Women in Combat Arms

== Counter Arguments == 1. Equal Standards: Con highlights the current Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) standards as being different for men and women. This is true, but the Army is about to change that this summer (http://www.armytimes.com...). In any case, this is irrelevant to my argument. I clearly wrote in Round 2 that I'm talking about women who "can meet and even exceed the standards currently set for male troops." Even if there are two standards, why should women who prove they can meet the male standard be denied? Some women have already proven they can meet male standards, and more will continue to do so in the future. It is ridiculous to argue that there's not a single female in the human species who can do 49 pushups... In reference to Ranger School, Con cites an article that claims everything was rigged. First, we should be wary that People Magezine is publishing an authorative article on military training. Nonetheless, let's examine Con's points one at a time: Women attended a special two-week training course: Yes, that's true. It's called the Pre-Ranger Course (PRC), and it's an official Army course attended by hundreds of soldiers each year - so it's not some secret "special course" whipped up to help the women. The course is designed to prepare aspiring Ranger candidates, and attendance is relatively routine for anyone shceduled for Ranger School. Last year, 480 soldiers attended PRC between January-April, of whom 138 were women. Of those 138 women, only 20 graduated. That's an attrition rate of 85%. The male PRC attrition rate for the same period was only 58% [1]. Hardly seems to me like women were "allowed to repeat the program until they passed" like Con claims. "they spent months in a special platoon at Ft. Benning getting... full-tim training with a Ranger": Yes, also true. But this is hardly controversial. Take, for instance, Ranger School's largest student population - young infatnry officers. Prior to Ranger School, Infantry officers attend a 16-week school called Infantry Basic Officer Leader Course (IBOLC). IBOLC students receive intense training on infantry tactics, land navigation, and mission planning, all closely supervised by - you guessed it - Ranger qualified trainers [2]. So, if anything, these women were offered what every male infantry officer gets prior to attending Ranger School. This is not special treatment, it's equal treatment. Land navigation training - This I cannot confirm or deny, but let's think about it - is this really a big deal? If the women failed land nav, that simply means they were bad at reading a compass. This says noting of a female's physical strength or sexual dynamics, which are the primary objections to integration. Compass reading is a skill, so even if the women did fail, it means they just need more training on how to use a compass, which is an easy fix. Is Con suggesting that women can't read compasses as well as men? "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," which means they were allowed to start the course over after two previous failures. But while this is rare, it's not unprecedented. Two failed male students were also offered a Day 1 recycle on the same occasion, and both declined it [3]. Once again, this is not evidence of special treatment. I actually took part in helping observe Ranger School training for the Army during the gender integration. I can confirm as an eyewitness that these women absolutely met the same standard as men - they carried the same weight, walked the same distance, and by many accounts performed better than some of their male counterparts on peer evaluation scores. So I asked once again, why should these women be denied from serving in positions for which they are clearly qualified? 2. Women have proven competence in combat - Here, Con acknowledges this point but merely counters that "such situations are not the norm." That might be correct, but it's irrelevant. I'm talking EXACTLY about the excetions to that norm! Why should the rare, exceptional women who prove they can meet the standard and display valor in combat be denied that role if they wish to volunteer for it? At that point it's purely discrimination based on chromosomes, which I maintain qualifies as unjust discrimination. 3. Other countries - Con only rebutted my examples of Canada and Israel. So I guess my remaining examples of Germany, Australia, and Norway stand. Once again, the best Con can do is point out that some standards aren't yet fully equal. But this is irrelevant - just because standards are not equal now, this says nothing about my initial point of women notionally meeting truly equal standards in the future. Let's say Canadian women are soon forced to meet male standards. And then let's say they do it. What happens then? Will these women still be considered unqualified? This is not a mere hypothetical, once again - Con cannot seriously believe there isn't a single female in the human species who can withstand the physical demands of combat. Con has yet to demonstrate why a woman who can meet and exceed every male physical standard, and can do so repeatedly (as women such as CPT Griest have), should continue to be denied from combat arms. [1] http://www.armytimes.com... [2] http://www.benning.army.mil... [3] http://www.armytimes.com...