Name: What Science Says About Women In Combat
Uploaded: 2017-03-02T00:15:13.000Z
Duration: 5 min 32 s
Description: Thousands of YouTube videos with English-Chinese subtitles! Now you can learn to understand native speakers, expand your vocabulary, and improve your pronunciation...

Adverbs of degree

Two women just graduated from Army Ranger school, starting the all-too-familiar debate

of women in combat. After more than 10 years of war, with women participating alongside:

is there any science that says they shouldn't be all that they can be?

When First Lt. Shaye Haver and Capt. Kristen Griest passed the nine-week training program

to become Army Rangers, they made history, but they also made the news. Ranger School

is the Army's most rigorous training program. 36 percent of attendees fail in the first

four days, and only 42 percent will finally walk away with the black-and-gold Ranger tab.

But even though these women passed all the tests, they still may not see combat. In January

of 2013, then-Sec of Defense Leon Panetta announced the end of male-only combat, requiring

women be allowed to serve in combat roles by January 2016. Many argue that women aren't

ready for frontline combat, or simply cannot manage the hell that is war, and as the equality

train hits the voting booth, the bedroom, the workplace, and onward: the theater of

war is yet another stop. After Panetta's order, the armed forces began conducting studies

and assessing standards to see if sex integration will be the future of our military. Women

have been part of fighting forces for decades in Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers, Ireland's IRA,

and soldiering in Sierra Leone. But now, the U.S. has to determine if they can open the

remaining 220,000 men-only jobs to women too. According to military data, three things are

important for combat readiness: mental health, physical capability, and proper training.

A National Center for PTSD study in 2011, found men and women developed mental health

issues equally after "combat, firing a weapon in combat, being fired upon, handling human

remains and witnessing injury and death," but men were more likely to fall into substance

abuse. Those findings were supported by another study in the Journal of Psychiatric Research.

But a 2006 study of women and men in combat, found emotional responses were different,

and quote "in stressful situations, men are more likely to resort to physically aggressive

responses than women," and according to a piece in TIME by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter

Mark Thompson, "aggression leads to more accidents and injuries in men" It would seem, mentally,

women can hack it as well as men, and may handle some things better, as they don't abuse

substances, become aggressive, or injure themselves due to stress.

Physically, though, women have less upper body strength than men overall; according

to a 2004 U.S. Army study. Women do have smaller hearts, skeletons and muscle mass, and a greater

percentage of body fat relative to their male colleagues; which ups the injury rate significantly.

Injuries are anything that takes a servicemember out of combat. Pregnancy adds to women's injury

stats, but even if you remove it from the data -- women are hospitalized at 30 percent

higher rates than men. According to data from the Pentagon, men are hospitalized for general

injuries, poisonings, and disorders of the muscles, skin, or "connective tissues," while

women are hospitalized for genital and urinary disorders, mental disorder, and tumors. With

this data in mind, the military is working to design gender-neutral training programs

Even though women, on average, have less strength, not all women are weaker or prone to injury.

Some females are stronger than males, and they deserve an equal chance at a combat position.

That is echoed by Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

According to every statement I read, military requirements will not be eroded, lowered,

lightened or lessened in any way on the road to gender neutrality in combat. Instead, they'll

make it "about science and observation" and ensure people can perform needed duties. If

so, they get the job. Period. According to a 1980 paper assessing women in combat by

Major Thomas H. Cecil, people should be "allowed to serve in whatever role that could use best

the talent and capability each individual has."

After racial integration and the repeal of "Don't Ask; Don't Tell," the military is disrupted

at first, but they gets over it as long as people are perceived fairly and equally in

There is no evidence males break down when females are killed or injured in battle, or

are distracted by their fellow female warriors. As long as the training is equal, our armed

forces are trained to protect each other regardless of which chromosomes we possess. Of course,

there will be sex between members of the military, but that is not new at ALL. GIs in every war

we've ever engaged in found girls abroad, and that tradition continues with these women

too, but the fear comes from societal stereotypes about female sexuality, not fact.

In the end, they are servicemembers first and women second. Caliber and ability are

the currencies of our armed forces. As serving females are trained equally and prove they

can do anything fellow males can do; they will earn the same benefit: to serve their

country as a volunteer in America's armed forces.

If you want to show your support from home, start a website and showcase your support

your favorite female servicemember. No domain extension will help you tell your story like

a DOT COM or DOT NET domain name. And because you watch DNews, you can get 15% off Domain

Dot Com’s names and web hosting by using the code DNews when you check out.