*Convert more calories to muscle and energy reserves.
*Significantly higher hand grip strength.
*More aggressive.
These physical advantages give men an edge over women, which that makes them more suitable for physical combat. To further emphasize this point, the fastest women in the Olympics are still slower than the fastest boys in high school. Just to give you an idea, these are the current track records in the "world" for the women's Olympics compared to the United States records set by boys in high school track:
100 meters: 10.62 for women, 10.00 for boys
200 meters: 21.34 for women, 20.13 for boys
400 meters: 48.26 for women, 44.69 for boys
800 meters: 1:52.43 for women, 1:46.45 for boys
1500 meters: 3:53.96 for women, 3:38.26 for boys
Not only can high school boys outperform Olympic trained women, but the discrepancy becomes greater the distance. This is the reason men and women are segregated in sporting events, yet we feel the need to integrate them into combat, which is anything but a game.
There are other issues that are unique for women, which does not make them ideal for combat roles. To put it bluntly, women have specific hygiene requirements which could become problematic to maintain on the battlefield. Monthly cycles, while being an annoyance and inconvenience in civilian life, could impact performance, which is crucial on the battlefield. And if a woman is captured on the battlefield, not only are they subject torture like men, but unlike men they are also subject to rape.
With men and women working in such close proximity, romantic relationships are inevitable, thus changing the dynamics and effectiveness of the combat unit. This is also an argument against homosexuals serving in the military. And what happens if someone gets pregnant? In the Navy for instance, where men and women are stuck on a ship most of the time, unplanned pregnancies are higher than in the general population and generally more disruptive. And this despite having access to contraceptives.
Some will point to the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), as an example that female combat soldiers are possible. However, that doesn't make it ideal. What is under reported is that female soldiers in the IDF suffer injuries at twice the rate of males. One study indicated that 46% of female soldiers suffered injuries during their initial training period, as opposed to 25% of men. The injury rate for female soldiers in Karakal (infantry combat battalion) is 40% and a whopping 70% in the Artillery corps. The bone density of female combat soldiers is lower than that of men, which is why they suffer more injuries. In addition, women have 70% to 100% more body fat than men, which makes them slower and consume more energy, their muscle density is 33% is less, so they cannot carry as much weight as their male counterparts. What should also be noted is that Israel has female soldiers out of necessity. They are a small nation with greater immediate threats, so they need as many able-bodied soldiers as possible. This is the reason why men are required to serve a minimum of 3 years in the IDF, while women are required to serve 2 years.
As John Adams once said, facts are stubborn things. And the fact is, men are naturally more suitable for combat roles due to their physical and psychological makeup. I am certainly not opposed to women serving in the military, but for reasons previously stated, just not in ground combat. Men have historically done the fighting and faced the horrors of war so women wouldn't have to. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer it that way.
Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_records_in_athletics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_high_school_national_records_in_track_and_field
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_physiology
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/01/29/baby-on-board-us-navy-reacts-to-high-rates-unplanned-pregnancies-among-sailors/
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/198853
