Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Men and women are different - another view
I posted earlier about an online article I read examining the difference between men and women in combat. The site has posted a reply by former Navy Captain Rosemary Mariner. It is a good read and represents the other side of the debate.
However, in her zeal to counter the earlier arguments of Kingsley Browne, Capt. Mariner twists some of his more important points (in my opinion).
One commenter on the site posts:
The number of women who can meet the standard is going to be a lot closer to 2.5% than 25%. Few people understand that women are vastly weaker in upper body strength. Running ability is closer but the difference are non-trivial.
In any case, if the standards for men make sense, and a vanishingly small number of women can meet them, it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend the extra money (recruiting, female specific facilities/equipment, etc.) to allow a tiny number of women into the Armed forces even if they could do the job.
If we took Capt. Mariner's advice as policy, the number of women serving in the military (especially combat related units) would plummet. If the US military set physical standards for each job, the percentage of women who would qualify to serve would be trivial.
No one that has credibility is declaring all women to be weaker than all men. Nor is it a strong argument to claim that most men can out-perform most women. But it is a scientifically valid fact that men have more upper body strength and after training have much more so. A group of highly trained, conditioned males will out-perform a group of highly trained, condition females in combat related tasks. The cost to the military in accommodating the very few females who would qualify to serve in combat related branches is prohibitive.
Quick bottom line - Women play a valuable role in the US military. They have contributed greatly to the freedom we all have. I have no doubt that those statements are true. I also believe the system currently in place will most likely stand until military funding is no longer a political football.
|
However, in her zeal to counter the earlier arguments of Kingsley Browne, Capt. Mariner twists some of his more important points (in my opinion).
One commenter on the site posts:
The number of women who can meet the standard is going to be a lot closer to 2.5% than 25%. Few people understand that women are vastly weaker in upper body strength. Running ability is closer but the difference are non-trivial.
In any case, if the standards for men make sense, and a vanishingly small number of women can meet them, it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend the extra money (recruiting, female specific facilities/equipment, etc.) to allow a tiny number of women into the Armed forces even if they could do the job.
If we took Capt. Mariner's advice as policy, the number of women serving in the military (especially combat related units) would plummet. If the US military set physical standards for each job, the percentage of women who would qualify to serve would be trivial.
No one that has credibility is declaring all women to be weaker than all men. Nor is it a strong argument to claim that most men can out-perform most women. But it is a scientifically valid fact that men have more upper body strength and after training have much more so. A group of highly trained, conditioned males will out-perform a group of highly trained, condition females in combat related tasks. The cost to the military in accommodating the very few females who would qualify to serve in combat related branches is prohibitive.
Quick bottom line - Women play a valuable role in the US military. They have contributed greatly to the freedom we all have. I have no doubt that those statements are true. I also believe the system currently in place will most likely stand until military funding is no longer a political football.
Labels: Capt. Rosemary Mariner, sexual differences
|
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Men and women are different
Men and women are different. Actually, my whole thought is men and women are different and only in some circumstances does that actually matter.
Read this post on women in combat roles by guest blogger Kingsley Browne, author of Co-ed Combat. There are 9 related posts and you can follow the link very easily. The summation post is here.
Before you have an emotional reaction to the topic, read this excerpt:
I should emphasize that my arguments are not an indictment of military women, although I do not believe that many women are suited to combat, especially, but not only, ground combat. But, in researching my book, I was struck by the high regard that most military men I spoke with have for military women outside the combat context – even though most of these men opposed women’s participation in combat. One can simultaneously appreciate military women’s service to their country and also believe that all-male combat forces are more effective than mixed-sex ones.
I have a close friend whose daughter served with the Air Force as an officer in a security police unit multiple tours in and around Iraq. I am grateful and thankful for her service. She performed well and deserves nothing but my gratitude.
I concur with the author's position and will most likely buy his book. I will let you know what I find and give a recommendation later.
Briefly, I agree that there are many and varied roles that women can and do serve in the military. With very few exceptions and only for very justifiable reasons should women be excluded from any role in the military. My reasoning is sound. Men and women are different.
Several years ago, one of the big 3 channels had its morning anchor interview the first all-female firefighter crew. If memory serves me, the crew was in Washington or Oregon. The striking observation is that the women on this crew were extreme physical specimens. They were able to pass the physical strength and agility test easily. They were not normal women. They were superwomen. Specifically, they passed a practical, physical test to the same standard as the male firefighters. Without question, they were a fully capable firefighting team. They could carry the equipment into a fire and carry victims or fellow firefighters out.
Yet, how many women would have been able pass the test to serve as firefighters? It was not a symbol of how far society has come or a wonderful legal act or legislation to allow or a valiant decision by a determined official. The women on that firefighting team were there because of enormous physical training on the part of each individual to overcome an inherent physical weakness. Women are not as physically strong as men. More men are firefighters because more men can pass the physical test to qualify as competent, able-bodied firefighters.
The point. What am I trying to say? Why are we so afraid to say men and women are different?
Co-ed Combat starts from the premise that policies concerning sexual integration of combat forces should be measured first by their effects on military effectiveness. Other goals, such as expansion of women’s opportunities, must give way to the extent that they impair combat effectiveness. Although the premise is contestable, it is a foundation upon which virtually all political discussions of the role of women in the military rests. Advocates of sexual integration of combat forces seldom argue that military effectiveness must be traded off against equal-opportunity concerns; instead, they contend that there is no tradeoff at all.
I will post more later on the subject. For now, think about what the education system in the US would look like if we truly accepted that boys and girls are different?
|
Read this post on women in combat roles by guest blogger Kingsley Browne, author of Co-ed Combat. There are 9 related posts and you can follow the link very easily. The summation post is here.
Before you have an emotional reaction to the topic, read this excerpt:
I should emphasize that my arguments are not an indictment of military women, although I do not believe that many women are suited to combat, especially, but not only, ground combat. But, in researching my book, I was struck by the high regard that most military men I spoke with have for military women outside the combat context – even though most of these men opposed women’s participation in combat. One can simultaneously appreciate military women’s service to their country and also believe that all-male combat forces are more effective than mixed-sex ones.
I have a close friend whose daughter served with the Air Force as an officer in a security police unit multiple tours in and around Iraq. I am grateful and thankful for her service. She performed well and deserves nothing but my gratitude.
I concur with the author's position and will most likely buy his book. I will let you know what I find and give a recommendation later.
Briefly, I agree that there are many and varied roles that women can and do serve in the military. With very few exceptions and only for very justifiable reasons should women be excluded from any role in the military. My reasoning is sound. Men and women are different.
Several years ago, one of the big 3 channels had its morning anchor interview the first all-female firefighter crew. If memory serves me, the crew was in Washington or Oregon. The striking observation is that the women on this crew were extreme physical specimens. They were able to pass the physical strength and agility test easily. They were not normal women. They were superwomen. Specifically, they passed a practical, physical test to the same standard as the male firefighters. Without question, they were a fully capable firefighting team. They could carry the equipment into a fire and carry victims or fellow firefighters out.
Yet, how many women would have been able pass the test to serve as firefighters? It was not a symbol of how far society has come or a wonderful legal act or legislation to allow or a valiant decision by a determined official. The women on that firefighting team were there because of enormous physical training on the part of each individual to overcome an inherent physical weakness. Women are not as physically strong as men. More men are firefighters because more men can pass the physical test to qualify as competent, able-bodied firefighters.
The point. What am I trying to say? Why are we so afraid to say men and women are different?
Co-ed Combat starts from the premise that policies concerning sexual integration of combat forces should be measured first by their effects on military effectiveness. Other goals, such as expansion of women’s opportunities, must give way to the extent that they impair combat effectiveness. Although the premise is contestable, it is a foundation upon which virtually all political discussions of the role of women in the military rests. Advocates of sexual integration of combat forces seldom argue that military effectiveness must be traded off against equal-opportunity concerns; instead, they contend that there is no tradeoff at all.
I will post more later on the subject. For now, think about what the education system in the US would look like if we truly accepted that boys and girls are different?
Labels: Co-ed Combat, Kingsley Browne, military service, sexual differences
|
