Like Jacey wrote the other day, here at SpouseBuzz we are on the Girl Team. We like the idea of the ban on women in combat being lifted, because we think that women can and should be able to reach whatever heights in whatever profession they choose — and that includes the military.
But we know that many of you do not agree. We know that our readers come from all walks of life, with experiences that we do not have.
We want to know what you think. So we are running a little poll to find out. Do you think women should be allowed in combat? Take the poll and view the results below.
Fill out my online form.
About Amy Bushatz
Comments
It really doesn't matter what the current standards are to qualify for a combat arms MOS much less Special Operations Forces (SOF). What will happen is that if enough women who attempt the infantry or SOF training, fail, those training standards will eventually be lowered to pass "enough," women. It has happen many times before.
Once our politicians witness the vast majority of the female students dropping out, they will be forced to come to their aid.
Unfortunately standards will eventually be lowered. There are physical differences and also even on manuevers will most woman be able to hold up with the men.
The story is right, the woman who pushed for this didnt realize eventually it could cause all females to register for a draft. Men dont want to be drafted and sent to war and now because of these few woman females may be placed in same position as young men
Then how do you explain women serving in tactical TC, MP, SC, and MI units, and as gunners on vehicles in these units??????? Women team members ALSO have to qualify as gunners. When I was a company commander in a tactical unit, I had females QUALIFY with a .50 cal!
I am not aware of any "lowering of standards" an any combat support MOS, so why would standards be lowered for combat MOS's if a woman was allowed to apply.
What is "enough" women?? The Army looks to fill "shortages", yet I suspect NOT MANY women would even apply for those MOS's because of physical ability requriements. If SOF standards are "lowered" as you say for example, it may be because the BIG ARMY has for the past few years been trying to INCREASE the SPECOPS ranks due to the CURRENT NATURE OF WARFARE we are involved with….yet you don't rail against lowering standards for males!
So, at the end of the day, how does the Army "meet its requirements"??!
The key here DShirley is "Movement to Contact" The brotherhood of the Combat Arms which women will be trying out for is filled with indiginities, filth, blood, violence and pain. Combat Arms Soldiers have rituals in training to harden their mind, body and soul. These rituals are painful and need to be learned before you can fight. These rituals are going to exact a toll on each soldier to the extent they have ever known. The currency of these rituals is "toughness". Many times in the past a large percent of soldiers will not aquire enough currency to pay to be: 1) Dirty 2) Bloody 3) In constant danger 4) A state of continous exhaustion 5) Terrible living conditions 6) No privacy and 5) Deprivation of all comfort. This life, this spartan life is a choice, and it is based on the needs of the service, not the needs of a group.
So very well stated.
I agree with you. I'm sorry ladies, i'm a female and i can't understand the desire to do this. This requires a man's strength! Regardless to how tough you think you are, you are not as strong as a man! How many women can pull a 200pound man out of harms way with all their gear on? Not many! I don't think they should change the standard either. I see no good coming out of this! They are going to treat you like a man in training! Can you imagine being on your period during training? I know that sounds funny, but there's no breaks to change your tampon! You can die from not changing that thing for days! Some men don't even make through this type of training. I just don't see any women passing and being sane afterwards!
DShirley,
I forgot to mention DEATH, horrible death at your own hands.
What are the PT test requirements for women? Your question has now been answered, that is all.
Firing a weapon effectively can be taught to anyone. The first time I fired a weapon was in basic. There is only one standard, hit or miss. __The few job that do have established physical standards should not be adjusted. Keep in mind women and men have different standards to enter the military from the start. Make all things equal and let the women who qualify serve in these elite career field. (Most career fields are already open to women)__Combat role is not limited to your career: CE Operation Manager in the Air Force do Perform convey duties. (That's my job). So does a Supply Spec in the Army. (That's my sister's job). None of there are combat role, but you will see combat. Expand what is classified as Combat, don't limit it to MOS or AFSC.__
Women are not required to perform the same physical duties as a male soldier. They don't have to do as much to pass their PT test, they don't have to do pull ups in Airborne school, and they get extra consideration for promotion. "Equal Opportunity" is unequal to males, the original study for this was done by an Air Force General, who had never been deployed over seas. The Army is going down hill because we aren't being fair to all soldiers across the board.
The PT test is not a valid standard of anything. So they don't do pull-up at Airborne School. All that tells me is there is no reason to make anyone do pull-ups since the females still learn how to jump out of a plane the same as the males.
I agree – everyone wants females to do the same PT but then forget we have a much harder height / weight standard.
shooting a 50 cal and humping one 14 miles up and down the hills of pendelton is a lot different
women can freak out sometimes under the right situations creating another headache for the nearby guy to deal with influencing his next decision which could make a life changing difference when there are bullets flying.
besides in a life or death situation the guy usually gets distracted by the female instead of completing the objective. even the bible says that females are a distraction hence the forbidden fruit given by EVE who conformed to the snakes will to ADAM minding his own business.
don't even get me started on periods a lot of females can control it and subdue the aggression but there is always that handful that cannot do such.
And I had men freak out in my command when facing combat. Had one who faked a heart attack to get shipped home. What's your point?
"women can freak out sometimes under the right situations…" how vauge and broad is this statement? I do believe men can freak out under the right situations as well.
Lower standards to accommodate is what always happens, sadly
Yep – look what happened at the AFA when women 1st entered. I was there and I saw exactly what you describe.
While I agree with you
While I agree with Carl, heres something else to think about. I had hoped this issue would die a natural death before my only daughter came of the age to be affected. I am reminded of many of the fools I heard make comments like 'I sure wish I had gone to Vietnam…..' This falls in the same vein, be careful what you wish for, you might get it. We've killed off and wounded most of our young men, now Pinheada wants our daughters too. When are you people going to learn? You are being manipulated again and unfortunately, most are too ignorant to see it! Do you think those in the upper levels of society are going to let their daughters go into the military and especially into combat? If you do I have a bridge for sale!! With the world being a powder keg, and an incompetent fool or two in key leadership positions don't you realize you are now signing the death warrants for your daughters as well as your sons?
CONTINUED….As our current military is being disassembled by the current political regime, where to you think the 'replacements' are going to come from? We will go back to the draft WHEN these fools lead us BACK in to another war and now, our daughters can be used to fill any vacancies, including front line combat! Do you think Osama Obama's two little ebony princesses are going to get pulled in or drafter? I guess I shouldn't ask such a logical question, after all, you all voted the muslim loving racist back in for a second term! My concerns about women in combat are not based on my fear that they can't do the job. They are based on the fact that now, not only our sons, but all of our children will be ALLOWED to die for their country in any war the politicians start. Wake the hell up America, we are being led to slaughter!!
I totally agree Top!!! Any woman who wants to go into combat is insane!! Too bad there wasn’t a woman to absorb the grenade blast that got me in nam!!! To those who disagree and want go…be sure to pick out your tombstone and the one for those around you!! I was fortunate…. I survived and made it back. A friend of mine burned to death in his tank when it hit a mine!! If anyone thinks I’m full of it… his name was Wm Larry Evans… Look it up!!! ….ps- The Muslim usurper in the White House has said that if he had a son, he wouldn’t let him play football!!!! Its too violent! You got to be kidding me….. hey obama… your pink panties are showing!! Good example of your “weakness” there pot head Barry Santorum!!!! Have I made any of you mad? I don’t give a hoot!!! If you can’t handle my message… You can’t handle combat either!!
It's about time if women .they can do the job just like a man can do ,with the right training , other countries have women in combat , so should should we.
The physical fitness standards are already lower for women, right NOW they don't have to run as fast, do as many pullups, pushups, or crunches. Hopefully they will have to meet the same standards for combat arms and SOF, but I think the military will be quick to drop those extreme requirements for women (even though most military men aren't able to pass the physical requirements set forth for SOF)
I agree. I was in the Navy when the double standard for physical testing was introduced to ensure that the maximum number of women were going to be allowed to get in and stay in the service. This is not going to be any different. Women have proven themselves in many jobs in the military, but do they have to prove that they are combat capable? Woman was not made for the emotional and physical abuse they would have to go through in a combat situation. The military is taking it's cue from Washington: When the tough decisions come…"cave" to win support!
your right as in other wars when needed draft everone passed. Im ok with woman in infantry but if pass all the test and are ready to serve they also need to go with the same as men CAN'T quit. Men get a job thats it you in you do what your told and cant say o sorry was not as i was thinking I no longer want to do it. As all that been in combad know till your in it never what was thinking. I like alot of most other men when in it would had loved to say ooo this not for me im going home.
You're insane. There has and always will be gay men in the military. You think they joined when DADT was reversed? Some of the toughest men are gay and you will never know it!
Unfortunately you are right; it is more polotical than anything else. Yes, standards for women will be lowered – saw it happen in the 80's for WM's taking the PFT in the Corps.
This thing too a large extent is about politics and not about what is good for the effective operation of the military and the defense of the country. My 28 years of service saw it go from very few women more than 10 percent of the force. I watched them chnaged the standards to meet what the women were capable of doing and men still had to carry a lions share of the heavy lifting. __It is also about a shrinking pool of academically capable and physically fit American men and women. That further com-[plicates the issue. The service chiefs know that in real close quarter combat women won't work well. They will lighten loads and put wheels on things that men normally carry to allow women to try to meet mission objectives.
These wars are not typical of the true infantry mission. Few lived out of their rucks for months living like animals, no clean cloths, privacy, hot meals. Few in Iraq and Afghanistan lived like that, missions were short dismounts or vehicle patrols. I did 4 tours and had women gunners, drivers, medics and they did great. Yes they can die and get blown up in combat like the restof us, no question, they shot people got decorated and suffered casualties. But these wars are not TYPICAL OF THE COMBAT MISSION OF THE INFANTRY!!!! When the body bags fill up with women because of these plans, the public wioll not tolerate it!! Check the percentages of men in combat zones, dead/wounded to women in the same zones, dead/wounded. I'll bet they are way out of proportion!! This law just get rid of the combat exclusion law, women have been in combat routinly since Desert Storm!!
Few?? I know plenty of Marine Infantrymen across several battalions to include myself that lived like animals. Without clean clothes, showers or hot meals. Living out of a dirt hole in a defensive position with below freezing temperatures and having to defecate in the middle of this position with no cover, where everybody can see your genitals cause your doing it on top of a wooden box with a wag bag would not fly with most women. Do you even know what the mission of an infantry squad is? To locate close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver or to repel the enemy's assault by fire and close combat. There is no doubt that women have been exposed to danger, this is not the same as combat. Your POG ass needs to shut up and stay within the profession you know and say no more until you have experienced how combat units actually live.
Your spot on brother!!!!! I went to Nam twice…1st time Mortar man / 2nd time a Medic. If your a woman and you want to go to combat….. Your NUTS! I’m a 100% combat disabled for life Vietnam combat vet. Chi-com grenade changed my life!! (If you have to look that up ” chicom grenade”, duh…. I rest my case!!!)
Your spot on brother!!!!! I went to Nam twice…1st time Mortar man / 2nd time a Medic. If your a woman and you want to go to combat….. Your NUTS! I’m a 100% combat disabled for life Vietnam combat vet. Chi-com grenade changed my life!! (If you have to look that up ” chi-com grenade”, duh…. I rest my case!!!)
Your spot on brother!!!!! I went to Nam twice…1st time Mortar man / 2nd time a Medic. If your a woman and you want to go to combat….. Your NUTS! I’m a 100% combat disabled for life Vietnam combat vet. Chi-com grenade changed my life!! (If you have to look up ” chi-com grenade”, duh…. I rest my case!!!)
John,
I am a Marine Crew Chief and I can tell you that your tours must have been in luxery accomodations. Real combat troops live in the muck for weeks on end. Hell I didn't envy my ground brothers as my time in the field was still spent with no showers, little time for hygeine. Women would not last. If held to men's standards they would fail.
I disagree, My first tour to Afghanistan as a Infantry Recon soldier we did a large majority of operations out in the mountains living out of our rucks. My first one lasting 72 days on the side of a mountain, only walking down from the OP to gather supplies. All three of my combat tours in Afghanistan where like this for myself. It's the support personel who lived in the nice airbases and forward operating bases, the grunts like myself lived in the dirt with no running water, or electricity for a a very long time. I to this day remember how I would average 3 to 4 months before showers on every one of my tours in 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2011. I did a lot of by the book standard infantry operations. Depending your MOS your deployment experience may differ. I was in the Korengal prior to the documentary Restrepo which was made by the unit that replaced mine in 2007.
Hey John, wars don't stay the same. Maybe one day soon, you they will be living out of their ruck sacks and no washing, no clean cloths, etc. Did you think about that. I've been in three wars and they are all different so don't for one minute think this is the normal. The one problem I see is "standards". They will be lowered, you can count on that (police academys, prison force, firepeople (see), etc.). I would really like to see the percentage of women that want to go to combat. Combat is not fun, it is very brutal and and don't know one "sane" person that thinks so. The only person I've seen to complain was a couple of Lt. Col. that said there promotions were stymied because of no combat experience. Wow, I don't see alot of zeros being blown up only the grunts. Good luck patrols you'll need it. You are right about one thing, wait till they see the body bags and the women coming home (if they are really put in combat) with no legs, arms, and body mutilations.
Ed,
There already are women coming or who came home maimed and killed, so your point is moot.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/25/153237…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti…
From http://disability.about.com/od/DisabilityAdvocate…
“According to WomensHealth.gov, there will be 1.9 million women veterans in the year 2020. Of those women, many will have disabling conditions…amputations, traumatic brain injuries, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression.”
Ultimately, women already are and were de facto in combat. Policy is only now finally being changed to reflect the reality.
And as regards to whether women should be allowed in combat MOS’s such as infantry, if they meet the SAME standards, then sure.
I agree with what you're saying there mate. Although I'm not US military but I do hope the UK doesn't go down the same route.
What if women had been fighting in the Falklands war where the Royal Marines, Paras, Gurkhas and Scots Guards bascially yomped the length of the Falklands attacking Argie positions..I honestly think most women couldn't handle carrying all the equipment for that amount of time
john d it must be nice to have no clue what your talking about but this marine went 8 and a half weeks with out a shower in iraq 03. then again in 04 i spent a month plus on a roof top in fallujah with out a shower. i spent 13 months in total in iraq in 2 tours of duty and i ate a warm chow maybe 5 times all i ate was junk food that was sent to me or mre's because that was all we had
You can't be shortsighted. We have to think beyond current conflicts too.
Any woman who wants to be in combat should be sent to a shrink immediately for long term treatment. . These women who say they want to be in combat aren;t being honest anyway. Tthey want to be in combat in NAME ONLY, not physically. Just because someone wants to do something dosen't mean they should be allowed to do it. If these women really think they can do the job that men do in combat, they should proove it by establishing an all woman Infantry Batallion. If they are serious, they would want it this way. But they want to be in with the men so the men can donthe jobs that they can't do, but they can take credit for others acheivement as they do now. I've seen first hand in my 20 years in the Army how it works in too many cases. When you tell a female to do something she dosen't want to do, you are accused of discrimination, sexual harassment. or creating a hostile work place. I got news for these women who want to be in combat. That news is, Combat is a very hostile work place. There are two standards, one for soldiers and one for women who make believe they are soldiers.Sorry girls, but thats the truth even though you don't like it.
Sure, some women can do the job but most aren't built for it…..It's not their fault, God made women to be women and not combat ready troops on the front line…………..This is a stupid move made by ignorant so called leaders looking for a vote! Support roles, sure…….and yes, not all men are made for front line troopers…………..This makes me totally sick and this move will cost more lives for both male and female…………….
AMEN!
I agree that women should serve in combat but as support troops, not front line combat. It is a sad day when we send our young women, our life givers, in front line combat where they will be gang rapped and in some cases mutilated and then killed. Many of the individuals agreeing with women in combat do not remember that musum extremists consider our women as whores to be treated as such and killed if captured. Is that what you want for your daughters and sisters? I sure as hell don't!
Being a retired SF and SOG SFC, The problem on any mission, across the fence or otherwise, would never solve anything by having a female as a 10 or 11 which puts the Team leader in a position to have that compassion to basically try to protect her and jeprodize the mission because of the gender difference. God only knows, 99 percent of SF guys do not want to be put in a position to care for female, on any SOG team when running a mission with the closeness of a experience male team who trust each other with their life. Enough said.
It's about Time we got modern with the rest of the world..China ,russia ,Canada ,Philippines ,Japan South and North Korea,Vietnam,Germanh ,Isrealand the rest of ther world have Women in Combat Unit' why not the United States?.
What of those have seen a full blown war in recent history? A handful of canadian men serving with the US and maybe a few irish. Though not women. Israel? the women are in combat support roles only. Not combat infantry groups serving on the front line. Japan,china,north korea,vietnam,germany? the rest of the world? No, no and no.. You not only do not have your facts right, but none of those countries dare go to war.
Oh yeh, let's compare our military to those of: Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, and Germany. They set the standard, you bet!
Seriously Leo, get real and quit being one of the few trying to make the US more face friendly. The reality is regardless of nationality, the vast majority of women would have their a**es kicked by a well trained man. Women have a role as combat support max!
In the end who cares??!! Let the O-Bummer administration keep plodding this country closer to civil war. When that time comes, lets see the vocal minority fend for themselves.
to be fair i heard about a single israeli company that has women in infantry roles
that unit is always sent to "areas with less action" because the israeli politicians and generals are afraid of what would happen if god forbid one of the girls dies in a combat opperation
altough i read a few months back that one of the israeli women soldiers did manage to kill a terrorist while he was attempting to cross over to israel ,on the same article i read that another female soldier panicked and hid , the male soldiers of the same patrol all acted as they should have
altough its a single case it goes to show that while the male soldiers act as they where trained ,the female soldiers are less predictable
Just look at boot camp. Women are allowed to do fewer push-ups, allowed more time to complete runs, etc. That's one side of the story. Fortunately, that same laxness in standards has not made it to more specialized training schools (like Sapper School). Women there are held to the same standards as men, as far as I am aware.
It's not that some women CAN'T do it. It's just that in the US, as opposed to the other countries you listed, Political "Correctness" will require the lowering of standards so that the right percentage of females can make it.
This is the decline of the west if it is implemented.
You obviously must be a screaming Liberal and probably never carried a rifle in the service of this country, nor do you know your facts. Every country listed has a weak undiciplined armed force and can't compare to the United States nor do they project their power to the magnitude in which the United States does, so your comparision isn't relivent. I have served with many women over the course of 3 decades but never in a ground combat unit, only in a school environment and they do a great job, but integrating them with ground troops will only add major issues amongst the ranks. As Unit Leaders we would spend more time keeping those young 18, 19, 20 year old male minds on the mission and not on female servicemembers, and don't think for a minute it wouldn't happen. Just walk into a Male Locker room in a high school or college, what do you think they talk about…..girls!
Sure, let's lower ourselves to the standards of the countries we tried to be different from at our founding. It's not bad enough we are now trying to be as socialistic (is that a word?) as most failing European countries, let's do it across the board. Why be better when we can be just as bad.
no, israel does not send women to the front lines. They serve in support/training roles.
Leo listen up my friend, we are not any of those countries you mentioned and have higher respect and esteem for our women than they have. Without sounding Macho my friend the USA do not need women on the battle field or in the trenches but more in support roles out of harms way I think we have enough Men in the USA to fight our wars. By the way I am a veteran of two tours in Vietnam with a silver star and two purple hearts plus a slew of other medals. A former Platoon leader and have on several occasions carried men under fire off the field after they were seriously injured by explosions and bullets. We also are having a hard time just protecting and getting women through training without sexual harassment or rape and I dread the thought of a woman being taken captive by our enemies and especially those we are now engaged in conflict with. Carl Jenkins Sr.
I just want to know, have you ever served in any branch?
Everybody says we are the best military force on the planet. That being the case, Why on earth start being like the inferior nations armies. That shouldn't make sense even to you. All these nations you mention except Chins are getting money and military protection from us.You should rethink this and ask yourself, Would this make our military more efficient? Don't fix what ain't broke just to give someone a good feeling about themself
, even though its a false feeling
Because, Leo, we are not: "China ,russia ,Canada ,Philippines ,Japan South and North Korea,Vietnam, Germany ,Isrealand the rest of ther world" And. because we are better than all those countries, and all the rest. And finally the obvious: women in combat in their militaries has not/will not make them better militaries. Period.
this is what happens when the military is lead by managers and not by leaders
Because none of those countries engage in as much combat as the United States military. _(A Korean War Vet, 78 years old).
I would hope there are several screening processes to weed out personnel who would not make the grade. This applies to male as well as female personnel. I believe some Army regulations were dumb down to accept GED and some with minor criminal records, so dumbing down is not new. To tweek the system even more equal, have the females sign on with draft registration at 18 years old. Males do not have an option to do or not to do and all is fair, right?
JPM
I have no issue with GED people, I was one and on my ASVAB i qualified in the top testers. GED does not make you an idiot. Sometimes factors present themselves that you can not finish school. Does not mean all GED people are idiots.
As for criminals? Yes i have an issue with it, but what kind of criminal? Not all crimes are really that bad.
It's all good till one of them gets someone killed. In the Navy we did alot of damage control and fire fighting. That takes alot of physical dextarity and the women could not even lift a wounded man if she had to, not even two of them at once.
The truth is that even if there is a "standard", those on the command level know they must produce the numbers of women and will give many chances to a female not given to the male counterpart to achieve the same readiness standard. I have witnessed this in the aviation field where the instructors will be given a female who has already failed enough flights to be out of the program and they will give her extra opportunities in order to avoid any litigation and to try and meet that quota. The sad part about it is that the female is put in danger as well as the others who work/fly with her if she cannot meet that standard but keeps getting passed along. We are talking about flying million dollar aircrafts here. Lowering the standard puts everyone at risk. The peers know it and they resent it which breaks down comradery too.
Signing up for the draft and serving in/on a sog/sf unit are 2 completely, totally , different things. Anyone who has served with , in or around these units KNOWS THAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let them have the opportunity to try.
Based on the sounds of all the "combat arms" complaining the current Infantry Private should be able to take out an enemy company all on their own. Sgts and above should be able to handle Battalions and a Ranger, well he is good for an entire division so I don't see what the problem is.
Being Infantry Ranger I agree with Dshirley somewhat. Women are just as capable as men shooting a lot of the times better. That is not the problem the problem comes in when you are wearing 60 lbs. of equipment and a 80 – 100 lb ruck doing three month movements on foot with re supply by air from time to time no bathrooms no showers. Now throw in all that equipment plus you have to throw a 200 lb man on top of your ruck so he can be picked up for medevac. Now if she is capable of doing it without having to give off weight to other members in the squad have at it. Women have just as much a right to be shot as I do. Give up the female standard pt test follow same requirement as a male and come have some fun. Now this only applies to spec ops and infantry. Don’t know what constitutes combat mos, but women in artillery, or any other direct support mos keep your pt standard have at it same with spec ops aviation women fly just as well as men.
"Don't know what constitutes combat mos,but women in artillery, or any other direct support mos…" You don't know what you are talking about, if you "don't know what constitutes combat mos".(sic) as artillery aren't"direct support mos".
nise try
I'm sorry bud like I said I was Infantry could care less about other MOSs. Thanks for paying attention to the rest of what I said and if you payed attention I stated that I didn't know so thanks for the echo. Much appreciated. :)
Suck it Trebek!
Damn Straight. I was a Marine Grunt 4 years. 0351. Medeley51's points are dead on. The point of the matter is not about EO and all that other bullshit. I don't know about the Army but in My Corps, Grunts, our Corpsman(FMF with a Rifle Battalion Only!), Combat Engineers and MARSOC line units are considered Combat Arms Roles.
LISTEN CLOSELY. IT IS SIMPLY COMBAT EFFICIENCY NOT ABOUT EQUALITY!!!
And for those that aren't in an actual Rifle Battalions or straight up in a line unit, shouldn't be spewing what they don't know about.
Macgringo, I am sorry to break your heart there, but arty is support. They are not Grunts.
Depends which military you deal with.
Canada: Combat Arms = Infantry, Artillery, Combat Engineers and Armour. As well as Special Forces Operator (CSOR) and Special Operations Assaulter (JTF2)
I will say though that our government opening up the combat trades to women, hasn't done much for numbers. Less then 1% of combat arms is female.
And yes the standards were lowered and we all hate it (the guys at least)
Our father was career military and told my sister and I 'you can do whatever you like as long as YOU
carry your own load" and he meant it figuratively and literally
The other day an Afghan vet was talking about her service among Afghan women and some logistical support.
Then she was asked about whether she would be willing to serve in combat
She said she was not willing to serve in infantry
The choice should be left up to individual women
Okay if that is the case, what do we do about choice for men?
The military is NOT a democracy…………….you serve period and you do it at their pleasure
I not only came out of the military as a dependent but active duty…………..and as a female officer
I see this perhaps more objectively than some women who have not served
I have a question here. I will be the first to admit that I have never served in the military. I apoligise for that. I also highly respect all our military personel. But the one thing I do see in the future is that if woman are allowd to serve in combat infantry units. Then do they have a choice? Then, if they are given the choice. Then do the males have a choice? Why should one gender have a choice and not the other?. What happens if the draft is brought back? Do we now force some Mommy who never wanted anything to do with the military. Do we now force her into combat service?. I'm not sure this is a road we want to go down.
It's been proven on a number of occasions/studies women are excellent marksmen and some can pass the physical standards as they are today. However, our little tests and training can never equal the actual behavior of most females in hand to hand combat and other extremely stressful situations. men and women process information differently, and we socialize differently. Men work in teams better — once the rules and leadership structure are clear — as well as compartmentalize highly stressful situations effectively while not losing sight of a goal. Women are far less goal oriented under stress, and more holistic, making us effective in a different kind of service. Far more importantly, which few seem to mention– how much diversity training do you think the afghan police force and others of the same ilk have received? The goal is defeating cruel enemies not wasting time, taxpayer funds and ultimately lives on photo ops. We shouldn't be paying millions of dollars on this losing initiative.
liar! wo-MEN account for 80 percent of plane crashes! The military makes SMALLER cockpits for wo=MEN!
The generals that were asked by the politicians about combat roles for women had to agree with this administrations wishes. If not their careers were over. Simple as that.
100% correct-so much for true warrior "leaders", sucking up is now the norm, the very top dawgs are chosen for their collegiality not their combat knowledge or experience
Amen Brother!!
Don you are right. How sad it is for American women. There is no one I would rather fight for than the women in my life. But I don't want them on the front lines or next to me. Sad what our leaders are doing to us.
Don you are right. Most Generals………we now hear of Gen. James Mattis USMC being notified of his relief last Friday via email from Penetta. I guess this Gen. actually stuck to his oath of office and actually advised leadership and told the truth. They answered that advice and truth with a "pack your bags". Mattis is currently the CentCom CG. Funny how the media has not picked up on this
I am an x-trooper with the 173rd Airborne, Vietnam. Two tours. 75th Rangers. Having a woman on my patrol? Are you kidding? Even if strong enough, much too great of a distraction for young kids (troopers).
i agree with that point makes perfect sense
So tell me something… How do men do it in the MP corps??
Haha, so women can't do it because men are too easily distracted? Good one old man.
That is right. What kind of woman would want to deal with jungle rot, ring worms, generally filthy conditions, guys jerking, leeches up their ass, horny 19 year olds, dead buddies, and killing people at close quarters? You tell me!!!!
The kind of woman who wants to fight and defend her country just as much as any other citizen of the US States. A woman who would leave her family, her home and friends and go stand the line with her fellow Soldiers in arms. A woman who would sacrifice for her Soldiers in arms, and stand in the blistering cold and blowing wind in the winters and stand and sweat wearing a full pack in the scorching heat. I am a 17 year Army medic, I am a Soldier, Medic then female. I do my work, and I work professionally and I expect those on my squad to be professional. If they can't hack it out in the jungle with their worms, poor conditions, hormones to focus on the mission, then they need to pop smoke and get the heck out of the way for those who want to keep moving forward.
Sounds good. But, probably all big talk and bravado by someone who has no experience with the situation. What is your framework of reference? 17-year Army Medic? What is your rank and what kind of jobs have you done to be so self-righteous. Get real lady!! The only smoke I see is the one you are blowing up my ass. Now if you should have relevant experience and have gone through substantial hardship, tell me about it; and I will apologize.
The most dangerous thing in the army is a general bucking to be promoted or keep his job. This was proven yet again by Gen. Dempsey and Gen. Odierno who sold out all the grunts so Obama could tell his feminazi supporters tha het unlocked the final door to so called equality. We need to seriously rethink how these top generals are picked for their positions. The fact that civilains seem to have complete control over senior officers career makes these guys absolutely worthless when it comes time to actually say something that might not square with civilain masters latest social experiment.
I was a Combat Medic in Vietnam, and I cannot imagine have a woman placed in many of the positions we often were placed in. I witnessed the death of 3 friends directly, 2 of whom died in my arms. How is a woman going to handle a situation such as that, when it could even be another woman that she might be close to as friends. I highly admired the many women nurses serving in our Evac Hospitals; they put in long hours and also had to witness the mangled bodies, and the deaths. Yes, they were trained for that and knew what they would face overseas in the combat areas. The women nurses, technicians, etc., are great in the hospitals, but NOT our on the lines. So much of this is strictly for political reasons on the side of the occupant of our White House and the DemoRats, going after votes!
it's amazing how many old men seem to know exactly what's best for women and what they can and can't handle.
the constitution makes it very clear. the president is the CIC specifically so that civilians are always ultimately in charge of the military.
Yeah, well I still say it should be changed that way these senior leaders can actually give advice without fear of ending their career. I mean there are some pretty sad examples lately of senior officers appointed by civilains giving less than stellar advice. Gen. Meyers anybody? How nice it might have been for someone to have told rumsfeld something more than what he wanted to hear. Or how about Gen. Casey? He was another brilliant rumsfeld appointee who was a disaster in Iraq and then later as chief of staff. I actually used to like Odierno, this just goes to show you how distorted the process is. No, I'm sorry I have listed plenty of recent examples of absolutely horrible generals appointed by civilains for the sole reason being they would cooperate and carry the company line. The system is desperate for change, we literally can't afford any longer for morons to appoint morons. Besides, you do realize the constitutional is amendable don't you?
Your use of the term "feminazi" tells me all I need to know about your contempt for the concept of women's rights in the present day.
Oh darn! Does this mean you won't like me either? You should realize that for your comment to have any real meaning to me that I would actually have to care what your personal opinion is of me. I don't even know you so it begs the question why would I care?
Women do not belong in combat situations. They are no match in strength against men. God made it that way.
The argument that God made it (the difference between men and women) that way will not hold up in government arguments. The government can neither confirm nor deny the (non)existence of god(s), so using that as justification (for anything) is pointless. If you were to say that men and women are different, and it is just that way, that would be acceptable.
I totally agree – women and men were created for partnerships in life – not combat –
I don't know about that . Have you ever been married?
Women r already in combat situations! It's called the MP corps! Ur ignorant
no God didnt make it that way. i Just joined the Army. Women deserve to do what they want in the military. Defend your women when they are at home. they are equal to you. God make us Equal . not stand behind you or in front of you but beside you. So no God didnt make it "that" way.
Sexual violence is an on going problem and it will increase in combat situations from both sides. BUT the big concern very few woman can carry the amount of gear needed on any spec ops, as long as the requirements are met OK but if not it will cost lives. And unless troops can quit thinking of them as woman and treat them as troops it will cost lives in the Mud and the Blood
exactly. make women pass the test and make men behave their damn selves.
You need another answer in your survey choices.
You alrealy have "No. This is a political issue, not about what’s right for women."
How about "No. This is a political issue, not about what's right for our military."
The difference is significant. After all, what is the objective here? To advance womens careers? to advance a social agenda more favorable to mobility within womens careers? No. The objective is (or certainly SHOULD be) to put forth the best fighting force possible. If that is the objective, then what does "what's right for women" have to do with it, any more than "what's right for men", or "what's right for group X"?
Damn!!! Well said Joe.
good point Joe, but that's not how generally America works. we are all very hung up on equal rights and not nearly as concerned with actual effectiveness as we maybe should be. anyway, once we get the Drone army up and running (a few decades probably) the need for human combat troops will be reduced significantly and this will become sort of a moot point.
This is definitely one of the most stupid statements I have read. Sha'zam! Your a turtle.
I say get rid of any requirements or qualifications. They discriminate and prevent anyone from being whatever they want to be. All of it, physical standards, etc. If you want to be a Navy SEAL, all you should have to do is sign up and bam! You’re a SEAL.
You are beyond sensible, and that's putting it VERY nicely.
Yes, I'm a fat, lazy tub of goo who can't get off my mom's basement couch, but I want to be a SEAL. I'm being discriminated against to be expected to have to meet some arbitrary standard that only fit, athletic types can meet. Where is my lawyer?
now thats some good old fashion sarcasm
I say get rid of any requirements or qualifications. They discriminate and prevent anyone from being whatever they want to be. All of it, physical standards, etc. If you want to be a Navy SEAL, all you should have to do is sign up and bam! You’re a SEAL.
I do hope your kidding. No one is really that stupid. I swear to God Almighty!!!! Please tell Me you are kidding??!!??!!??!!?!?!?!!?!!
YOU ARE AN IDIOT
Frickin' idiots, instead of NJP's for the regular crap, get ready to start handing out ninja punches for sexual assaults…rapes yea you people are either really ignorant or really really stupidly bliss to think they'll be able to mingle within the grunt life
Amen Brother!!!!
I served two Tours with the 18th ABN Corp at MACV, as a combat Medic under the great Leadership of Then Lt. COL. Brady, the Father of modern Dust-Off Helo crews, and the most Fearless Huey Medicvac Pilot of the Viet Nam War! I was considered too small but showed good body mechanics when it came to Humping a wounded fellow Mud soldier on a two man litter, sliding Him into a fast loaded position, but at 5'6'' tall and weighing 136 lbs, it was never easy!
So my gripe is Can a woman of same stature do the same, I am getting Old, and yes women have physically changed and many are stronger now, But then?????What about in The unconventional Warfighting that goes on in The Stan?
There is a physiological difference between men and women. Would we put a man missing an arm in a combat situation and expect him to perform in the same manner a typical man would? No. End of debate. Women are in a sense missing that arm.
Ha, do you live in real life or liberal utopia where affirmative action rules? I have been seeing Gender Neutral Standard posted as the test to determine whether or not they can make it. What does that mean? The only gender neutral standards I have seen in the Marine Corps in 10 years of service as an enlisted Marine and officer is this, a watering down of male standards. There is no such fricking thing as gender neutral. Those who believe this is true are fools!
Dude women r already in combat roles! It's called the Mp corps! I know females right now who could put most marines to shame. The debate is pointless. It's already happening!
Exactly dont lower the standards for women. and no we are not "missing a arm". geese we are very capable of everything you do. the only difference is that its a little harder on us.
so in your mind, women are disabled? nice
It's the short arm, women seem to have adapted to not having one.
Report
Reply
0 replies · active 41 weeks ago 0 Vote up Vote down
Saladin · 7 minutes ago
Anyone who wants to see women in combat haS probably never been there.
Most women have seen Combat when their convoy has hit an IED.
This is the same as saying thAT WACS and NURSES in London during air raids in WW2
became qualified as combat jnfantrymen.
The fate of any woman captured alive is unthinkable.
Not true. Our women do combat foot patrols in the Stan. It's called the mp corps
so the fate of a man captured is not as bad? ever seen pictures of POWs in a camp? or the Abu Ghraib photos? i think you are just uncomfortable with the woman being captured and so you think it's worse. dont project your own issues onto the discussion.
American men have always been taught and trained to protect our women. This has been seen in every war, where soldiers die protecting our women. Putting one in the foxhole next to me compromises my valves of protecting them. Many male soldiers will be injuried or killed because instead of staying put, he protected the female. Bad move, another political decision to make some one look good. Wait till we start shipping home our women by the dozens. Hell will be to pay for this one
So you're saying you wouldn't protect your woman? Oh, thats right, you have to have one first OHHHH! Ha Haaaa. Just f****** with you bud.
I don't think women should be allowed on the front lines. I being a woman think that there is enough going on but to add this to them is not fair. If a woman wants to be treated as an equal then I say you have to meet the same criteria when it comes to their P.T. Test. You have to do as many set-ups and push ups (not the woman version either) and you also have to run the race in the same time allowed to the men. I also think they need to show they can carry a man if needed for safety and promise they won't want special treatment.
I find it interesting that women want only parts of the requirements and I agree that once there are not enough women in these roles the requirements will be dumbed down for them and that is just wrong. Also, I don't want my husband staying behind because a woman can't run fast enough and carry anything that is needed. God didn't design women to be in those roles. I want to state once again that I am a woman who is against women in these roles but also military in general.
1. There are no female versions of push-ups and haven't been for over 30 years.
2. The current PT test is merely an test of overall fitness and has not significance beyond that. You can't outrun a bullet whether you run the 2-mile in 12 or 15 minutes.
3. My daughter was taught combatives (hand-to-hand) at officer basic same as the guys. Most had size on her and in a fair fight could usually take her down. But that was only because it was a fair fighter and no one was allowed to actually injure their buddy. Against some badly trained Iraqi or Afgh, she would have won because she would have killed him.
4. Soldiers of both genders today practice carrying a wounded buddy.
Loving your reply!
I am a woman too, and i agree with your statement!
The poll is inaccurate from the start. You can vote multiple times for the same answer and the poll numbers update based on this. Fix the poll system if you want a real usable number.
excellent eye aj
polls mean nothing unless EVERYONE is polled!
"No "On Women in Combat Due to the fact. Not only one getting shot and some fool running out to save her and getting shot them selves.But to the Extent of .Being in a fox hole .IE One Female with Three or four Males for an extended time.Also If Captured The very likely And probability of being raped repeatedly by their captors. Torture would not be the same as for men.Especially if captured by Countries are customs or religions that regard women as second class citizens or as property not as a soldier are person.Remember what happened to the Female that was captured in Iraq. And look at the Storm that would ensue if any of that happened and the civilized world got wind of it. remember the flack from the women and mothers during the Vietnam era on the friendly fire deaths. The Idea is ludacris.Now if the united states was fighting for survival from total invasion,Annihilation,Maybe. But wars in other countries that do not see women in the same light as the American people do (NO).
Ron, I agree with you 100% and feel as strongly as you do about this issue. Women do not belong in the trnches fighting a war with the possibility of serious injuries rape and all the other negative things that can happen and besides that just as they can become a distraction to us in peacetime believe me they can be an even greater distraction in the trenches on the battlefield.
Very simple when a woman can be on a movement to contact, pee without stopping or getting her pants wet let her in the infantry.
I have no problem as long as THEY carry THEIR own weight, figuratively and literally
If that is not a reality then they should not be in combat positions.
I doubt that any man who had served in combat would disagree
The other night on cable a female pilot was fully supporting combat roles
HOWEVER, there is a HUGE difference between flying a warthog and humping a 90 pound pack
and all the other stuff that combat ON THE GROUND entitles
I respect her service but she is wrong if she thinks there is no difference.
Why women in combat ??? Simple . They can 't get enough men to volunteer.
Why???? Because there aren't enough real men . Less than 1 % of available men volunteer.
The rest couldn't care less about this country..
If a draft is re instated the population of Canada will quadruple in 24 hours.
People watch too many GI Jane movies in which a 90 lb women kicks the crap out of a 200 lb martial arts expert.
Watch Hawaai 50 ,NCIS and siimilar shows. People take them serious.
I favor Universal Military Training . Those who don't like it can immigrate.
I'm a Vietnam veteran (IV Corps – Cambodian border) and I believe that gender should not determine opportunity in the combat arms. One of the toughest people I've ever known was my Scottish grandmother who served as a nurse in France in WWI and didn't retire until she was 75. Many of the combatants we faced in my war were no bigger than the average American woman and in my humble opinion were pretty good combat soldiers. If you have the qualifications, you should get a chance at the job.
The hard part will be overcoming our own cultural preconceptions. It may be very difficult for some male soldiers to cope with women going into harm's way (even though they already do). That is no excuse to discriminate against women. When President Truman integrated the Armed Forces there were the same kind of doom and gloom lamentations. With proper leadership, good soldiers will get with the program and bad soldiers will get out.
You are exaclty right. It will be overcoming the general Old Army cultural preconceptions. Already in a short time span we have allowed gays and lesbians service openly, we now have proposed the idea of women in combat. I have been speaking loudly about gays and lesbians already serving, I've known many in my seventeen years and they served equally and just as professionally as anyone else. With proper leadership, training, and professionalism we can take this new modern Army into the stage. It will certainly see who can keep up with the program and who can't.
I'm a Vietnam veteran (IV Corps – Cambodian border) and I believe that gender should not determine opportunity in the combat arms. One of the toughest people I've ever known was my Scottish grandmother who served as a nurse in France in WWI and didn't retire until she was 75. Many of the combatants we faced in my war were no bigger than the average American woman and in my humble opinion were pretty good combat soldiers. If you have the qualifications, you should get a chance at the job.
Here’s my 2 cents : Most of the things said are quite biased. 2 times in Iraq and 14 months in the Stan. I was airborne infantry (75th Ranger). Personally I humped over 120-150 lbs. at all times. I rarely got hot chow or personal hygiene time. I have more miles on my legs than most 1990′s used cars. Had to hump out wounded. Resupply from the air made us huge targets. That’s all I have to say on that. Now add a female in this war climate and she wouldn’t last a week. I’d be humping her gear. We’d never be able to keep pace. Her hygiene would be an issue due to the simple fact that women are open sewage systems and men are closed. And, God forbid, she was taken as a POW. The thought makes me sick. So ultimately the men would carry her weight, her hygiene would shut her down and the risk is too great. Combat support roles . . . Yes. Combat Arms . . . NEVER!!!
I completely agree with you, wildchild1! I've never been in the military myself, but as a woman, I think your last sentence says it all.
Good men will die!!! What women is going to carry a man off the battlefield or to safety when hit. This is rediculious. The standards will get lowered and good men will die. When will this country learn. When will women learn they are not equal when it comes to the physical aspects of life. It is what it is get over it ladies and act like ladies, we got your back I bet the activists are not the ones going to combat!!!
When I was little I didn't understand why only boys had to sign up for the draft. I fully support women doing whatever jobs are available, but I think we should have to pass the same tests as the guys. There are plenty of women who are that tough, and I wish them luck! I'll stick with avionics.
MadMaxxx,
No one was suggesting that standards be relaxed. Your naive assumption that all men are stronger than all women is not substantiated by the facts. Back in my tour in Vietnam, I was 5' 10" and 170 lbs. I still dragged a wounded friend out harms way — I didn't stand up and make us more of a target. When I served, I'd rather work with the smartest, not the strongest. I've seen more casualties from mistakes than most other causes. I have a daughter who's taller and stronger than I was in 'Nam and I'd trust her to do her duty.
This is all about what is the best thing politically for the Democratic Party and has nothing to do with the best way to flesh out the personnel needs of the our various services. As a 28 year retired career AF officer, I don't believe this decision was well thought out. Without a doubt, there are numerous specialties in all the services where female members can do the work as well or perhaps even better than men. Some specialties may not be appropriate for female members of our culture. Standards for any specialty must not be compromised just to include women. America must realize that if we put females in the most risky positions, America must accept the consequences. For example, men don't usually get raped when captured, women frequently do!
What happens to the captured women? We're not fighting by rules.
Mingling the sexes in the Armed Forces has degraded morale and morals since the beginning. The only thing we've been spared so far is fucking in foxholes and now it seems that will become a possibility in the near future. The organization in which I served in the 1960s (UMT for men and the women far removed from operations) was incomparably better than the current or proposed arrangements.
I would rather deal with a bunch of homosexuals in my fighting hole then women who are not physically able to put out. They will water down the standards and all males ,gay or straight, will be killed.
Don't get me wrong I love the women in my life, but even they know they cannot make it. My wife is one tough woman, and I would say I have never met a WM that even comes close to what she can deal with, but there is no way she could pull me out of a fight.
Moreover, since "equality" reins supreme, I DEMAND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS EQUALITY! I WANT TO GIVE BIRTH! IT SHE CAN DO IT SO CAN I. I DON'T CARE WHAT THE RAMIFICATIONS ARE I DEMAND IT. WHO'S WITH ME??? LETS GET OUT THE VOTE AND DEMAND US MEN GET THE SAME RIGHTS OUR WOMEN GET. IT IS MORALLY UNJUST FOR THEM TO HAVE ALL THE BABY MAKING RIGHT!
Oh by the way a CONVOY op is not combat. Sitting in a FOB is not Combat. If a Convoy is ambushed or takes an IED a QRF is sent out to remove them as quickly as possible. They are not in sustained operations. There Mission is to get the gear to where it needs to go. A Rifle Platoons Mission is the locate and close with the Enemy. That means find the enemy and get the surprise not be surprised. There may be FET's or as Grunts call them VET's (Vagina Engagement Teams) that go on patrols, but they serve as attachements primarily and it is very rare for those VET's to patrol on their own. If they do and they take contact they call a QRF and are withdrawn as soon as possible.
What the hell does the first answer mean? "No this is a political issue not whats right for women" – is that saying your against it or you support it or this shouldn't be on the table or what?
No It is Hard enough for a Young man to be introduced to live fire coming at you ,it is hard enough for a young man or any man to witness his friend just laying down and when he checks him the man is dead,it is hard enough to see your buddies,NCOs,Officers get Blown apart.are see their head disappear in a second and nothing is left..Nothing.It is like there was never an intelligent beaning there a second ago.it is hard enough to see yours friends are your team mates loose their arms and legs and wonder when it is going to be your turn So I say NO to women in combat!!!.40 years after my last tour in Vietnam I still have moments when Friends that I knew .Their faces appear and I still regret the fact that They died so young.In My mind they will always be young.while I grow old and am the Father of 4 the grand father of 6,the great grand father of 4.I don't want my female relation to have to serve in combat.its bad enough when the male relations have too!!!.
Having been in combat myself, I am strongly opposed to women being included in combat operations with men. Here is my reason, but let me first say that my reason is not chauvinistic. In combat instead of mission one being accomplishing what one is ordered to accomplish, a male soldier will instinctively make protecting the women his top priority. However, a full combat team of women would be fine. Undoubtedly the all women team's performance would be exceptionally good, since they would be in the spot light. Let me reiterate that coed combat should never be a reality. Peter Guild, Quincy, MA.
You have got to be joking John D. As an 0311, we lived in a dump for my second tour and that was in IRAQ!! Not to mention the lack the insanely crowded huts we grunts built ourselves with scrap wood, we lived next to 150 IP's. I dont even want to think what would have happened with a couple of women bunking up with us. Not to mention the increased contempt they would have had for us bedding with women freely, detracting from our mission of training a viable security force that trusts us and us them. What would have happened if any of them had assaulted a women? Man love Thursday jokes aside, us as grunts would have slaughtered anyone harming a female, that is what a-type guys like Marine or Army grunts are bred to believe from an early age; protect women and children. I am sorry, but a ban is not going to take away that cultural norm. You must have been an ultra POG. You insult me with that comment about easy living and plush conditions and short patrols. Furthermore, for all the dumps I lived and patrolled in, it is nothing compared to my brothers in Astan! You need to get your head out of your ass John D!
0311 Semper Fi
Disability claims will skyrocket if women are allowed into all military roles. In their quest to be as good as a male (physically) they will hurt themselves.
When all women must register for the draft when they reach 18 I will be pro women in the front line.
How will that workout when a real global war breaks out and the ranks must be filled out like wwII or Korea?
You are on the front line and half of your company is staffed with women who dont want to be there and
are faceing the prospect of being over run resulting in hand to hand combat.
I for one do not want my grand daughter put in a certian death situation like that
Homosexuals allowed to openly serve and now women in combat. Can't wait for the pedophiles on Capital Hill to get organized and allow child molesters to serve openly in the military. For all those that spouted how women in foreign countries are allowed to serve in combat roles, in many foreign countries it's not illegal to have sex with a child under the age of 12. Let me know when that polls comes out.
I left the United states and moved to Philippines two years ago so I wouldn't have to take part in any further decline of civilized norms. Here's one more reason to stay away.
Every night I watch the news from a far and see more and more the decline of the American dream as 'more decadence' and 'more depravity' become the new battle cries of the American Republic.
"Land where my father died, shot by the FBI, my mother was a commie spy; I give a <deleted>
You can have it; I'll watch from here.
Expatriate – Living large and off the grid
Society has completely lost all moral values anyway, so I am sure that your first paragraph is coming soon.
I am a 1st Cav Vet VN 71, and I have two beautiful daughters. Would they make great soldiers…..hell yea! Would I ever want them in harms way….hell no. I want my daughters to live well and be good mothers. Safe and far from harms way. Take us old bastards first!
Wow, well I don't care if women join, as long as they don't complain about sexual harassment., The men sexually harass each other all the time, adding a girl to the mix is just going to make it even more so.
Plus the fact if they are ever captured the Taliban will keep them as sex slaves for the rest of their lives, they will be so broken by the time that they won't even fight back.
This isn't going to end well…
I think it would be a big problem having women in the front line. 1. Not only do the men have to worry about his safety and covering their own back now they have to make sure this woman is safe too.
2. That women get caught by the enemy she has to worry about getting gang rape and her body being destroy where she could never have kids and trust men again.
3. Mentally women are not made to stand all problems with their body like a man can.
4. If they on the menstrual cycle now again men have to make arrangement for that female. I did 10 years and the military and I would never ever want to be put myself in the situation. Some things are left for men to do. You so call super women sit your butt down. Just saying!
1) there r some women I'd rather watch my back then most men. Jus being a man doesn't make u a stud.
2) blue eyed men r more sought after in Iraq then brunette females. In Iraq it's only gay if ur the one sucking dik or getting boned.
3) I know a LOT of infantryman who can barely pass a pt test. Not ALL females r fit enough for infantry but I know some personally who could put some men to shame!
4) women r already in combat foot patrols in the mp corps and they handle they're own shit. No one makes special arrangements for them any more or less then a guy. Most females in the army r on the shot anyways and don't even menstruate.
Long story short, ur ignorant, misinformed and narrow minded. Now go beat ur face
Anthony, I have a lot of respect for you! A man that is confident and comfortable in himself to know the difference between a good and not so good battle buddy, whether man or women. Especially on here, where there are many (not all, but many) old school, boy club, keep women home crap being spewed. I wonder how many of these men are even fit to pass the minimal required testing right now, though non would admit to it. They will say they are fricken G.I. Joe. I just wanted to put something a little positive out and recognize all you Men that are at least open in this topic, even if you don't agree but can converse with an opinion and not speak as if their word is gold, or with degrading hatefulness that just makes them look less like a man and more like a child.
Training at Navy Dive school dictates that the group will run no faster than the slowest individual. So, the standard should be: How fast should the group run? Likewise, and we will never know until we try it, How effective is the team at meeting it's mission? There are thousands of variations to missions, and specifically, Navy teams have certain criteria to be met for each. Will we be prepared to re-establish baseline data for teams where US mission capability will be reduced due to the average reduction in the physical elements required to meet our missions? How much less effective will this make our wartime planners when preparing for highly timed missions? Have drills been prepared to measure the mental effectiveness of mixed-gender teams in time critical missions? Can we take advantage of the added flexibility of having a female in covert missions?
Very few females in the military want to have the infantry MOS. A few officers – let them try without changing the standards. But there is not going to be some big rush to join.
What most female want is the same opportunities. My daughter is a Captain with 2 combat tours – the last assigned to an Infantry Division BCT (Brigade Combat Team). She had plenty of time outside the wire excorting convoys, training Afghans, clearing houses. Many missions she was specifically chosen because she was female and they needed someone to search Afghan females.
In other words, she had the exact same combat experience as the male Captain next to here on staff (his platoon and company time were stateside also). However as they both move up the ranks he is qualified to be a Division G3 of Chief of staff because the position is coded by branch / MOS and NOT by experience. This is what military females want changed.
For those of you that don't think standards will change, think again! Check out this well researched article: http://www.cmrlink.org/content/home/36488/seven_r….
I hope everyone gets loves menstruation, because you will all get to share it now.
forgot to erase that *gets
Women r already in combat!!! I’m an M.P. (military police) and we have at least 5 females per platoon who all get the same training as the guys. We train together, we deploy together. We have female gunners, drivers, team leaders, platoon sergeants, platoon leaders, company commanders and first sergeants!!! And I know females right now that I would rather deploy with before most men. Not cuz of their looks or any of that nonsense. But because when shit hits the fan I KNOW I can count on them to watch my six. There r plenty of men in the military who shouldn’t b trusted with a potato gun! Gender is not the issue as far as I’m concerned. As long as they’re willing to do the work and watch my six then they’re good by me. O and by the way, MPs do all the same stuff that infantry does and then some. We do foot patrols, convoy security, QRF u name it. I’ve seen wut women can do in combat roles and honestly impressed.
Thanks for replying. As a female combat veteran myself, I'm disgusted by the majority of these posts and it's insane to see how anachronistic of a mentality that many, apparently, still cling to – it's reality, folks. The lift of the ban is simply a reflection of reality: women are already in combat.
Seriously. They're friggin ignorant. Most infantry r retard no pt fuks anyways. Not all but a lot. I think the woman on their right who is willing to die fighting is more reliable then the dude on his left who doesn't know wtf he is doing and is crying that he's scared. We did joint operations with infantry in Iraq and the infantry tripped out that we had females who were 249 gunners and carried a FULL combat load no prob
There should be a poll amongst men who have won the CIB. Other people have very little knowledge of what combat infantry life is like.
I can condone an all female unit, but I can't see the effectiveness a female on an elite special ops team. A female is distracting – by both appearance and odor. It is basic male instinct to protect females more so than another male. Pilot, all female air crew, drone operator, all female tank crew, all female artillery – yes. Frontline – yes – on all female unit only.
Same thing that happens to men. Blue eyed men in Iraq r more desirable then a brunette man
There were female Viet Cong who fought fearlessly and they lived in tunnels. There were females in the resistance all across Europe during WW II. There was a Russian female sniper who out shot even their top male sniper with over 300 kills. I am a *Guardian* with Honor Flight and I met 2 nurses who fought with the guerilla groups in the Phillipines. Is every female capable of handling combat? NO !!! Not every male is capable either. I did all right as a light weapons infantryman, but I KNOW I didn;t have the physical makeup to be in Special Forces or a SEAL. I would not have made the cut. If a woman wants to seek these positions more power to them.
Men and women are equal but not the same! No women I know can carry full gear,plus a 80 mm mortar plate on a 30 mile forced march. Glad to see a few women don’t mind the blood of thousands on their hands just to get a promotion! How about we change the way promotions are given instead!
I do. I know multiple women who can. I know women who have humped a 240b with full combat load up a mountain in the Stan. I also know infantryman who can BARELY pass a pt test
Are they kidding me ! NO way should a woman be allowed to be in a combat unit ! What happens when aunt flow shows up with the cramps and blood ? Here in Saint Paul Minnesota , the city lowered the P. T. qualifying test to appease the woman that could NOT pass the old test. Dose anyone want a small women crawling into a blazing house fire to pick up a passed out 200-250 pound man or woman to haul them out of the fire? Don't think that would happen. I served with a LRRP/RANGER Co. in Vietnam in 1969 and I guarantee 99% or more of our guys would refuse to go on patrol with the female gender. That's obnoxious , ridiculous , and down right DANGEROUS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am all for equality, but women need to be careful what they wish for. As a combat infantryman in Vietnam, I mostly lived in the jungle, slept on the ground, got a shower and clothing change once every month or two, carried huge loads (sometimes corpses from firefights). I recall as an FNG (F—ing New Guy) , I had to carry a 200lb corpse for several kilometers to get to an LZ for medevac. It was in the monsoon season and the choppers could not fly for several days. The corpses got pretty smelly in the heat and humidity. I am 5' 6" and weighed 130 lbs at the time and was tough as nails, but it still nearly killed me. Perhaps the USA will never be in another jungle war, but don't bet on it. I can't speak for now, but "Infantry " in those days was not for the faint of heart.
I've read multiple comments from numerous people , and I understand the comments by the experienced combat veterans , and I assure all you women that all these men ARE NOT male chauvanists, but reality combat veterans . Why do they have seperate events in the olympics ? Why are there no professional female football players or hockey players, or basketball females on the pro teams. Simple answer, our creator made us different . Even at the high school level , the have different sports programs for the girls . The H.S. boys would go after any females in contact sports . If women want equal everything , then lets allow reporters into female locker rooms , and take it a step further and have bathrooms instead of mens bathrooms and womens bathrooms . We could include , and or start at the high school level and have one big locker room and one big shower. I'll bet the ladies would howell loud then . Let's get back to reality , and all you women that want combat roles , after the mission , provided one makes it back , lets all shower together and debrief each other like we did many times , in the shower. EQUAL IS EQUAL . GOD DID NOT make us that way people .
I did not serve in this , or the Iraq War but did serve in Vietnam and understand there are huge differences! In Nam we stayed in the Jungle, NO BATHROOMS! If anyone had to relieve themselves, we had to go to the front of the column, jump off the trail we were making and drop our draws and do it! If we did not finish by the time the end of the column passed, we had to pull our pants up and run to the head of the column again and drop our draws, and so on until we finished! There was NO STOPPING to allow 1 person to find privacy, nor the time to finish what we had to do! I CAN NOT see a woman doing this while out on a "Search and Destroy Mission"! If any women can PASS all phases of training for the Infantry as a man and is willing to do what WE DID then let them have at it! I seriously doubt we would see any women in this type of Combat Roll!
It seems odd to me that we separate men and women in sports in order to protect women from the unfair advantage men would have, but we don't seem to have a problem letting women compete against men in a competition where the loser dies.
All-in-all..I think it's a good thing.. Why should women not fight on the fronbt lines if they want to. Hell, they are fighting tooth and nails to get there. But I think once they get a tatse of what really goes on…Afghanistan and Iraq is urban warfare and not jungle warfare.. A olot of the acxtion that most military women have seen has been mostly urban warfare.
Hell, if thats what the women in A erica want, then I say give it to them. But there is a saying that I truly belive in an it has been proven true time and time again, "BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR BECAUSE YOU JUST MIGHT GET IT". I just pray that this nation will be able to stand together with the introduction of extreme PTSD within our women population..Good luck to all..
I am totally against women in combat! They can do the job I have no doubt. But do we really need husband and wife both having PTSD? That will make good marriages or great parents I'm sure. Then there is the problem of rape and torture if captured. And how many men are going to do things in combat to show their masculinity to impress the lady in uniform and cause them to get killed? It presents a whole new set of problems. Next you will have a woman ex-Marine sharp shooter in the Texas tower picking off students on campus. I was brought up to protect women, not to watch the hand that rocks the cradle in the field of combat killing another mother's son.
I really don't see what the problem is, Canada has had the combat arms open to women for years as have many other countries. The world didn't stop rotating on its axis, the sky didn't fall, life goes on as normal in the Canadian Forces. I have many female friends that are in the combat arms who have deployed and served honourably. one of my friends was KIA in Afghanistan and her unit carried on with the battle, they did not fall to pieces and stop fighting as some of you have suggested will happen. Perhaps some of you should do some research on women in combat and how it is in other countries before you start making wild statements about how this is the end of the world. Not every woman will want to go combat arms, not every woman who wants to will make it through training, just like many of the men don't make it through training either. Not everybody is cut out for the combat arms regardless of gender but why exclude the capable women just because of their gender without even giving them the opportunity to try?
I know many of the women I served with that I would rather have them watch my back than some of the men. I non-combat situations women are on equal footing with the men, as it should be. Physical requirement notwithstanding, most women are fully capable and can do the job in most situations. However the real question is should we as a society, actually be comfortable with with women serving in combat? The question is not can they, the question is should they. As a chivalrous and honorable society, men have always been in the protector role and this really violates the nature and order of our society as a whole.
In the 80's, I was responsible for tracking the number of non-deploy able soldiers in a division. If the division had been called to move out in a few days, the most common reason that a soldier could not deploy was pregnancy. At any one time, 18% of female soldiers were pregnant. I think having women in even combat support units degrades the military capability of the unit.
The major question is how do God views the roles of men and women! If you start here then the answer is very clear — Hell no women don't belong in combat roles. There are a few rare exceptional women who has been blessed or cursed depending how you view them with the physical strength of a man, but we know this is not the norm. What is going to happen when they get raped and their reproductive system is compromised to the point they can no longer have children. Then we are looking at law suits against the government for allowing such a catastrophe to happen. What happens when they are taken as prisoners for extended amount of time and repeatedly raped and as a by-product children are born while in captivity. Do we really want to deal with these issues? Do we have provisions and policies in place right now to deal with these kind of issues. Who are we to change the rules that God has already defined.
Whose god? Yours? A muslim's? A jew's? A protestant's? A pagan's?
Is freedom of religion dead or are you just using Christianity to back up your bigoted viewpoints?
Not being Army or SpecOps .. do know the issue we had in the Navy was .. if the woman didn't want to deploy .. get pregnant!!! Now we have this .. my feelings are .. that if a woman wants to be in combat .. sign a letter saying that you won't become pregnant before your deployment. If you feel you can pull your weight and not slow down your group .. then "By all means!"
why o why did i sign up for updates about this topic opinions are like asshole and elbows everybody has one. My god make it stop already!!! please!!!!
As a Marine infantryman for 11 years and 2 combat deployments to Iraq I feel if women want to be grunts than let them in all womens battalions. No matter what the military will always be segregated by gender, in mixed gender units women have seperate berthing shower and head facilities. As to Anthoney who seems to despise anyone who isn't an Mp your mixed unit is still gender segregated. And before you continue to bag on all grunts answer when the last time one of your patrols escorts or Qrfs lasted for 5 months as in my last tour where the entire company moved of base and resided in the city. Seperate acomidations can provided for a few days but would be a strain on overal security for extended periods of time. Swperate acomidations in an infantry setting would be detrimental to the clossnes of the fighting unit and hurt the cohesive elwmnts that are ceycial to doing the job at hand. 90% of men dont or cant handle being a grunt if everyone could do it then they would, in the same breath many grunts ahould be a grunt. The ones who can't hack it are plaved on base gaurd and in most cases tgis is where moat women would wind up in a mixed gender batallion. Which would hurt their mos credability and impact their pros and cons inturn hurting their chance for promotion which is what started tge whole debate
I am a female in the Marine Corps. I absolutely DISAGREE with women being allowed to go into combat. This is just some childish game some feminist decided she wanted to fight for because she didn’t feel it was “right” or “fair”. What’s not RIGHT or FAIR is that women who have never served in the military have a say in what we women in the military should and shouldn’t do.
I know some very fine women in the military, some harder than a lot of the men I know in the military, but none of them want to be in combat either. We DON’T want to be in combat, not because we don’t think we could deal with it, because some of us could, but because we know that being there in the midst of the action could end up compromising the mission. And mission accomplishment is everyone’s number 1 priority.
Spoken like a true Marine Semper Fi
I've only read the first page of comments, but I am extremely disappointed to see the level of contempt for women that's being displayed. I see a lot of people assuming that women can't hack the same standards as men, and aren't even going to try because politics will give them a lowered standard. So women not only can't make the cut, but are so politically motivated they'll get themselves and their compatriots killed making a point. Oh, although some people think women have no idea that wars are hard and dirty and dangerous to fight, so maybe these silly ladies don't realize the consequences.
It's also tremendously insulting to male soldiers to assume that they can't do their jobs if there's a woman around to protect. I don't see any women, men, gays, straights, or gorram Oompah-loompahs on the battlefield; I only see soldiers.
And do NOT get me started on all the "God intended" comments. How many times must we retread the separation of church and state?
Good Christian aren't you. Nothing halfway intelligent to say so you resort to name calling, how nice. As for your little religious course up there. Just because these religions believe in god and some believe in the same god and Jesus Christ, their readings are not the same. And the pagan believe has many gods and goddesses. The Chronicles of Narnia are not based on religion, if you perceive them to be that is your perception, but not the reality of the stories. You claim to not be a bigot but you sure sound like one, especially after this comment! Just try to remember this isn't the topic and there is separation of church and state. Therefore the God points are mute.
Had you given an opinion to halcat that's one thing, but that is not what you did. You resorted to acting like a troll with the name calling. There was no expression of opinion only name calling to try to make someone feel that they are less then you, so if anyone should leave it should be you. There was nothing nasty in my comment towards religion, if that's your perception then that's something with you not me. After reading your previous comments I see no reason to pat yourself on the back with how intelligent your comments are, but I'm entitled to my opinion, especially since you are the one that brought it up. Though neither did I call you a "twit" because I think some of the things you have wrote are the stupidest things I've ever read. This topic of discussion is of a political arena, where the separation of Church and State ( lol if you have to dig so far as to point out my mistake in not capitalizing then there must be some need to make yourself feel superior, again my opinion, but I'm not going to call you names over it either) does apply. I personally don't care if religious believes are brought into the discussion, as we are not solving problems here, but rather debating them, and if religion plays into you opinion then more power to you. Though, If you are going to start talking it then get it correct or don't do it at all. Therefore I admit, I should have left out my last sentence.
Carl is correct. We've all seen it over the years. For instance the Marines made a big to do about making women take the same physcial tests as men. And they did. However the fine print you didnt read is that the women dont have to score as the men do. Men are scored to a higher degree to make 1st class. Women to a lesser degree to make 1st class. SO….is that the same? No of course not. The Marines and Army will do what they're told. In the end it will cost a boatload of money to bring in women into the infantry…………….and in the end the standards will be lowered in order to bring more in. If 1 women out of 100 finally make it that is not a good business model is it? However if 17 out of 100 make it……..we can live with that (that is called ratio folks) once that ratio is setttled thats what the military will shoot for. To do that they will lower standards. Policy is made, signed and documented in DC and the Pentagon. Not at Camp Pendleton or Ft. Bragg.
i can imagine women in the jungles of viet-nam…..rice paddies…..leeches…assault after assault……brains n guts,,missing body parts,,,iam proud to be a viet-nam veteran67-68….but i say NO to women n combat…i dont think i couldve handled that…
No. Man and women will never be equal. Stop been rebellious against God. This is his creation and you are tampering with it. This is dangerous. All this will blow up on our face and we will pay the heavy price. And we will be crying for mercy. Not knowing if we will be shown mercy. It's time to wake up folks. Where are all the brave men and women who use to fight for the good of all people not just for the good of the few. It's time to put our country back on track and come home. You can not let the few determine and dictate how the rest of us in our country will live from now on. To those of you in leadership position, you have been given an opportunity to steer our country back on course and stand by her(USA). Will you? There are alot of folks out there who will stand side by side with you. Just have to take the first step and steer our country the righ direction and others will do the same. This is who we are, Americans. We always come back and fix things and put things back on track. We never fail and we never give up. The good health and moral health of our country and our children is worth standing up for.
My opinion has always been that all jobs (Pararescue, CCT, etc) should be open to women as long as the standards would not be adjusted for them like they are for the PT test. If a woman can make it through indoc and the pipeline while being held to the same standards as men currently are, I would have zero problems seeing a woman coming to extract me from combat. In these undermanned career fields we can use all the qualified applicants we can get. I say it's about damn time.
If this women or these women can meet the same PT/Physical requirements as a male then I say go for it. I have 23 yrs. of active military service, some of that time with SOF. i was there when Col (Ret) Charlie Beckwith started Delta Force and I DON'T believe that ANY women could have or can pass their requirements. I have served with some OUTSTANDING women in uniform, both officer and enlisted and would be happy to serve with them again. So if they (The Women) can pass the requirements to be in any combat and/or special unit then go for it, and be very proud that you made it but you MUST PASS all the male requirements, NO SPECIAL ANYTHING for being a women. No Dumbing down ANYTHING for being a Women. All The Way. OOOOOOAAAAHHHH.
This decision will weaken our defense. Because men will defend a woman from harm at the risk his own safety. This is a fact, undisputable!!!
The defeminization of women is one of the big contributors to the moral decline of our country.
What is happening to america as we once knew it. Change is inevitable but even with change some things need remain the same such as frontline in the trenches warfare being waged by our men and not our women. Has america become so feminized and it's men so soft that we cannot still fight our country's wars?
Our country is becoming a cesspool of wrong thinking and errant decision making for political reasons rather than facing the facts of the chaos being caused by these decisions. Now we want to send women to fight in the trenches knowing that the conditions of battlefield combat is not suited for them and I don't care how tough they are . A woman will always be just that even if she desires to lead an alternative style of life. Let our men fight the wars on the battlefield because that is something that should never change unless we run out of men willing or capable of doing the job.
If everyone were created equal? Hmmmm. If we are equal why can't women compete VS men in the Olympic games? Why are the standards so high for traditionally all male jobs? When exceptions become the rule the Idea of a Standard is lost.
Standards are based on requirements, requirements are founded in basic core abilities that are inherent or can be maximized. Males can gain muscle mass and strength to meet these core abilities, even when they are under the minimum standard. But what is lost in this absurd experiment, is Time, Money and ultimately a degraded military ability to conduct combat operations. All in the name of a liberal idea of equality, not what's militarily the most co$t effective or logical proposal for a fighting force? I'm very saddened to see the Social agenda of a confused few undermining the same military's ability to protect the very freedoms they choose to misuse and abuse to further their selfish Ideology. Not what's best for the military, not what's best for the combat soldier, and certainly not what's best for this Nations Defense when it comes to combat readiness.
With our country in such dire economic turmoil you would think the Government would be cutting back on spending? Nope this latest experiment will Cost even more money than we already spend (berthing, restroom facilities, showers, clothing, medical care providers, etc.. the list goes on and on for added expense, but what does the military, the combat soldier, the Nation, gain for all this money spent? (a)Military gets lower standards or quality control drops, morale + social issues too! Gee great trade off's for the money spent. (b)The Combat soldier they get caught in the middle, mixed standards, and please don't even think about a physical relationship? Today we still have segregated locker rooms and bathrooms, sorry but these are not a luxury for combat folks. (c)The nation gets a military more tolerant of new progressive Ideology, a less combat capable fighting force, and then gets to deal with more Horrors of Combat PTSD from even more than less women subjected to combat, Awesome!!!
(a)(b)(c)Three great things that are already known from every person who has endured the hardships that combat entails, that logical rational thought begs the question? "Why we as a nation don't put our best effort forward to ensure success in conducting combat operations and save the utopian ideology for the movies" "Reality and Reality TV are not the same, stop pretending make the exception the Norm"
See if you tell the truth they delete your comment . No wonder were in the situation we are in…PC all the way..
Folks Combat was never intended to be fair, the civilized nations of the world have attempted in vain to enforce rules of war! But nobody ever told the bad guys they had to play by the rules? We don't or haven't gone to war with an honorable nation since our own war for independence. What makes liberals, utopians and the like to think that somehow the Foe's we as a nation will encounter are not going to take our New Women Combat troops into account and try to exploit any weakness no matter how unfair? *if this were ever a business proposal, it would get shot down by stock holders. If this was an education proposal (reduced capability with greater expense) every parent would say not for my children. If this were a Gambling casino, Vegas would not take our odds in our favor because it's not logically sound thinking?
Respectfully,
A retired NAVY SEAL with combat experience
Women don't have what it takes to serve in front line combat units. Commanders have already lowered the standards to allow them to participate in some of the elite combat leadership schools such as Ranger School. This is a political joke. If this is allowed the standards will be lowered,which in return with make another wise elite force, not so elite anymore. I haven't met a women yet that can carry a 125 lb ruck sack for days over numerous miles, through rough terrain. Is there any females out there that have done this, and is still combat effective? Will a woman be able to dispatch an enemy combatant by striking him with her fists, wrestle him to the ground and choke him until he's dead? Because this maybe required during times of close combat. Can a women pick up a 200 lb man and carry him to safety? Combat is brutal. You wives and mothers out there, how would you feel if your husband or son was killed because the military lowered the standard? Because you do realize that members of elite combat units rely on each other to survive? Just because you lower the standard to allow women to be successful does mean the threat or risk in a high threat area lowers. It doesn't mean the terrorist is going to say, oh they have women on their team, so lets not try and kill them so aggressively". Enough of the women in combat. I think they are serving very well in the positions they hold now. Why die? Why? That's just crazy!
I agree to some extent there toni, the one thing I've agreed with during this whole thread, If they can hack the same…exact…unchanged…and some, insane standards, traditions, and rituals, then so be it, they've earned it like everyone else. But if anyone thinks that squat pissin and shitin in a ditch isn't going to turn the heads of the horny boys that haven't seen a girl (other than her) in the better part of a year is living somewhere other than reality. I agree with everyone that said women would be distracting, no matter how close or how "Soldier" they are. Sexual assaults already exist out there, with many others around. Now put her by herself with a bunch of jacked up, war hardened cock swingers…
So what about co-ed dorms, where most boys minds are typically (not going to stereotype all, not male or female) on sex. With little to no adult supervision. There will always be those guys who's mind is set on any women at any given time or place, but how horney were you during combat (if you've been, I don't know you,I'm not trying to put you down in anyway).Just the same there will be those type of problems there always are, just in day to day life. But to say that makes it a no go is a little to short sighted in my opinion. I've and many have said how women are out there already just not with a designated combat MOS, but women are there. As a women I know how to take it and give it and put a stop to it, as most women do. There will be changes that have to be made and some boys will have to grow up, but if a women can make it, and hack it then where is the big problem in that. I don't believe every military man out there has raping a women who is copping a squat on his mind. At some point she'll be just one of them, that's also part of human nature.
This move has been made by the current administration to destroy our national defense capability and not to support equality for women. HE, the great Mislim president, hates the constitution, hates the military and has done everything he can to diminish the role of the US as a super-power; I think he's doing very well.
This is a moral issue: an honorable nation does not send its mothers, sisters and daughters to fight its nations battles, to do so is morally abhorrent.
Ok so for all of you that are unclear (which is pretty much all of the sideline POGs and support) let me straighten you out by clarifying exactly why most of your arguments are simply ludicrous.
A) The statement that ISRAEL has female soldiers in "combat" does NOT wash. Their country is the size of NEW JERSEY! Their military is a police force more in line with that of the POLIZEI in Germany. They don't engage in long, protracted ground wars the world over (or need to be prepared for them). SO BULL S@it on that concept.
B) Standards? Let's PUUUULEASE talk about standards. Let's talk Height/weight. Females are allowed more fat than males. Wrong answer!! I want the strongest people available and that can NOT be accomplished with body fat, whether biologically the case or not, pound for pound the military will now allow women who are beyond what any male would EVER be allowed into these positions. And YES it does make a difference when you are carrying or being carried.
C) P.T. If we are all going from the same base line, IMMEDIATELY normalize the PT standards across the board. If the standards are the same then make ALL of them the same.
D) It is a fact that during all of the campaigns in the desert there were field pregnancies to the point that commanders were threatening court martials. Why? Well for those of you who just can't get it a pregnant soldier is as affective as a physically disabled soldier on paper. The soldier will NOT be removed from the rolls or transferred so the unit is then down a soldier on the ground who now is left to light duty etc. because of the medical necessity of lack of activity. Not to mention the need for increased medical care as well as the support to provide it (rides in from the field, etc. etc.)
E) It is ridiculous fallacy to equate harms way with combat. That would be no different that me saying that an EMT acts as a first responder and is therefore the same as DOCTOR!! Seriously? Sure women have been in harms way, women have been hurt and killed. NO dispute there at all. But at the end of the day it just is not the same.
F) Those that support this idea have not EVER been in the Infantry plain and simply. Show me one single Infantry soldier who will agree that this idea makes sense. You just arent going to find him. Why? Is it because Grunts are just women hater's? NO!!! It's because having an inside perspective of what things are REALLY like allows those of us that ARE Infantry to EASILY say that it is an idea without merit. Only those liberally shellacked Washington suck bags that the military now has for leaders would ever support the idea. It is PURELY POLITICAL in nature.
The underpinnings of both the military as well as society have eroded away. Just like dodge ball isn't played because the fat kid MIGHT get his feelings hurt and just like we don't keep score at little league because "we are ALL winners", and just like EVERYONE get an award so that NO ONE feels left out, the idea that ANYONE can be in the Infantry (Rangers, SEALS, Force Recon, et al) is just simply one more way to weaken the military.
Ask yourselves this for one moment, is the military about being "FAIR"?, NO! The military is about protecting a nation and it's interests with the best possible force available. PERIOD and that is NOT women in combat arms, it just is not!
One final thought, so when the rucks get packed and that night vision equipment and ammo gets handed out on TOP of the already insanely heavy rucksack load that is already packed, who's gonna get that do you think? When GI Jane can't hack the forced march who is it that gets to carry that equipment? When "OOOPS!!!" she gets pregnant who gets to pull all those extra guard shifts? Saying that because we have had one type of war thereby means that all others will be the same is so absurdly short sighted and naive. In the span of 40 years we have had ground troops all over the world! From Vietnam to Central America to the Deserts, so relying on the fact that s supply clerk did a fine job maning a 50 cal on a 5 ton is by no means cause to rally women into combat!
THAT is the reality. Not ONE of you can mount ANY sort of argument to refute it either. Panetta won't be alone in the fox hole when the sick call rate is through the roof due to the absence of females from physical inability to compete as WAR REQUIRES. The Joint Chief of Staff won't be pulling KP or humping that ammo. So NO they do NOT know best. They are political relics at this point and are TRYING to be relevant by pandering to a liberal agenda and it is painfully obvious as well as dangerous to the men who will and can only be forced to suffer beside physically inadequate females. Sorry but it just the way it is.
Just one last little thought. Why is it that Mixed Martial Arts has different leagues for women fighters? If this logic of your is true and correct shouldn't the fight against the men? Isn't it all just the same? Of course it isn' the same, that is WHY the standards are not now and will never be the same and that will leave the larger stronger males to pick up the slack to help em on through.
Well, why not have just one Olympics. Let everyone compete on same field. If I am fighting along side someone I do not care what their sex, race, orientation is but I want them to be equally combat ready- same standards for everyone and those standards should be equal or better than the enemy forces.
Looking at the numbers it appears that 60% of the people don't believe that women should share in the burden of protecting this country. That it is OK for men to die on the front line, but women should remain protected. It's been noted that there is no front line in an insurgent/jungle war. The women are already there fighting , and dying, why not give the tools (training, weapons, experience) to protect themselves and their comrades. This isn't political hyperbole, this is real world.
As an army nurse who has been depolyed to Iraq, I believe women should have the right to be in the military. After all if you know your history, nurses started in the military in a supportive role. However, I don't think women belong on the front lines. Even if a female can pass the standards I don't think we are built to endure days out in a fox hole or days with out a shower or bathroom facilities. We are not built the same!!! Women can be a distraction to these young men. It is embeaded in the male to protect women which puts the troops at risk.
I was an Army trainer in the Non Commisioned Officer Education System (NCOES). I taught PLDC/BNCOC/ANCOC over a 10 year period and became the NCOES Director. To be in this position you had to be 11B qualitified. Our school ran thousands of soldiers thru our courses. In these courses we teach NCO leadership and basic soldier skills. Thru all of this training we found out that only 10% of the females were able perform to the standards need to be and 11B leader. That was it.
I have worked with many a fine female Enlisted and Officer but in a combat role there are only 10% can hack it.
Notice that the press still reports that ' X women and children were killed when a …' Even where women serve in their country's combat arms, their press says they are counted differently.
Folks Combat was never intended to be fair, the civilized nations of the world have attempted in vain to enforce rules of war! But nobody ever told the bad guys they had to play by the rules? We don't or haven't gone to war with an honorable nation since our own war for independence. What makes liberals, utopians and the like to think that somehow the Foe's we as a nation will encounter are not going to take our New Women Combat troops into account and try to exploit any weakness no matter how unfair? *if this were ever a business proposal, it would get shot down by stock holders. If this was an education proposal (reduced capability with greater expense) every parent would say not for my children. If this were a Gambling casino, Vegas would not take our odds in our favor because it's not logically sound thinking? It is the liberal Left's agenda to bring the honor, integrity, and self esteem of the nation's military under the heel of "Social Equality".
Women join the army knowing what could happen. I think its great that they are doing this. I just joined the army. women can handle their selves. Its a matter of men learning to ttreat us equal. Dont baby us dont try to save us and dont run out and get shot. just do your job and we will do ours. we are very capable of doing everthing you do.
Sorry spouseBuzz, but you're on the wrong side of this issue. Quit trying to erase the distinctions between the genders. We are different, and we can and cannot do different things. Professional equality is a noble concept, but it inherently can only go so far. To claim otherwise does a greater disservice to both women and men. And in the issue of women in combat, it will simply lead to more combat casualties and fatalities. And I don't think that is the equality any of us wants!
My view is that women do not belong in combat, but with the way the world sees things our opinion dose not mean a thing. we are wrong for thinking that way because it dose not fit the political agenda of today. Remember what was right and true 40 or 50 years ago are wrong today and what was wrong 40 or 50 years ago are now right. You can't fight it. I agree with many of the comments that were given but the true fact is that requirements will change to accomindate the women and in the end we will have a less effective military. Sorry to say. As far as what happens to the women on the battlefield or if captured that is on them they take the same risk as men and for the body bags of women sent home I will feel just as sad as if they were filled with men.
no i dont like idea of woman in combat watching my back
I cannot believe this, if you think women can preform in long engaged combat you are very crazy. I am just glad I spend my 25 years and out . Young males and females soldiers cannot live in a foxhole without things happening. Then what? Tax payers money will be wasted on training these women. All the women I knew did not like the field and always got out of the field with sick call excuse. What has changed? Give me a BREAK!!!
I saw a lot of female soldiers during OIF 1, when my Grunt was crossing the berm, pregnant so they didn't have to go. I never felt so much annimosity seeing them in their DCU's and tennis shoes! Explain this oneplease? Talk about a waste of taxpayer and government funds training our little GI Janes to get cold feet and sick call for nine months and maternity leave!? Its BS, don't want any part of it anymore. It's his career and if he wants to stay he may and I'll support him til the day I die. I've sacraficed for this country too, my career, my dreams most of my good parts of my life waiting and taking care of the homefront. I'll be dammed if I stand by and watch my Grunt, experieced and battle proven soldier passed up for promotion over a female because the current administration wants to look good for voters!
Notice anything ironic in your list of topics in above email???
———————————————————-
Navy Pins 1st Nuclear-Qualified Female Submariners
Troops Debate Risks, Benefits of Women in Combat
Navy Seeks to Combat Unplanned Pregnancies
———–
yeah.. stuff boys and girls into a small space for a time, and see what transpires..
————
I noticed if you say something the administrators of this board do not like, they don't post it. Oh well. They really didn't want my opinion on this topic. God Bless all and Carry on the Mission.
Women in Combat, professionally and morally a touchy subject. I'm a retired Viet Nam era Navy O4 LDO Engineer. Back in Viet Nam I was enlisted and NOT at sea. Looking back there was no privacy in the field, we could pee on whatever, how is that going being addressed "NOW"? With the military seemingly becoming fiercely PC, would a fella be so concerned of an article 15 because some female saw his penis in the field, that he looses sight of the battle that he becomes a casualty? Put the females in the same situation, when she has to go it is a longer process, greater potential for physical exposure, and how do they intend to handle the "unaddressed compromising situations". This is the type of situation that I would fear more than being shot at. Holy Crap, Captains mast for seeing her bare ass peeing beside the tree. Can the public and the military face the known torture situations other forces have been known to use??? IT ISN'T REAL PRETTY!! My advice to all is, plan for and expose the worst expected situations/conditions. Place ALL THE POSSIBLES on the situation table to be seen, inhale deeeply and charge on. Good Luck. As an after thought, many of the skinny gals would have made "GOOD TUNNEL RATS". In closing, SEX on the field of engagement is one activity that did not even cross my mind, but that is just me.
eeing as how nother Countries alwo women in combat arms I have no objection as long as they can toe the line in all ways and not expect the standards to be cut for them as in combat thee are no ways to cut standards so step up and accept it as is or don't ask to get in.
Ret U.S. Army
Retired US Cavelry, This is the liberal agenda .Some one put them in power. God save the USA.
It doesn't matter the argument on who can do what better.Or, how men are socially engrained to protect females. Who cares really? They wanted in, take it like man! I won't support another enlistment for my Infantryman. Too many false claims towards brothers at arms for some fun game that female soldiers like to play, what do y'all call it? Homewrecker or something like that? Last one I heard of put a Joe in Prison on a false claim. Do you get it? He didn't do it but went to Prison, lost his wife, career and he was innocent! Nope, I don't support it, never, ever will. They wanted numbers down in the forces, you got it. We aren't staying. God Bless all!
You are so insecure about a female soldier working with your husband that you are going to claim EVERY female soldier plays games and is a "home wrecker"! A home wrecker takes two. Lol, seriously your own insecurities are that big. If your Infantryman has deployed then he has worked or been around females and female soldiers, whether you want to acknowledge that or not. What goes on in your marriage and your insecurities is your problem/ business and has nothing to do with this Topic. There are people who f&@k others over of both genders open your eyes, do a little reading and research. At least develop your own opinion based on information not your lack of self confidence and fear that he would be around other women. Your one insecure opinion is hardly the numbers down the forces, grow up.
There are two major problems with women in combat. 1) Lack of physical strength. 2) The complications it put on combat leaders to not only deal with the tactics and other stresses of combat but now have the added burden of dealing with a group of people in their sexual prime and all the baggage that comes with that.
One contribute above hit the nail on the head. Initially we will be told that the standards are the same. Then the women's failure rate will get media attention and the only answer will be to lower standards.. I saw this first hand as a Lieutenant in The Basic School in 1976. My class was the last to go through the old school where every male lieutenant was expected to be trained as an infantry officer. We had the double running of the O-course, 20 mile forced marches, etc. TBS was 6 months long.
The class behind us was to integrate women as if no one had a gender. Initially the only accomodation given the females was in room and room mate assignments. Within two month the women were in woman only platoon because they were not keeping up with their male counter parts physcally but they were still expected to complete all he physical tasks. By thee months 75% of the females were on some sort of modified duty due to injuries. The experiment was abandoned and the next class dropped the requirement that all Marine officers be trained as Infantry officers. A new Infantry officer class was created and was treated like any other MOS specific class for TBS grads. The TBS curriculum was adjusted to emphasis the academic aspects to allow the females to not be at a disadvantage.
The role of the military should be to field the most efficient fight machine available and not be some social experiment to further some politicians political agenda.
I find ironic that the politicians pushing this for the most part have no military experience. They have a political agenda that pushes for equality of outcome rather that excellence. In their world I should be able to compete for a slot as a starting NFL quarterback because I can throw a football. With reasonable accommodation (like no one can rush the quarter back for 2 minutes and the defender must stay 10 feet from the receiver) I should be able to compete as and NFL quarterback.
The next problem is more problematic. Young people in stressful environment at the peak of the sexual desire. It adds an element of complexity to combat that does not need to be there. 'nough said.
As a retired military veteran, I can honestly say I'd never have the confidence in women in a combat role when one's comrades-in-arms are counting on them to engage an enemy combatant with dispassionate use of deadly force and violence. I do not believe women have the psychological makeup to use deadly force and necessary violence required in a combat role under intense enviromental conditions and often encountered under very austere circumstances.
It's not that women aren't capable mentally or physically, but there are 2 reasons they shouldn't be allowed in combat roles, at least for now.
1) Our current wars have us engaged in predominately Muslim countries who believe in polygamy, have no problem beating/throwing acid on women, and have absolutely no respect for them. As long as our objective is COIN and "hearts and minds," sending women in to meet with village elders (which is what combat troops do these days) will not end well.
2) Men are hard-wired to protect women; as a former Special Forces medic, I can tell you that triage is the most important part of combat medicine. Israel already tried this, and found that in every case, if a woman was injured along with other men, the medics would spend far too long focusing on the women, even past their death, as the saveable men who were injured died without treatment.
If you want a more in-depth into my perspective on this, as a Green Beret who's been to Iraq, Afghanistan and Africa, you can read my blog: http://www.lovemewhenimgone.com/women-in-combat/
Isn't this page called "SpouseBuzz?" So isn't it supposed to be a forum for the spouses of those who serve so they can have a community and a voice? Because scrolling through the comments that are against women in combat, I notice most of them are from men. So…are all you guys spouses of women in uniform? Or are you in uniform and speaking for your spouses? And, if so, there's something ironically consistent about believing it's proper that men should fight AND speak for their spouses, lol. Donchya think? ;) Kinda says it all right there, when you think about it…
Sounds dandy! By the way, if women can serve in combat, then they should be required to register for the draft. Let's see how motivated people are then…
Distraction?? Everyone looks the same in BDUs. And when someone is shooting, I am not sitting around worrying if it's a female next to me. All I care about is that they have a gun and are correctly using it on the guy shooting at me…
5 stars…
So how does the mp corps do it???
How is this any different then the man worrying and distracted by what his wife is doing at home or just personal problems. Maybe soldiers shouldn't be married and defanitly shouldn't have kids either. Just in case its a distraction. Pretty ridiculous right, that's how you sound. Talk about a narrow mind! I'm not even going to stoop to your level about gays not serving in the military, your obviously scrapping the bucket to justify your narrow mind. Women are already out there, that's a fact. Guess what so are gay people, no problems arise from that in all this time. Wanting the same entitlements or choices with what she wants to do for her country, well it's about damn time! If a male soldier can't act like one then he is the problem not the woman
For you that may be the case but some men feel it's their job to protect women and children. So yes, it is a distraction. Some men take care of women as if it was their own body! I'm not saying anything bad about our military, but the few women that make it through will be in locations with mulitple men. Very bad odds.