A lot of guys here are saying "What if they DON'T lower the standards, shouldn't those women who pass the male standard be given the right to serve despite the overall female attrition rates". Dark-Ulfberht is right the attrition rate is often that high. When the Canadians first opened combat arms to females, the very first intake for infantry consisted of about 130 females. They were tested to the same physical and mental standards as the males. Of those 130 only ONE passed. Of course the Canadian Forces changed their methods of testing and that rate increased. The language around this is hilarious, they emphasise CHANGED as opposed to lowered. Its quite simple. Increase the standard and less females pass, lower it and more females pass, the fitness standards and tests have literally been developed over decades of war fighting, theres no gender biased test of how far you can pee that disadvantages females, its their biology that disadvantages them.
Anyway lets say the US Armed Force don't "change" or "lower standards". As weve seen with the USMC literally dozens of females have washed out already. Should we give that 1 percent of successful female recruits the right to continue? No. Seems unfair eh? well all of this costs money. Money to feed, train, equip the recruits and pay the salaries of NCO's who would often much rather be back with the boys in their battalion. If youre paying all that money and investing all that time in a group of recruits and getting one successful recruit in return that recruit better be a fucking force multiplier Force multiplier?
A good example of a similar dynamic would be Special operations forces. For the US that would be 75th Ranger regiment, Green berets, Navy SEALS,, the British SAS//SBS, Canadian JTF, Aussie Commandos/SASR etc etc These units have selection courses and training pipelines that have pass rates of anything between 5 percent and 20 percent typically. Now why the fuck spend all that money and time getting 5 to 20 percent of your fittest infantry soldiers and putting them in a special unit? Basically these units are called force multipliers. They punch above their weight and have special training/qualities that enable them to take on special missions that are critical to our strategic position/national security etc. These selection courses not only screen for high levels of fitness but other qualities, mainly their cognitive abilities, their courage, their physical resilience to pain and increment weather, as well as a mental fortitude that enables a man to push on despite being cold hungry and sleep deprived, to push with all the odds against him to accomplish a mission. The end result is you get a group of men who are fit, smart and have the mental fortitude to take on Xerxes army by himself if he bloody well had to.
The point im trying to make is that a lot of you say that if the standard isnt lowered those girls that pass should be given a go. I say no. All of that training and all those washed out recruits cost money. And in what way are those female recruits a force multiplier? Beyond talking to other women in middle eastern war zones for intelligence, they offer nothing special to an infantry platoon whose role is to hunt the enemy and kill them, with rifle, grenades, bayonets and yes their hands if needed.
Now you guys think 80/20 rule is bad in college environments? Imagine what it does to an infantry platoon of young high testosterone men? Not exactly a force multiplier.
Despite Israel bunging on about how gender equal their military is its bullshit. The vast majority of women in the IDF are either instructors in infantry units. or part of the Caracal Battalion based on the peaceful Jordan border, in the last 30 years of war theyve had maybe 2 "contacts". Do you really think that ISRAEL is fucking stupid enough to place its existence in the hands of female soldiers?
A little known history. During the 1948 Arab - Israeli War, The Israeli forces had about 30 percent of their forces comprised of females, in lieu with their socialist ideals. Of course that war was a war of survival for that country. After the war, it was found that in infantry units when males were wounded, the males would continue fighting to neutralise the enemy threat and minimise casualties. when females were wounded it was found that the males "panicked" for lack of a better term, and circled the female casualty instead of fighting on, causing more casualties. now this gets into shaky psychological territory surrounding male protective instincts but as shown there is truth to it, it certainly doesnt help win wars. As a result of the findings women were banned from infantry and relegated to support and border guard positions (dont buy the fuckin liberal propaganda men, the females in the Israeli Army are in Caracal Battalion - which is a border guard unit, not a fighting unit like the Golani Brigade)
Now to those saying that upper body strength doesnt matter as hand to hand combat doesnt happen consider this. On average women only have 25 percent the upper body strength a male has. that means that even shorter skinnier men can out fight a larger heavier female. And hand to hand? even in the counter insurgency wars and with all our technology it still happens. Examples? of the top of my head and without supporting articles the US Marine sergeant who I believe in Afghanistan beat an insurgent to death with his helmet. Or the US marine in iraq who grappled with an insurgent physically and then jumped on a grenade to save his buddies (was awarded a medal of honor i believe). Or the Australian Special forces man who when an insurgent jumped on his back, flipped him over, stepped on his throat and shot him dead. Hand to hand still happens, and the odds are always in a males favour for this.
Anyway point is, disregarding everything about sex differences, platoon dynamics being fucked up by 20/80 rule and jealousy/mistrust aside, from a monetary point of view this is retarded. That money could be better spent on improving force protection and improving the training for the men. America/the West wont fall because of this, but it may well cost a young men their limbs or their lives, and ive no doubt this kind of bad policy already has killed young soldiers.
Sorry for the long post, just something that im passionate about is all.