The Washington Times has a story that has the issue of Lifting the ban on women in combat units and evidently, this has now climbed out of the rabbit hole of political correctness and right back up onto the stage. Appearances are that the illiberal liberal caucus in Congress and the Progressives/Feminists felt like they have the wind at their back with the DADT decision. In the wake of two wars in which women have exchanged fire with the enemy, the Pentagon is being pressed to scrap the ban on women serving below the brigade level in units whose main mission is direct ground combat. OK, I will stipulate to the fact that exchanging gunfire with an enemy force while in a war zone can be loosely defined as "direct ground combat," but being involved in direct ground combat and being assigned or detailed to a unit that does it day after long, arduous, bloody day are as comparable as apples and coconuts; sure, they both grow on trees, but they have zero relation to one another. I am growing weary of this subject, so I am going to stretch my fingers and get another cup of joe and we are going to get into this, hopefully for the last damn time, after the jump... Alright, now that I am stretched and refreshed, let's get it on... The Service Chiefs have the following options that I am going to list in order of what I prefer: Leave the Combat Policy in place Open some roles in battalions but maintain the ban on special operations and spots where physical requirements would prevent a vast majority of women from qualifying Open all ground combat slots to women, including special operations So first up is Robert Maginnis who may know a wee spot of information about this subject, being a retired Army Officer and all. "Pretending women are identical to men puts them in danger, especially in the combat arms,” said Robert Maginnis, a retired Army officer and analyst at the Family Research Council. “It is incredibly naive and wrongheaded to suggest the average woman can run as fast and carry the same load as the average man. Denying the biological facts to advance a policy change for women in ground combat may please feminists with no clue about military culture, but it is dangerous for our security. and this is of course countered by the illiberal argument. The push to put women in ground combat units has come mostly from liberals in Congress and outside groups. They argue that women have proved their mettle in Iraq and Afghanistan by serving in police units and security details that exchanged fire with the enemy in wars that had no front lines. A couple of gunfights does not an infantryman make. Just because you have been in a gunfight, doesn't mean you are a gunfighter. I would argue that they have proved their effectiveness as capable war-fighters by flying Apache helicopters and dropping bombs and missiles on our enemies, and in this war, they are serving in ways that could not be imagined 20 years ago. They have been detailed everywhere in the media, including this blog; and their contributions have been noted and honored. They have not, by and large, proved their "mettle" to me as the person I want standing beside me when we are about to clear a compound or pick up and move that mortar base-plate, because facts, as Thomas Jefferson pointed out, are stubborn things: On average, males are physically stronger than females. The difference is due to females, on average, having less total muscle mass than males, and also having lower muscle mass in comparison to total body mass. While individual muscle fibers have similar strength, males have more fibers due to their greater total muscle mass. The greater muscle mass of males is in turn due to a greater capacity for muscular hypertrophy as a result of men's higher levels of testosterone. Males remain stronger than females, when adjusting for differences in total body mass. This is due to the higher male muscle-mass to body-mass ratio. As a result, gross measures of body strength suggest an average 40-50% difference in upper body strength between the sexes as a result of this difference, and a 20-30% difference in lower body strength. This is supported by another study that found females are about 52-66 percent as strong as males in the upper body (34-48% difference), and about 70-80 percent as strong in the lower body (20-30% difference). One study of muscle strength in the elbows and knees—in 45 and older males and females—found the strength of females to range from 42 to 63% of male strength. Males, on average, have denser, stronger bones, tendons, and ligaments. Male skulls and head bones have a different shape than female skulls. One difference is in the roundness of the eye cavities, another is the male's bony brow, and a third difference is the shape of the jaw. Male and female pelvises are shaped differently. The female pelvis features a wider pelvic cavity, which is necessary when giving birth. The female pelvis has evolved to its maximum width for childbirth — an even wider pelvis would make women unable to walk. In contrast, human male pelves did not evolve to give birth and are therefore slightly more optimized for walking. The female pelvis is larger and broader than the male pelvis which is taller, narrower, and more compact. The female inlet is larger and oval in shape, while the male inlet is more heart-shaped. Males typically have larger tracheae and branching bronchi, with about 56 percent greater lung volume per body mass. They also have larger hearts, 10 percent higher red blood cell count, higher haemoglobin, hence greater oxygen-carrying capacity. They also have higher circulating clotting factors (vitamin K, prothrombin and platelets). These differences lead to faster healing of wounds and higher peripheral pain tolerance. Females have more pain receptors in the skin. That...
Read the complete post at http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Blackfive/~3/5p5vPUAayig/we-need-to-put-this-idea-to-bed.html
Posted
Nov 18 2011, 03:01 AM
by
BLACKFIVE