Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Welcome to Adulthood; Please Visit the Post Office
Credit: US Army Flickr
During the debate last weekend, the candidates (starting with Rubio) were asked their stance on women being required to sign up for Selective Service. Rubio answered yes, and people lost their minds. Apparently, listening to the whole statement and following the thought from one complete sentence to the next is too much for some. Here’s the transcript of the exchange:
Raddatz: I want to move on to the military. Senator Rubio, all restrictions on women in combat as long as they qualify. Positions including special operations forces, like Navy Seals. Just this week military leaders of the Army and Marine Corps said that they believed young women, just as young men are required to do, should sign up for Selective Service in case the Draft is reinstated.
Many of you have young daughters. Senator Rubio, should young women be required to sign up for Selective Service in case of a national emergency?
Rubio: First, let me say there are already women today serving in roles that are like combat. That, in fact, whose lives are in very serious danger, and so I have no problem whatsoever with people of either gender serving in combat so long as the minimum requirements necessary to do the job are not compromised. But, I support that, and obviously now that that is the case I do believe that Selective Service should be opened up for both men and women in case a Draft is ever instituted.
What he said was this: a) Women already serve in arduous roles in the military in which their lives are just as much in danger as the men they serve along side; b) Women in combat are not an issue to him provided standards are not lowered to accommodate them; and c) Because the other two statements are true, registering for Selective Service is the next logical step for women concerning our armed services.
As to the first statement, yes, women are already serving in near-combat roles, placing themselves in harm’s way, and do serve and sacrifice themselves in many of the same ways as the young men of our nation. We can argue whether or not this should be the case, but it is the current reality. I work alongside some of these young women, and they serve just as honorably as their male counterparts. In fact, some of them pour extra effort into their service in order to be seen as equal. There are, however, times where they simply are not biologically equal to men. When they have to pull the poles at some of the vehicle gates to allow passage of oversized vehicles some (not all, but certainly a number of them) are not physically strong enough or even tall enough to drag the heavy iron posts out of the holes in the ground. There is also the problem that their sex cannot be hidden. Even wearing full tactical gear I can tell which ones are women from a considerable distance. The enemy could as well.
The second point is really a conundrum for our military. Military service must be towards the end of combat effectiveness, and that requires a heightened level of physical capability. As the Army learned when all eight women who first tried to become Rangers failed, there are few women who will make the grade. The Marines have determined that simply mixing the sexes in combat units has negative effects. We cannot degrade the readiness or effectiveness of our military in the name of inclusivity or “equality.” The standards must remain the same or we will suffer the consequences. This is the point Sen. Rubio was trying to make.
Those who have served already know what I’m about to say. The physical standards for men and women serving in the military have never been the same. Men and women in all branches have separate physical readiness standards. Less is required of women, but this simply acknowledges the physiological differences between the sexes. If we are to have true equality in the ranks then perhaps it’s time to address this glaring disparity. It won’t happen, however, because if the branches required of women the same body fat standards, cardiovascular standards, and strength standards they require of men, the vast majority of women would fail.
The last point Rubio made only makes sense when considering the previous two. Women already serve valid functions in our military. Though combat roles have been opened to those who can meet the combat standards, very few will. But the inability of women to swell the combat ranks should not exempt the female citizenry from meeting the same requirement of conscripted service in times of war that is currently the sole burden of men. There is a lot more to operating a military than sending lead down range, and compelling women to fill the roles for which they qualify would free-up more men who are fit for combat to fight on the front lines rather than providing support to those who are fighting.
I agree with Senator Rubio, and I say that as the father of two beautiful daughters. The Left has clamored for forced equality, and in this I think it makes some sense. He was not asked if women should be conscripted for combat. The question asked was, “Should young women be required to sign up for Selective Service in case of a national emergency?” I give the same qualified “yes” as Marco, and for the same reasons.
Welcome to adulthood, ladies. Please visit the post office to register.
Published in Military
Are you sure about that? Do you really believe that those two women passed through Army Ranger school without any lowering of standards or special treatment? If you do, then you trust the people in charge far more than I do.
I believe that Obama, who is carrying water for feminists, went into office with an agenda, and has been very successful in implementing that agenda, so far as the military is concerned. Maybe I am paranoid, but when it comes to feminists, I would rather err of the side of being paranoid then on the side of being too trusting. I do not trust feminists at all, in any way shape or form, and I don’t believe anything they say. When I see women playing successfully for the NFL, then maybe I will believe that women can be Army Rangers. Until then, I am a women in combat denier, and all the generals in the world will not change my mind :)
Military culture is not in any way determined by those at the top. Those women either are capable or they will fail spectacularly in the real world of the military.
Ok, but what if they fail spectacularly in a war and endanger the men who are serving alongside them?
Are you agreeing with me that the Top Brass of the military cannot be trusted?
Always. After a certain amount of time in the service officers become politicians.
If women want equal opportunity in society, they should accept equal responsibility. Fake John Galt is right. But the practical considerations of an effective military have to come first. I don’t quite know how that falls out but I suspect an honest approach would lead to no combat role for women.
Requiring that standards be maintained is like getting your border security later for your amnesty now. Always and whenever standards get in the way of diversity, diversity wins. I trust this government and this culture to maintain those standards like I trust Bill Clinton to coach Women’s Volleyball.
It’s one thing to allow women to volunteer to put themselves in dangerous situations. It’s quite another to conscript them to kill and be killed. If I had my druthers they’d never be charged with harming the foe, volunteer or not.
All that said, I’ve got a strong temptation to force feminism to drink it’s cup to the bitter dregs. The worse, as Lenin said, the better.
I understand where you are coming from, but the teenaged girls who would be affected by all of this are mostly innocent. Women like Hillary Clinton will never be the ones who end up getting drafted, and younger women should not be punished for the sins of their grandmothers. And even if every teenaged girl in America was a raging feminist, do we really want the young men in the Armed Services to be subjected to that?
If Republicans were serious about making life more fair for men, they would make a serious effort to end affirmative action for women. As far as I can tell, they have no intention of making any effort to end affirmative action for women. Forcing young women to sign up for the draft does absolutely nothing to help young men. It is a totally empty gesture. Unfortunately, when it comes to helping men, empty gestures seem to be all that republicans are capable of.
Shudder.
Better them than me.
More seriously though, the problem is that every young woman in America is a feminist. If not in the strident harpy way that Hillary Clinton is, then in the soft cultural assumption of the superiority of women. She’s been taught from birth on the simultaneous beliefs that women are exactly equal to men, that any attempt to have a ‘boys only’ clubhouse should be stamped out with a furor usually reserved for klan rallies, and that men should act politely, deferentially and supportively of any given woman because she is a woman.
The contradiction there can only be supported as long as men are willing to take the self-effacing role and still shoulder the largest burdens whenever necessary. You and I would both be happier in a society that sent the men off to die at war and left the women home to raise families. That’s not the world we live in.
The quickest way to remind someone why the rules exist is to let them suffer the consequences of breaking those rules. The problem with that approach is that we also have to live with the consequences.
Hank Rhody :) I disagree with you. :) I don’t believe that every young woman in America is a feminist, but if that were true, it would be their parents-both mothers and fathers-who would be to blame for it. I am all in favor of men standing up for themselves and telling certain women to go you know where, especially if said men are trying to deal with a feminist daughter. But in order for male authority to be legitimate and successful, it has to be based on wanting to protect women. Most women will put up with a great deal from men who they know will protect them, but a man who just wants to be treated fairly? Why should I spend one second worrying about what that guy thinks? At least, that is how I look at it :) Maybe that is wrong, but that is how I look at it. That is how my father taught me to look at it, and my father never took guff from me or anyone :) I tried complaining to him about unfairness once: he spanked me for it, and I am so thankful for that. If I had ever told him that I wanted to go into combat, he would have laughed me off the planet. So, that is my advice to men: men should unite together and laugh feminists off the planet, but give them what they say they want? Never.
Friendly wager then. If the Republican wins this year despite Hillary being a woman, and the left using the “war on women” stuff and the wage gap nonsense, then I’ll buy your dinner if ever I see you at a meetup.
If Hillary wins I’ll take an extra ration in the camps.
lol :) I’ll take that bet :) If Democrats win, I will buy you dinner if we are ever at the same meetup. I am hopeful. Older feminists like Madeline Albright have taken to telling younger liberal women to go to hell, because of Bernie Sanders. And younger liberal women are telling older feminists to go to hell right back. This gives me hope; it isn’t perfect, it isn’t exactly what I want, but it’s progress. It is a step in the right direction. :)
Thanks, Judithann. This is not quite Rubio saying it is “great” that women “passed” Ranger School, or even supporting women in combat. My guess is that Rubio doesn’t want to get mired down in that currently un-winnable debate, and so he made a rather non-committal response. He is socially conservative, his own wife is a stay-at-home mom, and his older brother is a former Green Beret. I doubt he sees women in combat as a good thing.
I agree, though, that his response on Ranger School was weak, and that he should have been more clear in the debate.
I read that Rep. Steve Russell, a Ranger grad himself, investigated.
http://okcfox.com/news/local/rep-steve-russell-questions-test-scores-of-two-female-army-rangers
I can’t find the result of his investigation. Cruz does not appear to have been part of it. My strong suspicion is that standards were indeed lowered, and that the women were given the unfair advantage of unearned Day 1 restarts and other recycles. I wrote a post on this a while ago.
http://ricochet.com/a-woman-will-graduate-ranger-school/
Disagree. Raddatz conflated the draft with combat in her question. That’s not Rubio’s fault, but he utterly failed to untangle the mess she’d made. As such, we both missed an opportunity to publicly discuss the negative findings regarding women in combat arms and have handed the Left a “Republicans are such warmongers that they want to draft women” talking point.
Not a fine moment for us.
My daughter will not be signing up for the draft. Ever.
My daughter is seriously considering West Point. I doubt she’ll follow through, but…
Really?
Tell that to the Marines from Fallujah and the Rangers from Shahi Kot Valley in Afghanistan. We still need LOTS of grunts, and will for the foreseeable future.
It can be if we can retake the narrative on it. The left says there are no differences between the sexes where there clearly are. This is perhaps the only aspect of our society where there’s even a chance to demonstrate reality.
This is just not true.
I witnessed many examples of women being passed through physical exams by NCO’s because they didn’t want to be accused of discrimination and also were not interested in dealing with the whining that often followed. No such quarter was given to men.
Since becoming a dad, I have lived with the sad realization that someday my son might need to defend his country in combat. I cannot stomach the idea of my daughter doing the same. No. That is a bridge too far. The Progressives can try and change the culture only so much beyond which it is no longer my culture in any way, shape or form. No.
As I noted in another thread on this subject my views on gender roles are just to the right of Neanderthal and so that certainly colors my views on this subject, to be sure.
There is something deeply unconservative about allowing, even encouraging, women to fight for us in battle.
Call me a male chauvinist who still believes in an arcane chivalry
_____________________________________________
I put the line in there to talk about something unrelated to the topic, but germane to the discussion. There is a thought bubble popping around the right that the days of large pitched battles needing large numbers of ground troops are over and this is why the argument over selective service is a nothingburger. This is dangerous thinking.
And exactly how did all the men around these situations respond?
I’ve heard tales of such things on the subs women now serve on, and those passed without passing are never really taken as part the tribe. The culture rejects them even if the command accepts them.
I’m honestly most of the way with you having served in the (previously) boy’s only club of submarines. In this fight I think the emphasis must be on retaining the standards. I’m probably spitting into the wind on this, but I think that is the most correct position to take even if reality will overcome it.
I watched integration happen for the security forces where I work. When they had to transfer a young gal because the Marines nick named her “the clearing barrel” and they had to hold a safety stand down because of the herpes outbreak these were considered growing pains. Things are better now, but certainly not perfect, and this is the reality we’re forced to live with. Still, from rifle distance I can tell if it’s a girl or a guy on post, and that aspect troubles me more than anything else.
First off I oppose the draft. The idea you can defend liberty, by imposing slavery is an oxymoron. If you can’t get enough men to volunteer to defend your nation, you may have to reexamine what you are defending. That said, Civilized countries defend their women and don’t send them into battle.
The problem with women in the military is the first part. Standards are always lowered. It starts in training camp. When the military studied unified PT, female recruits suffered a large number of stress fractures and soft tissue injuries. So, lower standard.
When I worked with air craft mechanics, many of the females could not lift the tool box onto the plane. So they needed a male to lift it for them, thus resulting in less efficiency.
Those “grunts” we don’t need according to some have to carry an 80 lb field pack and rifle into combat. Not many women have the strength to do that. So, either they will find some way to reduce the load, or it will get redistributed to the men.
During chemical warfare exercises, females were 4 or 5 times more likely to be removed from the exercise due to illness, dehydration, heat exhaustion. A big reason was women would not drink enough to stay hydrated because the simple act of urination was an issue in MOPP gear. Similar although not as dramatic results with ordinary field exercises.
Pregnancy. About 15% of female military personnel become pregnant annually. During Gulf War 1 there large numbers of women who either could not deploy, or were evacuated from theater because of pregnancy. This left the burden on their male counterparts. It’s an ongoing issue in the military.
“The total estimated pregnancies for female U.S. military personnel stationed in Iraq and regional support bases in 2004 alone thus stands at a low of 3,400 and a high of 5,312.
“In contrast, the Pentagon reported last year that in the first 12 months after the invasion, only 2,998 soldiers had been evacuated from Iraq for combat wounds and injuries. Over the same time frame, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs William Winkenwerder testified to Congress last year, Central Command also evacuated 18,004 personnel from Operation Iraqi Freedom for non-combat health reasons, presumably including losses due to pregnancy.”
continued
With the opening of all combat positions to women, the pressure will only increase to lower standards. They won’t admit it, and they won’t call it that. But it will happen. And lots of our troops will die as a result. Real men, being men, they will end up getting killed to protect their female unit mates. The Marines have shown without any doubt that gender integrated units preform worse.
· Combat Effectiveness
o Overall: All-male squads, teams and crews demonstrated higher performance levels on 69% of tasks evaluated (93 of 134) as compared to gender-integrated squads, teams and crews. Gender-integrated teams performed better than their all-male counterparts on (2) events.
o Speed: All-male squads, regardless of infantry MOS, were faster than the gender-integrated squads in each tactical movement. The differences were more pronounced in infantry crew-served weapons specialties that carried the assault load plus the additional weight of crew-served weapons and ammunition.
o Lethality:
All-male 0311 (rifleman) infantry squads had better accuracy compared to gender-integrated squads. There was a notable difference between genders for every individual weapons system (i.e. M4, M27, and M203) within the 0311 squads, except for the probability of hit & near miss with the M4.
o Male provisional infantry (those with no formal 03xx school training) had higher hit percentages than the 0311 (school trained) females: M4: 44% vs 28%, M27: 38% vs 25%, M16A4w/M203: 26% vs 15%.
o All-male infantry crew-served weapons teams engaged targets quicker and registered more hits on target as compared to gender-integrated infantry crew-served weapons teams, with the exception of M2 accuracy.
o All-male squads, teams and crews and gender-integrated squads, teams, and crews had a noticeable difference in their performance of the basic combat tasks of negotiating obstacles and evacuating casualties. For example, when negotiating the wall obstacle, male Marines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular assistance in getting their packs to the top. During casualty evacuation assessments, there were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated groups, except in the case where teams conducted a casualty evacuation as a one-Marine fireman’s carry of another (in which case it was most often a male Marine who “evacuated” the casualty).
Marine Corps Force Integration Plan
Any politician who is fully behind this idiot rush to push women into full “equality” in the butchery of combat shows his lack of insight and leadership. Sadly that seems to be most of the current crop of GOP candidates.
If we are under grave security threat – all should participate to help – men and women alike. This includes women serving in the military. However, with all combat positions now open to women, plus an additional requirement for women to register, we’d be far too close to the potential for women to be drafted and placed into combat involuntarily.
Men and women are not the same, God (or nature, take your pick) created us differently. Imagine a combat unit with several horribly frightened women. The men, beautiful creatures that they are, will direct their efforts to protect the girls. It is their nature; their instinct. What a mess. What a heartbreak.
My daughter started the application process but chickened out when it was time for the physical. She would not have passed, due to a structural issue. I was a little sad for her having to limit her possibilities but it wasn’t realistic. Since then I have been so relieved she could not do it; it must be torture to have your child under the direction of our current commander-in-chief.
Kozak, I don’t disagree with a single word you wrote. I linked to the Marine findings in the OP. I don’t know how we get to a rational policy on this any way other than actually going through full integration, suffering the consequences, and having reality bludgeon some sense into the politicians. If there’s a way to argue them out of it I’m unaware of it or unconvinced of its efficacy.
On the whole of the matter, I support women serving where they can appropriately and effectively. For combat roles, the number of women truly fit for them is probably so small as to be un-measurable. The only compromise I can see in this where the nation wins at all is to concede women’s inclusion but to remain steadfast on standards. I’d rather have inclusion on our terms than on the left’s. What I don’t believe is possible is exclusion at this point. We lost that fight.
As a guy who was actually in the military, in a combat role and who was actually shot at by communists, let me say this: I used to be opposed to women in combat roles. Or any role even close to combat. My view on that has changed.
I was a tanker, and I can tell you there there are some very physical jobs on a tank. And a lot of guys couldn’t do them well. Most of the (literally) heavy lifting took the who tank crew to do it, so it didn’t matter. Looking back on it, I am sure that most of the women I know could do the job.
Now, some folks on here are talking out their backsides. They need to stop. Unless you’ve served, and experienced the military, you don’t know what you are talking about. Whatever side of this issue you come down on, your opinion doesn’t matter. Do I sound harsh? Good! Because I’m sick of people who really don’t have a clue, running their mouths (and fingertips) as if they do.
Finally, I’ve got a daughter who desperately wants to be in the military, but she can’t. A genetic disorder prevents that from happening. And she’d be a great combat soldier. She can shoot the tick off’n a ol hound dawg and a hunnerd yards! I wish there was something I could do for her, because it’s literally all she wants. There are plenty of young women out there just like her, who can serve, in combat roles, and we are going to say no to them? Not me.