The topic of women in combat has always been a touchy one. Many feel that while women should be allowed in the military, they do not belong in jobs that place them on the front line. Others believe that women are just as capable as men and should be given the opportunity to take on any role within the military.
Currently, women are not allowed to serve in combat related military occupational specialties, or MOS, and are not allowed to be a part of a combat unit below the brigade level, regardless of their MOS. Well, times are a changin’. According to a recent article in Army Times:
“The Army will start placing women in as many as 14,000 combat-related jobs by opening up six military occupational specialties and placing women in 37 battalions across nine brigade combat teams.
On May 14, the Army will begin implementing the new Defense Department policy.”
While this is good news and progress for the role of women in the military, I am sure there are also many who view this with much trepidation. Stereotypes placed on female soldiers are a large part of what causes the anxiety over this decision.
There are many stereotypes that are given to the military community, from the belief that those in the military are more likely to be unfaithful in marriage to the fear that those suffering from PTSD are violent and unstable. Many of these are erroneously given from the civilian sectors, but there are also some stereotype sets propetuated within the military community itself.
And that includes the one placed on female servicemembers.
Opinions, stereotypes and beliefs are all built upon prior knowledge and experience. They are a large part of what makes up how we react and behave toward something.
And that is why when the Army announced that certain combat roles would be opened to women many people, and dare I say many of us wives, became a little nervous.
My personal views on this topic come from multiple sources, one being my own personality as a woman. There are some who think that women are not strong enough to perform in a combat situation. While I know that personally, I am not, nor ever will be, meant for the military for this reason, that is certainly not true for many of those brave women who join the military. While I will never know what my reactions would be in a combat situation, I can only imagine myself freezing and not being able to perform my job. But I know that about myself and I also am smart enough to know that there are some amazing women who would be able to rise to the occasion and be just as good in a combat situation as any man.
Personal experience also plays a big part in how we react to adding women to groups that have previously been male only. My family’s own personal experience with this has, I’m sure, led to my negative feelings on the change.
A prior unit that my husband deployed with that had both male and female soldiers experienced many instances of downrange infidelity and inappropriate conduct which became distracting to their mission (none of which involved my husband). Once my husband was assigned to the cavalry, a role that is male-only, these distractions did not exist and the troop was very effective in their mission.
Again, I am smart enough to know that this example is not typical of all male/female units, but this is the only experience I have had and all that I know. This is also how the stereotypes form – one negative experience gives future experiences a bad rap.
The biggest fear of allowing women into combat positions that many have is also the biggest stereotype – the potential for distractions and temptation to our men.
We fear that the close relationship they will have to form in stressful combat operations will interfere with our own relationships with our spouses. We fear that an attraction will form or ,that when deployed, far away from home and from us, the temptation for straying will be greater.
I am not too proud to say that those thoughts have crossed my mind, but I am also quick to redirect and question my thinking.
Why is this workplace relationship any different from male/female working relationships in the civilian workplace? Why do female servicemembers get such a bad rap and a negative stereotype, when we know that these same relationships and temptations can, and do, occur everyday in offices and businesses? And why is the blame for these inappropriate behaviors placed specifically on the female servicemembers when we all know it takes two to tango?
I think partly it goes back to the fact that people find military life, including military relationships, really interesting — so we are talked about and scrutinized more than those in the civilian world. Our relationships and issues are discussed and broadcast in a grander scale than our civilian counterparts, when in fact the same things happen out there.
People want to know how this one percent lives and what our lives are like, so when instances of poor choices on female (and male!) soldiers happen, those stories are passed around and discussed in greater detail than you would find in the civilian world.
Soldiers naturally tend to form close relationships with other soldiers, especially when placed in a combat situation where their lives depend on those relationships. I think that relationship for many spouses is where the fear and stereotype comes from. It is an intimate relationship, and for our husbands to have that relationship with another woman can be a bit scary.
They also share experiences and stories with each other, especially things about a deployment, that typically our spouses do not share or discuss with us. Even if that bond is not a romantic one, it could be hard to accept that our husband has formed it with another woman.
Personally, I think there is a bit of jealousy involved in my case as well, helping to form my view on the topic of women in combat roles. I admit, these women intimidate me. They are braver than I am and they are willing to place themselves in harm’s way in order to serve their country, whereas I am not. They are selfless and honorable.
But instead of giving them the credit and thanks they deserve, they are instead often given a bad rap and unfairly stereotyped. As spouses, and a community, we need to give these brave women the benefit of the doubt, support them, and let them do their jobs. And by doing this we can go along way to ensuring the safety and effectiveness of all of our Soldiers.
What are your thoughts on opening combat-related jobs to more women? How does personal experience affect your opinion on this?
About The New Normal
Comments
My husband has always worked in a male-only job place and I don't think his exact occupation will ever stray from that. However, my biggest concern with women in combat roles is that while training to deploy the units depend on one another including their personality. A woman can CHOOSE to get pregnant if she decided last minute to not deploy. Then what? Somebody else fills that role in the unit and the cohesion seen before doesn't exist. I am all for women being out there and doing what was normally a men's role. I can't get over the idea that there is such an "easy" out of a deployment though. (FWIW I don't believe many women would actually do this. But it's a also a choice that males do not have)
Oh jeez come on. A woman can want to get preggo sure but no one can be sure when it will happen. I think your giving them to little credit. Pregnancy is in no way an "easy out".
I disagree about becoming pregnant on an exact schedule. Our daughter was planned out to a three week time frame. It CAN be done assuming the man and woman are fertile.
But FWIW I personally know of two female Marines who got pregnant to "get out" of a deployment. That's saying a lot because my husband has never worked with females. However, four years ago a guy in the unit was married to a female Marine and I got to know a few others through her. It made me realize that it actually happens and with how easy it was for me to schedule a pregnancy I imagine it COULD happen a lot more than anybody realizes.
On that note, a girl from my hometown was on one of the birth control pills provided by the military but was one of the versions recently recalled and she got pregnant even though she was taking precautions. She was unable to deploy and what I was told from a relative of hers (so I don't know how accurate it is) was that there were other females who were also on the birth control provided by the military and got pregnant. There were a few of them then who were unable to deploy.
Would someone please explain to me why a woman would want to serve in combat? Doesn’t she know that the primary purpose of combat is to kill people? For that matter there are probably men that wish they were in an occupation that did not require killing people.
20 Year Ret. USAF, If they want to fight let them fight , With the condition that they be made temporally STERILE unable to get pregnant,(tie the tubes) Then let them fight if this is what they feel they must do and we need not worry about the children produced ON or OFF the battlefield!! Then after they are no longer attached to the unit untie them undo whatever they are using at the time. The are other ways to stop preg. and I am sure the gov. can find a way to keep the combat ready troops READY, If they don't want to do this then stay the hell out of a combat unit!! and stop complaining about it. As a man I don't have this problem but If I did and I wanted to fight this would not stop me!! Take your meds. and shut up.
depo provera is a shot you get 4 times a year. there is no way to mess it up. they are working on reversible blocking of fallopian tubes or (vas deferens in men) with silicone plugs about the size of a grain of rice. I agree that it is not right for a woman to be careless or even manipulative about one's birth control when part of a unit that has trained her and needs her to accomplish objectives. Last minute changes to staffing weaken the unit, I would believe. I'm not military due to a health issue, but I wish I had that opportunity.
You obviously don't knowhow our tue are tied.
First they cut them, ten they burn out the bes, so you are then PERMANENTLY sterile.
And why don't they make men get vasectoies? Because they might want kids later.
So, unless you're willing to go through the same sugery, where you're knocked out, I'd say you should keep quiet.
I tried going into combat only too be told i was just a girl, and girls can't fight.
Now is so concerned if we get pregnant.
For me, had I not been raped by these fine upstanding gentlemen, it would have been nice.
I was retaliated against physuically by others when I turned them in, and NOTHING happenned to them.
I am now 75% for PTSD alone, just because afterwards I got pushed, hit, and thrown when I stood up for myself. The VA doesn't count getting hurt, when they don't take a staement or makr a record of it. so, now I fall down because I can't keep my balance, and have a hard time swallowing from the choking.
And why do i sound so angry? Gee, I wouldn't know.
I've known women who did this (got pregnant to avoid deployment).
When I was active duty, if I got pregnant, my husband ALSSO hd the option to get out and have me srtay in.
In fact, that's what happenned — he got out (while I was still pregnant), and I stayed in.
I also worked in fields that were "male dominate", which meant most times I only worked with men,
Which wasn't safe for me at all… And ,yes, I mean physically unsafe, too. They wanted to make sure I knew I wasn't welcome.
So, yes some us got pregnant because it was safer for us to stay, nd MOST of us stayeto make it safer for the next women in ourpostions down the line. AND some still got deployed, pregnant at all, until it wasclear they couldn't work in hazarous conditions anymore. The ones that ot pregnant during the deployent, were sent back and punished; just her, not the guy who got her pregnaant; he just stayed, but no other punishment.
Think of all the men, who remove their rings as soon as you leave, that we've had to contend with just to do OUR job..
I am a retired one year ago after serving 30 years. I completed my career as a LTC (R.N.) I served during Viet Nam, Desert Storm, and the current situation. NO, women do NOT need to be on the front combat lines with men. My daughter served 8 years in the Army, and served in Baghdad 03-04 where she was sexually assualted several times, she has a 50% VA disability for PTSD related to what she suffered. GO ahead, ask me what I think. When you put men and women together in the combat environment this is going to happen, and YES I know, and understand this should NOT happen, and it is not right, however when you mix the two it does happen rather offen. There was an E-3 female in her Unit in Iraq who was sent back to Germany when she got pregnant by a MAJOR. The Military provides lip service and training related to Sexual Assualt that does NOT work and is NOT sufficient, but they are NOT listening and not seeking solutions because they are NOT Politically correct.
Yes but dont you think that if co-ed units was the normal things like that wouldn't happen. The problem is that the military gives these men and sometimes woman attackers slaps on the hand for their actions instead of truly punishing them. Women don't get the respect they deserve at any level and that is bullshit but to tell every woman that they cannot fight with their brothers in arms because they MIGHT attack them should be a decision that we females should make. It doesn't matter if we are in combat or on US soil, female service members are being attacked all the time, yet we still join and we still come to work. Let us have the right to that decision.
I am very much in agreement with you and respect your service to this great country. I served as well in Vietnam and I am thankful to God I didn't have that to distract me from doing my job. I was young and stupid and I know what an eighteen year old is capable of doing. Unfortunately we haven't had real men standing as Commander in Chief and as a result they made emotional decisions. Again thank you for your service and all the other women who do what they were called to do. Common sense is all that is needed to see that women should never be on the front lines.
To Susan K. Parisi: If you retired one year ago, after serving 30 years, then you entered the military in 1981. How did you serve during Vietnam?
October, I don’t know if you have no attention to detail or no math skills, but Susan’s comment was made in 2009. So 2009-1=2008. 2008-30=1978. You better check yourself before you wreck yourself.
ArmyMedic, this post was published on May 9th, 2012. Maybe you should “check yourself” because you don’t pay “attention to detail”.
Susan,
As a Vietnam Marine Corps Veteran, Cold War Veteran, I agree with you at what you stated will happen when you mix males and females in a combat zone. Please read "Ray" below; that would be me. I do not, however, agree with you for not putting women in a combat unit. The reason why is that the ladies received the go ahead, to be able to cock their leg as a male dog. When one gets the go ahead and start taking men's roles in life, that means 100%. Not 90%, not 80%, not 70. All 100%. Many women have certainly shown that they have intelligence, stamina and the fortitude to do combat roles. They also have to come out from behind their femininity if they themselves elect to take upon their own shoulders the role of combat. That mean to accept the very real possibility of having some sex starved male "hover" over them by force. When any women believes she can take care of herself in a combat zone, and then later finds she cannot, then the only person she can blame is herself.
I for one would not desire any woman to have to go through what your daughter had to go through, but when women said I want to be as an equal to men, and the government began changing to their demand, that falls upon women. And if any woman believes she can carry her weight and protect herself from any male in a combat zone, she is very badly mistaken, as your daughter learned. The military provides lip service, as you stated, but when it comes to action, that is another story. I am sorry your daughter had to learn the hard way what men in combat can do to their very own. Quite frankly, I am surprised that she had only one assailant.
<<They also have to come out from behind their femininity if they themselves elect to take upon their own shoulders the role of combat. That mean to accept the very real possibility of having some sex starved male "hover" over them by force. When any women believes she can take care of herself in a combat zone, and then later finds she cannot, then the only person she can blame is herself. >>
Are you saying that a woman should expect to be raped as part of her job while serving her country? Having to endure sexual assault or having a man "hover" over her by force (whatever that means) should never be an expected part of the package. If a man was sexually assaulted by another man, the penalty would be fierce. A woman should expect the same compassion and protection from such criminal actions when it comes to unwanted attention in any form. Men should be expected to control themselves, and respect their sisters-in-arms. I'm married to a soldier who would NEVER disrespect a woman, much less one who covers his back in the field. I suggest that more men aim higher in their attitude towards women, rather than eliminate women from combat.
Susan I agree with you 100%. I retired with 21years of service in 1979 I spent 3 tours in Viet-Nam. I was there in Feb.1968 when all hell broke lose. I know a lot of women want to be doing the same job as men but combat is not one of them. Hell combat isn't for any body. I think all the ass holes that make these law should serve in combat and things would be differ. You said that you retired as a LTC(RN) thank you and God bless you I know some (RNs) that got caught up in hell in Viet-Nam. I wish the ass holes could have been there and they would know why women shouldn't be in combat rolls. Thank you again for your service and God bless. RON
I say it's about time. I think any woman willing to go into a full combat roll is going to be focused on that, not worrying about deploying and getting pregnant to get out of it. We need to move forward in equality across the board, not back. I served 7 years in the military, loved every second of it. I only left the Army to raise our kids while my husband served. My sacrifice. I was logistics, and I enjoyed that. I NEVER would have picked a combat roll if it has been available, that I am confident is something only a very small population of women are going to go into. I will also add, I met several female soldiers over the years who would/could beat out any 'MAN" in a combat roll. There is always a "new army' evolving and whether those who served 70 years ago, 40 years ago or 20 years ago agree with the changes with time is really not relevant. It is what it is today. As for my husband, he says go for it, but he admits he wouldn't like it much if our daughter wanted to do it. Thank goodness she is NOT that girl. lol
those women that you claim could beat out any "MAN" in a combat role are not what I would call a woman. Not attacking you or anything but honestly you cannot do what a man can unless that man is some wimp and a little lady like if you know what I mean.
I was part of the trianing cadre for operation “Lioness”, which you may have heard of, where we deliberately put females in combat units so they could search Muslim women without violating cultural taboos. From what I observed during the training, and from my personal combat experiences from 10 years in the Marine Corps, I have to say I have my reservations. There girls were supposed to be the toughest of the tough, and none of them reacted well to having violence visited upon their person. The fact is, this is completely natural. Men are more naturally creatures of violence. That is why we account for over 88% of the murder rate. I’m sorry to put it like that, but we’re not out here playing cribbage. This is an evironment where violent hand-to-hand engagement and mutilation are very real possibilities, and if I engaged an enemy unit comprised wholly or in part of women, I would not show mercy. I would hope they brought their “A” game, because so far I haven’t seen any level of performance that would render them effective against a determined and violent enemy. There’s also the consideration of what would happen to POWs. I think we need to move beyond poetic notions and look at reality.
So YOU NEVER would have went into a combat roll. And that only a small percentage of women will want to serve in those MOS'.
If you really wanted EQUALITY, there would be no discernible MOS differences between men and women.
You sound like a typical low-info voter. You want what you want because it sounds right, uhh, just not for YOU!
Keep women OUT of combat, OFF submarines, and out of fighting altogether. OR, if you're going to do it, tear down the whole bar, and no holds barred. You get ordered to a grunt unit, they don't care if you're a guy or a gal. No change of standards, no special BS for women. I got tired of that in the Navy my last 15 years.
I can see both sides of this argument. I served 5 years as a C-130 avionics specialist in the Air Force and deployed only once and that was enough for me. I was the only female in our flight and saw first-hand how my presence was not only a distraction but also caused problems with many of my coworkers spouses. The wives hated that I was there with their husbands. Even though I was respectful of their feelings it still bothered me that I was not trusted even though I was friends with many of them. I also fell subject to a lot of high ranking people abusing their power to demean me. It was a mess even though I never did anything to deserve what I went through, all because I was a woman. I can only imagine how a woman would be treated in a combat situation. Why any woman would want to put herself through that, I don’t know. But I do know some woman who could handle it. It seems like too much of a hassle to weed out the weak just to find those who could handle it.
Now on the other side, my husband is still active duty and when he ever goes anywhere with a female coworker I can’t help but dislike it because it is impossible to work closely with someone without having a relationship with them. And there is a very thin line between a intellectual relationship and an emotional relationship that can lead to a physical one. So I can understand why woman probably should not be put in those types of situations if not necessary.
Maybe they need to make a whole unit of woman who fight in a combat zone.
an all female combat unit would be awesome. the standards would have to be exactly the same of course and i trust they would be, in training etc.
totally understand what you went through, unfortunately what you describe makes sense.
I agree, if they want to be there then let them be there without the men!!! Same goes for ships, they want to be on them, so let them man one on their own without the men. I foresee less pregnancies, less divorces, less STD's, less abortions, etc. sounds like a positive solution to a bad idea about putting them in combat and on ships!
I think as long as the women are held to the same physical and mental standards as the men, I have no problem with this.
but thats a point someone needs to look at asap, because the females always have a handicap when doing pt reqmts and im sorry, there is no way that a 5'4 at 120lbs can pull a fallen soldier of 6'0 200lbs out of danger if the need be, so can someone tell me why they are always given a handicap?
I guess the 5’4 120lbs female would pull the 6′ , 200lbs soldier out of danger the same way a male 5’4 120 lbs would.
No, I don't think so. Maybe with a trolley
I’m sorry Patrick, but you are comparing apples to oranges.
A 5’4 120 male is naturally stronger than a 5’4 120 female. The bone density and muscles strength is different. That is the way it is.
A physically strong female is equivilent to a below average man. That is the way it is and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that.
I am 5’2 130 pounds and I cannot effectivly pull a much larger man out of danger as well as a 5’2 130 pound male fellow soldier. I work out, he does not. It is the way it is.
So the question when it comes to co-ed units is this:
Do we want to please people emotionally and allow co-ed combat units or do we want to do what it intellectually right and keep it same ***? It is not satisfying to believe that women cannot keep the same standards physically as men, so we make these stupid decisions to please people’s feelings of equality when in fact these decisions will probably cause deaths that would have been prevented.
We must evaluate the greater good: the “feeling” of equality of the sexes or the actual fitness and effectiveness of the unit.
An aside: I work with all men in my civilian/military job. I am a huge distraction to them and I do not even know it at times. I do not flirt and do not purposely cause trouble, but it still happens. I now understand why many of them get upset.
I am all for equality of the sexes in priciple, but not at the expense of unit cohesion and effectiveness. It might be your husband, brother, or father who ends up hurt or worse because of a politically correct accomodation made in the name of equality. Until women have the exact same muscle and skeletal structure as men and until men learn to stop thinking sexually around women, this problem will not go away. We are fools to think we can make rules to “cure” this.
My reply was to dallas and not patrick.
Women have been in combat for years now there’s no front line. Can’t believe after 10 years of war people don’t realize that now, esp for army.
True but never deployed out of their own country directly into a combat unit. Yes they are deployed so close to and in conjunction with the combat units you cannot tell who is what, support or combat..
Exactly. Biology is real. Consider cows and bulls. Same bovine species, both sit around all day eating grass. Yet bulls are twice as big, and all muscle. And not because they work out – they don't. Silly example perhaps, but come on folks, this is not as complicated as we like to pretend it is.
In order to decide whether women should be in combat arms, we need not ask questions about whether some women can do the job, or what is in the best interest of women service members (who are supposedly there to serve the needs of the nation, not their own desires.) Instead, we need only ask one question – What is in the best interest of the armed forces? Does taking men off the front lines and putting women in their place inprove our nations fighting stance? No, it does not. Service Before Self, remember?
Since when? In the Corps, training always has the smallest against the biggest, and you better not fail.
Well Excuse YOU Meg, I happen to be those exact dimensions and can pull someone to safety even if they are 250 pounds and unconscious! I was able to actually LIFT someone about that much while doing SpecOps training. If you know where to grab someone and how to best leverage your center of mass you'd be amazed what you can pull/lift by yourself. I HATE it when people try to use that argument, because for some reason you also must think that a Male that is 5'4" and weighing 120 lbs cannot also lift 200 pounds of Soldier. So just be quiet if you please.
You are an idiot. The enemy isn't going to give you time to get into a perfect position so you can use leverage to lift a fellow soldier. Combat isn't Greco-Roman weight lifting. I'm willing to bet that your average 120 lb male soldier can lift more than your average 120 female soldier…more muscle mass. Face it, men are stronger than women. It ain't a woman's fault, they're just biologically different. That isn't ever going to change. You are indeed an idiot.
thanks meg. Great point. I just finished reading from someone who claims she knows women who can beat any man. Well, I happened to train for Vietnam and I know there isn't a woman I know who could have done what we did. I love women, and they are wonderful and God bless them but a lot of that talk is a bunch of feminist bullshit from angry women who have been beaten up before and are mad at men. They should take a chill pill.
You hit the nail on the head. If the Military sets a standard for male soldiers to perform, then females also should be expected to perform at that level. If they cannot then they don't belong there. Otherwise let them have at it. We all bleed red………..
As SemperSteen said, women should be held to the same physical standards as men if they're going to serve in a combat role. They should have to meet the same physical fitness requirements if they're going to do the same job.
That being said, I don't worry about cases of downrange infidelity; if a husband is going to cheat, he's going to find a way to cheat whether the woman is in his unit or works in the medical tent or the personnel office. Plus, with us having so many multi-national coalitions these days, our husbands are already serving with a lot of women.
I do have to agree with Susan, though, about the risk of sexual assault. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. Until the military culture changes and sexual assault prevention is actually taken SERIOUSLY, we're not going to see a culture that is really SAFE for women in any deployed situation, but especially in a front-lines situation where regular base facilities may not be available. That being said, there's really only one way that we're going to see a big change here, and that is for us to have more women in leadership positions. But here we have a "catch-22"; in most branches, "combat time" is a major factor in determining whether a person is promotable to senior enlisted and officer positions. It's not really safe right now to send women into combat, but without that combat time women won't be nearly as likely to be promoted as men. And women who ARE victims of physical or sexual assault are more likely to separate from the military at their ETS instead of continuing on to eventually assume leadership positions. I don't know what the solution is, but if we're going to send female soldiers into a situation where they're going to be at a bare-bones base or an FOB, we need to find a way to make sure that they're actually safe from their own fellow soldiers.
But the Corps has been putting women on the front line for several years now. They are volunteers and are classified as interpreters and culture experts. They are armed, and live the way the rest of the troops live. Some times they out rank them, but follow them in combat.
Just like HollyDa31 said infidelity is going to happen regardless. If your husband or wife wants to cheat they will. At some point we all need to have trust in our spouses. Peoples insecurities shouldnt cloud their judgement about women in combat roles. Just because you like your spouse does not mean everyone wants to get with them lol. The bad thing about women in combat roles is going to be dealing with sexual harassment or even assault. The military really needs to put some safeguards and real consequences in place. I to am sick of hearing how female soldiers should "expect" it etc.
My personal view on this issue is that women should not serve in Front line units they should not perform the tasks of Infantry or other strictly front line fighters, I know a lot of people will chime in and say there is no front line in these current wars and that women have been placed in harms way but reacting to the enemy shooting at you when you are riding in a convoy, which I have seen and to be honest these soldiers failed miserably at that task is a world away to actually hunting down the enemy as the infantry does. I know there are some women that can carry their weight and meet the physical demands of the jobs but one handful spread out through the army does not make up for the fact that a large majority of the women that I have worked with in my 8 years and three deployments to Afghanistan cannot hack it, they fail to even meet the basic army standards for a soldier. A prime example in 2009 when I was under attack and one of my buddies took shrapnel to his left eye the female medic attached to us froze and started crying now we had two casualties to deal with one bleeding out and one that won't do her job. I strongly believe that the Infantry should forever be closed to women all this about equality is great an all but I do not want to put my life on the line just to make someones liberal agenda succeed. Another complaint that people have will be yes sexual assault and harassment will go up it's a disgusting and disturbing fact that some men in the army think they are above the laws and regulations they are supposed to follow. As far as the cheating aspect from my experience in the infantry when ever we had females attached to us in our tiny combat outpost in the middle of nowhere we saw them as extra weight we would have to haul around another workload to put onto out plates and we saw them as a burden, did some of the single soldiers flirt yes of course its human nature but the majority of us did not want them around. Thats just my point of view.
I agree wholeheartedly with those thoughts, SSG. And what about the biological differences. The need to relieve oneself while trekking through the 'boonies', menstrual periods and, yes, pregnancies. Not to even begin to mention the physical requirements of carrying 100lb rucksacks, ammo and the like. No way this will work. Lives are in the balance here and females in combat units will not only weaken those units but endanger the missions exponentially. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I'm afraid that ultra-liberalism and political correctness will one day severely weaken and eventually doom our nation.
I have to agree as well. I have served in combat with females. I have nothing against them, but I am a realist. I have never seen one actually devolve into a crying mess, but I have to admit they are less effective. Also, in training, if you hit a woman, they just don’t react to it the same way men do. I’ve never seen the “beast” come out a woman the same way you see with a man when faced with the prospect and reality of violent confrontation. I’m sure you know what I’m talking about, but it’s hard for people who haven’t been in that situation to relate. If I kick in a door and a woman beyond tries to engage me, I will violently destroy her. That is just the reality of war. I believe women are intellectually equal or superior to men. Let them play to their strengths.
Asa a Marine combat veteran who spent 68-68 in Vietnam 1/9.. Conthien, KheSanh, Camp Carroll, Marble Mountain…etc… you who where there know these places and the amount of time we spent in the field or in a defensive position at one of these and many other areas around Ashau Valley and the DMZ.
Women would be a major problem… emotion would eventually overcome the standards of discipline we strive for in combat units. For example on a defensive position such as the 68 siege in KheSanh when we took hundreds and often thousands of rounds a day. Standing watch on perimeter or on an OP over night with 3-4 people perhaps 1/2 men/women would be a disaster after the unit had been there for over 30 days under fire. Both consensual and non-consensual are bound to occur. This is the nature of men and women in or out of combat…sooner or later someone is going to get hurt. Imagine a pissed off women in combat unit who gets pissed off at a lover in the unit and she goes out on patrol with him there … an ambush occurs.. imagine.. damn.or vica versa
I think that allowing women into a combat unit should be on a volunteer basis AND pass the same physical requirements that the men have to. I know that I could have been in combat would have been able to do as much as most men, but I was raised to hunt, track, & many other things. I've always been a good shot, & a little stronger than most women. I've also been in several positions that I've had to use my weapon. Most people done have a problem with women on th police force or as paramedics, so I done see as to why there should be so much of a problem. Women in other countries have had women in combat. I think that our men & women have created a problem because of stupid attitudes towards women. Need to change that. There are alot of men who don't do well in a combat situations. And if a women gets pregnant just to get out of deployment then she should be kicked out of the military without benefits . This may seem sharp, but ive seen that excuse used before & I have no use for women like that. Also men should know just because she there you don't have to feel intimidated & feel like you need to assault her just to prove your a man. Grow Up Already! Your not in high school.
I couldn't of said it better. It just needs to be the right women. Too bad the higher ups seem to want to cram all women in the same category. There are some of us that will do fine in combat some won't. Just like the men……. I dont hear anything about them. No way are all of them are able to handle it. Like all things that would make the military look bad we don't hear about it.
ABSOLUTELY! MEN SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT A FEMALE NOT KEEPING UP WITH HIM! I WAS IN ROTC IN COLLEGE AND THROUGH BOTH CAMPS ONLY A FEW WOMEN COULD KEEP UP. I'M BUILT LIKE A MAND AND CAN DO THE PT TEST ON THE MEN'S LEVEL. SO IF THEY CAN DO ALL EXAMS AND TESTS EQUAL TO THE MEN. AND HAVE NO KIDS!
Maybe you're right…because I have always been curious as to why there are olympic events for men and women. Maybe running the same event twice as many times as necessary it is a waste of time, right? OF COURSE, I am being sarcastic, but my point is that there are very real physical differences between men and women. I know sitcoms and movies like to portray women as more than equal to their male counterparts, but reality is much different. Hollywood has been playing a cruel joke on women and it isn't fair. Life isn't fair. There are many of us who are not over 6 feet tall and can't dunk a basketball, but that doesn't mean that the sport should lower the rim to 8 feet, just to give us an equal chance. Lowering the standard is precisely what the politicians will demand in order to get an adequate number of "successes" to prove this policy change was the right thing to do. Mark my words.
You know from everything I have seen from deployments to even state side neither party seems to ever control themselves honestly. Yes if women want to be on the front lines then by all means let them!!!!!! But from my previous experience being in a COP in afghanistan they cannot expect special treatment like seperate bunks, bathing facilities, and things like that. Also they should train just as hard as us infantryman do and be scored on the same scale because when the s%&t hits the fan I sure hope that female will be able to pull that soldier that might weigh in access of 230 w/gear to safety!!!!!! Plus things will happen god forbid. Usually its a 1SG or higher that’s uses his rank to get want he wants vice versa I have seen a higher enlisted female take advantage of a lower enlisted male but was laughed at when he reported it. Its a very slippery slope that the military is getting into and its going to cause a lot of problems. Infedelity will happen more frequent over sease but then again it happens state side more than in the civilian population trust me look up the stats.
OK, my concerns are regarding POW. Can a woman withstand rape, sexsual assault, and pregnancies in a POW camp? Then what is this child? Property of the Army if not wanted by the mother, or if the mother-soldier dies. Can a mother love a child enforced on her and maybe not in the best way or by the best?
Just to say: rape is not the exclusive domain of females. Men have been raped as POWs as well. NOBODY wants to be taken as a POW, and it's not a pleasant experience for ANYBODY. But rape happens to everyone, regardless of gender. And in a way, the fact that 1 in 3-4 women IN THE UNITED STATES (depending on which study you're looking at) are already rape victims, I would argue that women might be better able to withstand combatant rape than men.
The problem is, what happens when the rapist is your Platoon Sergeant? Or your Flight Commander? Or your "battle buddy"?
We can't stop the enemy from raping and torturing POWs, regardless of their gender. But maybe we should start by putting a stop to rape within our own ranks.
You did a good job John, but u only hit tip of the iceburg. I came across a American nurse she was rape 50 or more by NVA and her **** were cut off the other nurse was under ground with her head above so the red ant’s chew her face up. I almost throw-up. I live with this everyday of my life.
You have been watching too many movies. There were no female POW's during Vietnam
Is there a military requirement to have women serve in combat positions? The answer is no. No commander will say that "I want this spot filled by a woman". I am not saying that they arn't qualified. These are social and economic reasons only.
Create an all female Infantry unit and put them in combat and see how they perform without male counterparts.
good idea…why mix young men and women in stressful situations. Stuff will happen. Have an all female battalion with all female support units.
BINGO!
I have been saying this for years, but I've also been told by almost every female Soldier that they couldn't stand being a unit with only women. Many complain about a few days or couple of weeks living in the same tent or barracks, so I can't even phathom what it would be like if they were deployed together for 9 months or more. Maybe another reason women shouldn't be in combat units? I am not sexist, and I do believe women can more than handle most jobs, I just understand the lengthy and strenuous job of combat arms and in order to prove lifting the ban was the right thing to do, they will make the standards "fairer" (ie, lower the standards). It's about outcome, not opportunity.
John, read the book by Major Rhonda Cornum who was a POW in Iraq. It will be very enlightening. Now for my two cents. Several statements seemed to discount the fact that the woman who would choose combat as her roll will have thought about and/or discussed these same concerns with someone close to her. This is not a frivolous decision for anyone, least of all for the woman or the chain of command. The irony here is that the same concerns (except for Rape) were used to deny Blacks the right to serve as anything but cooks. Fortunately, we have many examples of how wrong those people were. Now the issue is about women. Women have served in combat in almost all wars. Is she less a soldier because she was a POW nurse on Bataan? Is she less a soldier because she was in the French resistance and not wearing a uniform? Women have placed their lives on the line in countless situations and men have had to depend on them in those rolls. Women who choose to go into combat should be applauded and sanctioned. She will have thought of all the consequences before she applies. How she will deal with the worst of those if they occur is no more set in stone than the men who crack under pressure or come back with PTSD or worse.
My concern is for the children, not the combatants. Regardless of reason why they were in the military. Read Cornum's book, not very enlighten as she forgot, and you have mentioned it, woman been in combat in many times…Battle of Zama; Wu Ding, Qwendolen, Cratesipolis, etc, etc. with far more hardship, but again in today's society what about the children. Of course males do not have this problem as they , for now, can give birth.
Clue-less! proven by your own words! So much for natural selection.
Women should not be allowed into combat units. Women are emotionally and hormonally not fit
fot combat rolls, especially in front line combat. Can you imagine being in a foxhole with a women
with the enemy charging and all of a sudden, she has bad menstrual cramps. You life is then in jepardy. It just doesn't make sense and lowers combat readiness. Also the training has to be ajusted for the female physical capabiliuty which lowers the effectiveness of high level training.
Women have been having " bad menstrual cramps" as you say for years. Yet somehow we are able to get up and function in the world in many jobs just fine. Are you able to spot every woman who has cramps unless she tells you she has them? Are you serious with this comment? Not to mention a woman with PMS is pretty angry on occasion and might have just the needed attitude to handle the enemy charging. As far as adjusting training that should not be done. Standards should be the same for men and women who would be placed in combat.
Can you imagine being in a foxhole with a man who has a cold, stomach bug, toothache, headache? A "dear John letter" or other bad news from home? Same jepordy as some cramps, dude. As far as physical fitness, all agree the women should be trained at the same standards as men so, again, bad theory. Grow up and get serious. Your thoughts are completely off base on these two issues.
To all concerned, there are many good points made by all especially the base premise of using this forum for feminist gains! The reality is that we are talking Infantry, Ranger, Green Beret, SEAL, etc… Not combat ops, nor Spec Ops Spt in rear support functions.
We are talking about various facts of physiology, strength and long term separation in a living “****”!!! God knows women & men have been abused, but case in point when Jessica Lynch was capture the entire military had one mission, drop everything and save her!!!
The studies have shown a man will risk hazards to save a woman. It is bad enough when you watch your buddy die, but it is worse with a women! As I stated earlier the health risks to women in a enemy rear area are far greater than in the rear support area!
Finally, this experiment will be forced on us and to what end. If a single woman on the new co-ed submarine detail gets in trouble the Captain will get relieved as do all Captains when women arrived on ships! The combat arms, & SpecOps troops are male and we have no issues until we mix the genders.
I agree with EVERYTHING YOU ARE SAYING – AND I AM A WOMAN!!! I suppose that's going to p*** them off…
To all concerned, there are many good points made by all especially the base premise of using this forum for feminist gains! The reality is that we are talking Infantry, Ranger, Green Beret, SEAL, etc… Not combat ops, nor Spec Ops Spt in rear support functions.
We are talking about various facts of physiology, strength and long term separation in a living “****”!!! God knows women & men have been abused, but case in point when Jessica Lynch was capture the entire military had one mission, drop everything and save her!!!
The studies have shown a man will risk hazards to save a woman. It is bad enough when you watch your buddy die, but it is worse with a women! As I stated earlier the health risks to women in a enemy rear area are far greater than in the rear support area!
Finally, this experiment will be forced on us and to what end. If a single woman on the new co-ed submarine detail gets in trouble the Captain will get relieved as do all Captains when women arrived on ships! The combat arms, & SpecOps troops are male and we have no issues until we mix the genders.
I am tired of people putting down the effectiveness of a woman in combat because of the way that our bodies are made. A man gets hit in the crotch and he is barely able to move, how is that better than a woman that might get severe cramps? As a woman I have spent over half my life learning how to cope with the way my body acts, and now I can succeed and overcome many physical trials. If anything the pain women go through makes them better designed for a combat area. As for speaking about our hormones…well that is part of what training is for, is it not? to prepare soldiers for combat? Women that want to be in a combat Division need to agree to perform at the same or higher physical standards than her male counterparts….and I believe that with hard work women will overcome this obstacle. And I know women that train in crossfit and bodybuilding that can out run, out lift, and with training they would be able to out shoot any man. Stop being a child and a sexist.
why don't you try to be a realist and get a clue? Woman weren't made by God to do certain things… this is one of them!
Oh my god, what is it with men and their weird fear of menstruation? For heaven's sakes, guys, it's just a little blood. If you're in combat, you'll see a whole lot of that anyway. Get over it. And, for the record, menstrual cramps don't stop a woman from going about her normal business, in a normal fashion.
Women have served in combat in many countries for years and are superb fighters. Take the Russian women in WWII and the Israeli Army. If they are willing they should serve.
Seems as some of the commentators are not familiar with history. What about Queen Boudica? Hey guys. She took out the Romans you know and what about Lyudmila Mykhailivna Pavlichenko taking out 309 Nazis by sniper fire. And they served with men just fine and were highly respected for their prowess.
Those women you cite came from a different culture and time period. As a Russian born in the Ukrainian town of Belaya Tserkov , Pavlichenko like many Russian women endured hardships that American women never endured or were exposed to which tended to toughen her. She volunteered to join the Russian Army after the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union and eventually became a sniper. Unfortunately, she is more the exception than the rule. Queen Boudicca, as you well know, was Queen of the British Iceni tribe and led an uprising against the occupying forces of the Roman Empire. These are all exceptional occurrences, as I'm sure you can agree, and happened under unusual circumstances and not likely to be of a recurring nature. Today's women are too pampered and protected and, call me a chauvinistic pig, but, no way would I want to place myself in situations as traumatic as combat and have to rely on a woman soldier to extricate me because, as a man, my natural instinct would be to protect her instead which could be life threatening in itself.
Keep watching movies – the real world still doesn't want ya Erich! How many tours you got in the sandbox? Out side of the PX – FOBBIT?!?
Yeah… that's what i thought!
I can't say I read every comment made on here but has the issue of men being more "protective" of women come up at all. Seems everyone is focusing on possible infedelity and sexual assault as if men are simply preditors of women. Alot of men tend to be more protective of women then of thier friends. Alot of military men especially tend to have been raised in such a way to respect women. Of course there are those who dont and are preditory as has been said. So it may be a distraction in the sense that men would be more worried and stressed about a woman being hurt than a man. Not that men in combat do not care about one another and aren't concerned for each other it is just different.
I am a Vietnam combat vet. Your point is one of two that I would make – the other being pure physical strength and the bravado to pull a wounded comrade out of danger. I would not have wanted to serve with women for these reasons. As to infidelity, when your ass is constantly in danger, you will take any pleasures you can get..
I agree!
Well just throwing this out there. In Line Shack, the boys forgot Im a female. They just think I’m a dude with tits. They fart, cuss, insult me like they do to each other, and expect me to do the job they do. Even if I’m a short thing and caint do it, I have to get out a little ammo can to stand on or clamber onto it. Im scared to climb on and off the jet. So after showing me the daily inspections they got down and left. I didn’t know how to get down so they just went about their day for 20 minutes or so until some random Shipmate taught me how to get down. And as soon as I got back to the shop I got not only made fun of but got yelled at for not doing whatever else I had to do. The males usually dont baby you. You’ll get a big brother type, you’ll get protection and thats about it. Its no sympathy, no loving kindness, no kind words of consolation. We live in a world of sarcasm and insults and cussing. You laugh at a lot of things that are so messed up but true. So thats my instigation for the day. Have at it.
I beg to differ… most of the time you can tell which guys and girls are "together" in any command, so I doubt it is as bad as your saying it is. I doubt many would see this kind of coupling as a lack of "kindness"
What grade of male combat infantry soldier will ask to remain in a future platoon about to deploy- of various assorted females who argue with each other and don’t even know or realise that their female NCOs are woefully incompetent compared to the all male enemy units getting ready to close on these new majority feminised US and Australian and other alled below par so called sisterhood leftist feminist units that were passed at combat school well below every standard of course?? I saw this type of physical and mental downgrade pass no matter what nonsense at THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE ACADEMY in the early 80′s.US & AUSSIE covert controlling political feminist apparatchak political miseries must be hand in glove for sure and as well some large Canadian miltary feminist team just paid Australia a visit and not a fullsome report no not a word of the expensive visit or what!?propaganderising threats contents were reported by any media here.My advice fellas in the immediate future is to just walk away from feminised so called combat units en masse resign on the spot the female can’t look after you if you get hit etc.they couldnt even twist the lid off a tight jam jar if theirs and your lives depended on it. Yes- its all to do with the feminist global push to destroy the perceived mysoginist awful disgusting violent dominant white male paradigm. Plus the feminist academics have probably prescripted feminist war heroine stories and now just need dead and still stumbling real war female veteran soldiers who killed a lot of bad men with their bowie knives in the dark. Everybody starting to get the picture?
lol i liked what you had to say about the women going into comact it was worded very nice.tell the men to go ahed and resighn cause your right the women cant handle it.most cant.i have to say they i have been shot and still carried a man weighing about 170 lbs to safety so women can do it but the army dont need to put them and the men at risk to see which ones can and which cant.the men dont need that stress put on them over there any way.
My chiropractor is female, 6 ft ,200 lbs., previously a firefighter. very physically strong and fit even in her 50's now. She is one of the only chiropractors who has effectively been able to maneuver my dad around (he is 250 lbs) as well as do deep tissue massage through all his scar tissue, that was actually effective (my Dad is a Vietnam vet with knee and back injuries). She could definitely have done the job in her 20's or 30's. As far as mental fortitude – she put herself through school, set up and ran her own practice, pioneered and taught effective new techniques, lived as a sexual minority, beat cancer and is right back at work. One time her receptionist's car was stolen from the parking lot and she jumped in her car, chased him down and cornered him until he abandoned the car and fled on foot. She is awesome and if there are any women like her who want to volunteer for combat, by all means : ) as for me i like to fight but have a health condition keeping me out of the military.
Try reading the bible, it may give you some insight.
The Bible is mumbojumbo. Try All Quiet on the Western Front.
I agree with you here… why can't we just accept our biblical roles on this earth anyway? I don't mind being a care giver as long as my man is a good provider!
Anyone who thinks women can not endure the horrors of war – and that men do – should read some literature on the last days on the fall of Berlin in WW2.
We have been training women for combat in the Army since we let them in decades ago. Even in rear-echelon positions, women such as Jessica Lynch found themselves in combat in Iraq in 2003.
That said, a woman is still a poor substitute for a man. As long as there continue to be different fitness standards and women are allowed more slack, women should not enter fields of sustained exposure to combat. Bodies and minds are different and under stress, the woman will break down and cry and react to every little thing while the man will fight through the stress and the pain and do what needs to be done. Men and women are just wired differently. A woman is more intuitive, a skill that will not suit her as well under fire, while men are more task-oriented and competitive which sutis them better under fire.
You might find that whishful thinking and want to read "Berlin: The Downfall 1945" by Antony Beevor and in particular pay attention to the part where it describes the closing days of the battle of Berlin.
Your generalizations may be correct in many cases, but are not all inclusive. Many women I knew while in the Army handled stress and pressure far better than many men. An infantry E8 told me he once saw a female nurse 01 take command of a combat situation in Afghanistan that stunned him into changing his preformed opinion of Army women.
That being said, I do agree that the disparity in APFT standards for men and women is utter crap. The job description is not different, so the physical requirements should not be either. You're dead on there, I just ask that you reconsider generalizing all women as working one way. There are plenty that kick ass and take names.
Completely with you on women needing to meet the physical standards of the job. BUT…the general service fitness tests are just that — fitness tests. They're intended to measure overall physical fitness, not ability to perform a certain job. Because of different physiology, a woman who can do as many push ups as a man is generally in better shape than the guy.
For jobs that have a need for the person to be able to carry a load, etc, rock on — the requirements are the requirements are the requirements, and everyone should meet them. But for an overall assessment of fitness, it's reasonable to adjust for the differences in musculature.
Jessica Lynch is the perfect example. Little supply clerk, weapon jammed up before they even went on the mission, sat in the middle of the rear of the HUMVEE with the cargo around her to protect her, never fired a shot, busted up in the crash of the HUMVEE, and captured, requiring a special ops rescue. The Army completely bald faced lied about what happened.
Jessica Lynch was a frail little girl to begin with. She joined the Army for college money and found herself in Iraq. That's no comparison to the professional female soldiers who have earned their place in combat roles, and can meet the same standards as men.
men are bigger babies than women, in general civilian life. throw a fit when they have to get a shot, are big babies when sick, etc. Those of us who have been or are married often refer to the husband with affection and forgiveness as our biggest kid. Only men who can handle a little pain and stress without becoming a whiny brat, will make it in the military. i should hope that the military would draw, similarly, women of a little tougher caliber, as well, than the general population. Women go through pain, sickness, sleep deprivation, etc just in the course of being mothers. We work through pain several days a month. tests show that women's greatest physical asset is endurance. i don't believe in different standards in training or requirements. possibly not even mixed gender units. intuitive is not a bad trait, it can save your @$$ sometimes. I've also known men to be hotheads and get themselves and others in unecessary trouble, again this is in the civilian sector, whereas women don't get mad, they get revenge. just some observations . . .
basically, who breaks down and is ineffective under stress, and who gets $h!t done – in my experience and that of almost everyone i know, the women can handle themselves way better than the men. i've known a few men who could, and a few women who couldn't.
I'm with you on saying women who want to enter combat arms have to be able to meet the standards — just like men have to. But seriously? Do you REALLY believe that a second X chromosome translates to someone who will "break down and cry and react to every little thing?"
Have you been to a war zone? I have. And I've seen women handle stressful, dangerous situations well, and I've seen women handle them badly. But guess what? I've seen men do the same things. PEOPLE either perform well in combat situations or they don't. Whether they're men or women doesn't really factor into it much.
As a Viet Nam Marine combat veteran I see no problem with women in combat as long as they can carry their share of the load as the males have to carry. Any other reason for not allowing women in infantry units in combat is bull—-.
I agree. If any individual is physically capable of performing the necessary duties than they should be allowed that opportunity. However, I also know that my cousin was attacked while in Iraq. The female gunner failed to properly defend them because she could not, physically, arm the weapon on top of the humvee. They traveled defenseless until air support arrived to suppress the enemy.
I fully understand that there are many men and women who may or may not be able to physically pull the action back on a particular weapon. However, if that is the case, regardless of their gender, they should not be allowed such a responsibility.
The issue should not be male or female, the issue should be physical ability to perform the job at hand.
Thank you for making sense.
You'r not thinking!
Can you imagine a woman being a POW? I am a woman and I could not imagine it!!!
Women in combat is a disgraceful statement about the state of American culture.
Can't figure out why so many people want to get women killed by putting them into a job they cannot do. In training with females I always had to carry most of their equipment so the could give a try at keeping up with the males. It will never change because womens bodies are different.
Clue is: you want to get the right kind of women. Some of them (we dub them the 'right stuff') will out-do many a man and provide crucial know-how to the squad.
You need women who can do their share. They are out there.
Disney on Ice!!
for those that don't know, Disney on ice is a children's ice skating show where the performers are in disney disguises the entire time.
Although they are covered up and no one would know if it was a man or a woman behind the mask, Disney on ice uses Men for certain roles and women for others and it is not because of the characters they are portraying. They do it because they realize there is a difference between a man and woman and that woman cannot do the same things as men and vice versa. therefore they use the men to do the "manly" parts, the lifting of the other skater, throws… and they use a women to do the "womanly" parts the splits, spins…
they realize that men can do certain things that women can and vice versa; and this is just skating!!! the only risks involved are a strained knee and a hip contusion, not life and death like in a combat scenario!!!
Until Skating uses men and women interchangeably, then stay the heck out of my combat zone. the fact is men and women ARE DIFFERENT. FACT!!!!
if yo want to press women's rights and equality complain start with disney, not the military.
I too am a combat wounded veteran of Viet Nam ,I do not see the reasoning behind women in combat roles. My bigest concern would be if they are captured,things like multiple rapes and sexual abuse. Secondly most male soldiers would more the likley take more protective stance in their defense expossing themselves to danger.
Sexual abuse happens to male captives, too. And if you read most of the higher military awards for valor, they involve a component of heroic risk to save their male buddies. War is horrible, and bad things happen to some of the people who fight them. Let women do the jobs they are individually best suited for, just like we do men. An awful lot of us won't be right for combat arms. But if the best shooter is a woman, do you really want the number two guy to be your sniper just because he's a guy?
IF WOMEN ARE AS EQUAL AS MEN THEY SHOULD PULL ALL MEN OUT OF COMBAT, AND PUT WOMEN IN FULL COMBAT,NO MEN, BUT I GUESS THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN, THEY COULDN'T HANDLE IT.
I personally don't think women should be in combat roles. If they get that kind of training, then when they get married, a man doesn't have a chance. Now if the husband is also trained to fight in the military, I say let them fight it out and see who is the best man;er woman ; er soldier. I'm against it folks.
I was active duty Navy. I pulled my weight, ran my shop alone 3 nights a week, and was my shop’s sole representative at out detachment. Often I was the only female around. And I was raped. Not by the guys in my squadron, not while on deployment, but by a fellow sailor while in school. I was treated with nothing but respect for the job I did by my squadron mates. Chiefs respected my knowledge and ability. I was one of those 5’4″, 120 lb females that pushed 50 gallon LOX carts around by myself, and pushed 100 gallon water carts around. And I could have easily drug or carried anyone I needed to, if the need had arisen. There are people who wil rape, there are people who will cheat if the opportunity presents itself, there are those who will shirk their duty–ths is not a military/civilian, male/female issue. Women CAN and DO do as much as men and absolutely should be afforded the SAME opportunities to protect and defend and serve with honor. This is not rocket science. The more we embattle, belittle and blame one side for the actions of the other, the harder our daughters and their daughters are going to have to work to be treated even close to equally.
Ha, how comical. the fact that yo think pushing around a lox cart is a huge feat shows how weak you are. pushing a cart on wheel is simple. dragging 260lb body while you (especially in your case) have twice your bodyweight in gear is the tough part.
i am sure that, although you feel so full of yourself and feel you can do anything men can do, never complained about the fact that your PRT is half as tough, and that you still scored less than the men. what is your max 1 1/2 mile time 30 minutes? ha what a joke.
Sonny, you know nothing of me. I could do 75 pushups in two minutes-full on pushups, not girlie ones. I could do 100 situps in two minutes (I don't know how you girlie those up, but I bet you could find a way.) I never came close to needing the max for my run. If you've ever had to push full carts around a flight line, you'd know they aren't light. None of the guys in my squadron would do it alone. Not one. But I did because of the prejudice I and any females behind me would face if I didn't. I did my job, climbing around on wings of aircraft, turning wrenches, doing scheduled and unscheduled maintenance while 8 months pregnant. Didn't take a flipping day off or shirk my duty once. I worked with Marines and have never had one person question my ability to do my job. I've never had anyone ever question whether I could do my duty, pull a trigger or simply kick someone's butt if it was necessary. Our PT test was the same as the guys and we ran it with them. Was I slower? You betcha. I've always hated running. Get me in water and YOU'D be shark bait, not I. You wnt to know what the biggest hurdle was to overcome? Bigoted buttholes that judged without walking a mile. But you'd know ALL about that.
You keep proving my point more and more. again, you think 100 sit ups is a huge feat. it is not. its a joke. oh wow, you climb on wings? that is the best you have? ha.
you clearly are trying to make stuff up, so lets see no man can push the lox cart around on wheel, yet you can. please!!! and no you don't have the same PRT, yes its still 1 1/2 miles but you get max points for a time that i can walk it in!!!
and turning wrenches is simple. especially now a days. for not lifting anything heavier then a tool box onto that wing. which you think is a big deal.
combat is a whole different ball game, which you have never walked in your life. i guarantee that if you would of went on a hump with those Marines, they would be carrying your gear, while leaving you behind.
it really is no big deal admitting there is a difference. there really isn't. women can do a lot of things better then men. its no big deal. but combat operations and physical skills do not compare, and sorry i am not willing to sacrifice my life, so someone can give it a "try" to see if they can.
read my above about skating. and that is only skating!!! yet women can't do the same thing and vice versa. don't sacrifice peoples live just to satisfy your political agenda, which has no merit.
SonnyG, please stay on topic and try to follow netiquette. Now where did you serve?
huh just how did i get off topic and brake etiquette? Marines since 97 and your credentials?
Sonny, thankfully I knw that not all Marines think as you do. You have lost any semblance of humility. I never said the guys couldn't, I said they didn't. BIG difference. And I never said tat was all the pushups or sit ups I could do, just in that time frame. And, with all due respect, I've faced giants that you can only imagine. Again, you have no clue about me, yet you attempt to insult me. Feel free. It merely shows your lack of maturity. From the situations I've lived through, combat does not scare me in the slightest. But if it makes you feel stronger to insist that I'm weak…well, whatever helps you sleep at night. But you might want to consider this. I am a proud disabled vet. Pin that one to YOUR chest and wear it for over 20 years. You may find a change in attitude. Maybe not.
Trying to get through to Sonny is like trying to explain something to a five year old. Use big words. Well we can tell he never had a tool box to lift. Our tool boxes were damn heavy. By the way when I was in the service the regs stated NO One should lift over 50 lbs by themselves man or woman. Well we all know no one went by that. Just look at the disability fo back injurys. By the way yes I did do my share of lifting etc.
Umm, I ran 4 miles 30 minutes.
Gee, I hate to tell you this but, LIQUID OXYGEN (LOX) carts have WHEELS. One hundred gallon water carts HAVE WHEELS. A 195lb-220lb wounded and incapacitated male in combat situations DOES NOT HAVE WHEELS. This is NOT about equality, this is about PRACTICALITY and/or logicality even rationality. This is serious business about life and death, not about female liberation or some social or economic opportunity. All of that is available in non-combat roles and absolutely in civilian capacities.
Might be doable if they are all menopausal. Like same sex marriage even the thought is beyond stupid. Men and women are supposed to be different and no amount of ignorance will make them the same or equal.
Women should not be in the service, period! They give life, and if the moment came where they had to take one, could they? They are not made of the same components of fighting men, they could not withstand as much torture if captured! The Geneva convention is a bunch of bull when it comes to our enemies handling of prisoners!
i can't go this far. in the device is fine with me. but limited roles. can women be brought into combat zones? sure, under limited conditions, such as a semi-secure town with plenty of escorts. women do help out a lot in afghan and iraq trolling through the towns attracting the locals. they are better at communicating and less intimidating which helps the locals come forward. woman have many great functions and abilities. but not in direct combat. the physical comparison is not even close!
Nope. Bad news. Women's lib, etc. Has absolutely nothing to do with whether a woman can do or not. Has to do with the fact that once a woman has children, there is no sense putting her in harm's way. None.
I don't think it is a worthwile effort. During training a man will eventually stop asking why. Then he will do what he is told. I just don't see that happening with women.
I think this is a tricky one. On one hand, I want the equal rights of all. On the other hand, I firmly believe that physically, men and women are built differently. Period. No matter how hard a women works her booty off, a large majority may not be able to get to the same physical peak as a man. That's why there have traditionally been standards set as far back as 5th grade gym, sports teams, etc. It has absolutely nothing to do with a women not being able to "do it". Its more just that our bodies capacities are made different. I think they're is a group of women that could match 90% of men point for point. But can they all just based on physical reality? I am selfish in the sense that I want every single person out there with my hubby to be able to carry him out–and I'm already worried about the little guys I see! But that might just be me being selfish in that way.
In regards to the comments about pregnancy opting out, sexual infidelities, rape, etc. Those are all things that need to be worked out. The statistics for rape is astronomically bad–that needs to be majorly addressed whether women are in combat or not! (and, both male and female this is happening too!). If someone get's pregnant, they need to be removed from the dangerous situation and I would hope that our female soldiers and marines would be responsible enough to not get pregnant to avoid deployment! In regards to sexual infidelities and female soldiers and marines with our husbands–yes its a high impact, high stress, high emotion situation–but you need to work that out in your marriage and within the unit over there. It goes back to what the Sec of Defense was saying a few weeks ago and continues to state–bringing forth a high level of integrity back into the military. If that can be done, then things such as coupling and cheating, rape and abuse will decrease.
I would say increased training will need to be done to help the men overcome their issue of wanting to "protect" the women. You can say all you want–don't do that, do your job, etc; but psychologically ingrained sense of protectiveness cannot be just undone in the heat of a moment. Increased training would be needed.
Based on my personal experience, I'd say maybe some are capable but far too many having sex while deployed and usually married- one or both. Also a female in same job as husband- lower rank sent him nude pictures after meeting him out of town at a conference- only 5 days later emailing those nude pictures and was very aware he was married. Working relationship was a necessity unfortunately .Continued over two years. You are going to have trash in all levels of life but the military is no place for them. If a male had done this to a female he would be charged with sexual harrassment and thrown out. This particular female is still NCing in Va last we heard. Beware.
as an army crims investagator we have enough women yelling rape on are soldiers as it is and a lot of the cases are bull i think puting women in combact is a joke are men do a fine job they dont need the stress,the worry,are destraction o f letting a female male in combact what we loose enough men in combact 1 to me is to many and i tell you the truth from some of the cases i have had women should not be no where over seas with the men most of them anyway.i have lived on military post since i was 6 years old and i was trained good.my grandfather was a 5 star gen and put me in to junior training.but the women now get none of that hard structure and dont get trained near as hard and no they dont belong the military has lots of more jobs for the women they dont need combact as well.i dont need my man in afgan getting killed for having to worry over somecrybaby woman who aint tough enough to hang he is a col he has enough stress with out more.
You done got trained good by bible thumpers alright, just not teachers in school. Are there no IQ or writing ability minimums for what MUST be your BS claim of army crime investigator?
If army will put someone as ignorant, unskilled and biased as you in THAT position which must require lotsa reports, how can there be any squawk against women in combat? I have served with many far smarter and more stable than you and, I suspect, tougher too.
well all men are interagated by a woman officer far smarter than them.i many troops have told me i have way more balls then they do.you haveno clu as to who i am but all mart ases are intittled to there own opinion.im very smart and i know what im talking about and if you thik you had tougher test me one day.and talk to my school fort benning is where i learned my training and education.i know i coud take you and any other man put against.spelling are a mis pe some tymes dnt hve nothing to do with how toughyou are i bet i have had more structure and training then your ass has ever had and soldiers give me my respct.and if you dont know what army crimes investagator is who is the dumb ass now.
Woman are not physically equal to men even in boot camp an PFTs you see a double standard. woman do not have to complete as many push-ups because they do not have the same physical capacity.
even besides that I don't think its a good idea to mix them under combat circumstances. i know several military families that got broken up because deployed spouses; after living side by side under desolate circumstances, cheated on their significant other. Men and woman are already working in very close proximity and its causes problems now.
From adultery, to harassment, to sexual assault, to fraternization between male and female members, to depleted shop moral due to harassment issues. I don't see how you can ask for more when you cant handle the problems you already have.
The people just need to grow up. If you are going to cheat in 'desperate' circumstances, you will cheat where ever you are. You are just using it as an excuse. He couldn't resist her, she was so sexy in her combat uniform. Come on get real!
to me it is just common sense, when u get two different sex in war. or gays. out on guard duty young or old people tends to fall in love; and when u in love u do most anything to protive the one u love even they are in different unit and they come under attack u will go see about then even if u have to leave ur post i know they are well trained war is hell and not just to make a point
You are right. You have no experience serving. Plenty of men and women go into combat and don’t have sexual relations. There is a thing called ethics and morals. As well as UCMJ. This is where military is vastly different from civilian jobs. Tired of people using excuses to not have morals. Even in combat. We are also cross section of public. We do have crime and terrible people in military. We lowered standards during war to even let felons back in. Trust me, plenty serve without screwing around on husbands and wives,trust me also that those same people that do will do it when back in garrison. I have been in army 12 years and army wife for 27. Women ARE and have been in combat. Stop questioning their capability. If you think there are not problems in all male units, think again. Stop blaming women who serve admirably. If you don’t trust your husbands to be around women then I would say you have a flaw in your marriage.
While I think there are some completely capable women out there, no one really touched on the issue that women have every month. I know some guys who have gone days with out anything that remotely resembled a proper bathroom (meaning an actual toilet and something to bathe in.) If a woman was visited by “that time of the month” it would be completely unhealthy if she was in that situation. I also agree that women that are seeking these slots in combat MOS’ should be held to the same physical standard as men. If you can’t meet that standard, find another MOS. I personally don’t want my husband out with anyone (man or woman) who couldn’t pull him out of a situation if need be.
There's nothing unhealthy about having a period, even without showers or "real" toilets. Plenty of us dealt with that in training situations, whether or not we were headed to a combat job. A lot of women also opt to take the pill continuously while deployed in order to NOT have to deal with periods in that situation. Not an option for everyone, obviously, but it works for many. And a lot of women, especially the extremely fit, low body fat sorts, have very light periods to begin with.
I'm with you on needing to be able to pull your fellow troops out of wherever you are — we should all have to meet whatever the requirements are, male or female.
Sure! Put women in combat and after the body bags arrive at Dover lets see how the President deals with the press. Can you imagine how many pregnant KIA the would be?
I don't imagine there will be a massive sign-up by women for combat assignments. That there are women who can handle it, sure. There are many examples in history. Some of the anti- women comments above are based on sheer prejudice. There was a time, not so long ago, where there were strong anti-black sentiments concerning their fitness for the military. Most people don't think like that any more. As for women, overall, not being able to carry their part of the load, you could separate 140 pound, 5'5" males from the 230 pound 6'2" males and come to the same conclusion. That there has to be basic physical requirements, no arguments. Maybe separate batalions/squads (just like the bad old days of segregation) could be a way to start off reducing mindless prejudices and slowly integrate those that show that they can cut it.
Considering that CNN reported that there were 19,000 rapes in one (1) year in our military I would think the women might be quite a bit safer in a combat zone.
Anyone ever thought about looking at other countries that support women in combat roles? We are too washed with "Missionary" standards to be fair on this issue, what a shame.
They always have been. The question should be: are they able to walk the walk not just talk the talk. In other words, are they physically and mentally able to do the job.
Remember the opening scene in "Saving Private Ryan" when the gate of the Higgins boat opens and machine gun fire directly into the craft kills almost everyone in it? There were brothers and sons and husbands in that boat and it was horrible enough. Imagine if, instead, the Higgins boat had been filled with mothers and sisters and wives being torn apart with bullets. This is was real combat looks like and while many woman could perform admirable under these conditions, is this what we really want?
Not me.
Jeff
I have no doubt some women are capapable of surviving in a combat situation. My fear is when a female needs to relieve herself, will she need to go around the corner, or off into the jungle alone? Being away from and out of sight of her male counterparts would be an invitation for disaster.
They'll use an empty water bottle or something just like they do now in Afghan and did in Iraq. If you're on a 4-5 hr convoy, when you gotta go you gotta go.
I remember an Airborne operation while stationed at Fort Bragg, NC. I was in the Signal Corps, so we had male and female soldiers. After the jump, we had a 4 mile hump to transportation, all on sand roads. We were out in the dark, around 2am, and had 35-55 pound rucksacks and our weapons. I'm 5'7", 145 pounds. One of our female soldiers kept falling out of the march after the first mile. I got tired of her weakness, not to mention she started crying, slung her 35 pounds on the front of my body, and marched the last 3 miles out with 80 pounds of gear.
Women are different animals. The fact that she was crying because she couldn't keep up displays that. It sucked walking for an hour with that weight, but, it was good training. I could quote many more examples, but, why bother. People that know about this issue will not see it any other way. For those of you who don't know, use my first-hand example to realize reality.
Plenty of us have "first hand experience" that is different from yours. That woman failed in that mission. I have a hard time believing that no man ever fell out in the same situation.
The point here is that women who CAN do the job should be allowed to. So the argument that women "can't cut it" is silly — if you're right, you have nothing to worry about. None will ever pass the tests. But if they do, then your argument is wrong, and you need to respect them as a fellow soldier and let them do their jobs.
As long as tey can shoot straight and don't mind the sight of blood. I have no problem.
for women to go into combat–what does that say about the wimpy men in this country who would stand there and hold the lantern while their mothers and grandmothers and sisters chop the wood or change a tire? I'm talking about the men who won't put on a uniform and expect others to pay the price of maintaining their freedom. no woman should HAVE to go into combat so long as the Arthurs in this country are just busy entertaining themselves.
OK! you want females to have the same jobs and titles, DOTHE PT STANDARDS FOR MALES!! NO more inequality
As a retired,disabled, combat vet, i would rather have a gay guy with me in a foxhole than a woman.
There are those ( woman) who are pushing the envelope to occupy the traditional make roles. Ok!
Create a selective service system for females
Then we can really be fare to the equality in the same sex era!
Couldn't agree more.
But how many of our current forces were drafted?
There are those ( woman) who are pushing the envelope to occupy the traditional make roles. Ok!
Create a selective service system for females
Then we can really be fare to the equality in the same *** era!
i served with the first cav in Viet Nam 1967 68 in the swamps and jungles caring 100 pounds of ammo and supplys , can a woman do that some times 30 days with out a bath i dont think so s sgt tom park retired
The USA is one of a few countries that don't allow women in combat. But if they can handle combat roles,why not.
If we keep asking the wrong questions we will keep getting the wrong answers. The question should not be can women fight? Of course they can. The question should be, "Do we need women in combat roles." The answer to that question is a resounding NO. Of course, there will be those who claim that women can not be promoted to the highest ranks unless they can serve in front combat line units. Perhaps that is true, but it is also true that a woman's ability to be promoted should not be contingent on being on a battlefield with men. Former US Senator Pat Schroeder started this non-sense and it has been an abysmal failure. The truth is that no one has "a right' to serve in the military or to serve in combat. That includes women, no matter how well intentioned or reasoned.
I worked in a male only MOS for most of my 25+ years in the military with the exception of a 1 year tour with a trans unit. There were a lot of problems with a mixed gender in the unit, but fortunately it was with the lower enlisted. There was a case of personal pictures stolen off a female Soldiers computer and then made the rounds of male Soldiers. The female was given an Article 15 and 3 of the male Soldiers were given Article 15′s and transferred to another unit.
So my feelings of women in combat MOS’s is a big mistake.
Why did she get an article 15? I've had my personal effects and computer broken into by male Soldiers as well, so I can believe that. But if she did not distribute them, then why is she in trouble, unless of course they showed illegal activity?
As a combat Infantryman – 3 purple hearts: Less than 1% of woman have the physical capability. Frankly not too many men have it either. Why complicate a life and death scenerio with an experiment? Isn't the fighting mans fragility complicated enough with political whims the way it is? Grow up America these men need help not a hand tied behind their neck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Although the Lord of the Rings is a piece of fantasy -fiction, one of my favorite quotes is by Eowyn "The women of this country learned long ago, those without swords can still die upon them. I fear neither death nor pain." Let the Shield Maidens fight & defend their country as well, for they truly know the risks they signed on for!
females have been surviving rape since the dawn of time. Men are told in the military that ther are superior and females don't belong helping create this split and resentment of females. the job of a soldier is to protect there fellow soldier.], so don't tell about the bull of men getting overly protective. The military has expected soldiers to perform above the norm since a military was established so goes the same for females. yes normally females are different physically doesn't make them less valuable. their tolerence for pain is higher. their leg muscle structure is entirely hte same. females have very strong legs. their
percentage of hitting their targets are higher. they can take a higher percentage of g forces. their only physical is of course upper body and I can tell you by personal experience females can achieve a level of p[hysical abilty that will not hinder them in the feild or their unit, take females a little longer to get there because they are pushing themselves to places they never been before, but females can and do adapt, while fighingt the general stigma from males. men need to just except the reality and get on with it. stop the wnining they complain that woman do. On the other hand I do agree with no special treatment after training if you recieve a diploma or certificate saying you are accomplished in doing what ever task
then females need to do it and suck it up. I belive co-existance can occur, feild work as any soldier knows is completely unique and demands 150% of everyone. most don't have an choice of where they go the goverment first picks the jobs they need to fill, so no bull about woman just wanting to be macho or hard core they probably didn't have the choice I didn't. It's not the job that breaks woman down it doing the job and having to fight relentlessly agains men and their stigmas.reality is war is hard for anyone and even thoughs hard core men sooo tough and ssooo superiorly brave break and come home witrh wounds, but you don't here woman calling them weak
cuz they got to cry or drink their nightmares away, Don't look at a woman just because she cries and say say she can't hack it. I you do you better look at yourself first. woman have been surviing in this world despite men for I don't know how long. We don't need you like we need to breath, we want you. WE can survive without you, except for the purpose of species survival then I guess you would have to say we need each other equally. If woman go into combat they should make the decsion to place family life second and not have children til after their tour of duty is over. I this this should be required.
The question should not be if women are capable, because naturally they are, but rather why are women having to step up to the plate in a combat role? Where are the men? And why do women feel a personal need to do this?
Why would you assume that the sense of duty to country and fellow man that cause men to sign up to fight wouldn't exist in women?
In my experience, the motivation of the service member has little to do with reproductive anatomy.
Simple answer; NO
WOMEN can do it. We are meaner then most guys. I served during the '1st' gulf war. I left the squadron I was in because they wouldn't send me over, transferred to a MOBBS unit. I didnt get to the front line but I was close. I had spent my entire career getting ready for this. I had no problem taking out someone comming at me, this is what i trained for. They had the women all together at the front of the tent city, screw that. But I stayed with MY guys in MY units tents (had my own tent with 1 other female) because I actually had a smart boss. We supported each other, stuck together. I never went downtown alone. You, Just have to be smarter then the average butt head. The day I left one of the MWR people was saying I shouldn't be there. I was there almost six months.
all u dreamers that think women are physical equals of men better get your heads out your butts you are not, nor will you ever be physical equals. no amount of weights you lift, vitamins you take, congressmen you convince or dreams you dream. the men that support this action should be put in the same dream battalions as you so the point can be painfully proven. some americans are such idiots.
I think it is about time Women got into the mix that Men have been facing all this time,
If they want to go to war and shoot at things I think They need all the training that They
need to do the job and put them out there with the men. I saw a lot of Medical Troops
in Viet Nam put Their lives on the line for Me, and I did not want in that nasty war, but if those
Women want to feel the sting of war welcome to the hell of war.
Are there women who have the physical capacity to stand up to the demands of combat? Absolutely. Just as their are men who do NOT. The primary question we need to answer: Will the benefits to US military combat proficiency outweigh the inevitable angst and the costs associated with adapting doctrine, facilities, training, education, etc … More broadly, we may want to ask ourselves if it's more important for our military to be able to fight our nation's wars or to reflect the ideals or our society? Just as the military is not a democratic organization, it isn't an equal opportunity one either. Forcing it to change in character will come at a risk to the primary purpose for our military to exist.
Thanks for asking my opinion. The answer is NO.
This is NOT WWII and this is NOT Russia. We are NOT fighting for our countrys survival. Keep the women where they are, in the support roles, and everything will be alright. Change it, and we are asking for trouble.
Females should NOT be put in combat. Any country that allows this will not be strong for long. As a Vietnam Vet, no man who has been in combat would approve of this move and even if not a vet common sense and even some Godly sense would show the issues with it.
If we had real leaders in the Military they would fight against females in combat. But these same "Leaders" approve of sodomites in the military. I have advised my kids NOT to join todays military its not a military that will continue to win wars
It's not a job, it's an adventure. Real hand to hands combat… No, but.,as
long as they can shoots rifle and carry their combat gears, it shouldn't
be any problems to most women. The combat gear is more than 120 lbs , full load. It's not fair to their male counterparts, but it should be optional for females to be in front line combat. Adios.
The United States fought and won a two-front World War with only men in combat roles. There is no national defense "need" for women in combat roles. The reason that women will be allowed in combat roles anyway, is the same reason that women are given favoritism in terms of promotion, the reason we went to Don't Ask, Don't Tell and now to opening the military up to homosexuals, and the reason for many other things of the sort: politics. Generals and admirals who want to be promoted support whatever the president and Congress want them to support. To my knowledge, the last general to quit because he disagreed with a stupid policy was General Singlaub. Today's self-interested generals and admirals believe only in getting promoted and then retiring as the V-P in charge of nothing at any corporation willing to give them an inflated salary.
A veteran of 22 1/2 years of service in the Army, I believe this is a mistake. As Americans growing up, young men protect young women in times of danger. How many men will take extra risks to protect their women counterparts while in combat? I'm a father and a grandfather. I could not see my daughter or my grand daughter serving in an infantry or armor role where they might be maimed or killed. Perhaps this is a generational thing. The Israeli women do participate in combat roles, and they're quite good, I hear. I just am not comfortable with this decision.
Most of the comments that I have read suggest that many people, including myself, have serious reservations about placing women in combat roles. I have no doubt that some women are up to it, but I think that biologically and socially, nature intended to make a distinction between males and females. Each has his/her own role to perform in order to promote the general welfare, and just because some women CAN fill a combat role, the question we have to ask ourselves is SHOULD they. We have the technical ability to alter fruits and vegetables and to clone animals (and perhaps humans), but SHOULD we? Even Margaret Mead, the famous anthropologist, had doubts when she said "I do not believe in using women in combat, because females are too fierce." I don't think she was trying to be funny.
I served during Viet Nam, The Gulf War and this war 31 1/2 years active and reserve, enlisted and officer. I understand we are blessed in the military with fine women who want to be equally as active and supportive as male counterparts, and that women are somewhat forced into a position of seeking some roles that some may not otherwise pursue but need to in order to be competitive for promotion. I aslo believe that attitudes are formed by how you were raised. Myself, I was raised to watch out for my sister and my mother and that you don't hit women. If you are any kind of man you watch out for and take care of women. So no disrespect to my sisters in arms but the way I was raised I would be distracted trying to watch out more so for a female, obviously we all watch out for each other but I guess I'm just Old School. God Bless all you men and ladies out there, be careful and come home safe.
Most of the comments that I have read suggest that many people, including myself, have serious reservations about placing women in combat roles. I have no doubt that some women are up to it, but I think that biologically and socially, nature intended to make a distinction between males and females. Each has his/her own role to perform in order to promote the general welfare, and just because some women CAN fill a combat role, the question we have to ask ourselves is SHOULD they. We have the technical ability to alter fruits and vegetables and to clone animals (and perhaps humans), but SHOULD we? Even Margaret Mead, the famous anthropologist, had doubts when she said "I do not believe in using women in combat, because females are too fierce." I don't think she was trying to be funny.
True women have served in combat, but only a select few. They are allowing up to 14000 jobs to be open to them, in tight knit 3-4 man crews and expecting them to fit in. When a woman can lift me up and drag me bleeding down the road of Afghanistan then she can stay in my section. I am currently serving in one of these MOS and it is a cramped work enviroment. We don't have time or the capabilities to allow her to come in every 72 hours to wash and set up her own sleep area. When she can ruck with 80 lbs and a 240b then I will not complain one bit. Its not about "O my husband will have temptations" its about SHE CANNOT PHYSICALLY DO THE JOB. Maybe one or two out of hundreds can hang but the rest cannot. They want the same job give them the same tests. Otherwise she is getting sent to the Training Room or S1, not going to be in my section.
I feel that men are incorrect when they say a woman can not serve as effectively as a man in a combat situation. Each woman is different; but, if they can meet the qualifications (same as a man), they should be allowed to serve. Many women will make better combat solders than some men. The Israeli Defense Forces allow females in their military. They have one who is a Major General, and another who was the first to command a sniper platoon. In fact all Israeli citizens upon reaching the age of 18 are required to serve in their military, with some exceptions which have nothing to do with gender. Also, LGBT have been accepted, with no ill effects to the Israeli military. If any of you guys need a wake up call, just tell one of the female Israeli soldiers that she can't do her job. You'll most likely get knocked down, tied up and buried in the sand for good measure. Why not let the women compete for a place on the battleground? I personally think we've earned it, and will surprise the men by showing them what a good job we can do.
I don't think they are allowing women to go into combat MOS's, just into combat units. With that being said, I still see a big issue with it. I am a combat medic and have served for 22 years now and while I have seen some pretty high speed women in our military I highly doubt there will be few that can throw on a 60lb ruck sack and a 20 to 30lb aid bag on top of that and hump up and down the mountains in Afghanistan with the Rakkasans in the 101st or the 82nd Airbourne Division… But our MOS is one that is tagged to allow women to be in combat units.
And to top it all off what they are doing is allowing young NCO's and Officers (Women) to be Platoon Sergeants and Platoon Leaders…. so, if you have a female Platoon Sergeant that can't do what she is telling her young Soldier's to do THAT IS A PROBLEM because in combat a leader has to tell Soldiers what to do and they CANNOT hesitate PERIOD or people die plain and simple, but if you have a leader that the Soldiers don't respect because that leader can't perform to the same or the way it should be, BETTER physical standards than the Soldiers underneath him or her then that's what you get….hesitation!! I know because that's just the way it is in those types of units.
I don't even want to mention the sanitation aspect of it all… I have had times where I wasn't able to take a REAL shower or use a REAL latrine for over a month. Do you think that is the best thing for a female that's on her menstral cycle?? Again, I have seen and served with some hard core women in the last 20+ years, but some things or should I say some units just won't function the way they should with female Soldiers. My two cents….. Not that it matters much but what the hell!
Now that they are allowing openly homosexual people to serve in the military it blurs the lines between the genders even further. At this point in time I would not make it a mandatory thing like a lot of guys that got 'chosen' for 0311 but if they want to volunteer for a combat job, can do the job and don't mind the lack of privacy then I say let them at it.
In regards for the issue of sexual assault, that is something that is possible anywhere a person serves. The best answer to that is to up the punishment and enforce it with a no-tolerance policy.
As for the issue of women getting pregnant to get out of it. I agree, if they have volunteered for this then that should be a low rate but I would suggest they make it an offense akin to failing to deploy for those who just take off and miss their flight. I know there were women during Desert Storm that were getting pregnant just to be sent home.
After doing several elite training programs as well as a highly performance driven day job, I disagree that women should ever be in the toughest of jobs. Women ARE NOT as capable as the MOST capable men. Due to political correctness I constantly see women be put into jobs that they are not safe performing. In the training programs that a select few military members participate in, the women were repeatedly the weakest links in groups speed across mountain and valley rucks. If a woman can meet the same standards as an elite male, then by all means let her attempt the same job that you would let him attempt. But NEVER should you lower the overall standards so that a woman can attain a job she isn't able to otherwise attain, this will mean weaker men make the cut as well, thus giving us an overall weaker force. Research when women were first allowed into certain roles back in the 70s, this is exactly what happened then. We need strength, not politics.
Women can be as capable as a man in a combat role. Not all women and not all men are suited for such. I think women should have to register for the draft, and I think that the ones who can qualify for the rigors of combat arms should be assigned to it, so long as they can drag the weight, do the pushups, run the miles, shoot the scumbag, and survive the culture. A woman OR man who cannot hack the infantry should never go to the infantry, but an extra pair of sandbags and an inverted gun shouldn't DQ a potential combat soldier.
i feel very sad for the children of the mothers who chose front line instead of family, do you not know you are serving your country more honorably by raising children with morals and stability…children first and NO a father cannot and does not take the honorable place of a mother,,,nor does a grandmother or auntie etc..
As a former Army officer I can tell you this is yet another case of willful blindness. Everyone who has served in a mixed gender environment in the military knows they detract from the mission, and what detracts from the mission costs lives. If women are so equal to men, how come we can't even protect female soldiers from our own male soldiers? This provable and catastrophic sacrifice of mission effectiveness for the sake of political correctness is a crime built on a foundation of lies.
The long and the short of it is this. If they can meet the requirements (PT being modified slightly) and do their job they should be allowed in. Not every man who joins the military can hack it as a grunt or combat arms person, but many can. Now, it is likely that the percentage of women, because of cultural and biological reasons, who pass will be less then that of men, but there will still be those who pass. All this stuff of *** and fraternization is irrelevant, it is a similar argument used against gays in the military. Generally, women are just less conditioned to violence than men, both genetically and culturally, but men will freeze up just as easy in most cases since most now have no understanding of violence either. That is why that have training!
Any woman who can do the SAME physical feats/tests as the men could be given the chance for combat assignment, but none of t his BS where he does 50 push-ups and she does 15. I don't want some panty waist 90 pound runt trying to haul a 180 pound infantryman off the field or complaining about having to carry the mortor base plate.
I don't think it is a good idea at all, but if we're going to do this, then there's just one cut line.
In these new no-front wars that are being fought now days, there are no front lines. As for carrying a woman's gear for her, that's on the sucker who's doing the carrying. Admittedly there are female slackers as well as male, I've had to deal with both kinds. You look the slacker in the eye and tell them that you know where the BS hits the road, and either fish or cut bait. Sometimes, though, it's because nobody showed the individual the right way to do things, so you explain how to do it better. It didn't hurt that I and other women in the unit were doing the things the whiners were complaining about. If they want to be carried they don't need to be in the military. If we are willing to carry our weight, there's no reason why we can't be in there. As for the "pregnancy to get out of deployment" issue, as far as I'm concerned it's a non-issue. I've seen enough guys who tried a lot of ways to get out of doing what they don't want to do, that as far as I'm concerned the argument is horse hocky, and just dissing women.
Women should not be on the front line period. Unfortunately I was not allowed in the military, (asthma), but all 4 of my brothers were present and 3 served in war zones. Unequivocally all 4 stated that women are a distraction and ruin the cohesion of the unit. One of my brothers was a electronics technician on a harrier jet, and there was a girl in the class that was sleeping with the instructor so she could pass. She ended up passing the course, and knew nothing about electronics. She went out into the field endangering pilot's lives b/c she could turn tricks. If that was a man he would have been drummed out and put in another job.
I’m all for women being able to do combat cause it is a decision that isn’t forced on them it is chosen. However many men including me are chauvinist’s when you ask we say we have lost men in combat. Women will never be equals in a combat role until they become equals in death. That’s just a fact.
We have lost women.
No women in combat positions….Reliability in her to do the job is zero.
Joe B
Msgt USAF (ret.)
What the hey! If that is what they want to do it is their choice, not yours-not mine.
Women in combat is like tits on a BULL !. Not much USE. A man will have to do all the heavy work. It will cause trouble in the ranks. BUT it is a all volunteer force., do what you want.
I would venture to say that most younger women (18-30) feel that they are just a good as the men. However, women ARE the weaker sex – physically and mentally!! Women don't have a clue, even after training (in America) what in the hell war is all about! Seeing one of their own or another soldier (male) seriously wounded or killed will freak them out! They have no concept of what is really expected of them – thinking of sex of course. If they don't "put out" then they are considered bitches or lezzies. If they do put out, then they are sluts??!!! You just can't win. Women have NO business being intra mixed with men during combat situations. Oil AND water just don't mix!! Get that thru your heads. Men are men (thank God) and women are women. Since having both men and women in combat, the cries about rape cases have sky rocketed!! What would you expect?? Pay attention! They are just too young and put under so much stress going into a war situation. Stay in the cafeterias – in the hospitals – any place but where they are in the combat zones!! They cannot do the job of the men – plain and simple…
We do know what is expected of us, in war, in our jobs, and by some of the men. My body is my own, and I chose to keep my pants on. If the men had a problem with that it was their problem.
So if woman can be active in combat, we can safely assume that any woman in a hostile sector are possible combatants. When men get that order that ROE’s are open, is already tough for moral men to just drop enemy men on site. Now they would drop men and women on site. Most of everyone on here is only thinking this is one sided. We have to realize, we say “save the women and children” for a reason. Innocence… Now we will loose that. Bottom line is, if we allow women on the front line, prepare to see more cusualties of the enemy being women. Then countries will begin to look at us a war criminals that waste women. I don’t know about you, but when I scope in and see a female down sight, it’s a sigh of relief. Because Im not supposed to engage her, unless im in direct danger from them. If its a male in a hostile sector, assume hes hiding a weapon. Killing is a job, not recreation.
I for one have mixed feelings on this matter. I'm a Vietnam era vet who went on to retire as a US Naval aviator. My 20 years of active duty was spent in aviation. I believe there is a place for wonen in aviation. It is far enough removed from the physically demanding close combat scenario where one might need to pick up a wounded comrade and carry him or her up a hill while in contact. I don't deny that there are some women out there capable of doing exactly that, however the physical standards of performance for women as a group are not held to the same level as males. Furthermore, young females and males in close proximity will always create sexual tension. Some previous comments dismiss this problem by stating that indiscretions by married personnel would have happened anyway and lay blame on weak marriages. Whether or not misconduct takes place, the sexual tension will be there. It is a product of our culture. We are as americans constantly bombarded by sex. It is used to sell everything from cars to laundry detergent! We cannot expect our youth as military members to be able to ignore this conditioning. Do we need to burden troops in combat arms such as Infantry or Armor with this distraction while in the combat zone? I think not!
Women should NOT BE ALLOWED IN ANY COMBAT MOS. They just can’t, it’s a guy thing. I don’t even trust women driving a car, let alone a tank!
From A female veterans point of View. After being Front line support, I say I Don't think that we are ready.
I Feel that unless you had an All Female Front line unit this MIGHT Work, But I have seen the protective nature of my brother soldiers come out when the s#i* is hitting the fan, and they would be more anxious to protect the female soldiers than protecting themselves.
Just because WE Can Do something Doesn't neccessarily mean that we should.
As a retired colonel and former combat arms brigade commander, I had the pleasure of serving with many female soldiers I would put up against any male soldier-front line or rear echelon. If they are fully mission capable — and those of whom I speak clearly were — it is pure pragmatism to deprive them of the opportunity to serve in any position for which they are qualified. It is high time they were allowed to serve without artificial limitations on when and where.
Be prepared for a rise in sexual assaults and pregnancy.
Women are not wanted, not needed and definately not effective in any military roll. If we are going to insist on having them, then there should be definite limits on when, where and how they are allowed to participate. Stateside only, train in female only units, and no single parent crap.
We have so “wimped-up” our military training to accommodate females that I could probably get thru basic at my age (68). I was still passing all PT at 60 when I retired.
There may be a few women in our military that could do the job and I no we join to serve and defend. But, as a combat recon marine that served in Vietnam I would say it takes a unique person to do that job. I am talking about combat fighting and there are few that really hit the sh%! more than once and told the tail. Out of 30 missions in enemy held areas I made contact 21 times. There were people killed and wounded several times. It was a horror that I would never wish on anyone though sometimes it has to be done. Even with our best training there is no training to prepare you for a real fire fight at 20 feet. Just keep your head down and don't forget to pull the pin.
hold your pants by the belt loops, but don't hold your breath it's a reality… You men might prepare yourselfs, any haters suck it up an d drive on. Were excepting being told how to live our lifes any longer…You might be careful and treat females with respect or you might find they leave your but where you stand and not pull you even if they can..
To check out combat missions that were conducted in Vietnam by 3rd Recon Bn./ Force Recon 3rd Mar Div. go to http://www.3rdreconfewproud.com go to company pages on page 3 and click on a
'company". There are several missions in each company. Charlie Company has individual diarys which covers enemy engagements that include hand to hand combat. These missions are of combat marines and their supreme sacrifice.
I was in the Army for a couple of years and even though I passed my APFT and sometimes maxed it, At 63 inches and 102 lbs. I could never take on a man in a fight. I work in an infantry unit as a medic. 114 men and just 6 females in my unit. I was the one who spent my teenage years with this unit and it changed me. I endured a lot of hatred and just mean men. I did prove to them I could hang, I never cried or complained about anything. The did respect me and since I wasn't a slut or a lesbian, I was taken care of by my unit. I also changed, because of all the talk of women were worthless and useless in the military, when I went to another unit I had no respect for other women in the military, They wore makeup and were lazy and flirty with all the men, they cried and were emotional when they didn't want to do something. I now understood what these men were talking about and I agreed that most women were not capable of doing a good job or could be a soldier that didn't use sex to have an easy assignment. Here I was married and faithful to my husband (he wasn't) and I was shocked and disgusted how most of the females behaved. The military is still the same according to my sons who are active duty Army. Most heterosexual females would kill and destroy to protect their babies, but I don't think that it would come as easy to kill others. I think that lesbians would maybe do better with a combat units and maybe would do alright. But I never saw any super star lesbians with super strength or who were more gung ho to get the mission done. I am tired of people talking about other countries, we have 380 million people in the U.S.A and Israli has only a few million, Of course, they need their women to help fight, they have no population. We don't need to have our mothers and aunts and daughters fight in combat. It should be a volunteer basis, not mandatory. I am very sad about this and if I weren't so old I would go back in and try to do this just to prove what can happen to a female in a prolonged combat setting. I would like to see if it would change me mentally and emotionally. Would I have p.t.s.d?, would I still be a good mom?. Would I been a good person? Will we have to start training our 10 year old daughters and granddaughters to be super soldiers? I know some women can do this with no problem and I hope they do, but I think this is a mistake for the future of our country and the role of women as mothers and wives. How is this going to change the dynamics of the family for the future generations? Men in our country have always been the providers and protectors of the family, how is this going to impact their role as parents? I think that the government is getting scared about the future because of China and its 1 billion people and India with its 1 billion people and the threat of nuclear war. Maybe the government knows something we don't know. I hope our young soldiers can work well together. I just hope we never have a female draft go into effect. We would have to start training our females at a very young age to handle this. Our girls grow up with dolls and playing house while boys play soldier and cops. We would have to change our whole way of life, I have loved being treated like a princess by my husband and sons, I love being a wife and mother. But I still have instances of pure rage and fury at an innocent person who may have taken my parking spot at the grocery store. 25 years after I got out of the military, I still scare the poop out of my husband when I get angry, I have learned to hide and control it . It still scares the poop out of me. I still have no fear of dying and would jump into a fire to save someone. The long term effects of women in combat will be very harmful. Haven't you seen the news about all those soldiers who come home and kill all their families?
Woman in combat; If so, all future wars we will end as runners-up.The military is really beginning to SUCK.
I was enlisted in the Marines before I got disqualified for an injury. Before I was in the Delayed Entry Program I was all for women fighting on the front lines. But then I looked around me and saw all the 6' 2'', 200 lbs men around me and decided that if one of them was wounded, I wouldn't be able to carry them to safety. I wouldn't even being able to fit my hands around my fiance's ankels to DRAG him if I had to. If there were very specific qualifications for women that got combat jobs it's realistic, but otherwise…probably not.
Ultimately, I think it should be based on the mission and who is best to get the mission done. Here in the States, the fight for Women's Rights have been for a chance to show that a woman can perform the same job as well as a man. But, I just don't think that letting them in combat across the board is a wise idea. Frankly, I have seen few women who can physically and mentally handle being out in a covert situation for weeks or carrying a mate on their shoulders. That's the only kind of woman I would want to serve with my husband. If he (my husband) has to worry more about making compensations for her, or tip toeing around her or being PC rather than the mission at hand, forget "equal rights." It's about the mission. It's about his life.
WHAT ABOUT THE NO SOLDIER LEFT BEHIND PROMISE?
HOW MANY FEMALES WILL IT TAKE TO ENSURE THAT THIS PROMISE IS KEPT FOR ONE SOLDIER, MALE OR FEMALE? IT IS NOT PRACTICAL.
what about no soldier left behind yeah okay, how many men fail that anyway
It is more than about time. Many years ago when women began cocking their leg, demanding that they be treated like men, it was time to say OK ladies, let us see how you do like the men in combat. Cannot descriminate on the basis of sex any more. Other countries like the Jewish Nation, has long had women in the military, and have the ladies train like the males. If this nation ever goes back to the draft, I for one, will ensure that females are also included. Many women of all branches of the military have shown that they are very capable of handling themselves quite well. Others have shown that they forgot one thing about the males in the military, especially while in a combat zone — that the males are sexually deprived, and many men are more than willing to take what they do desire, whenever they desire, with whomever they desire.
yeah and bullets have no names too, I say if a man rapes in the field throw his butt in prison.
As the wife of a MC Infantry Plt. Sgt. I say please don't. He has done 4 combat tours and one MEU. In those combat tours he's had to ride in convoys for days with no bathroom rests or privacy. He has slept in fox holes countless nights, made bonds with those men that he will never forget. I wouldn't want my husband peeing beside and building bonds with a woman. And as a leader he tells his Marines what to do all day long and doesn't worry about the language, I also fear that a woman might take offense to what he would say and accuse him of assault. All it would take was a whisper of foul and his career would be tainted forever, even if it was proven that she lied. All this aside from the fact that real assult happens and is a serious problem. There's God given differences in a man and woman that you can't just ignore. Yes there are a FEW woman that can flat out out perform some men on a physical level but the percentage is so slim, don't change the Corps to accomidate that few. We don't need to put them out there and see what happens. They are already serving honorably and I say Thank You. Please stay out of Infantry.
If you have a problem with your husband building those bonds with a woman (which by the way are not sexual) that is between the two of you. How about you please keep your insecurities out of my career?
There is no place for women in combat commands. Unit cohesion will suffer, as will overall morale. I experienced this first hand during the mid 90's. I never deployed w/women but they sent 3 or 4 female pilots to our command and it went downhill from there.We had so much sexual harrasment training it was unreal.Back then all a woman had to do was scream sexual harrasment and someone was in trouble.I guess maybe I would feel different if the physical requirements were the same and I didn't have to worry about who was around when telling a dirty joke or whatever. There's a ceremony in the Navy called wog day when a ship crosses the equator. This ceremony is just about as old as the Navy itself . Now its a ghost of what it used to be. Because the Navy brass is scared of the sexual harassment angle. I know that nothing can ever stay the same forever,but reality is more important than pc.
After reading sooo many comments from sooo many people, I want to give some of my two-cents of thought that I think may help put things into perspective._One, let’s try to break down all the commenters into category of TRUE experience & background. Out of all of us that give our two cents can say they’ve had actual first-hand experience in a constant combat environment, especially with women?!? I think VERY Few from this group would agree with women in combat arms positions such as with a real Infantry unit! Opinions of BOTH genders!_Two, once you skim all the well-sounding sentiment of – “women are human beings too, and they have a will to try hard when their hearts are into it”
“women deserve equal rights”; “some men do lousy in combat too”; “history has shown women capable of significant feats of courage throughout history”; — SO ON AND SO ON…. These are just excuses to cloud & blow smoke over some VERY IMPORTANT FACTS!
Three, the facts are – the US Military has already proven that women & men are far from equal…
One of the biggest arguments against women being equal – LOOK AT THE FREAKING PT TEST! Yeah – there are very few women that may be able to really pass by the Male Standards –BUT very few. But let’s face it – most people for women in combat all-male units are in utter denial.
Sexual/romantic interaction between man & woman is a plain fact of life. Whether it’s by force, intimidation, or consenting – it’s going to happen. We can argue the right & wrong all day but its GOING TO STILL HAPPEN! The Military absolutely confirms this. That’s why they throw sooo much personnel, time, money, recognition & awards, and resources in general at “Sexual harassment” and gender “Equal Opportunity “issues. Some days it seems we have a whole new branch of our Military devoted to this! AND INTEGRATING FEMALES INTO ALL-MALE COMBAT ARMS IS GOING TO MAKE THIS BETTER?!?!?!?!?!?
My greatest concern is the potential cost in US lives before it is finally realized & proven that females put into historically all male “US” – YES – “US MILITARY” WILL ULTIMATELY COST US IN LIVES!
If we could make every idiot who is for females in all roles to become the first participants in such a serious experiment – then yes – let’s give it a try. As usual – there will never be a shortage of people willing to write checks that will be cashed with somebody else’s asss.
I have mixed feelings. We couls send a woman over a hill, he breast flopping in the breeze to distract the enemy but, on the other had, we could send one of the "boys" nude to do the same thing. We are to cultured to put women in danger. We would go to thier defense even when it meant sacrificing our own lives. If she was fat, ugly, and hates men and can shoot a gun to kill somebody with no feeling then I say–go for it.
I understand the desire to make all things equal, but the reality is that not all of us are equal. I would like to dunk a basketball as an NBA player, but unless they lower the rim about 2 feet, that is not possible. As a 25 year Army veteran, I know a case of 5.56mm Ball ammo weighs about 54 pounds for all Soldiers, not less for those who are female; and yet, most of the females I worked with in many units could not consistently lift 50+ pounds (or 100 pounds occasionally) as the standards outlined in DA PAM 611-21.
PART II…
Meeting standards is one thing, but being able to actually do the job is something all together different. For example, there is a reason that Track & Field events are separated by gender…there is a reason there are no female NFL players. It's not discrimination, it's ability. And even if there are a few very rare exceptions, the ends must justify the means. Bottom line, it will come down to ensuring there are enough "successes" to prove that this policy change was the right thing to do…no matter the cost in blood.
There must be a common sense approach, where we weight the rights of the individual, against the needs of the mission. I see a biased approach that makes me fear for those still serving. Let's hope the politicians don't get this one wrong.
good as long as the GALS stay together and not fight w/ the men,, too many difficulties when mixed.. i just hate to see the military using woman to bolster the enlisted numbers.. not enough men?
Put me up against a 150 kg UNARMED Male Marine and a 60 kg UNARMED female Marine and I know which one I'll choose!
Fact is that men have far, far superior muscle mass and even the weakest but well trained male soldier will "beat" a female marine with the same training when it comes to brute strength AND men have a huge advantage! Deep down we have an urge to kill! We did it in the caveman days and throughout history! Women DO NOT have this same genetic characteristic! How many male criminals kill compared to females?
NINETY FIVE PERCENT!!
I was a cop for thirty three years and got belted up more often when paired with a female partner! Go into a bar, any bar, and have a big, burly, strong and boozed up male who hates cops and your first thought is "oh shit, I've got Shirley with me as a partner!"
Mans inherent nature is to stop and help a woman in trouble or hurt! That's just us guys and nothing we can do about it! A female soldier goes down with her belly sliced open and we will tend to stop and help, with a guy we keep on charging! BIG difference!
This is purely political and adding up the percentages show that almost 95% are against females in battle for various reasons or certain conditions if they are permitted.
My son did two tours of Afganistahn and the ONLY females injured or killed were transport drivers! NOT ONE WOMAN WAS A FIGHTING A SOLDIER AS SUCH!
Look at Israel who have had females soldiers doing two years conscription for years and years. Know how many have been killed in active combat – you know, rifles in hand, charging the enemy stuff?
Give up? ZERO! The very few casualties they have had came from IED's, accidents, friendly fire and performing non-combatitive roles. Sure, they all tote a weapon and can probably use it quite well, but the powers to be in the forces KNOW they are not the equal of the enemy either in commitment, killer instinct, strength, Matemanship on the battlefield or the genetic make up necessary.
My son now with two weeks left in his Middle East tour says the basic soldiers are totally aghast at the thought of mixing the sexes, of whom NO FEMALES have battle experience yet could conceivably be in charge of a fighting platoon of men who have none the Vietnam, Iraq, Panama, etc. tours.
It won't work, it cannot work and more male soldiers lives will be lost due an extra responsibility of having to look after the ladies during the killing!
And don't even think about the issue of throwing a couple of hundred thousand young women into a million or so testosterone pumped up men!
Agree 110%!
My brother lost one arm, his eye and half his skull when his transport unit was ambushed in Afghanistan.
Two of the eleven vehicles were driven by decent, well trained and loyal female soldiers.
The occupants of the last two vehicles were destroyed by explosives and he tells the story of one of the females being hauled aloft on a rope by her ankle and screaming and sobbing. She was unsavable but my son and two other guys, against their better judgement, went back to rescue her.
Both his mates were cut to shreds, he suffered life time injuries and the unfortunate female was bayoneted!
He admitted if it had been a male soldier, they would not have attempted the rescue – being female caused them to make a poor decision, and three lives were lost!
I currently have a sister serving in Afghanistan. I am a woman. I am not a feminist. I do believe women should be prepared to live independently i.e education, career, the ability to provide for themself and their family and make choices for their lives. That being said, I consider women to be fundamental to society. When Daddy goes off to war, I want Mommy at home with both arms and legs (if born that way) and without direct combat stress, to take care of the children. I think society as a whole suffers and veers off track when we go down the women are equal to men path. Women are extremely talented and can out think and out perfom men in many areas; however, I truly don't think the front line is the proper proving ground, even if it is somehow "equally" possible – which I do not beleive it is. I embrace our femininity, and yes, I come from a military family so I understand the balancing force of having a Mom to balance out and stabilize the family with loving and compassionate ways – especially when Dad comes home forever changed. Just because certain things can be done doesn't mean they should be done.
Thank you!
Women in combat long over due. Excuse me being one combat veteran in Americas longest and bloodiest war defines me a one who is competent enough to give a valued opinion.Yes our lady with the blind fold should not have to vomit out a comment on this kind of garbage. You put on a uniform you will at all cost defend democracy, country, our constitution and support our way of life.I have been fighting off three types of cancer, spinal meningitis, and pull off the battle field unconscious.First of let me say Vietnamese friends informed my command and they were small women and the reason
I was pull out to the battle field and into United States Naval hospital and did not require the super strength of anyone of American super warriors was friends coming to the aid of a friend. Now let me say this here and now those that excel in high school sports, collage will also do great in the battle field. I have seen the cowards this nation produces Let me also say this our unit help the jar heads keep their date with destiny along with spec and every other hero that puts on those special medals.So when does putting on a warriors uniform make you a hero. In my book a hero is one who knows his mission and when duty calls I will not back down or cry for mommy. One thing about my flag it's colors never ran and the enemy never saw our backs. In short we are so you can be. Welcome aboard new group take take you place in our formation and may you crash hells door with every ounce of energy and with the guts that say," No I won't back down!I will never forget in days of "Jimmy" several senators said this is not the black mans war and we do not hate our enemies. Very simple you came to our country a slave and now you can leave it a free man!
High praise to those men and women who can do the job.Combat isn't for everyone fur sure bgolly.Bless those that have the spirit and will to take the combat challenge.Any force needs all they can get.
My military career started out with the Army in 1980, and my MOS was 17B (Weapons Location Radar Operator), my first permanent duty station wasat Ft Stewart, GA at Btry G, 333 FA, 24 Infantry Div Mech, so does that mean I had a Combat MOS and every day job? I was the only female in my section, and when we went to the field, which was weekly, my gender was not a factor at all. My boss was a Warrant Officer 1, my Super was an E5, and when we went to the field, I was treated no different than my male comrades. I did not like my job, it was dirty, nasty, and I no time to be a woman. I dug fox holes to sleep in, and when the wild boar decided he/she wanted it, i would end up in the cab of the 2.5 ton truck if i was lucky. If I'd known what this job was before signing the dotted line, I would have chosen something more for this woman. Good luck to all of you woman who want to serve in combat, but I have a daughter, and I do not want her to fall into the Selective Service mess. Thank you all for serving, I've been there and done that. Retired MSgt, USAF!!!
I am a retired Viet Nam Vet 1968-1969. This is another PC from the Dems. If women are to be in combat then the following should happen'
1. All women have to pass the PT same as a man . Right now theirs is not the same.
2. Their hair should meet the same standard as the men. This is for health reasons.
3. If they are in a infantry unit and get pregnant they have to be discharged. Because her absents will effect the readiness of that platoon, squad.
4. First create an all women infantry platoon train them then have them fight against an all male unit. Once the bullets run out they must defeat the men in hand to hand combat. If they fail they are out.
5. How stupid are these politicians who most never served in the Army, Marines. I have seen a 5'4" man carry out a wounded 6'2" man to safety but I know a women could not do this.
6. The Dems are using women a political pawns for their agenda to divert what they are really after.
7. The Dems hate the military and everything it stands for so they want to destroy it from within.
8. What they are doing is destroying the integrity of the force they are making it weaker and much less effective and creating problems and putting more and more pressure on commanders.
9. People think it is all the male soldiers fault for sexual harassment, well I'll tell you women create many of the problems themselves.
10. How stupid is it to put young men and young women in a close, tense, dangerous environment and think, really think nothing is going to happen between them. How stupid are they.
11. I ask all the men out their who agree with this how many of you are in the military or have ever served in combat. And why the hell aren't you there so we have so many men that we do not have to use women at all. So many men are turning into weak kneed cowards to let the women fight their battles.
12. Finally this, mark my words is going to get many more people killed, this is not the movies this is real and when your shot here you may not come back and men will naturally protect the women and help her even if it causes him to loose his life and it could jeopardize the entire unit.
What has this country come to, Queer day, queer solders walking hand in hand in uniform, Never in my life time would I see the military so infested with this cancer. where are the strong. Our joint Chief of Staff are a bunch of weak back boned bunch of leaders. Where are the Patton's, Marshalls and McKarthers…I am so glad I retired I will make sure none of my Grandchildren, or any one I know, I will never recommend the military to anyone again.
It is funny, we have all male football,basketball,soccer,golf etc, but we want to put women in combat when they can't even play against nor defeat an all male team. HOW STUPID…..
And yes if they do this then all women 18-35 have to sign up for the draft same as men..Take the same basic training as men and I mean all women if they cannnot hack it out they go.
Definitely should not be allowed in infantry units in combat. There are positions (MOS) in infantry rear areas such as Administration, Communication, Supply, Intelligence, etc., and they will get their fair amount of duty in bunkers at night guarding the perimeter. Putting a woman in the field carrying a 100 pound pack of food, water, ammunition, and assorted necessary gear for
Women in combat? That would be like sending a Lamb to slaughter. This is just another example of the negative amount of brains our Politicians in D.C.have. I guess when you sit on your brains all day these are the kind of ridiculous thoughts that come to mind, after all, all those Politicians will be safe far, far, far away from combat. Number one, no offense to our military women, it is physically impossible for a woman to carry the allotted amount of weight of a backpack, water, ammunition, and necessary gear needed for long distances for long periods of time. Weather, and environmental conditions are bad enough alone along with always being on the move chasing the enemy down. Someone out there has been going to too many fictional movies or watching way too much television crap. Let's see, what about all the Mosquitos, snakes, leeches, and whatever other kind of insect or animal that can be hazardous to the human being, depending on your location in the combat world. Several will be med-evaced because of heat stroke, or total exhaustion because of the never ending search for the enemy. The horrifying experience of being in a firefight, witnessing buddies getting shot or blown-up into pieces from mortor or artillery rounds, booby traps. or some sort of IED. Now the fun comes in; if you survive the fight, you get to pick up your moaning and screaming buddies, and this comes in three forms: whole, pieces, or dead. No, I don't need a woman with me in combat situations to have to worry about. It's automatic for the American man to look after and protect a woman, and I fear this will cause a lot of unnecessary deaths. The combat infantry is a never ending job lasting weeks to months for each operation, and infantry men do turn animalistic with time. In my opinion, women in combat front lines is an unwise decision, and a grave mistake, pardon the pun.
I admire, and give great respect to all women serving, and those planning on entering the military, however I wish that you will never have to see combat face to face. I guess you have to have been there to understand. I was in a Search and Destroy Company USMC 67-68 Vietnam. Motto: "You have never really lived,– —–until you have nearly died".
i served during the Viet – Nam era,,,,67-68……nuttin against women…i love em all…..that would've never been thought of or happen…..are you kidding me…
us army infantry 63-83
thks
If we can perform as well as the men, then we should be allowed in the position we want. It's rediculous for someone to say you can't do something just because of your gender. How would you feel? Well, if we can pass the infantry course, then I believe we should be allowed in the infantry.
Hell no. Plenty of women pass that and the truth of the matter is, just bc you did doesn't mean you can pull off some of the big boy stuff. Science makes us different. When women are done getting their panties in a bunch over not being able to KILLLLLLLL someone- what is the world coming to? What these men do for us is horrible and wonderful at the same time. What is just plain horrible is a woman getting in the way of a wonderful thing. A man coming back from combat is wonderful. Not coming back bc a female couldn't throw him over her shoulder…. that's why you shouldn't be there. My husband works out three times a day to ensure he can RUN with another man in his arms. A women will NEVER be able to do that for him so I say, get the hell out of his way bc if you're what keeps him from coming home, I'll be visiting yours.
I'm sorry if it offends anyone, but my husband serves special forces and a woman who did not want to be on the team was assigned to the team. He served at one unit where a woman who could actually pull her share had to try out. This crap where women are assigned roles they can not actually do is bull. This chick was smaller than me. She's probably 110 lbs on a team of men who, like my husband, are 200 lbs, 6 ft tall walking muscle blocks. There is no way in hell she could possibly pull my husband out of the line of fire had he been shot. So what if another woman thinks she can? To the women who can't just back off and find the spotlight elsewhere, know this: none of the wives appreciate your service where it isn't welcome. You put my husband at greater risk than he is already in. There are a million things for women to do in order to make a difference. Make the biggest difference in the men getting home and just get out of the way! If I got the news that my man didn't come home bc some flimsy little female couldn't do her part, I'd find her. And I wouldn't be nice.
As long as they are mentally and physically able to perform all facets of the MOS, I see no reason why women shouldn't be allowed to serve in whatever way they choose, the same as in any other workplace.
It's not like multi-million dollar corporations are hiring women willy-nilly without them meeting the requirements of whatever job they're seeking, this is just bringing the military up to the same standard–if they can do the job, they have every right to it.
Besides which, in a lot of situations, women have proven to fight longer, and with more tenacity than their male counterparts. There are tons of adages in nature referring to the female's ferociousness in protecting their young–what on earth makes anyone think female soldiers will be any different than a pissed off mother bear?
I can guarantee you I am fully capable of ripping someone's throat out with my teeth of my daughter were being threatened, and I know most mothers out there feel exactly the same. No reason they shouldn't be able to step forward to protect their families and country overseas like the menfolk.