Women in Combat Arms

Since we have adopted a format, I am inclined to follow, and will rebut each point as suggested by Pro.1. Equal standards - There is no question that the average female is physically weaker than the average male. The previous policy of gender exclusion was made based on this premise. But what are we to make of above average females? If a woman with exceptional athletic ability and toughness can meet and even exceed the standards currently set for male troops, on what basis should she be denied the job? For example, the current physical standard to be a US Army Ranger involves completing 49 pushups, 59 situps, 6 pullups, and running 5 miles in under 40 minutes. Another US Infantry standard is carrying a 35 pound pack in full combat gear for 12 miles in under 3 hours. There are women who have completed and even exceeded these standards. Notably, 3 women to date have passed the US Army Ranger School, by all accounts outperforming many of their male peers. If these standards, which are currently deemed "good enough" to qualify a man for combat, are not changed, and women prove they can meet those standards (they already have), then it qualifies as discrimination to exclude those women solely for their chromosomes. Bottom line - if women meet the same standard as men, there is no justification for denying them the job.http://usarmybasic.com...This is your basic Army Physical Fitness Test. In it, we find immediately that the standard is different among sexes. This, to me, points to a disparity. I am not sure how one can say that a handful of exemplary people are exemplary by given different standards from the onset.In carrying on to the specific examples given:http://www.people.com...The key excerpts from the above article:• Women were first sent to a special two-week training in January to get them ready for the school, which didn't start until April 20. Once there they were allowed to repeat the program until they passed – while men were held to a strict pass/fail standard. • Afterward they spent months in a special platoon at Fort Benning getting, among other things, nutritional counseling and full-time training with a Ranger. • While in the special platoon they were taken out to the land navigation course – a very tough part of the course that is timed – on a regular basis. The men had to see it for the first time when they went to the school. • Once in the school they were allowed to repeat key parts – like patrols – while special consideration was not given to the men. This condition seems rather strange to the whole of being able to pass "standards". It is contrary to what is entailed in the resolution. 2. Women already have proven competence in combat - A big driver in this debate was the fact that women have already been exposed to combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, so it made no sense to officially continue excluding them. There are numerous accounts of women performing with courage and valor under fire. Take, for instance, SPC Monica Brown, who was awarded the Silver Star for running through enemy small arms and mortar fire to protect and treat wounded infantrymen [1]. Or SGT Leigh Hester, also awarded the Silver Star, who personally led an assault to clear enemy positions during an ambush in Iraq resulting in 27 enemy KIA [2]. I challenge Con to justify why these Silver Star winners should be excluded from serving in combat, given that they already have proven courageous and competent under fire.In this particular situation, I am forced to impugn someone’s ability. I have no doubts that our fighting men and women perform admirably, however statistically, such situations are not the norm. Anecdotal, and heroic, however by and large infrequent.3. Other countries integrate with no problems - many modern armies are already gender integrated, including Canada, Israel, Germany, Australia, and Norway. It seems there are very few, if any, additional problems as a result of their gender integrated ranks, because if there was a noticeable difference in military performance they would cease the policy. In fact, according to National Geographic, "A study on the integration of female combatants in the IDF [Israeli Defense Force] between 2002 and 2005 found that women often exhibit 'superior skills' in discipline, motivation, and shooting abilities, yet still face prejudicial treatment stemming from 'a perceived threat to the historical male combat identity.' [3]. If other modern armies (many of them NATO members) have integrated with success on the basis of equal standards, then there is no reason why the United States should be a special exception.Canada-“Meanwhile, Canada’s lack of specific physical requirements for military occupations stands in sharp contrast to the U.S. armed forces, which require combatants to be able to complete a number of specific tasks, some of them grueling, to become an infantryman.“Canadian soldiers repeatedly pointed to low physical standards as a significant problem,” the Marine report said. “Most commanders and soldiers agreed that introducing occupation-specific, operationally relevant combat arms standards would be very helpful to both keep soldiers fit and to demonstrate that women (should they meet the standard) could operate on an equal footing with men.”IDF- “Conversely, there are myths about the roles that women play in the Israel Defense Forces, which feminists hail as a place where women can do anything.The IDF this year decided to retain a ban on women serving in the confined quarters of a tank. Women are restricted to support roles in special operations and are limited to service in only two light infantry border units.“Integration of female soldiers into the IDF ground forces is far more limited than popularly believed in the U.S.,” the Marine Corps visitors found.The IDF also does not hold women to the same standards. It practices “gender norming” in physical tests, as opposed to Mr. Carter’s pledge that standards will be the same for both sexes, or “gender neutral.”IDF women have to be able to carry 30 percent of their body weight, but men must carry 70 percent.”http://www.washingtontimes.com...This flies in the face of the underpinnings of Pro’s point: standards. Clearly, they are different, and as evidenced, integration is not 100%. This point becomes self refuting for Pro. Standards are eased for one gender to allow them access to allow these examples to exist, however Pro wants to stand by standards as a means of acceptance. In the next round I will address the rebuttals of my position, and conclude.