Women in the military

[Travis Arnold]

[I am going to rephrase my original post for the sake of making a fresh start and not sounding, hopefully, like such an ignoramus. Apologies for any hurt feelings or such . . .]
Women have been a part of the U.S. Armed Forces for a while now. I was wondering what the opinions on the subject are, and am wondering if anyone has any hard data to present on female performance in combat scenarios. I personally haven't got a problem with females in non-combat roles, but am not yet decided on direct combat positions for women. Any information either way would be greatly appreciated.

------------------
Present time exists only for us to use as a place to work towards the future, the past only to measure our existence in time.

[MARK92A]

All,

Just my .02 about women. I dont want to start a thread like the other one on this subject. He is what I have seen in the field. Im an male officer in a support unit that supports a mech inf BN. We arent SPECOPS or anything high speed like that, just normal mech inf with a FSB in support.

If you think for one second that the GUYS in the Brad care who the hell is driving the fuel HEMTT that is going to top them off with fuel 30 min prior to LD or who is going drive the cargo HEMTT with the unit's emergency ammo resupply to give the gunner more 25 mike mike when he must break contact due to lack of ammo, you are all smoking a low grade of weed.

Do women belong in direct combat, I dunno and I believe that will be an ongoing battle for many, many years. Bottom line is they are here, deal with it or get the heck out.

I belive back not oh-so-very-long-ago, people thought blacks couldnt be anything other than enlisted soldiers, much less be officers (OH NO) or pilots (NO WAY) or (GOD FORBID) command white soldiers. I dont see any threads on that here. Im sure back then, it was hotly debated, much like women are today. It will pass eventually, as did that subject.

My female soliders are just as capable as the males. In a convoy, it really dont matter who is behind the wheel, as long as the cargo gets to the destination. The LTC of the mech inf guys doesnt care about who is supporting him, as long as he gets the support he needs when he needs it.

There are slacker males, and there are slacker females. I think no matter who you are, what color, race, sex, where you come from, ect it is what is inside your head that makes you a good soldier, not your outward phyiscal traits.

I break the soldiers down into 2 catagories: Good soldier and bad soldier. Good ones make mission happen, can shoot straight, do well on a PT test, dont get into trouble, perform PMCS to standard, ect. Bad ones dont do that stuff and make life hard for the good ones, and I do the best I can to get them out of my unit. I dont need them. I care less about male/female or anything like that. Good/bad soldier is what counts.

Anyone agree with me?

[pn]

This argument was raised in an earlier thread (many moons ago, on the old-old SOCNET). The response was that women are unproven in direct combat roles, and that this place is no place for social experimentation. (i.e. if it ain't broke don't fix it)

The real question is whether equality of opportunity should be any consideration in the operation of the military. The armed services are pretty good at doing their jobs as it is, and it's hard to see any mission-related benefits of opening direct-combat roles to women; scratch the equality-of-opportunity thing and you're left with a slim argument for making GI Jane reality. On a very broad level, I like to think that we should take the best people for the job no matter what (which could include women), but the real situation is that they could mess things up and don't seem to bring anything extra, so why risk it?

On the other hand, it is true that this argument could have been (and probably was) used to bar blacks etc. from the service/officer corps/etc. In addition, women have already demonstrated that they can be good firefighters and police officers, so maybe I'm full of shit.

The military is a very conservative organization; that has never changed. The onus is on the challenger to come up with VERY good reasons to change things.

-pn

Don't have my mind made up--and I got better things to think about...PLUS I'm just a silly OC1 spouting off his silly little opinion, so take it as you will..

[squall32]

Well i have been the military 10 yrs and i've served in units with and without women. Know i'm no expert by any means but as far as women in combat, i served in bahrain in security and women were right there with me standing post with a M-16 and all. What does all this mean, well i think used to think the didn't belong in combat however i hadn't served with them then. And i can honestly say i'd put my life in there hands just as quick as anyone else. And like others have said you have some women that are slugs, but i've know twice as many male shitbags as i've known women shitbags. So will the debat continue, yes. Will we ever find a balence, no, maybe? But women deserve the chance. And as far as specops go i think if they can make it through training without different set of standards, Why not. And if that breack down unit integrity then it was never there to begin with.

Just my .02.

[Travis Arnold]

All of you have made valid points here. I agree with MARK92A about the end point: it's good soldier vs. bad soldier. We can argue all we want, but we can't judge until we've seen the female soldier perform. However, PN has a point . . . special operations is NOT the place for "Let's try this and see what happens!". I would need to see proof of female combat effectiveness overall on another field such as infantry, before I'd be comfortable with them in such a high stakes field. But if they can hack it as well as any other, more power (or at least equal power :-)) to them. Who knows, it could be for the better.

PN . . . I'm just a 15 year old spouting off his silly little opinion. I got you beat.

[This message has been edited by Travis Arnold (edited 04-03-2000).]

[PIMguy]

I don't know that "women in combat" is the question. In combat you're trying to stay alive, keep your buddies alive, and kill the bad guy. Whether anyone (man or woman) can do these things isn't truly known until tested in combat. So your question cannot be anwered factually until after action, and then it's a moot point.

I think the true danger comes in training. And let's face it, combat units spend most of their time training. If a combat unit has men and women in it the danger lies in the men that see their fellow female comrades as possible "scores" and the women who take advantage of it, both of which exist for sure. When half the people in your unit are playing grab-ass they're not training properly, and we know what that leads to. Even if a male's intention is not sexual but he views a female as "weaker" then he may instinctually want to help her, even when the help is not needed or asked for. So he's not doing his job properly in training, which means he won't do it right when it's real. None of this is inherently the fault of women, although there are many that will take advantage of their "power" over men. So what's the answer? Excluding women is probably the simplest answer, but many would call it unfair. Form all female units? That would solve the problems I brought up, but I'm sure there would be problems with that. Mix gender in combat units and require all personnel to take "sensitivity training." Does anyone buy that that would work? Hell, I don't know what the answer is, if I did I'd be fixin' it!

[Bullfrog]

I think we're going about this the wrong way. The question might be more like "do women really want to be in combat units?" The military isn't just going to "allow" women to serve in combat units. If combat units are open to women, some women are going to be assigned to them if they like it or not. Let's not forget, the military puts you where they need you. A couple of years ago someone did a survey of women in the military. Basically, it said that about 90% of them did not want to serve in combat units. But it went even further then that. Most said that, if forced to serve in combat units, they would leave the service as quickly as possible.
Another question raised is "what about physical fitness standards?" The obvious answer is that "they must be standardized". That means no more excuses for weak upper bodies or slow run times. There simply is no room for compromise in this area.
So it boils down to this...given the tiny number of women who actually want to serve in combat units multiplied by the even smaller number of those who can hack it physically, it simply IS NOT WORTH shaking up the system.
P.S. If women serve in combat units, I want total uniformity...that's right, no more buns or braids...I'm talkin'n about high-and- freakin'- tight!!

Bullfrog out-

[Enfield]

There have been a lot of good points in this thread. I agree with Bullfrog, it's not worth shaking up the system for the minute number of women that want to and are phsyically able to make it in a combat unit.

The Canadian Army has been 100% open to women (except for submarines, no facilities, but I think the new subs will have women) for, I think 10 years, or close to that. It was about '89 or '90 when the Human Rights TRibunal forced all the trades open to women. Until '94 or '95, there were no women in the Infantry - the ones that applied simply could not do the physical work. Even if they passed the physical, Battle School was too much - the Infantry is hard for males, and too hard for a lot of men. Since the mid-90's, the phsyical standards have been decreased (for a number of BS political reasons) and there are now a fair number of women in the Combat Arms. So far, the biggest problem is the men, not the women - the women are able to perform their duties.

Anybody have any info on how integration is going in other armies?

[nose]

On a historical note, I remember reading somwhere that the israelis had some units with a high proportion of women in them during some of their earlier conflicts, and that those units didn't perform to badly; they did however suffer a much higher casualty rate than would have been expected, the reason for that being that their enemies couldn't bring themselves to lose or to surrender to women and therefore fought much harder than they would have otherwise.

As far as I know, Tsahal has definately nixed women in combat for that reason.

Cheers,

Nose

[RKW]

Hey,
Didn't women serve in the OSS in WWII? I believe they were there to make it appear as a husband and wife thing. I remember reading that somewhere. I'm not sure where these women would have come from or what their other role was though.

RKW

[Ursula]

With regard to an earlier post questioning whether or not women should be allowed into the military at all, excluding all women from the military is like saying men shouldn't be allowed to enter the Pillsbury Bake-Off or be gynecologists. It isn't practical.

I agree with others, though, that if two people are going to do the same job, they should meet the same standards, regardless of gender. All jobs have qualifications. If you can't remember to take the french fries out of the fryer when the buzzer goes off, you can't work at McDonald's. If you can't shoot a gun while evading enemies and carrying out wounded, you shouldn't be allowed into combat.

I would speculate most women who *would* go into combat are appalled at the results of the military's attempt at "gender integration" and don't support the double standards and relaxed reqs for women that the military has established.

On another note, it's interesting to me that women AREN'T banned from combat-similar civilian jobs like FBI, SWAT, etc. Does anyone know of any studies on gender integration in civilian organizations?

Someone asked about foreign militaries that have integrated women. What about the British's 14IntSecy group? They integrated women, ran them through the same selection process and training, and they served right along with men and worked side-by-side with the SAS. (For more info, read "She Who Dared" by "Jackie George"--a pseudonym for obvious reasons.)

Lastly, for a good read on gender integration in the military, read Stephanie Gutmann's "The Kinder, Gentler Military". Lots of good information--it's a no-holds-barred look at the state of the military today with regard to gender integration.

-U

[9533]

Ursula, this topic was part of my Ph.D. thesis. There are few studies regarding gender integration in the military or law enforcement, probably because until recently there was not a great deal of interest. In my opinion the current interest in this topic is driven by political considerations. The vast majority of women (both in and out of the military) are secure in their femininity and do not wish to take on these traditionally, and biologically necessitated male roles. However, I believe, having studied the topic in-depth, that a very small minority of women feel that exclusion of any kind, even if biologically and socially mandated, is discriminatory and threatens their worth as human beings. The limited male support for this very small but vocal minority mainly comes from those who have never served themselves. In fact, my research shows that the overwhelming majority of male political support for gender integration comes from non-veteran males who are either very young (thus may have been desensitized to male/female differences since the1960s) or by older males whose avoidance of service during past conflicts, (i.e. Vietnam college deferments, questionable physical problems, family influence etc.) is suspect. Anecdotally, I served both in U.S. SOF and as an officer in a State LE agency and while not intuitively different for someone wishing to find support for the "no gender difference" hypothesis, they are VERY different types of service that are in all fairness to both, not comparable. I didn't serve with women in the military, however many women perform certain LE roles better than their male counterparts. To be completely honest however, when it comes to frontline on the street LE duty my 11 years experience has failed to produce 1 female that performs as well as the average male police officer in those roles that require frequent physical confrontations. Good Day.

[Gary]

I can't figure out why anyone would want to get into combat in the first place! It has to be the worst thing I've ever experienced. What a waste of good young men. Now you want to kill of our young ladies too?

[Nissan]

OK Here lets stop this BS we all know why women can't go into combat..it for 1 very simple reason...Men can pee standing up and women can't..what else needs to be said??

Honestly folks think about what your saying...why don't you just go back to the begining of teh Civil War when the North was going to(and did) intergrate black soldiers into the Army. Now there was a helluva protest by white men on both sides North and the South. Hell the South even put out a proclimation that any black man in uniform would be killed and any white man leading them would be killed while the ununiformed blacks would be enslaved...now tell me how is whats going on here different from what went on back then?? Yeah its about slaves and all but the blocking of them serving is the same deal Personally I think that right now all the hooplah is over the fact that their are no women in a combat unit...as soon as a woman goes into a combat unit (either Infatry or whatever) the arguements will cease to exist and 1/2-3/4 of the cantidates will drop out because they were all there argueing just to be the first woman in. Look at the Citidel...My Lord she was there all of what...2 months?? and she dropped out...its the same thing that will happen with the combat units..at first "Oh Oh I wanna go I wanna do it" as soon as its been done "Nah why would I wanna go get shot at??"

U...how many SWAT teams have female members in them?? Not very many..the FBI...how many women are in HRT?? none that I know of...Your taking alot of this way out of text..yes there are women walking the beat that have been shot or shot at...its happened...have women in the FBI busted alot of criminals...damn straight they have...How many women have been involved in all out gun battles either domestic or foriegn?? How many women did you see on the news when the shooting at the Bank of America robbery did ya see??

Now that I think of it..Mike posted a very interesting article on here a little while ago about barriers to minorities in SpecOps..I'd suggest alot of people read it and see if some of the arguements for the women are the same as the minorities...I'm not saying the minorities don't deserve to be in combat ( I added that cause I know someone wouild take that outa context)...take a look at the similarities...

And in closing I'd just like to note that I think my 1st reason is still the best http://www.specialoperations.com/ubboard/wink.gif

[SEAL2000]

Guy Jones:

What Nissan is obviously saying here is that women ARE a minority when it comes to women in combat. Minorities are not just people of color (duh) but also people who are weaker, slower, less efficient, or persecuted. Comparing women to the BLACK minority during the civil war is an excellent example. White people were not used to BLACK people fighting with them on their side. But...it always turns out the same. Battle is not fought by a class system. in battle, everybody is equal, and it all comes down to killing the enemy. There will always be a few people who try to take advantage of the minority, but those people are the ones who are going to fail.
I hate to be crude, but you are missing something. It is quite obvious what Nissan was trying to do, and I applaud him for it.

-SEAL2000, out

[pn]

Mr. SEAL2000,

Watch your tone. No one is interested in reading that kind of BS. Many of the folks here (on this thread!) have been around the block more times than you have celebrated birthdays. Think about that the next time you're thinking about amazing the commoners with your brilliance.

-pn

[Ursula]

To clarify my post...my intention was not to say LE = spec ops. The point I unsuccessfully tried to make is that if women are eager to join an organization that sees hostile activity, then why don't we see groves of women going into LE groups like SWAT, HRT, etc? We're not seeing a push for women in combat because we have a large female population that's eager to shoot the enemy and take fire. They want to be in combat for the simple reason that they are not allowed to be. I agree that if the military lets women in, the numbers of women signing up will be far fewer than the number fighting to get in today.

Unfortunately the small group of people pushing for women in combat are pushing for the wrong reasons. I have yet to hear any pro-women-in-combat arguments saying that average women in the military are as strong or stronger than men in this type of field and that they could do as good or better of a job at it. It's all been about equality of opportunity, and nothing to do with equality of services provided, which is where this issue should be.

-U

[SEAL2000]

pn:

Why don't you make the same comment to GUY JONES. He is worse than I am, talking about living in houses with no windows and junk like that, insulting NISSAN. Or are you just age-prejudiced? The only one trying to impress the "older" folks is you with that rather insulting post about the younger generation. There is no need for it, and I am sure as hell not intersted in reading crap posts such as yours. Instead of acting like a smart-ass, why not think, like you told me to do. Then we will have no problems. I am finished with insults, this was my last, I apologise to everyone else who is forced to read this.

BUT HEY, IT IS ALL FUN AND GAMES ANYWAY http://www.specialoperations.com/ubboard/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by SEAL2000 (edited 04-05-2000).]

[SoonToBeSEAL]

Comparing OSS to a SpecOps unit is like apples to oranges...I wouldnt classify OSS/CIA as direct-combat organizations. The role of women in the clandestine ops of the CIA and other groups I believe is justified and needed.

[Travis Arnold]

Ok . . . let's not let this string become ugly like the last one. I'm scared to even OPEN that thread now!

[alexander]

just my two cents, but women could be useful and may be needed in combat roles since there's a drop in men in the armed forces. but that doesn't mean they should do evrything.spec-ops isn't regular army,and i don't believe our national security is the place for experimentation. women are just as vital to the services in support as well as combat.
p.s., minorities,i.e. blacks,native americans, have served this country in every major conflict since the revolution and that shuld be taken into consideration.

[Nissan]

SEAL2000 thank god someone saw th point I was making with that

Now Guy you see your taking this completly personal and I bet that you didn't even read the article I talked about...Now you talk about psyiological differences...Now if memory serves me right...during the civil war blacks wern't even looked upon as being human let alone as men or women..it was "they are ni***rs and they can't do anything as well as white men"...now women are being held to the same thing "They are just women what can they do? They can't hold up next to a man"..there is the comparison you obviously missed...if ya need it clearer I'll break it down more...(On a side note there is also a spot in the article that talks about how the stds set for courses are unfair to minorities..sound familiar anyone??)

pn..no offense but back off the guy...he said his peace and thats that..why don't ya go hop on everyone else that said stuff for that matter...Christ this is about equality why don't we show it...respect opinons even if they aren't your own

U...ok now I understand your post much better you make a excellent point and worded it better then I think I probably ever could...

[1026]

After reading this, I have to get behind Dr. 9533 and Guy Jones; they bring both an academic and real world perspective to the argument. Bullfrog also makes a good point; the women with whom I worked wanted to serve their country, but they were not interested in going Hoo Yah, OoRah, or any of that type of duty; those are definitely the forte of the competitive, fit males. Nissan, from your post about the perception of blacks as subhumans, I'll make an ass out of u and me and assume that you're referring to the liberal interpretation of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U. S. Constitution.

[Nissan]

1026...yes but not only that part of the Constitution but also the Proclimation the South put out when Lincoln was gonna activate the 54th (I think) Infantry Regiment...thats what I'm refering to also...

[Nissan]

Guy no offense to this but...What the hell would I know whos conducting these studies?? And why the hell would they listen to me in teh first place? I'm just a snotty nosed kid who is playing war....You obviously are still missing the point that I was trying to make with my comparison...I have repsect for you because you've BTDT but that doesn't mean your word is teh final word...You seem very reluctant to accept others opinions because they are different from your own...just a little bit of kid talk to a big bad SF trooper...then again kids say the damnedest things...and sometimes they make sense....Again..no offense intended...

[nightvision]

Nissan I just wanted to make a point as a female who would be more than happy if they would open combat to women.I am curently serving as closely as I can to the ffront under water eod however if females can pull there wieght and do the same things as the men are required to do I dont see the problem. I do agree with you about the girl at the citidel she had no business there if she coulnt hack it she shouldnt have opened her mouth. Just my opinion take it as you will

[wannabe]

Just to throw something out here, when it comes to women in combat, the Soviets in WW2 used women in front line combat assignments a fair amount. There were all female tank crews (back in the days before autoloaders) and fighter pilots (before hydraulics), bomber pilots, snipers and basic infantry. Marshall Zhukov was quoted as saying something along the lines of "they served better than the average men, maybe they had something to prove". There were fighter and tank aces who were female and women got a few Orders of Lenin along the way.

[Fred]

What an outstanding historical example on which to model our civilization. Look where it took them.

[Kristof]

First off : if it wasn't for the Russians fighting hard in WWII, the world would be a more hostile place right now. Hitler has lost thousands of men because they could not advance due to fierce resistance, then winter set in and a lot of them froze to death. Nobody would have beaten the Russians at that time, at that place.

Second : those all-women units were fiersome. German soldiers were afraid to fight against regular Russian units, but they were terrified of the women. The women made a habit of finishing off every last soldier, even if the ones who surrendered. Torture also was not an uncommon practice to them.

So that proves that they can perform in combat as well men.
They would probably have a higher attrition rate as far as physical training is concerned, so that would always make them a minority in combat units. But as for getting the job done in combat, I can't see a problem. SpecOps is of course still a different matter, since physical condition is one of the main pillars on which the skills of a SpecOps operator rest.

Kristof

p.s. I think we have a flame ( well the icon at least )

[Enfield]

Ok, I guese I'll wade into this and add my .02...
First, I'm more worried about military standards being lowered for/because of women than women actually being in combat. If standards get much lower the whole military will crack, not just a few troops.
The biggest problem I see with women in combat is that the military will also lower, or create double standards. Nobody wants to serve with a substandard woman anymore than with a substandard man.
The reality is women will always, till the end of civilization, be a minority in combat units. Few enough males, with all the cultural pressure and hunting instincts or whatever we have, want to be a grunt, and even a fewer number can actually handle it - an dthe ones that can make it in SpecOps is a tiny number.
I don't think general physical ability is a reason to bar all women. Women make better pilots than men, should the Air Force bar men from being fighter pilots? Some studies show that women handle stress and pain better - think childbirth and motherhood are easy?
Now, how many women want to work their ass off to earn a little metal badge or hat, probably not to many.
When women are introduced into combat units, the majority of the problems are caused by the men - rape, harassment, discrimination, whatever. Buthe values of a combat unit are core to what they do, and I don't think it's possible, at the moment, to change the psycology of combat troops. Nor do you want to.

Enfield

[wannabe]

Hmm,

To Fred,

Believe me, I'm not going to talk up the dubious achievements of the Soviet Union and it's government. I've been to Russia, it's going to be a hell-hole for years trying to repair the damage communism caused. However, if the common men and women of Russia hadn't fought so ferrociously most of Europe might still be speaking German.

My point was that, in some of the most vicious fighting of the century, women performed admirably in front-line combat assignments. I have no data on how many didn't make the cut but obviously a fair amount made it through. In regards to special warfare, some of the female snipers (as well as men) crept through miles of front-line enemy territory to snipe officers in the rear. Others waited while Nazi tank columns drove around them to take out a commander in his tank's turret. And there were also plenty of partisans throughout Europe who were women who performed text-book special operations alongside the men.

I think the question is not whether some women can perform in combat, but rather whether the national culture will allow it. As long as different requirements and treatments apply, then it is just political BS. The only way for this to work is to establish your standards and then require everyone, reagradless of race or sex, to meet them or go home. Any woman who should be there will want that, and any who balk shouldn't be there.

Oh yeah, and I most humbly agree that the special forces are not the place for these experiments. Try it in the conventional forces for a decade or two and then evaluate.

[Nissan]

I'v encountered alot of people with the same standard same job philosophy...now this is good for just about everything...I say this because those that talk about double standards and all make a good point as long as there are 2 standards mroe likely then not teh women won't be able to keep up...If you have training and the women can afford to come in 5-10 minutes after the men do then when you get onto a patrol you can't move as fast as possibly because you'd leave a teammate behind that wasn't as high speed as the rest of the team...while most people tell me this is a poor comparison I'm gonna use JROTC...the Raiders which we pride as the SpecOps of JROTC is comprised mostly of males and 2 females...well teh standards are different and when we competed the females could not keep up on the Land Nav course the run or anything that required long distance higher speed like the guys...so same standards same job sounds like a good start and That idea about trying it in line then SpecOps also sounds like a smart idea...

[Cole]

Anyone ever see that movie "Starship Troopers"? The infantry unit, composed of men and woman, SHOWERED togeather. Now, if we can come to that point in society, I think any capable woman should be permitted to serve in a combat role. (Good luck putting 20 privates in a shower with naked women and keeping things "down") Until that is possible, I think all this sexual harrassment BS is detracting from the army's mission, to effectively protect our nations interests and security. My .02 cents though.

[DavidHM]

The way the Navy is going, I think one day women will have a chance to volunteer for BUD/S training. You never know, it just might happen.

Check this out, 20 or so years ago, women were not allowed to serve on Naval ships. Today, you can find women on just about any ship in the Navy (except submarines). This a bad mistake. For one thing, pregnancy rates are up in the Navy, and the men can't consentrate of their jobs.

I served six months onboard my ship (USS Bridge AOE 10). And half of the crew were women. I don't mean to sound like a sexual bigot, but most of these woman complained their ass off. They either had a bad hair day or didn't want to get their hands dirty.

Also, 20 or so years ago, it was unheard of about women holding the title "Skipper." Today, there are two women in the fleet that I know of who are Commanding Officers of their own ship. What the fuck is this world coming to?!

This country is so damn liberal that the next war we fight, you just might have a woman right by your side in the fox hole telling YOU what to do.

As far as women SEALs, I don't think so. Most men can't make it through the training, so what makes people think that women can? Think about it.



[This message has been edited by DavidHM (edited 05-09-2000).]

[Fred]

davidhm, Wouldn't it be hilarious if a chick made it through BUD/S, seeing as you failed miserably. They couldn't do any worse than your sorry ass.
Fred, class 158 - graduate

[Daredevil]

I saw a Dateline or 20/20 or some show like that a couple years ago where a bunch of SEALs who were going to do the Eco-challenge race needed a woman teammate (rules state each team must have at least one woman). Anyway, they held tryouts and put the women through a sort of simulated Hell Week. The SEAL guys doing it were surprised at how many women DID make it through and they were left with a hard decision.

If some chick can make it through BUD/S and is able to complete everything within the same parameters that the guys can then I would almost say she deserves a chance. But then I'm not an operator. One woman was invited to try out for the FBI HRT and she came close but couldn't pull it out in the end. Most women simply don't have the upperbody strength that men do and she couldn't make it on a rope climb when she had to do it a second time.

My biggest argument against women in the military is that they tend to gendernorm the requirements so that women can pass. Another news program monitored an Army boot camp that experimented with an all woman class, an all male class, and a coed class. The all male class came in first in everything. The all female class came in last and the coed was in the middle. Why was the coed in the middle? Because they found out that some of the guys were helping some of the women with their loads on the marches. I think that's the wrong way to handle things personally.

[Sweetbriar]

If any would like to do some more objective research on the topic, The Times of London has an Online Special on this topic at the moment. (www.sunday-times.co.uk - You have to register to read the paper, but you do not have to pay for it.)