- Sure, many women cannot pass the physical requirements necessary for effectively performing the duties required by combat.
- Neither can many men.
- To people who use #1 as a reason for why all women should be barred from even trying: If you are correct, then why are you objecting to demonstrable proof that you are correct?
- That's a rhetorical question, obviously.
- Any human who can pass the physical standards for entry into combat positions should be allowed to operate in combat.
- At the same time, such standards should be evaluated as to whether they represent realistic requirements of the job. To put it (very) simplistically, if a requirement is "completing [this number] of pull-ups," where have we determined that the ability to complete [this number] of pull-ups is necessary?
- Having never served in the military, or been to boot camp, I am torn on the issue of "lowering" standards for women. On one hand, men, military and not, are typically (and openly) derisive of the fact that women's physical requirements are "lower" (a much more poisonous word than "different") than men. But on the other hand, as women's bodies have different physical capabilities, why should the requirements be exactly the same as they are for men?
- The military overall has a huge problem with language and framing. From the general manner of speaking about female service members, to tones used in speaking about the problems faced specifically by female service members, to entire policies and names for things. Everything about the language is geared toward undermining equal respect for women service members.
- Anyway, bravo to Leon Panetta.
- Although, if there's no reason to exclude women from regular combat, why add the caveat that there ought to be certain special forces that will remain men-only? A person can either pass the tests or not! For fuck's sake.
- Women have already been serving in combat zones.
- But since they have been officially excluded from combat jobs, they face limitations to promotion.
- Finally, most important, is that opening up these jobs to women signifies progress for women in terms of how they are perceived by the military. (Wherein women who get promoted are viewed as either exceptional, or as the beneficiaries of affirmative action policies.) In general, women will never be perceived as fully equal - as equally desired for service as male service members - until they can potentially access ANY job in the United States military.
25 January 2013
Of course women should be allowed to hold jobs in military combat. Obviously.
Since this is all anyone has talked about for the last 48 hours: