Women in Combat Roles

[Chrisoc13]

Not unless you wanna argue that a proctologist would be needed for men. A healthy, non-sexually active woman doesn't need to see a gynecologist. So, yeah the one exception, could be if she got pregnant onboard, or right before she shipped out. (I assume they would give em a pregnancy test, but understand timing could thwart that safeguard).

Pretty sure you mean a urologist, not a proctologist seeing as both men and women have rectums. Unless of course you are referring to sexual intercourse between men.

[GreenGoo]

I think he was implying prostate but I have no idea.

[Unagi]

Chrisoc13, a man's prostate is checked by a proctologist.

A proctologist is a specialist that a person needs to see for specific reasons (shampoo bottles...) and/or for specific 'good health check-ups' (prostate exam), not for day-to-day (or even month-to-month) 'general care' (same with the gyne)

In other words, the sub wouldn't need a gynecologist - much like a the sub wouldn't need a proctologist. For most cases - you schedule your appointment with these doctors for while you are on shore.

[Jaddison]

Submarines do not carry doctors of any sort. Which is the main reason that many things will get you disqualified from submarine duty; being allergic to bee stings is disqualifying for example. We have a hospital corpsman onboard and that's it.

I would expect that women would be required to use pregnancy tests or something similar and also use birth control. There will have to be something like these controls in place before women start being placed in nuclear power billets....which means every woman officer unless they start making non-nuclear trained female officers part of the wardroom......now that would be a very bad idea.

[Unagi]

I always assumed one (perhaps 2,3) of the guys onboard was a medic of some sort. Someone needs stiches, this guy may be the best guy to do it... someone is in charge of the morphine, that kinda thing.

I assume that's what the hospital corpsman is?

(educate me)

[Jaddison]

A hospital corpsman is a "medic", same kind that are with the Marines since the Marines always used Navy corpsman and do not have their own medics.

But HMs (corpsman) are limited in what they can do. They cannot administer any medicine for which only an MD is authorized to administer. This includes the bee sting anti-venom. Many conditions that allow sailors to serve on other kinds of ships disqualify them from sub duty. Almost all kidney stone prone people, asthma of any kind, major life threatening allergies. This protects both the sailor and the boat and is much more cost effective than paying doctors to be onboard a submarine where there is limited space (you should see how small the "docs (slang for the corpsman)" office is (and on SSNs it also contains some essential ships equipment as well)).

When Tridents first started operational deployments that had actual MDs onboard but that didn't last long and would only really make sense if boomer patrols ever exceeded 90 days

[Blackhawk]

Which is the main reason that many things will get you disqualified from submarine duty; being allergic to bee stings is disqualifying for example.

Damned seabees.

[Chrisoc13]

Chrisoc13, a man's prostate is checked by a proctologist.

A proctologist is a specialist that a person needs to see for specific reasons (shampoo bottles...) and/or for specific 'good health check-ups' (prostate exam), not for day-to-day (or even month-to-month) 'general care' (same with the gyne)

In other words, the sub wouldn't need a gynecologist - much like a the sub wouldn't need a proctologist. For most cases - you schedule your appointment with these doctors for while you are on shore.

This response confuses me. What part of my post made you think I was uneducated on the matter? I was merely pointing out that urologists generally check prostates and work on all male sexual organs. The prostate is a male sexual organ. Urologists do not merely do day to day, Urologists are surgeons as well. The fact that they also focus on male sexual organs makes them far more comparable to a gynecologist than a proctologist. Could a proctologist check a prostate? Sure but so could a family practice doctor. They are not the specialists for prostates. Urologists are. Much like gynecologists are for female reproductive organs. A proctologist who runs into a prostate problem with a patient would bring in a Urologist.

My father and brother in law are practicing urologists and I work in medicine so I have a pretty good handle on the matter.

Proctology is actually a term which is rarely used anymore in the United States. Colorectal surgeon is more correct, and they rarely check prostates. As irrelevant as all of this is to the current discussion.

[Unagi]

Are you saying it's not checked by a proctologist? Because that's the argument you need to make.

[Chrisoc13]

Are you saying it's not checked by a proctologist? Because that's the argument you need to make.

No more than a family practice or internal medicine doctor. Urologists are the specialists. I don't need to be patronized on the matter, I guarantee you I am educated on it. A proctologist would need to consult with a urologist when it comes to prostate problems.

Also, sorry I edited my post right after posting it and without knowing you had responded, I apologize for that.

[Unagi]

Are you saying it's not checked by a proctologist? Because that's the argument you need to make.

No more than a family practice or internal medicine doctor. Urologists are the specialists. I don't need to be patronized on the matter, I guarantee you I am educated on it. A proctologist would need to consult with a urologist when it comes to prostate problems.

Also, sorry I edited my post right after posting it and without knowing you had responded, I apologize for that.

I defer to your knowledge.

I always thought a proctologist could / would perform a prostate exam.

In any case - my original point was only to say that a sub doesn't have specialists - Gyne/Proctologist (/Urologist).

And that if someone was saying that bringing a woman on a submarine demanded the presense of a Gynecologist.
I said, "no more so than the men needing a proctologist"... and it's perfectly fine to see the comparison as being that both (man and woman) may benefit from a pre-cancerous scan from these two specialist (respectively) - but that neither is required to see this specialist on a submarine.

You coming in, to point out that a Urologist is the more perfect match to the Gynecologist is certainly true for the reasons you point out - but it really didn't have anything to do with my point. I guess I'll say that I've thought of Urologists as being the specialist, as you say - you see when you get something serious discovered... but that, for men, there is a prescribed time in our lives when most begin to have scheduled visists with a proctologist, and that - as you describe - he may very well be the first to discover a problem with the prostate. That's where I was connecting it with a Gynecologist.

Sorry to have offended you - I don't think my reply to you was meant to be me educating you on what these doctors did - so much as to show or explain to you how I was comparing them: That a Proctologist and a Gynecologist can be compared when discussing their need on a submarine. I wasn't trying to talk about Urologists or even really 'Prostates'.

But for the fact that proctologist do, very often, first discover problems with a man's prostate - - I could very well have just originally said "If ya need a Gynecologist, then why don't you need a Urologist" - but I didn't.

[Zurai]

I don't see the problem. Both Norway and Australia have mixed-gender submarine crews. If they can do it, there's no reason the US can't.

[Chrisoc13]

Are you saying it's not checked by a proctologist? Because that's the argument you need to make.

No more than a family practice or internal medicine doctor. Urologists are the specialists. I don't need to be patronized on the matter, I guarantee you I am educated on it. A proctologist would need to consult with a urologist when it comes to prostate problems.

Also, sorry I edited my post right after posting it and without knowing you had responded, I apologize for that.

I defer to your knowledge.

I always thought a proctologist could / would perform a prostate exam.

In any case - my original point was only to say that a sub doesn't have specialists - Gyne/Proctologist (/Urologist).

And that if someone was saying that bringing a woman on a submarine demanded the presense of a Gynecologist.
I said, "no more so than the men needing a proctologist"... and it's perfectly fine to see the comparison as being that both (man and woman) may benefit from a pre-cancerous scan from these two specialist (respectively) - but that neither is required to see this specialist on a submarine.

You coming in, to point out that a Urologist is the more perfect match to the Gynecologist is certainly true for the reasons you point out - but it really didn't have anything to do with my point. I guess I'll say that I've thought of Urologists as being the specialist, as you say - you see when you get something serious discovered... but that, for men, there is a prescribed time in our lives when most begin to have scheduled visists with a proctologist, and that - as you describe - he may very well be the first to discover a problem with the prostate. That's where I was connecting it with a Gynecologist.

Sorry to have offended you - I don't think my reply to you was meant to be me educating you on what these doctors did - so much as to show or explain to you how I was comparing them: That a Proctologist and a Gynecologist can be compared when discussing their need on a submarine. I wasn't trying to talk about Urologists or even really 'Prostates'.

But for the fact that proctologist do, very often, first discover problems with a man's prostate - - I could very well have just originally said "If ya need a Gynecologist, then why don't you need a Urologist" - but I didn't.

I agree with you completely. I think saying a gynecologist is needed would certainly not be the case. I think whatever they normally have would be all that was necessary.

[Rip]

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=51571

"We have a great plan, and we're ready to go for the first women to come aboard in late 2011," Roughead told the Senate committee Feb. 25. In a prepared statement to the committee, he said the change would enable the submarine force "to leverage the tremendous talent and potential of our female officers and enlisted personnel."

Besides the incoming officers from the academy, the first women submariners will include female supply corps officers at the department head level, Roughead said. The change will be phased in over time to include enlisted female sailors on the SSBN and SSGNs, he said. Women will be added to the Navy's SSN fast-attack submarines after necessary modifications can be determined, he said.

[Jaddison]

Just the SSGNs and boomers....makes sense but man the already "friendly" rivalry between attack boats and the "others" just got 10x worse.

There has always been the tension in the Department Head ranks that some ensign straight from supply school becomes a department head with their own stateroom rack never having to sleep out in crews berthing (I didn't get into a stateroom for year on my forst boat). Their will be some interesting dynamics added to the mix.

Apparently the strategy is to get officers out there first and then enlisted. I wonder if there are plans to try and get some enlisted first class petty officers and more importantly chiefs to cross-over. Need to get started soon if they are so they can work on getting their dolphins before any junior enlisted show up.

[theohall]

There is just going to have to be an absolute ban on on boat relationships. Any relationship will have to result in the transfer of one of the people to another ship. I don't know what the surface rules are but a submarine is such a small tight knit community that an onboard relationship has a great chance of affecting the crew in a bad way.

I'm in Naval Aviation primarily, but have spent over 7 years Ship's company onboard the Truman, Enterprise and Inchon. Relationships among crewmembers are officially not allowed and if discovered results in Captain's mast and one, if not both, of the members being sent to a different command. Depends on what they actually know about the relationship.

That being said, relationships happen anyway and they just try not to get caught. It's hard to stop them with a crew of 5000+ people under-way for 6 months with port calls once every 6 weeks. Can't imagine what would happen in a sub which spends even more time underway without hitting a a port.

[Jaddison]

Here's the difference, 688 class is 690 feet long the actual people tank is more maybe 400 and change. Of that the Engineroom and reactor compartment snag about 2/3s the space. The ship is 33 feet wide.

There is just not very much room at all nor are there many places to sneak away to that you wouldn't stand an awful good chance of getting caught.

As a young PO on USS Caloosahatchee a jumboized oiler built in 44 I can see there are many places to be "private". i imagine a carrier has even more. but submarines with a 120 or so people stuffed in the small space I described above?

Inport I do have some knowledge of guys finding a place to be more intimate with their wives or girlfriends on a duty night...but underway those places would be extraordinarily hard to make something happen.

[Rip]

Here's the difference, 688 class is 690 feet long the actual people tank is more maybe 400 and change. Of that the Engineroom and reactor compartment snag about 2/3s the space. The ship is 33 feet wide.

There is just not very much room at all nor are there many places to sneak away to that you wouldn't stand an awful good chance of getting caught.

As a young PO on USS Caloosahatchee a jumboized oiler built in 44 I can see there are many places to be "private". i imagine a carrier has even more. but submarines with a 120 or so people stuffed in the small space I described above?

Inport I do have some knowledge of guys finding a place to be more intimate with their wives or girlfriends on a duty night...but underway those places would be extraordinarily hard to make something happen.

If you could get in the sphere without anyone knowing that is pretty good. I think I would try crawling out behind some vents in the fan room. I could even make do in the vents area forward of the SES. Shit torpedo room bilges, engineering bilges. Hell I might consider getting a little behind the SCP!

Horny bubbleheads will find a way to hide the torpedo of that you can be sure.

[Jaddison]

underway I think it highly unlikely. On a 688 getting in any bilge is not easy. The ERF bilges are perhaps easiest but are so visible that unless the ERF was complicit AND the ERS and EWS did not tour then maybe.

The SCP would be a no go in or out of port just from accessibility. The fan room maybe but underway am thinking it would be hard not to be noticed going in. MCC is a possibility on a VLS boat but it is locked. SES on a 688 is packed to the gills and underway it would be tough.

The sphere is not possible underway. First the access is through a bunk, it would be breaking rig for dive and having two people slide down the little trolley twice seems for sure they would get caught.

I found by accident the place some guys were smoking dope in the engineroom one day,,,,,,,I was so tired from standing battle stations EOOW all day for PCO ops in Autec and that day I also had the mid watch so I ahd been up close to 30 hours. i took a long tour during the watch to stay awake and ended up seeing a the tip of a foul weather jacket up between the main condensers as I was standing in Lube Oil Bay. i climbed up there to see what was what and found the jacket and a journal documenting who was up there when and that they were smoking dope. i was really torn because two guys from my division were listed in the book and they were good workers and we were short handed. Also had an ET who had just reenlisted got a big bonus and his wife was pregnant in it.

[LawBeefaroni]

Congress let the ban die without objection last night.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military's ban on women serving on submarines passed quietly into history Thursday morning.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates notified lawmakers in mid-February that the Navy would be lifting the ban, unless Congress took some action against it. And Navy spokesman Lt. Justin Cole said Thursday morning that the deadline for Congress to act passed at midnight.

[Holman]

Why does the Navy hate the troops?

[Isgrimnur]

More details emerge:

Six female officers each will join the crews of the USS Wyoming, USS Georgia, USS Maine and USS Ohio, Navy Submarine Group 10 officials announced in a news release. Three female officers will be assigned to each of the subs' two crews.
...
Two of the women in each crew will be submarine officers, and the third female officer will be a warfare-qualified supply officer. They will be assigned to their first submarine duty station after nuclear power school, prototype training and the Submarine Officer Basic Course. They are expected to report to their assigned submarines beginning in December 2011.

Navy Lt. Rebecca Rebarich, the submarine group's public affairs officer, said today the new submarine officers were commissioned through the U.S. Naval Academy, ROTC programs and Officer Candidate School. All 24 women have been identified and will join their new crews at about the same time, but the Navy is not releasing their names while they undergo training.
...
The Navy first allowed women to serve on surface noncombatant ships in 1973 and on surface combatant ships in 1993.

[RMC]

<shrug> I served on a DDG(Guided Missile Destroyer) and an AO (Aux Oiler) in the early nineties.

No women on the DDG, about 40% women on the AO.

The DDG, had one corpsman for ~ 300 crew. The AO had 2 physicians(one man, one woman), and 3 corpsman for ~200 crew.

When we got deployed on the AO to the middle east, we 'lost' about 25~35 woman due to getting pregnant. We had to do with that much less crew. It sucked, what was already a tight watch became tighter, as there were other reasons to lose crew as well.

I could care less if they let woman work on subs if they want to, but I know I preferred the DDG to the AO for a lot of reasons one of which was serving with the woman.

[Isgrimnur]

*Repurposing thread*

Panetta to remove combat restrictions for women in service:

Senior defense officials say Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is removing the military's ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war.

The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule prohibiting women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta's decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.

A senior military official says the services will develop plans for allowing women to seek the combat positions. Some jobs may open as soon as this year. Assessments for others, such as special operations forces, including Navy SEALS and the Army's Delta Force, may take longer.
...
Panetta's move expands the Pentagon's action nearly a year ago to open about 14,500 combat positions to women, nearly all of them in the Army. This decision could open more than 230,000 jobs, many in Army and Marine infantry units, to women.

In recent years the necessities of war propelled women into jobs as medics, military police and intelligence officers that were sometimes attached — but not formally assigned — to units on the front lines.

[Sepiche]

About damn time.

[GreenGoo]

Oh great, now the men are going to waste all that time holding doors open.

[Isgrimnur]

That's what Marines are for.

[noxiousdog]

Women in Combat Roles...

I thought that was called marriage.

[Gavin]

As long as the physical requirements are tough enough to ensure they can handle the job without holding the unit back then I don't see why not. Sexist or not, I'd also consider a mental/emotional assessment for both sides put in place if not already there for the men.

They are talking about putting requirements that are less demanding than the male equivilance. I find that disheartening in a job that is so physically demanding that lives can depend on it.

I heard NPR listing the cons of doing this and then just dismissed it as women are already under fire so why not? They also added the disruptive nature of including a female in a mostly male unit. But the physical differences between men and women are measureable, it isn't sexist to say one is different than the other. In strength and speed, men simply have the advantage. If a woman performs at the man's physical fitness level then sure, no problem. But if they lower the bar I've gotta call bullshit. Especially if they get lower requirements just because they're women. Equality in title alone, not requirements. That's two faced.

[Isgrimnur]

Hate to break it to you, but there are already sliding standards in physical fitness requirements. At the age of 36, to get a 70 on the pushup test, I would need to bust out 46. A guy that's 42 only needs 39. That 28yo next to me? He needs 49.

And on a more flippant reply note, I give you Audie Murphy. Medal of Honor winner, one of the most highly decorated soldiers ever in US Service. He stood 5'5", 110 lbs.

[noxiousdog]

Hate to break it to you, but there are already sliding standards in physical fitness requirements. At the age of 36, to get a 70 on the pushup test, I would need to bust out 46. A guy that's 42 only needs 39. That 28yo next to me? He needs 49.

What does that have to do with equality between the sexes?

And on a more flippant reply note, I give you Audie Murphy. Medal of Honor winner, one of the most highly decorated soldiers ever in US Service. He stood 5'5", 110 lbs.

Then clearly we should get rid of all the physical requirements. I'm also not sure why you think a 5' 5" 110 guy isn't physically fit.

[stessier]

Hate to break it to you, but there are already sliding standards in physical fitness requirements. At the age of 36, to get a 70 on the pushup test, I would need to bust out 46. A guy that's 42 only needs 39. That 28yo next to me? He needs 49.

What does that have to do with equality between the sexes?

And on a more flippant reply note, I give you Audie Murphy. Medal of Honor winner, one of the most highly decorated soldiers ever in US Service. He stood 5'5", 110 lbs.

Then clearly we should get rid of all the physical requirements. I'm also not sure why you think a 5' 5" 110 guy isn't physically fit.

I think he's saying they already accept performance differences between men so it should matter if those differences exist for women as well. And he brings up Murphy as it is unlikely he could do the same things as the 6'4" guy in his unit.

[noxiousdog]

I think he's saying they already accept performance differences between men so it should matter if those differences exist for women as well.

The difference in requirements is likely because there's a valued trade off between experience and fitness.

At least make an argument that there value trade off between diversity and fitness.

And he brings up Murphy as it is unlikely he could do the same things as the 6'4" guy in his unit.

And I would bet that Murphy could do more than an lot of guys in his unit. (see fitness of light weight boxers vs cruiserweights). Weight is a detriment to most of the military requirements.

[Anonymous Bosch]

The only relevant question should be: Will this decision improve the effectiveness of our fighting forces and our national security? If not, then WTF is the point?

This article, written by a female Marine Captain with combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, aptly describes some of the inherent physical and physiological rigours of sustained combat operations for women on the front line:

I was a motivated, resilient second lieutenant when I deployed to Iraq for 10 months, traveling across the Marine area of operations (AO) and participating in numerous combat operations. Yet, due to the excessive amount of time I spent in full combat load, I was diagnosed with a severe case of restless leg syndrome. My spine had compressed on nerves in my lower back causing neuropathy which compounded the symptoms of restless leg syndrome. While this injury has certainly not been enjoyable, Iraq was a pleasant experience compared to the experiences I endured during my deployment to Afghanistan. At the beginning of my tour in Helmand Province, I was physically capable of conducting combat operations for weeks at a time, remaining in my gear for days if necessary and averaging 16-hour days of engineering operations in the heart of Sangin, one of the most kinetic and challenging AOs in the country. There were numerous occasions where I was sent to a grid coordinate and told to build a PB from the ground up, serving not only as the mission commander but also the base commander until the occupants (infantry units) arrived 5 days later. In most of these situations, I had a sergeant as my assistant commander, and the remainder of my platoon consisted of young, motivated NCOs. I was the senior Marine making the final decisions on construction concerns, along with 24-hour base defense and leading 30 Marines at any given time. The physical strain of enduring combat operations and the stress of being responsible for the lives and well-being of such a young group in an extremely kinetic environment were compounded by lack of sleep, which ultimately took a physical toll on my body that I couldn’t have foreseen.

By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change. My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions. At the end of the 7-month deployment, and the construction of 18 PBs later, I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment. Regardless of my deteriorating physical stature, I was extremely successful during both of my combat tours, serving beside my infantry brethren and gaining the respect of every unit I supported. Regardless, I can say with 100 percent assurance that despite my accomplishments, there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement. I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females.

There is a drastic shortage of historical data on female attrition or medical ailments of women who have executed sustained combat operations. This said, we need only to review the statistics from our entry-level schools to realize that there is a significant difference in the physical longevity between male and female Marines. At OCS the attrition rate for female candidates in 2011 was historically low at 40 percent, while the male candidates attrite at a much lower rate of 16 percent. Of candidates who were dropped from training because they were injured or not physically qualified, females were breaking at a much higher rate than males, 14 percent versus 4 percent. The same trends were seen at TBS in 2011; the attrition rate for females was 13 percent versus 5 percent for males, and 5 percent of females were found not physically qualified compared with 1 percent of males. Further, both of these training venues have physical fitness standards that are easier for females; at IOC there is one standard regardless of gender. The attrition rate for males attending IOC in 2011 was 17 percent. Should female Marines ultimately attend IOC, we can expect significantly higher attrition rates and long-term injuries for women.

That seems like it could be an awfully steep price to pay for... what, exactly?

[Isgrimnur]

Equal rights. Signing up for the armed forces means that you might end up paying with your life at the government's direction. African Americans fought for the right to go into service during the Civil War, WWI, WWII. Interned Japanese-Americans fought for the right to serve their country in WWII. Should we deny women the right to serve in combat operations because "they might get hurt"?

Rights should be denied only when there is reason to do so. Allowing women to shoulder a rifle and go on patrol isn't going to impact the OCS attrition rate.

As she says, there's a shortage of data. So lets put the policy in place and gather the data. If it turns out it was a bad idea, I would much rather be able to point to that as a reason to backtrack than not allowing it because "we don't know what will happen".

[RMC]

I will say that when I was in the navy, I was in the gulf for a deployment. We sent over 20% of our women home due to "female" issues. (Mostly pregnant).

You do not get replacements when you are on deployment, or at least we did not. It was very hard to lose that much of the crew to women that decided they wanted to go home, so got pregnant. Was it all women, nope. And should you penalize all women for the few. nope.

Some of the women on the ship pulled their weight and there were no issues. But we had some training exercises that required you to put on a big fire proof suit and go into a main space to fight a fire, while lugging a very heavy and cumbersome hose. For the most part most of the women could not do it as fast, or as good as the men. Some did, and that was fine, but mostly it just meant that the guys had to pick up the slack and do extra work if someone assigned a women to do something she was physically unable to do. Again, can some women do it, yes. Could all do it, nope. Could all the guys do it? I don't recall any of the men not able to do it, especially the younger ones that had to do the grunt work. But I am sure there were some.

Anyway, I don't care. If a women wants to be a front line combatant, and the service can handle that, then let her. <shrug>

[El Guapo]

If some women can do it, even if most cannot, isn't that precisely a good reason to not have a policy excluding all women? Allowing for women to serve in combat roles does not mean that those roles need to be filled 50/50 by men and women, nor should it result in a commander charging a soldier with a duty that they are physically unable to do.

But overall it seems like the wise policy is to allow for women to serve in any role, and then leave it up to commanders to decide which people from the pool available to them are up to the job.

[silverjon]

Women used to be excluded from medical school just because of their sex. Now anyone can become a doctor, provided they're capable of qualifying. But those qualifications are not adjusted based on the sex of the student.

Is military service fundamentally different?

[Gavin]

Hate to break it to you, but there are already sliding standards in physical fitness requirements. At the age of 36, to get a 70 on the pushup test, I would need to bust out 46. A guy that's 42 only needs 39. That 28yo next to me? He needs 49.

Is that to serve in general or is that to serve in a ground combat unit? If this was for ground combat I would call this age discrimination albeit in the reverse.

And on a more flippant reply note, I give you Audie Murphy. Medal of Honor winner, one of the most highly decorated soldiers ever in US Service. He stood 5'5", 110 lbs.

During heavy war time when we have to draft people, a lot of guidelines were thrown out the window. We aren't really hurting for soldiers right now, we're actually laying them off. Do you disagree with the strength standards at all?

The fact is, a KSAO of ground troups is physical strength. You need to know that the person next to you can drag you to safety if you get injured and won't hold you back in your day to day operations because they can't carry the same pack you do or get tired faster. Let's list the differences between men and women, shall we?

1. Bone density, women have significantly weaker bone density than their male counterpart. This also differs across races though and black females actually have a similar bone density to white males. Odd, but true. So this is a disadvantage for non-black females specifically and only somewhat for black females.
2. pelvic angle. Women have a larger angle in their pelvis. While this is great if they need to pass a child through them, it makes it slightly more difficult for them to walk which means they are slower on average than males. It also changes the weight distribution to put more weight they're carrying on their hips instead of their legs and feet.
3. Muscle density is significantly less in women. They have to work significantly harder to reach the strength levels of their male counterparts and that can be a problem.
4. Smaller bladders, just like it slows down long trips for the average joe, this can slow down a unit.

These are true and measureable differences. Yes, I believe there are some women that can perform at the necessary levels, but to lower the bar of the position because they're women is potentially putting lives at risk, especially if there are men available to do the job.

[Gavin]

Women used to be excluded from medical school just because of their sex. Now anyone can become a doctor, provided they're capable of qualifying. But those qualifications are not adjusted based on the sex of the student.

Is military service fundamentally different?

I'm surprised to be on the same side of a sex-based issue with you. Cheers!