This is contrary to rules and regs and ignoring studies which clearly show that the sexes are not equal in terms of physical and emotional ability which could have terrifying consequences, because there is no "gender norming" on the battlefield.
The military isn't like the rest of society and it shouldn't be. Its hiring practices should not mirror those in the private sector for that very reason. The military is based on time tested principles that worked well in an all male environment; physical aggression, fierce competition, a highly driven structured atmosphere, the crucible for Marines, and other tests of strength and endurance for other branches; components that make a military strong, create male bonding, and promote extremely high standards of excellence. Components that are and have been inherently: male, and contribute to enormous successes on the battlefield.
It is no coincidence, then, that people who are incarcerated for violent crimes are 90% male, although a recent study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that veterans are half as likely to be incarcerated than the rest of the male population. (MSNBC, 2007)
We recognize these simple differences between men and women in sports; there are no women on the football field during the Superbowl, unless it's at halftime; it's recognized in competitive weightlifting; even physical trainers who have clientele recognize it, and use that knowledge to tailor physical training to the biological gender differences of their clients.
Other countries, like Britain and Israel, have realized what a mistake it is to have women integrated in their fighting force and have accepted it. Britain noted, for example, that women had a higher rate of injury than men, more stress fractures.
In a one-year trial female trainees were suffering twice as many injuries to their lower limbs, until single-gender training was restored. (London Sunday Times, Feb. 8, 1999, and Newsweek, Feb. 9, 1999) More recently, a study at Fort Jackson, SC, found that 50 percent of female and 25 percent of male trainees suffered injuries during basic training, and a 200 member company that was required to wear 25 pound flak vests in a field pilot test experienced twice as many injuries to the lower leg, ankles and feet. (Columbia State, June 20, 2004) Center for Military Readiness
For that reason and others, European nations like Spain, Germany and Italy, have virtually no women at all in military service. Russia's armed force has .7% women, or just 25,000 out of 4 million, performing clerical and medical duty. Israel has more limited jobs for women now than they were for American military women during WWII, after their social experimentation with women in the military failed.
Americans seems to take no lessons from history, other countries' experiences, or the past, or even a study from 1992. Is that arrogance or blind stupidity?
In order to artificially even the playing field at West point, to compensate for women's physical challenges, they no longer have to march with combat boots on. Instead, they march and run in gym shoes. Women 40-50% of the upper body strength of a man. They're smaller and lighter, as compared to men; that's simple biology. So the American military fixed that problem, they don't have to carry their 75# rucksack on runs with combat boots on; they don't have to carry weapons, the old standards have been relaxed, and women are compared to women so that they cannot fail.
The lowered standards are insuring failure of a different sort though; and guaranteeing a female has statistically a smaller chance of survival, should she be taken into captivity by a gang of terrorists like the enemy we fight today in the middle east. Which begs the question: What kind of training is THAT?
Army recruiters need to approach three times as many women to enlist as men for each enlistment. But women have a higher nondeployment rate because of pregnancy and family obligations, as women in the enlistment age range are also at the prime age range for child-bearing; 18-26.
Women are more suceptible to post traumatic stress syndrome in a ratio of 2:1 to men.
Men score higher than women five out of eight times on the Armed Service Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). The scores which women score low on are those which indicate an aptitude for the majority of military jobs: general science, math reasoning, atuo/shop information, mathematical knowledge and electronics. (Brian Mitchell, 1995)
That isn't bigotry; that's a fact.
Tests that women score better than men on are more closely related to what we think of as jobs for women; reading comprehension, numerical operations and coding speed. Researchers have concluded that men are better suited for military jobs and women are better suited for traditional jobs that they're most oftentimes attracted to. (Brian Mitchell, 1995)
Keep that at the back of your mind when you consider even more serious reasons why women shouldn't be exposed to the risk of capture; examples of women dying on what I call the altar of political correctness.
If all of this is true, then what could possibly be the reason to keep pursuing women in the armed services with all these problems? The answer is: Quotas.
Artificial quotes are imposed on the military by our very own feminist organization that is promoting this agenda and lobbying for special rules for women inside the military: DACOWITS. DACOWITS is pursuing this agenda by lobbying congress on our very own tax dollars.
Pushing women into service for nontraditional jobs makes little sense, but it's happening, and with disastrous results:
Lt. Kara Hulgreen's fatal accident in 1994 in which 'engine failure' was touted as the cause, was really the result of something else. Under Hulgreen's piloting, her F-14A fighter jet stalled and spun during a routine landing attempt aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln in clear weather about 40 miles southwest of San Diego, CA.
This was a very politicized crash and death, because the JAG report said the cause was engine failure, and the media parroted the line. But the top secret internal report, or MIR, which is supposed to be internal for the Navy and not receive any press, revealed the truth of the matter. Pilot error. Some very courageous and noble people went to the mat for this one; they risked their careers to get the MIR report out there, so the public would know the truth. Pilot error.
Further, Kara Hultgreen's test scores during her training were not stellar. She had four downs in her record, combined with marginal test scores. She was the first female fighter pilot to die since the Navy allowed women in these billets, and we should question the wisdom of modifying standards of excellence in order to accommodate women when these are the consequences.
This is a serious thing to consider, being that many military pilots end up in the private sector as commercial airline pilots; this has the potential of touching all of us.
There is no gender norming in war. We made a big mistake integrating women into the military in the '70's. We made a mistake in going to a 'voluntary' military which insulated so many people from an understanding of military life and what it requires. And the biggest mistake was allowing them to lift the 'risk rule' and not keeping the military's feet to the fire in terms of Congressional oversight and notifying the Secretary of Defense if there is going to be a change in terms of putting women at risk in a combat zone, which is part of their own rules.
Instead, they've been circumventing their own rules. Several examples of this are at the Center for Military Readiness. One glaring example is this one from May of 2004: Soldiers in the 4-64th armor battalion were ordered to administratively change the modified table of organization and equipment or MTOE on paper only to a) assign the forward support company troops to brigade support battalions (BSBs) and then b) "attach" the forward support company troops back to the maneuver battalions.
This plan calls for changes in the “modified table of organization and equipment,” or MTOE, which is a comprehensive list of all people and equipment assigned to a given Army unit. Placing the FSC in the MTOE of the gender integrated brigade support battalion, even though it will still collocate with the maneuver battalion 100% of the time, constitutes subterfuge and circumvention of the congressional notification law.
In actual fact, nothing changed. Local commanders conceded that the sole purpose of the contrived arrangement was to assign female soldiers to the land combat FSCs, but without formal changes in DoD rules and prior notification to Congress.
Page 6 of the slide presentation candidly admitted that this course of action, identified as COA # 2, “…could be perceived as subterfuge to avoid [the] congressional reporting requirement.”
SUBTERFUGE? What a devastating admission!
What has been happening is that supply companies like Jessica Lynch's, a forward support company (FSC), are being designated 'non combat' in order to get around the risk rule. Changing a unit to 'non combat' but its being a collocating unit or forward support company for a combat unit, is disingenuous and is putting lives of people who didn't sign up for that duty at risk. People like Jessica Lynch, who was a supply clerk. And Shoshona Johnson, a 30-year old mother, and Lori Piestewa, a mother of toddlers, whose dream was to become a chef. None of their families expected that they would be exposed to a combat situation, and the army is not being honest with our soldiers, their families or our nation about having deliberately done so.
The military and media have both promulgated the myth of the female military hero and historical revisionists are busy doing the same thing. Some of these I will cover in subsequent articles here at National Writers Syndicate.