New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | May 24, 2005

How is an academic studying women in love like a bunch of politicians fretting about women in war? Kerry Howley asks the eternal question.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← Make the Magic Stop | Main | House Approves Stem Cell Research Expansion →

See all 49 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|5.24.05 @ 6:06PM|#

I'm sure one reason folks are against it is because it makes arguments against gays in the military even more flimsy. I mean, Christ, if men and women can serve together without incident, then what's wrong with having a fag in the foxhole with you?

And we don't want that, cuz we don't want our boys to catch the gay.

|5.24.05 @ 6:33PM|#

Wouldn't the libertarian perspective on this be that it is OK to have women in these roles at long as they can do the job as well as men. As it stands now women in the military are held to lower physical standards than men.

Another issue with women in the military is that a lot of money is invested in them, pilots for example, and although the military supports them having children a pregnancy can keep a woman out of the cockpit of around a year after which they have to undergo more training before they can fly again.

Sex in the ranks can also be a problem for moral. For example PFC Jessica Lynch was seeing her supply SGT which is techically against regulations since they were in the same unit. We are also all familiar with PVT England.

Of course the Army and Marines are having enough trouble filling their ranks so now is not a good time to be excluding anyone, even gays, that want to serve. If the military could afford to be more selective I think these would be bigger issues.

|5.24.05 @ 6:52PM|#

Sex in the ranks can also be a problem for moral. For example PFC Jessica Lynch was seeing her supply SGT which is techically against regulations since they were in the same unit. We are also all familiar with PVT England.

Sex in the ranks can be a problem for morale, but it is not a woman-specific or woman-unique problem. It's a problem with people of either sex who don't follow regulations. We're all familiar with PVT England, but I would hope that we would not forget SPC Graner.

Luke Thomas|5.24.05 @ 6:53PM|#

"Supporters have neglected to listen to senior army leadership, female veterans, or virtually anyone of authority..."

Ok, well I actually served in a combat-arms unit in the Marines for 6 years, so I guess that kind of makes me not an expert, but relatively authoritative.

I don't support the extra provision on the bill, it's far too restricted.

But asking a female officer what she thinks of barring women from roles in combat is like asking a racist what they think of minorities. The answer is worthless.

For that matter, asking most officers questions about policy is worthless given that they have to tow the line.

INSTEAD, asking someone like me who served in the enlisted ranks (you know, the guys who do all of the most difficult grunt work?) will yield a more accurate response.

For one, anyone who tells you male Marines in combat roles enjoy serving with women is a fucking liar and you can take that to the bank, cash it and go on a vacation out of my life. If he does want her around its so he can ridicule them or potentially have sex with them. You see, saying you don't approve of PFC. Jane will land you in the CO's office in about two seconds because no officer can have men in his unit openly showing disapproval of policy (policy here is that often times women will be assigned let's say, radio roles in an artillery unit. No one may like the fact that she's there, but she is). Second, anyone who honestly believes a female at her fittest can handle the rigors of 30 mile humps with 120lbs crossing the Panama canal is a fucking moron. Grunt life has ruined a lot of Marines' bodies (including mine at age 25 my back is pretty much shot for life).

Personally, I can tell you that it's probably ok for women to have certain roles in combat support, but in infantry? Not for a second. I was an avid weightlifter when I was in and I clocked in at 240 lbs, 76'. I never in my 6 years found a female who could lift me for training drills or, gasp, defeat me in tactical wrestling. And no, this is not an Andy Kaufman sick joke, keep reading.

People seem to forget that infantry fighting in non-linear warfare includes house to house fighting. If anyone here thinks Pam is going to double-leg takedown Ahmed the Angry Jihadist hiding behind the door is a moron. And what does that mean? That means she compromises her safety and the safety of the other men (or women) in her fire team. This, of course, is just one example among many.

Get Marines (or soldiers) outside of the penalty of retribution and see how they really feel. When I hear stories of "the Marines claimed they didn't mind women in the units" I can't help but feeling sorry for the poor bastards for having to collectively bite their tounges. This is common military protocal, "Hey boys, we're going on a 20 mile hump tomorrow. Now, this is voluntary, but you're all volunteering, RIGHT? RIGHT? I thought so."

There are no volunteers in the military, only those who've been "volun-told."

Oh, I know this is all true because after I expressed disapproval about another female Marines' blatant negligence in her performance, I was instructed by my Staff NCO that "it didn't matter."

Now, where are the stories and studies on that? Hmmm?

Give me a fucking break.

|5.24.05 @ 7:00PM|#

So, it would seem that women have orgasms for the same reason men have nipples.

|5.24.05 @ 7:03PM|#

Re Kirsten:

Yes of course men have a role in this to. But as the article stated there are only around 9000 women deployed in OEF and OIF compared with roughly 160000 men. Where do you think the term "Deployment Queen" comes from? If you are an average looking girl and you want a ton of attention join the Military.

|5.24.05 @ 7:15PM|#

I never got the reasoning behind the female orgasm being vestigal, but the male orgasm is to make men want to have sex. Isn't it evolutionarily desirable for BOTH genders to enjoy sex as much as possible, so they do it more. IANAEB, but it makes sense to me

|5.24.05 @ 7:33PM|#

Mo,

I thought the same thing (and that Lloyd's book sounded like a Dworkin rant) when I first read KH's article, but after reading the reviews on the Amazon site, it looks like Dr. Elisabeth Lloyd is using facts to back up her claims. Facts such as women have no problem getting pregnant even when they don't have orgasms. NoStar's comment at 7:00pm was also mentioned in the reviews on Amazon.

I would have to read the book to decide if her arguments actually make sense, but there are many other things I would rather do, so I probably won't.

|5.24.05 @ 8:24PM|#

Sex in the ranks can be a problem for morale, but it is not a woman-specific or woman-unique problem. It's a problem with people of either sex who don't follow regulations. We're all familiar with PVT England, but I would hope that we would not forget SPC Graner.

If I had to fight off attacking terrorists, I'd much rather have Graner by my side than England. So if Grander + England is the problem, the solution is to send England home, and keep the one who can actually fight.

Further, it was England who ended up knocked up.

Of course, the "other antics" these two were involved in made all this somewhat irrelevent.

|5.24.05 @ 11:20PM|#

Mo,

You would think that would be the case, but if memory serves, humans are nearly unique in the animal kingdom, in that the female is even capable of an orgasm. The speculation I recall as to why it exists, is that when humans began walking upright made the vagina point downward which would make the semen flow in the wrong direction if the female stand up immediately after intercourse. The female orgasm encourages the woman to remain prone. Its been awhile since I read that, and current theories may be different.

|5.24.05 @ 11:28PM|#

I can't believe no one's made an UFP reference yet, given the article's title. Yes, please STOP HUMPING!

MJ,

Semen won't run down from the vagina, since it gels quickly after ejaculation.

|5.24.05 @ 11:42PM|#

'Semen won't run down from the vagina, since it gels quickly after ejaculation.'

Perhaps you are being funny, but I beg to disagree.

|5.25.05 @ 12:27AM|#

What would you do ... for a delicious bowl ... of Jello pudding? ... hahm hahm hahm hahm!

|5.25.05 @ 12:38AM|#

My experience also would have to disagree with you there crimethink.

|5.25.05 @ 12:38AM|#

No, it will still run down.

But if I'm remembering this correctly, a female orgasm will increase the probability of conception. So the theory I heard was that it could be used to favor some males over others.

|5.25.05 @ 1:49AM|#

Once the clone army is in place, these arguments will not matter any more.

|5.25.05 @ 3:31AM|#

During orgasm for women, the cervix lowers as the woman's muscles spasm. If a man has ejaculated inside of her, the cervix dips in the semen and increases chances of conception.

A female orgasm, and thus the clitoris, serve a biological function in females, just as it does in males.

|5.25.05 @ 9:48AM|#

"one of the marks of civilization is we have not had our women in direct ground combat...That isn't something civilized nations do."

I realize that implying that the puny, ineffective military nonentity that is Israel does not qualify as a civilized nation does not necessarily make the good Congressman an antisemite.

But I'm not going to let that stop me from calling him a Jew-hating pig fucker.

|5.25.05 @ 9:54AM|#

What I find most amusing is that conservatives follow up statements about "the military doesn't exist for social engineering and politically correct causes" by jumping immediately to "the American people don't want women in combat" and "keeping women out of combat is a mark of civilization."

Luke, with all due repsect, we don't design our military around the feelings of the enlisted ranks. Lots of marines dislike serving with women? I imagine they don't much like waking up at 3 in the morning to crawl through cold mud.

As for your other point, that colocating women degrades the effectiveness of combat units - I would find this a lot more convincing if I'd seen even the slightest bit of evidence that our combat units were ineffective. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. There are a lot of things that may be broke about the military, but the combat effectiveness of units that are supported by units containing women doesn't seem to be among them.

Warren|5.25.05 @ 10:03AM|#

I want to weigh in with my two cents. I agree with the general tenor of 'females in combat' comments thus far. I was a sailor back in the 80's. The problem with women in the military, isn't about combat, it's about maintaining the fiction that female personnel are equivalent to their male counterparts. Integrating the services racially was straightforward. Everyone wears the same uniform, eats the same food, sleeps in the same berthing, etc. Everyone is given the same opportunities and is judged by the same standards. It's just a matter of setting and enforcing policy. Implementing the policy was not problem-free, nor is it now, but it has been a great success. Our military is stronger, indeed all of society has profited from racial integration. The same should be true for gays as well. (Don't ask/don't tell, is a half-assed policy that hasn't solved much).

Women on the other hand, wear different uniforms, sleep in separate berthing, and are distinguished from their male counterparts by a host of rules and regulations. They are given different opportunities and are measured by separate standards. This wouldn't necessarily be a problem if we weren't trying to maintain the fiction that 'we're all one big family'. For example, keeping women on shore duty (the Navy equivalent of rear echelon) creates resentment of all the men at sea who would rather be stationed on shore. Furthermore, it creates resentment of career females whose opportunities for advancement are diminished, and it pisses everybody off when they are advanced anyway. And I'm not even going to start on all the brew-ha-ha that surrounds the words "sexual harassment". All this was handled better when women served in separate services (i.e. WAC, WAV, WAF). Men still had to salute female officers, and were grateful to have them fulfilling their support functions, but didn't feel they were competing with, or taking orders from, someone who hadn't made the grade.

|5.25.05 @ 10:45AM|#

The only kind of military experience I have is in Sam's Army..........

But with the situation in Iraq, aren't at least a few women needed in intelligence positions?

Maybe an Iraqi woman would tell us US woman about where is terrorist is? But this same Iraqi woman may not cooperate with a US man?

Also, seeing as it would be pretty easy to hide a bomb under a Burqa, aren't some women soldiers needed for searches?

Women tend to pick up languages faster than men. Not having enough Arabic speakers is a big problem there.

|5.25.05 @ 11:18AM|#

-ette and Mo,

Well, perhaps I overstated there -- a sticky gellatinous substance will run down, but not as quickly as liquid, just like toothpaste doesn't easily slide off your toothbrush.

Of course, some men are more gellatinous than others (or so I've heard).

|5.25.05 @ 12:27PM|#

If I had to fight off attacking terrorists, I'd much rather have Graner by my side than England. So if Grander + England is the problem, the solution is to send England home, and keep the one who can actually fight.

False dichotomy. There's no rule that says the military has to keep at least one of these two dumbasses. They should BOTH be booted if they can't follow the rules. Fortunately, it looks like that is what is going to happen.

|5.25.05 @ 12:49PM|#

I can agree with the "women aren't as fit for combat, physically" argument, to a point. I just don't think that most people arguing against women in the military/combat are using that line of reasoning.

|5.25.05 @ 1:00PM|#

Lowdog,

As with black and Jewish soldiers, the demonstrated capacity of women to function at a high level in combat has demolished the "they can't/won't fight" argument, leaving only discourses about people's hurt feelings and offended ideologies.

I think the end game on this is the Grand Bargain that Warren's post suggests - equal opportunity, equal standards.

Luke Thomas|5.25.05 @ 1:11PM|#

There are no studies that women are ineffective in combat because while women engage the enemy in sporadic skirmishes, they don't

And it's not that we dislike serving with women because we all hate women. We dislike it because it sucks a lot of ass to have to pick up their slack in tough training conditions.

Everyone can sit back and tell me I'm nothing but a negative former Marine full of vinegar and piss, or you can be me and recall having to carry other people's packs (fat male marines and women) on top of the one you already have to carry because they can't keep pace.

And you're right, Joe. We don't organize policy around the feelings of enlisted. But that's precisely my point.

If you want to integrate females, actually the movie GI Jane does it the best. No exceptions, no distinctions, no separate physical rules (men have to do pull ups on the PFT while females have to do dead arm hangs. I'm sorry, but that is completely unsatisfactory), nothing.

Ask yourself who you want on your son's fire team as they storm a house looking for armed and dangerous insurgents in Tikrit or Fallujah. I know exactly who I'd pick.

One last story. A Marine I know was in Afghanistan looking for Taliban hideouts last year and as he turned the corner on a house, a Taliban fighter stuck him in the face with the butt of his AK-47, busting out all of his front teeth. My acquintance was able to live because he fought through the tremendous pain and stabbed the attacker to death with his K-Bar after wrestling on the ground. He said he could taste his sour breath as they each fought for their lives. Now, you really expect me to believe we can have a strong military where women are doing these roles?

Give me a fucking break.

|5.25.05 @ 1:52PM|#

It's interesting that there seems to be a no-women-no-matter what sentiment being expressed by various posters in this thread on the basis that women are not as physically qualified as men. If that is universally true, then there should be no problem with an equal opportunity, equal standards policy replacing the current system as no women could then pass the equal standards. But if those who assume that by virtue of being female a woman is automatically unfit for the job are mistaken, then we can stop the unnecessary discrimination against perfectly good combatants.

So does anyone here oppose an equal opportunity, equal standards policy? If so, on what basis?

|5.25.05 @ 2:11PM|#

joe

The IDF abandoned using women in combat over thirty years ago.

They spread the meme that it was because the female soldiers so incensed their muslim enemies that they fought even harder rather than be vanquished by women.

But the pure fact was that women can't function in combat.

Women equals in combat was one of those beautiful sixties myths to go with we'd get world peace when women became our political leaders. Surely demolished by the advent of Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher et al.

|5.25.05 @ 2:25PM|#

joe - I only meant that I'd be for "equal opportunity, equal standards". If you need to do, say, 20 pull-ups to qualify in a specific drill, then you need to do 20 pull-ups whether you're male or female. Do I think all women would 'wash out'? No. I'm sure there's plenty of ladies who could pull it (no pun intended). But I think it would be unfair to allow someone in a combat unit who didn't have to do exactly the same things everyone else did.

|5.25.05 @ 2:52PM|#

Of course, some men are more gellatinous than others (or so I've heard).

I've perhaps given more thought than I should about the discrepancy in reportage about whether the substance in question is gelatinous or not.

I will just observe that if a man goes a relatively long time between discharges (say more than a week or two) due to living a relatively chaste life, or not being in the habit of pleasuring himself very often, or not having any privacy, the substance under discussion will tend to be more gelatinous than in the case of someone who discharges, say, a couple times a day.

I regret that this is the only aspect of this thread that I feel qualified to discuss. (Maybe there should be a separate thread for this, titled "Military Discharge"?) I am very interested in the question of a coed military vs. a gender-segregated military, but don't feel I know enough to offer an opinion. Except this one: Standards should not be lowered in order to satisfy some kind of affirmative-action impulse to make the military more "gender-balanced" or anything like that.

Luke Thomas|5.25.05 @ 3:42PM|#

I'm curious to see if there's a response to my charge about house to house fighting, specifically with reference to the Marine I know who wrestled his way out of death through nothing but grit.

|5.25.05 @ 4:32PM|#

Ha, I found confirmation of my rather embarrassing statements:

Semen is a thick gel at the time of ejaculation and normally becomes liquid within 20 minutes after ejaculation.

http://my.webmd.com/hw/healthy_men/hw5612.asp

|5.25.05 @ 4:36PM|#

If i may interject an opinion on the resoloution of this issue from the UK, (where, most comentators would argue that we have the hardest drilled and trained armed forces in the world) which is, when they can find a woman, who can complete the required training for being a British Marine or Soldier, then she can serve as part of the front line forces, other than that she has to have auxillary and support roles. Semms fair to me, the army stays the best in the world, the troops seem happy, and wemon cant claim to be being discriminated agaisnt.

|5.25.05 @ 4:37PM|#

Well, Luke, I think we're in some agreement that women should have to pass the same standards to gain admittance to a combat unit that a man should. So I think that if a woman went through the same training/standards as your Marine friend, she should be able to do what he did. In fact, I'm sure there's cases of women being sexually or otherwise assaulted who are able to fend off their assailants even after being badly hurt. Sure, plenty of times she can't, but I would submit that there are plenty of men who couldn't do it, either.

|5.25.05 @ 6:11PM|#

Well, the "politicians fretting about women in war" part's pretty much irrelevant since:

" House Drops Women in Combat Provision "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/defense_bill

So plenty of bloviating but no change in policy. I'm not sure there was a problem with policy so much as with execution.

Luke Thomas|5.25.05 @ 6:14PM|#

For the record, I've trained with the British Royal Marines and yes, they are hard as shit.

But no, they are not the hardest. Not even close.

For one, any American special forces all the way down to Rangers are as hard if not more so and I'd add that no British Marine was any tougher than any American Infantry Marine. Also keep in mind the American Marines (which are descendents of the British Royal Marines) are a larger force with "softer" components.

In my estimation, the hardest bastards on the planet pound for pound were the ROK Marines, or Republic of Korea Marines.

Holy fucking shit, these guys were savages. During lunch, they'd often forgo eating to spar with each other BARE KNUCKLE. They could tolerate any conditions, work when they were in tremendous pain and live without any sustenance.

The problem is they had the worst tactics and couldn't fight (on a battlefield) their way out of a wet paper bag. But one on one? No thank you.

|5.25.05 @ 6:55PM|#

It's interesting that there seems to be a no-women-no-matter what sentiment being expressed by various posters in this thread on the basis that women are not as physically qualified as men.

All I think the military needs is one standard for everybody along with equal pay for equal work. Plus getting rid of some bullshit programs like consideration of others and EO would help too.

|5.25.05 @ 7:03PM|#

So does anyone here oppose an equal opportunity, equal standards policy? If so, on what basis?

I oppose and equal opportunity policy because everytime I see one it means that if there is an equally qualified minority or women up against a white male the white male loses 9 times out of ten.

I would be all for an equal standards policy which requires the same physical standards for women as men. I would also like the military to toughen up on how they treat female soldiers who get pregnant and are taken away from there primary duties. I do not think that pregnant time should count against fulfillment of a contract or a minimum years for officers.

British Lib:
where, most comentators would argue that we have the hardest drilled and trained armed forces in the world.

On side note I have to agree with you on this on an INDIVIDUAL person level your armed forces are unmatched. There are a lot more of us Yanks though and our forces get around 10 times as much funding. Quality versus Quantity...

|5.25.05 @ 8:45PM|#

False dichotomy. There's no rule that says the military has to keep at least one of these two dumbasses. They should BOTH be booted if they can't follow the rules. Fortunately, it looks like that is what is going to happen.

I know there is no such rule. But loosing a male who is a good fighter is a shame. Loosing a female who can't fight isn't all that big of loss.

joe,

IDF hasn't used women as front line troops since '48. All IDF commentors I've heard on this subject think we are foolish for bringing women to combat units.

|5.25.05 @ 8:53PM|#

So does anyone here oppose an equal opportunity, equal standards policy? If so, on what basis?

Sometime back the Canadians had a standard where you had to engage in, IIRC, boxing, or something similar. No woman had passed, although one was trying for a third time. Don't know how it ended up.

Myself, I think it would be nuts to have a military consisting of 95% men and 5% women in combat roles. Unless women can reach some threashold % that is reasonable (say at least 20%), they don't belong. There are just too many "infrastructure" costs added by that 1 additional woman in a unit . . .

Women bring other issues as well. Women pilots need a special $600 diaper for long range flights, and likewise need showers to avoid infection, have issues with crossing dirty streams, etc.

|5.25.05 @ 8:55PM|#

Incidently, back during "Desert Storm", a "MASH" unit in Europe couldn't deploy in the Gulf due to too many women in the unit, and the resulting inability to quickly load trucks, unload trucks, set up tents, etc.

|5.25.05 @ 9:14PM|#

Don - your infection and hygiene issues, I can understand, but as far as loading trucks and whatnot, that's because they don't make women pass the same physical tests they do men.

Your point about infrastructure issues in the case of only a small % of women being able to pass the rigours of combat training is also a good one.

|5.26.05 @ 10:21AM|#

Luke,

"or you can be me and recall having to carry other people's packs (fat male marines and women) on top of the one you already have to carry because they can't keep pace."

Why don't you write posts complaining about fat male marines?

"Now, you really expect me to believe we can have a strong military where women are doing these roles?" Most women, no. I don't think anybody supports putting people who aren't physically capable into those situations. But the bill before Congress wouldn't exclude people based on their physical capabilities, but on the shape of their thingies. If an individual marine has the strength and toughness, I don't care what her thingy looks like.

|5.26.05 @ 10:27AM|#

Dave,

"I would also like the military to toughen up on how they treat female soldiers who get pregnant and are taken away from there primary duties."

Out of curiosity, what happens when a male servicemember spends a couple months with his feet up because of a hernia?

Luke Thomas|5.26.05 @ 11:42AM|#

Joe,

Because fat male Marines can lose weight.

Luke Thomas|5.26.05 @ 11:47AM|#

Joe,

The pregnancy-hernia analogy isn't correct.

One, most injuries are relatively easy to fix and only take a few days to a month to fix. Things like cuts, sprain ankles or more commonly, cellulitis (sp?), a nasty little infection I got, can be healed without putting strain on unit capabilities.

But even if a Marine got hernia, that's pretty different from a female Marine willfully having sex in a field or combat environment. That's just plain negligence (the guy, too is culpable but alas, he's not with child).

Hernia is a by-product of the rigors of training/combat. Pregnancy is negligence and irresponsibility.

|5.26.05 @ 12:01PM|#

Out of curiosity, what happens when a male servicemember spends a couple months with his feet up because of a hernia?

It is interesting to note that females in the service have a very high rate of problems due to stress fractures to their feet and legs. I'd suspect that they would also have high hernia rates, although they might aviod this by not lifting heavy things (at least by themselves). This leads to several observations:

1) Something like 90% of females in the military are not strong enough to change a flat on a duce-and-a-half. About 5% of men can't. That means female truckdrivers have to have someone riding shotgun.

2) On one of the cable channels, they showed female and male Marines going through their seperate training programs. In one part, they had to transport a "wounded" comrade. One male Marine lifted a fellow male Marine, and was able to sorta jog with his comrade on his back, and use his M-16 in a fashion (with one arm). It took at least 3 female Marines to carry another female Marine, at a very slow pace, and all were fully involved (none were able to use their '16).

Also, not long ago the Brits tested women to see if they were combat capable for infantry duty. They found that women failed at the task, specifically mentioned were tests of them digging into hard ground, and humping a combat load (IIRC, 5 miles) followed by "engaging" multiple targets on a simulated combat shooting range. (the Brits seem to approach this in a much more practical / less political manner, IMO).

|5.26.05 @ 12:07PM|#

But even if a Marine got hernia, that's pretty different from a female Marine willfully having sex in a field or combat environment. That's just plain negligence (the guy, too is culpable but alas, he's not with child).

Bottom line I'm not sure that negligence is the issue. It all comes down to combat effectivness, and absent is absent. However, under similar conditions and engaging in similar activities, whos going to have more hernias? Whos going to have more resulting downtime?

The intentional negligence of getting pregnant, however, does point to a way out of performing one's duty. In the old days, guys shot themselves in the foot. The gals have a more enjoyable recourse . . .

|5.26.05 @ 12:35PM|#

as far as loading trucks and whatnot, that's because they don't make women pass the same physical tests they do men.

Your point about infrastructure issues . . .

Lowdog, one point leads into the other, does it not?

Why don't you write posts complaining about fat male marines?

Sometime back I talked to a large guy who complained about the Army's get-slim-or-quite plan of the 80s. He slimed down, but he felt more capable when he weighed more. He claimed that most of the Somoans were kicked out since they couldn't meet the weight.

If an individual marine has the strength and toughness, I don't care what her thingy looks like.

I think a few of us would like to check out her thingy. But that aside, strength ain't the only thing going into combat effectivness. A small % of females, no matter how good as individuals, are probably worse than none at all.

And how do you define toughness? A strong, mentally tough female may incur numerous stress fractures due to jogging with a heavy pack, etc. She's tough, but then she ain't so tough. And by the time the stress injuries become a problem, she's gone through quite a bit of training & selection, cost the taxpayer money, etc. Maybe we can predict which females will have/won't have these kinds of problems. Then again, maybe it just makes more sense to drop them from consideration as a group.