Women in Combat Arms

Introduction- Con seems to imply that women are not as aggressive or lethal as males, but fails to explain why. I wonder if Con would be willing to explain why SGT Hester was not aggressive enough during the ambush in Iraq?I am not attempting to “imply” that women are not as aggressive or lethal as males, I am stating that as plain fact, and evidenced it with a study conducted by the military itself. Appealing to common sense might be fallacy, but there is a reason why our various sports competitions are gender segregated; females simply cannot compete against males on an equal field in terms of physical prowess, of which soldiering is a vital part. With this in mind, it would be a hindrance to a squad’s ability to have an artificial standard lowered standard in place simply to allow for gender equality. As was made mention of earlier (and also dropped by Pro), I reiterate for emphasis: “Elaine Donnelly, who directs the Center for Military Readiness and has issued papers arguing against women in direct land combat, said all standards for special operations, Army infantry and the Marines are “very much in jeopardy.”“Over time, and it wouldn’t be long, the ‘Dempsey rule’ would apply, meaning, ‘If it’s too hard for women, it’s probably too hard,’” she said. The Obvious - Con says that women should ... soldiers.In this rebuttal, Pro would liken pregnancy, a 100% legal thing, to drug/alcohol offenses, a 100% illegal thing. To add further absurdity, pregnancy, a thing in which ‘choice’ plays an incredibly active role is likened to prostate cancer, an ailment which strikes its vicims with no choice what so ever. The point, which again seemed to be dropped, was that unplanned pregnancies happen in the military at a higher rate than in civilian counterparts. This would infer that any females that might be required to serve actively in an engagement instead would be retained due to pregnancy, and some one else would be re-allocated to take her place. Were she not to have been eligible for a combat role, this position would not have been altered, and the soldier’s unit not possibly ompromised, which is ultimately the point: retain squad ability and lethality. Clearly, pregnant soldiers do not help that prospect."The Dynamic" - Con argues that sexual tension will create a debilitating distraction within male dominated infantry units. The implication here is that men and women cannot possibly work together because of....well, sex and stuff. But ... letting women into Ranger School, etc.... And each time, the prediction failed. … What a gross mischaracterization. The point was as stated: there is a distraction present given the demographics involved. Debilitating or not hinges on the soldiers themselves, but if the question is “Why shouldn’t we allow women in combat roles”, any distraction that can be averted, like a sexual dynamic that Pro never refuted, should be averted. When coupled with the previous statistic about unplanned pregnancies in the military, this point becomes much more substantial. Pro further institutes a red herring by likening gender to race as a pretext to discrimination in previous eras, however in the opening of this debate concedes immediately that there is a quantifiable physical disparity between genders. If such a disparity between races could so be easily found, this might have been a worthwhile rebuttal.Passed the Bar, but... - Con implies that even if a woman does pass ...How many times does she need to pass the standard before she is accepted?Pro may point to any individual preferred for anecdotal evidence. I will quote a previously cited source for actual application of Pro’s resolution: “It found that all-male squads, teams and crews demonstrated better performance on 93 of 134 tasks evaluated (69 percent) than units with women in them. Units comprising all men also were faster than units with women while completing tactical movements in combat situations, especially in units with large “crew-served” weapons like heavy machine guns and mortars, the study found.”From the same source: “Infantry squads comprising men only also had better accuracy than squads with women in them, with “a notable difference between genders for every individual weapons system” used by infantry rifleman units. They include the M4 carbine, the M27 infantry automatic rifle (IAR) and the M203, a single-shot grenade launcher mounted to rifles, the study found.”Again, the same source: “The research also found that male Marines who have not received infantry training were still more accurate using firearms than women who have. And in removing wounded troops from the battlefield, there “were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated groups,” with the exception being when a single person—”most often a male Marine” — carried someone away, the study found.”No amount of hand waving alleviates this. Cautionary Tale - Con implies that even if the standards start high,... Con cannot cite actual proof or practice, only theory.With regards to Pro’s allegation that I cite only opinion papers and that there is no evidence, I really question what Pro considers evidence. I would consider the Director for the Center of Military Readiness to be an informed expert in her field. And, again, the evidence of a unit’s ability being deteriorated was cited in an article in the previous rounds, as well as this one. I am baffled that Pro would consider a study conducted by the military, and a director of their readiness to be hallmarks of a paucity of evidence. On the topic of what was presented from one of my sources (People Magazine), Pro attempts to go line by line to refute what was brought to the table, hoping that the diligent reader hasn’t read the article. In it, the consensus is suggested that the women in question had all the advantages that Pro alludes to immediately offered, to the point of being pushed on them. Further more,Pro drops key parts in the rebuttal that I would like to rejoin: “Once there they were allowed to repeat the program until they passed – while men were held to a strict pass/fail standard.” ---this was largely panned by Pro. Con clarifies: “"Once in the school they were allowed to repeat key parts.." - yep, true again.And also again, not unusual. This is called "recycling," and it happens to about 70% of all Ranger students. Yes, 3 female students were offered a "day 1 recycle," -- It happens to 70% of ranger students. ‘Coincidentally’, it happened to 100% of the female Ranger students. In conclusion, we have seen from studies conducted by the armed forces itself that women in combat roles are a hindrance to combat units. We have heard the synopsis of experts in thefield, that standards are in jeopardy of being lowered to accommodate female applicants, which also degrades the ability of combat units. We have seen the preferential treatment that is being given to encourage such a degradation of standards in the name of equality. We have touched on the male/female dynamic, and how this poses as a viable distraction to combat units. Lastly, in the first round of the debate, we agreed that biologically, women are sub par when compared to men’s physical strength. It is the combination of these various factors that disqualify the resolution from being adopted: women, simply put, should not be permitted in combat roles. Thank you Pro, and I encourage a vote of Con. Voters, thank you for your time.