The closest the United States ever got attacked was in the movie "Red Dawn." And now that I think about it... The women in Red Dawn did some serious Communist arse kicking. WOLVERINES!!

Women in combat arms MOS's is a bad idea all around. Anyone who has ever served in the Army knows that combat arms people exist in a different world than paper pushers.

1: Most women in the Army aren't physically capable of serving in an infantry unit. Some are, but the vast majority wouldn't make it unless they watered down the standards like they did with the PT test. Watering down the standard may provide higher scores for a promotion board, but will do little to save your life when rushing an enemy ambush. Mister Taliban doesn't give a damn what your last NCOER looked like.

2: An infantry commanders biggest obstacle is keeping the men focused on their job. Too many distractions,(wheres my mail, whens hot chow coming again, etc.), as it is. The last thing they need is the distraction of women in the unit as well.

Prepare for the sexual assault cases to skyrocket if this goes through.

Not being a misogynist, I'm all for equal opportunity and all that good @!$%#. Being a realist, I'm just calling it like it is.

Go for it..........puts a whole new meaning to "Foxholes"......"Foxhole" babies will be everywhere......

If and only IF they can pass the same physical requirements to be in the unit should they be allowed to enter the combat unit, there will be a few that are able but the vast majority will not, and if you keep the standards "equal" You can help to ensure the safety of the troops. THERE is a reason for the physical standards and they should never be lower to allow a female in because that will put an extra burden on the other troops endangering them. It would be terrible if someone shot (man or woman) was not able to be pulled off the field to be treated because someone did not posses the strength to get them to safety. There is also a lot of equiptment that somme troops must carry with them to be able to do a mission sometimes and it would not be right for someone else to have to help carry anothers equiptment cause of lack of strength.

SPCTorres

I have no idea why you would compare this situation to anything having to do with race or racism, when it's a gender issue being discussed. But since you brought it up, why are 18 series MOS's and most ranger batts 95% white?

If you served alongside women, then this means you are a POG and have no idea what's its like to serve in a combat unit. The problem is you,( and the rest of the POG'S), feel fully comfortable commenting on what it's like to serve in something you couldn't possibly know anything about.

And NO, being assigned to an HHC in an infantry battalion ISN'T the same. In that HHC you aren't being pushed anywhere near as hard as the people in the line companies.

Seriously bro. I respect your service. It takes all kinds to make the Army work efficiently. But everyone needs to get in where they fit in. Show me a platoon of females who can hump their own rucks, and pack a 60 on a 10miler, and I'll change my tune, but we both know that just isn't going to happen now, is it?

Damn.........now we'll have to add another class to SS Disability..........PTSDPMS......:(

Any time I think of this issue, I am reminded of real world events that happened in my past. Forget the issue of gender and just think about physical ability. If I was injured, I would hope that everyone in the unit could carry me out without struggling. Once I was on a CG patrol boat and we had this civilian guy who was just over 300 lbs...he was cleared to go out on patrols with us as an observer (non-participant) but the issue was, that if something had happened and he ended up in the water, there was no way I could have dragged him out of the water back on to the boat by myself and it would be difficult even with another crew member. I always felt uneasy when I found that I was scheduled to go on patrol with him because I knew that if something happened, I might be forced into a losing situation. It's is hard enough pulling an unconscious normal weight person out of the water by yourself into a boat or with another because they are so low in the water compared to where you are on the boat, it is not like benching something and the water makes things slippery and hard to hold on to.

Anyways, on a battlefield, I would just hope that everyone in the unit can fireman carry everyone else at least 100 yds if they were injured. Gender really does not matter as much as physical ability and in that sense, the same physical standards must apply. After all, once in the field, the enemy sees everyone as an equal opportunity target and strength is an advantage. I would not want to see anyone at a disadvantage because standards were lowered because that would just make them better targets.

See the following link for an article about this type of training in action....

http://www.afrc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123285485

ImoenOfTelengard,

"The closest the United States ever got attacked was in the movie "Red Dawn.""

Ever hear of the movie "Pearl Harbor"?

G I JOE

I agree with you 100%

In NAM we worked the Cambodian Border in 111 corp. We were out in the boonies doing search and destroy operations . We were dropped off in the middle no where for as little as three weeks to as long as six weeks . We hunted Charlie all day and ambushed all night . A 20 click walk in the jungle , rice patties or rubber plantations was the norm . Needless to say your body took a beating the entire time . Got resupplied once a week or so . Women are not the weaker sex . They are just built differently from men for a different reason . Working like that will break down a woman faster than a man . You never got enough sleep , you were always hungry and thirsty. Life in a front line unit is no bowl of roses .

bob

SPCTorres

It's one of those things that no matter how many times I would explain it, I could never put it into words unless you actually DID it. Over the past 22 years, I've had a variety of MOS'S, both combat arms, and non combat arms.

Could most females do the MOS I currently have now? ABSOLUTELY without question a female could be as good a JAG,(I'm not the actual JAG, I just work here), as any man.

Could a female survive on an Alpha team in the 2/7 SFG where I did for 8 years? Absolutely not. No way. No how. But let's say for the sake of argument 5% of those who tried out actually made it. How long do you think they'd last in a snake eater battalion? Honestly, from working in the JAG, I can tell you probably 25% minimum of the guys who enter the infantry enter on a "go to war or go to jail" program. These aren't the same guys you worked with in the PAC. These are some crazy sons of bitches. If the enemy didn't get the females, their supposed "battle buddies" would. I mean it's one of those things that a person can argue til they're blue in the face, but until you actually go see it for yourself, and actually SERVE as a grunt, you just wouldn't understand.

I mean you DO realize the reason points are so low for combat arms is because very few recruits in the infantry stick around long enough to become an NCO? And if they do re-up it's usually with a different MOS. Yeah, the job is THAT @!$%#ty.

1: Most women in the Army aren't physically capable of serving in an infantry unit.

The basis of the lawsuit is discrimination solely on the basis of sex. They're only demanding that those women who are capable be allowed to serve in an infantry unit, not that all women be allowed to serve. That's a fair request. Not all men are cut out for infantry, either. Yet, there's not a blanket prohibition against them.

We all seem to be missing an important fact here.

When in a fire fight , all out ground attack or perhaps walking up onto a fortified enemy position , What happens to you ?????? You get through it on a 110% ADRENALIN RUSH !!!! That drives your body nuts and blows your mind . Cumming down from that is nothing short of crashing . It is hard as hell on all men. But what would repeated exposure to that do to a woman ???? We already know what PTSD does to a man , So what other things might it do to a woman ?????

bob

How about women can fight in combat when there is ONE physical fitness standard in the Army and Marine Corps?!?! That would be a good start!!! I love this B.S. term "equal rights" they throw around. They pick and choose where and how "equal" is to be applied. Pffftt!!!

GI Joe makes so many interesting points. What occurs to me immediately, minus all the ugliness that will come from this, most decent young men, raised right, from good families as so many of our military are will struggle with clouded judgement on the front lines when a female is along side them. Most will do what they are taught to do, protect a young lady possibly at the expense of other troops. I'm not slamming anyone... I think my boys would do this. I hope this makes sense without sounding offensive.

They want it? Then give it to them BUT, but make them sign up for the selctive service and if they want a Bell Grant for College or a federal Job make them show their selective service card. Keep the out of combat arms line platoons. Now a days everyone is in a combat zone, so give them combat pay and any medals that come with it, Give them comabat credit fo being in the combat zone. Give female officer an even playing field when it comes to promotions, such as not be over looked for lack of combat command time. Smae goes for female enlist. But keep them out of combat line platoons.

I wish Seta was young enough to fight so maybe he could get shot.

History already says women can fight on the front lines and that men can handle it. Read about the Easter Front WW2, then get back to me.

Srich: you are partially right. Men, and a more younger man nowadays, may take bigger risks in combat beside a womanto protect here. But what the Isrealis found was very different. The women in their war for Independence could fight very well, and I don't doubt the women in our miltary could to. However, it was the psychological effect on men when they were beside women and they got killed is where the units broke down. You can call it sexism or men being men or men being Alphas, but having a women beside you getting their head blown off was far more devastating than a man. The men broke down. That's why the Isreali's stopped it. I remember vividly in the 1991 war when this discussion came up, and one of the top Isreali defense department generals said, to paraphrase " You Americans can play social politics when it comes to war, but we live it everyday and we know what nonsense this discussion is".

GI JOE!

How do you go from is a primary Combat unit job and special type unit combat mos to that of working ina Jag office. Did you get hurt? I mean no disrespect with the question. I did my 20 + ALL combat arms But was never hurt or wound (luck) that would have force me out of the combat arms. Just an honest simple question. Thats for serving!!!

Command Sergeant Major Jane Baldwin and Colonel Ellen Haring, both Army reservists,

Notice it says Major, Colonel and Reservists.....they know they will never have to do it and want five minutes of fame....what they are doing is wasting tax dollars having Congress even discuss this......Put those two in combat first.......oh, wait.....they are stay at home grandmothers who play army 2 weekends a month, or has that changed too........If they want this law so bad, they themselves should be the first ones to have to pass the combat PT requirement's, plus the MOS training........ :)

Agamegnon: You have been watching too much Hollywood. Women can be very valuable to a military, but you are completely misinformed.

I have no problem with women serving on subs launching missles, or women jet pilots, but they should be kept in the rear on the ground.

hese women are totally off-base, and the Consitution is constantly viewed as being separate in many matter matters when it comes to the military, hence why the military has a seperate code of justice. Bth of these women are reservist trying to get higher rank and pay by gaining the access. And that makes me really sick, that they want to degrade the military for their own personal financial gain. Why don't they transfer over to the active? Then I might give them some respect of credibility.

Skullbones: it was Sergeant Major and a Colonel.

I agree with GI Joe 100% Its not racial its gender and BTW how come everytime a subject is brought up about the "wrong or right" people jump on the RACIAL CARD!

I have a son in the Marine Corp who just got finished with his first (and I pray only) tour in Afghanistan. He is infantry and damn good. I believe equality for everyone. I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS EXTENDS TO OUR MILITARY! There are enough POG jobs out there that we could use women but INFANTRY IS NOT ONE OF THEM. Our PT standards have dropped to accomodate women?? Is our govenment insane?? Do you think the enemy is going to drop their "standards" because they see a woman? This along with the fact that women's cycles will interfere as in any species. I hear women say that their cycle change or stops but not all women and I don't want my son to be in a foxhole, under enemy fire or any other potentionally fatal situation with a woman who is a distraction of any kind! This goes for gays and lesbians too, sorry no place in infantry next to my son. You are a DISTRACTION IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD! For all of you that are reading this as racial or against homosexuals??? READ AGAIN!!! This has nothing to do with that! This has EVERYTHING to do with keeping us~~THE USA MILITARY #1 AND TOP OF OUR GAME! You drop our standards to accomodate distractions and we lose!!

And as a side note my daughter is a firefighter so no I don't believe women should be in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant either...

@Agamemnon

History is just that, history. It's a great reference point but coming WWII, which was a constant struggle and constant battles, to the wars we have now is ridiculous. Current wars are not constantly "in the trenches", there is a lot of downtime and boredom. If you believe that a bored troop or soldier is not the most dangerous thing on this earth then I feel sorry for you. I served six years in the Marine Corps and I can attest to the fact that what GI Joe is saying is pretty damn spot on.

Skullbones: it was Sergeant Major and a Colonel.

Indeed it did say Command Sergeant Major....But I didn't feel like typing out Command Sergeant Major ....sorry......I'll try to do better.......but you miss spelled my username.....lol...... :)

Skull BONES

We had many ER'S and NG'S in NAM . Most went into combat unites only to get their CIB !!! After that they all went home . Our company had at least Three Captains , who spent less than 90 days on line . Got their CIB's , Combat Command Time and went back home . They had it easy . We had to stay and do a full tour or get shot up or killed before we came back home . Some things are just not fair .

bob

Mr. Telengard -

The British invaded Maryland, attacking Baltimore, Fort McHenry and Washington D.C. in 1813. They sacked the capital and burned the White House. They invaded nothern New York, attacking Plattsburg, and took Detroit. Grade school history, Sir. Not Hollywood fantasy.

"Does that banner yet wave?"

bob1/28

I have no problem with women in the military, just stay behind the lines is all I'm saying...I met my great great grandmother who would tell about how they would be on the battlefield dressing wounds during the civil war...... But this is a different time, and we are technologically advanced enough that we really only need half the boots we have now, hell we have so many drones & satellites today, your local sheriff has a few flying over your house now........

.

@ night hawk

BINGO!!! When I finished law school and entered active duty, there was only one way to guarantee my PDS would be on the east coast. SFQC/SFAS. It nearly killed me, but somehow I made it. LOL

Actually, it wasn't getting hurt that got me reassigned. I was a victim of QMP. I was a gun bunny in the National Guard while attending school, so it pushed my federal service time up higher than it should have been for my rank.

I didn't have enough rank to command a group, and I was above the zone for commanding a battalion. I DID have the option of going on General staff to wait it out, but that didn't appeal to me. So off to JAG I went.

And for the record, I'm probably the only POG in the JAG that doesn't get called a POG.

Let's call this what it is: two female career b-listers have reached top post and are looking for a excuse to say why they can't go higher. They don't have combat arms. Well, you know if you are a team player and member of the core, you know that when you sign up. These two won't be put in harms way, they won't be shot at, put in a combat kill zone or abused by the enemy. They are way-back support logistics people who don't care about the small girls who will die because of their agenda against the values and spirit of the military.

Shame on them and shame on any person who would sacrifice their daughter for the liberal socialist right.

Skull Bones

The sheriffs drones are not a problem for me . I just jive them the flying fickle finger as they pass over.

bob

GI JOE. Did you read the article? I don't mean that to be insulting, but if you look at more than just the headline, they are aruging that they should not be banned SOLELY on the basis of sex. If they can't cut whatever standards they are (watering down the standards is a different point), then okay. But they are saying being female alone is not a good enough reason.

As for your second point. I see the reality of it, but I can't necessarily say it's in society's best interest to perpetuate it. Don't Ask, Don't Tell had reasons behind it as well. Our military, should be able handle doing their job, whether it is a women by their side, their best friend, a gay man, someone in their unit they're not getting along with, anyone. I think they are capable of working together and getting over the "distraction," especially once we stop making excuses and instead show that we have the confidence in them to do so. Futhermore, these policies, though they may be or seem protective in the short term perpetuate bigotry in society as you can see from some of the comments such as the person who said he wouldn't serve with gays or women if he were still active. (And the distraction argument is the reason a lot of women are expected to dress the way they do around the world, specifically in the middle east. It's even used here as reason for discrimination, sexual assualt- "the woman provoked it". I'm not sure if that is the basis we want to use for excluding women in combat. I would stick other reasons if you really think it's a necessary policy.)

Overall, I just wanted to stress that this lawsuit is saying that they should have the opportunity to "try out". Not that they should be given a free pass.

Skull Bones

The sheriffs drones are not a problem for me . I just jive them the flying fickle finger as they pass over.

bob

Too Funny.........:)

All I have to do is think of my ex-wife to know how well that women can fight. Sign them up!

@good reasonable

I get where you're coming from. Really I do. The general public just doesn't seem to realize that a combat arms unit is a lot different than a support unit. It's not just a different job, it's a whole different mindset of people who select those jobs.

Simply suggesting that you can force something on these guys that they don't like is ill informed. Can you force a policy change like this on medics,cooks, chaplains assistants,and mechanics? ABSOLUTELY. Can you force it on tankers, rangers, infantrymen, and artillery? Not without serious blowback.

So next you will suggest that we just replace these uncouth heathens with someone else to do the job? Again, ill advised. These units are comprised mostly of uncouth heathens for a reason. LOL Combat arms type individuals aren't tea and crumpets kind of guys if you know what I mean.

So letting them simply "try out" as you say, does nothing to change the other aspects of the situation. Even if they were more physically capable than the men were, the issues of sexual harassment, rape, and job distraction, would still rear their ugly head. And as for me personally, I can't think of ANY way to address that factor.

So in summary, yes, in my opinion they should be excluded for the sole reason that they possess a vagina. It would be very similar to throwing a woman in a maximum security men's prison. Only difference is, the inmates in this scenario would be armed with automatic rifles. LOL

R Scott-846657, you remember vividly the conversation in 1991 from Israel about why women should not be in combat but you don't remember the 2000 equality Act? Women in Israel not only have to serve in the military (except for certain exemptions like pregnancy) but they may serve in whatever position they can pass into. So, if women can pass the physical standards to be in combat, then they can be.

Guys! Seriously, get a grip! Gals, too. In a combat situation, the guy next to you doesn't think about a combat mate's gender, just if he can shoot straight and has a good eye. I guarantee any combat personnel would rather have a superior soldier watching his back, who happens to be a woman, rather than some half-fasst dope who is a man but on whom he cannot depend. Women have proved themselves in combat repeatedly since the Crimean War. In the United States, women fought in the Revolutionary War, The Civil War, and even up to WWII in combat situations. It is only the male ego that rebels at the idea of a woman in active combat. What are you afraid of? Really...

In Israel everyone, repeat EVERYONE, serves their tour of military service. There is no codicil that excludes women from full military service. The U.S. is, apparently, just a few steps ahead of the Arab world when it comes to their discriminatory and sexist attitudes about women.

"Women are too frail. Women can't handle the weapons. Women don't ... Women aren't... Women can't ..." yadda yadda yadda. There is absolutely no validity to any of the 'arguments' against women in service and there is no reason to restrict women to non-active combat roles.

And for those of you with your ugly suggestions that only a lesbian would want to be in an active combat situation ... there is no response for such an ignorant and bigoted mind set.

Sex discrimination is illegal in America except in the federal government. They seem to be exempt from all of their own laws.

This isn't about the multitudes of women who CAN'T make it, this is about the select few who CAN. The logic that "most" women wouldn't be able to can apply to both sexes... Most men can't either. Bottomline, if we can meet the appropriate standards there is no good reason not to let us...

Let's look at some of the more ridiculous arguments...

1. The PMS/MENSTRUAL CYCLE Argument -

Get real. No one dies from "period". First, we have ways that are basically side effect free of stopping our cycles, and second, there are women in third world countries that rarely bathe and still don't die from mentruation. This is a boogieman argument, put forth by men who have zero understanding of the female physiology.

2. The THEY'LL GET RAPED Argument -

We get raped here. In fact, one out of four of us are the victims of some sort of sexual violence. Furthermore, male POW's get raped too. You don't disqualify them, based on that possibility.

3. The MEN WILL WANT TO PROTECT THEM Argument -

That's a problem with the MEN, not the women. You can't disqualify us, because males have a psychological issue. You disqualify the person who can't handle it. It's similar to the thought process behind the burka. "Well, men can't control their sex drives, so let's force the women to cover up." Sorry, guys, that's YOUR issue, not ours.

GI JOE

Thank you for the reply. You have/ had a very interesting career, and without a doubt makes you a better Jag. Thanks agin for the reply and serving.

@night hawk

I'm not the JAG yet. Give me a few years. ;)

GIJOE,

Take all the other BS out. If I (hypothetically) can meet the same phsyical standards as you, what is your logical reasoning to not allow me the same opportunity?

@Sarah

If you were the strongest person in the whole battalion, and the fastest runner, it wouldn't change my feelings on the subject one bit. I mean, the many times I've had to hump a females ruck because she couldn't not withstanding, that isn't the primary reason I'm against females in combat units.

You claim that one in four females is a victim of rape. I'll concede that statistic is true. If anything its probably an understatement. But one in four is with an "average" environment. A combat unit is made up of people who are anything but average. Sticking you in a combat unit would result in two things.

1: Your rape percentage would go from 25% to an almost certainty.

2: The cost benefit wouldn't add up. Yeah, your being there would add a benefit, but not at the cost of distracting 200 other soldiers. You'd literally have to do the job of 50 people to even begin to make up for the distraction.

And naturally you being a liberal,(probably an idealist too), (I gleaned this knowledge from your other numerous posts on various articles), you'll probably counter with "but the women shouldn't be punished because the men are animals". And my response is that until you can find a way to allow women to add to the overall success rate of a combat unit, they should be kept out. Perhaps your idealism prevents you from seeing that not all people respond well to retraining, therapy sessions, or sensitivity training. And as for replacing them with someone else that's perhaps more sensitive to female needs, well that just won't happen.

Seriously, if you were my sister,mother,daughter,cousin,wife, fill in the blank, I'd feel more comfortable sending you to a men's maximum security prison than I would putting you in a front line combat unit. At least in the prison you'd have a fighting chance.

To GIJOE and the rest of the dissenters, let me weigh in. I have served (and am still serving) for the past 26 years, Officer and Enlisted. I have served in Combat Arms (Armor), Combat Support (Chemical) and Logistics over that time, and had the pleasure to serve with a broad array of Soldiers, male and female. From those years of experience, I have determined that generally, when female Soldiers fail to perform the same duties as their male counterparts, it is because their male counterparts prevent them from doing so. When the same expectations are placed on them, they rise to the challenge. I have seen female soldiers who were more physically fit then most male soldiers. Is it harder for them to achieve that? Maybe, but the point is, they do. To exclude an entire gender because some might not be able to hack it is wrong. Using that logic, men would be excluded as well, because some men just can't hack it. As far as distractions and sexual assaults, that problem only occurs when Soldiers forget their Values and professionalism. The Soldier in the foxhole next to you is just that - a Soldier. Whether male or female, they deserve the same opportunity to serve as anyone else. To GIJOE, to deny them that opportunity because you are not mature enough to maintain your professionalism and keep it in your pants says more about your unsuitability for service than their suitablity for service. And as far as it being an undue burden on leadership, as a Leader, I can tell you that I would have no problem accepting that responsibility, and do not consider it a burden. You need to wake up and join the 21st century. I fully support this effort, and believe that it is long overdue.

As a veteran myself, one thing a lot of you are forgetting is that once you signed up, you forfeited your rights to choice. If you did not pass a test during your boot camp, you lost out on the job you signed up for and were stuck with where ever they needed you. You don't have a choice in a lot of areas. you got the annual flu shot because you were told to. You buy and wear the uniform your told to. You have more decision made for you than you might think. So don't give me that crap about your rights. You signed them away. As for not being able to get promoted, BULL@!$%#. They have done a lot to offer women careers where they can get promoted. So suck it up and live with it.

SpcTorres

Idk about you but I left racism at the door along time ago, I'm safe to say ive never segregated- never crossed my mind to. But there are lesser forms that we as people neglect to realize. To realize that not one of us would take care of a poor blind man without reproach, or comfort those dying with an incurable disease. Nor would you sleep in a place that wreaked of all kinds of excrement- filled with rodents and abuse. ive seen children worse than those you sympathize with in foreign countries, right her in America. So we are worst the racist, who usually,raised racist, took care of there poor. but we wont take care of our poor, our own flesh and blood. No matter how nature begs us to help we wont, we our the picture of ungodliness. How could we live with ourselves knowing pain and suffering may only be a few miles away. It should be our job to look out for those in need, looking out for them could be braver than any other act of heroism. We would be honored in heaven for the acts we do, but who does it. Not I, most of you don't. But I will make a promise today that once I have the opportunity to help a man truly in need I will without hesitation. I wont help him buy a house but maybe make him feel as if he is visible, that he also is entitled to the same rights and share my food with as if i removed it from my own mouth to feed him.(not literally, but I would if I had to). We all should realize how little money is when compared to an act of Jesus Christ. It only takes one person to live in example to Jesus Christ to save many people from despair. Only one person who walks in his way would change the fate of humanity as of now, from dying in their own poop. Who will it be? How many will there be?

GIJOE,

You didn't answer the rest of the rape question...

Furthermore, male POW's get raped too. You don't disqualify them, based on that possibility.

Perhaps your idealism prevents you from seeing that not all people respond well to retraining, therapy sessions, or sensitivity training. And as for replacing them with someone else that's perhaps more sensitive to female needs, well that just won't happen.

I'm sorry, did I suggest any of that? Listen, contrary to what you may believe, men have frontal lobes too. You know, the part of the brain that controls impulse. I highly doubt, that if we were in some sort of combat scenario, you'd be more focused on screwing then surviving. If anything, your mindset is selling MEN short.

And you can call me idealistic all you want, that doesn't make it any less true, if you can't keep your head in the game, or if you're too busy thinking with your OTHER head, that IS your problem, and I refuse to bear the brunt of the consequences for it.

MajorMike,

Thank you, it's good to see a "nose breather" on here.

@ Major

My ability to maintain my professionalism isn't an issue here. I just know the men I lead. You can't throw a steak in front of a dog and expect it to not eat it.

How many article 15's have you written? How many cases have you referred to JAG for UCMJ? Hundreds? Thousands? Is it safe to say that there was a loss of military bearing there? Trying to preach professionalism to a ground pounder is an exercise in futility. I just believe in being PROactive rather than REactive. But perhaps you attended a different OCS than I.

It would be no different than handing a case of liquor to a line company vs handing it to a support company. You KNOW the outcome would be very different.

As for male soldiers suppressing the efforts of female soldiers, I too see this and I see it often. It's almost like they don't want them to succeed and will do anything to sabotage a female that they can. I never understood that.

As for me, I'll continue to stand with most of the old guard brass. The potential price is too high to allow for the experiment to fail.

I've never served (I'm thinking about it), and from a rational point of view I fully agree with GI Joe. If not for the physical requirements, then definitely for the sexual assault implications. The armed forces have enough trouble as it is with sexual assault, and as research has shown us - rape is not about sex it's about power. For guys on the front line who have no control over their buddies getting blown up, decisions made by higher ups, you name it - can you honestly say these women wouldn't be at risk of sexual assault by their comrades (or the enemy in addition)? I have a few friends that have served and they don't paint a pretty picture. The last thing I'd want is to put a girl in a remote base with a bunch of guys who are constantly at risk of enemy attack.

Keep in mind, I'm not trying to lump every soldier into a morally corrupt, murderer, etc. persona. It's just a game of statistics, and it's not one I'd one I'd willingly play just for the sake of political correctness - and I'm pretty liberal.

For those argueing that it's just that they don't want it to be totally based on sex, you need to wake up. The reality is that the military has a history of reducing standards when needed to allow females to perform in certain fields. Sadly, when they do reduce the standards it's because they are forced to by people who are not in danger....because they are the politicians who are usually being pressured by the civilians who are sitting at home. Should females be allowed to do more? Yes, but only only only if they can meet the current standards. There should also be no pressure at all to change those standards if no female meets them. This should not be about making sure that females are in all fields in some stupid show of equality. It can't be about that because in the end it's about lives, and lowering standards would cause lives to be lost.

Alex,

Don't you see the inherent injustice, in putting the consequences of men's behavior onto women? I'll copy what I said to GIJOE...

2. The THEY'LL GET RAPED Argument -

We get raped here. In fact, one out of four of us are the victims of some sort of sexual violence. Furthermore, male POW's get raped too. You don't disqualify them, based on that possibility.

It's similar to the thought process behind the burka. "Well, men can't control their sex drives, so let's force the women to cover up." Sorry, guys, that's YOUR issue, not ours.

And you can call me idealistic all you want, that doesn't make it any less true, if you can't keep your head in the game, or if you're too busy thinking with your OTHER head, that IS your problem, and I refuse to bear the brunt of the consequences for it.

The problem there isn't WOMEN in combat, it's RAPISTS in combat.

Sarah,

No problem. I deal with this attitude quite often. When I first transitioned from Armor to Transportation, I was placed in command of a heavy transport unit. The older male soldiers would put the female soldiers to the side whenever any strenuous work had to be done, such as breaking tires or other heavy maintenance work. I actually had to gather the unit together and formally put a stop to the practice, warning that for each instance I saw, I would write 2 counselings - One for the male soldier preventing the female from doing their job, and one for the female for willingly stepping aside. It was surprising how quickly things changed. Shortly after, and older male NCO came up to me during motor stables, and as we watched two female soldiers breaking tires from rims, he thanked me for opening his eyes to what they are capable of. The point is, we wear the same uniform, and receive the same pay. Therefore, we should all be held to the same standard.

@Sarah

I'm just telling you how it is. All the coulda, woulda, shouldas, in the world aren't going to change one thing. Men in support units are very different from men in combat units. And yes, if you asked the average infantryman if he'd take a bullet for some ass, he'd have to think about it before answering. Especially if he's been in the field for a while.

For the most part, combat units are comprised of young men. These units usually have a pretty good racial mix. Most of these men didn't sign up in the Army looking for pay or benefits, or service to their country like support people do. These guys pick these jobs because they want the opportunity to tear some @!$%# up. These really are the @!$%#tiest, hardest, dirtiest, most thankless jobs in the whole Army, they don't pay more than other jobs, so what makes certain people pick these jobs? To them, the whole payoff is in the destruction and mayhem. Its not a race thing, its not a gender thing, its not a partisan issue. Perhaps its a misguided youth thing. That's my best guess.

I know since DADT got repealed crimes against homosexuals in combat arms units have tripled. Some reason the media doesn't report this. Next year when we can get compiled statistics on 2012 will be a real eye opener. And I can only assume that if women are allowed to enter these same units there will be a similar outcome. Whether this holds up, or is stricken down won't be decided by me or you on newsvine anyway. If I'm still on active duty when any policy changes take effect, I'll abide by those policies just like I swore to do. I'm a soldier not a politician. Although I may not always like what the legislature lays on me, I'll support their right to control the military just as they should.

As for males being raped in pow camps, ok, what's your point? I'm not contending that females would be raped with more frequency than males would be in that situation. I am however contending that females would be raped with more frequency than males if females were allowed to serve in combat units.

As for selling men short, no, I'm selling SOME men short. Again, you can't throw a steak in front of a dog and expect him not to eat it. LOL

GI JOE has a few good points, but no the infantry isn't people who "do it or go to prison." It may be that way in the Army but everyone I served with as a grunt in the Marines PICKED 0311.
To answer Sarah's question, it's not that some women can't more that it's not worth all the extra expense for the FEW who can. What if a woman on a patrol needs to take a piss? I could whip it out and piss as I walked, but I assume we'd be expected to stop and do security for her? It's not like in a patrol base we have privacy, so where do they expect to change when they're in the field? Even state side what if one woman makes it, I assume they get their own barracks room?
The standards for women has always been watered down. They do "arm hangs" not pull ups. They get called "weight recruits" or something stupid in bootcamp but not fat bodies (lol.) Also, as a CSM and Colonel what do they expect, that they'll be thrown in a grunt unit now and be put in a leadership position (laugh.)
It's just not worth the money, these two just want the attention.

On the issue of female joining combat, America is firmly in the Middle Ages, on the issue of sexual abuses against female cadets, the US is in the Dark Age.

GIJOES,

As for selling men short, no, I'm selling SOME men short. Again, you can't throw a steak in front of a dog and expect him not to eat it. LOL

Dogs don't have frontal lobes, men do.

All the coulda, woulda, shouldas, in the world aren't going to change one thing

Especially, if we have people counting us out before we even leave the gate. Your logic here breaks down to, "Well you all have never done it, so obviously you can't". WTF?

Its not a race thing, its not a gender thing, its not a partisan issue.

Said it yourself, not a gender thing, so why is it logical to make gender a disqualifying factor. If we meet the same standards, there is no reason to not allow us to blow sh** up too.

I know since DADT got repealed crimes against homosexuals in combat arms units have tripled.

The more you post, the more it seems that everyone BUT straight men should be allowed in our armed forces. This "boys will be boys" mentatility is unfair and slightly sickening. Those that COMMITT the crimes, not those who suffer them, are the issue here. Writing it off as "status quo" is lowering the entire professional level of our armed services. Force them to rise to the occasion instead of excusing their bad behavior.

As for males being raped in pow camps, ok, what's your point? I'm not contending that females would be raped with more frequency than males would be in that situation. I am however contending that females would be raped with more frequency than males if females were allowed to serve in combat units.

Rape is rape is rape. If the threat of rape isn't used to disqualify men, why should it be used to disqualify women?

GI Joe - Actually, I have had to use UCMJ quite sparingly. In my view, an Article 15 or Court Martial are not just the result of Soldier misconduct. It is evidence of a failure of leadership. If you are conducting hundreds (or more) Article 15's as a Commander, I would have to question how well you are functioning as a leader. Leadership is not about the application of the UCMJ - It is about making the UCMJ unnecessary, by ensuring Soldiers do the right thing the first time. It is about guiding and mentoring subordinate leaders to be engaged with their troops, and to be proactive in preventing problems. It takes far less time to communicate your expectations and manage troops on the front end than it does to punish them after the fact. I did not do OCS, I did ROTC after my second enlistment. I can tell you that in my ROTC, there were no special dispensations for female cadets. Expectations were not based on gender. It was based on the fact that we were all seeking to become commissioned officers, and there can only be one standard for that. If you believe that combat arms soldiers are incapable of viewing female soldiers as equal comrades in the profession of arms, than you are part of the problem, because your attitude tacitly condones that behavior.

Your arguments are fundamentally flawed, and have been brought up at other times as well in our nations history. It was used when Truman decided to integrate the Armed Forces. It was utilized for years to keep Don't Ask Don't Tell in place (Yes, I approve of that repeal as well), and it continues to be used to discriminate solely on the basis of gender. Your willingness to be part of the 'Old Guard" is simply an admission that you hold, and will wilingly continue to hold, biased, sexist views. It is the bastions of Combat Arms that have allowed these views to persist in the Army, and they will not change until we knock down the final barriers to equality of opportunity for all Soldiers.

To One & All

Forgot about the RED ANTS in NAM !!! Many a time the point squad would run into and disturb a nest of them . Funniest thing you ever wanted to see . Steel Pots flying in one direction , weapons in another and clothing into a third direction . Nothing left but a squad of NAKED GI's , slapping the hell out of themselves and each other ( those suckers bite like hell ) . Also same thing happened when we ran into leach infested waters . I don't think a WOMAN GRUNT would like to do that in front of her Battle Buddies .

bob

@Major

Actually I work in the JAG. I get everyone's UCMJ. LOL

Well, like I told Sarah, coulda, woulda, shoulda, doesn't change a thing. I'm sure it will change in time. The Government will concede to just about any idea if a vocal minority of people just keep pushing an issue. You have the right to your opinion just as I have the right to mine.

I don't oppose all idealistic viewpoints. Idealism has it's place. As for my supposedly "biased", and "sexist" views, its really unfortunate that you see it that way. I see these views as decent and wholesome.

I can only hope that by the time you and your kind "knock down the final barriers to equality of opportunity", I'll be sitting at the house with a nice 0-7, or maybe even 0-8 pension. Now THATS idealism............

Bob,

I think if I was covered in fire ants, I wouldn't give a sh**.

Hopefully not too many American GI's will die because of this nonsense before it is stopped. Women don't play for the Dallas Cowboys but if they lowered the standards so they could, then the "Cowboys" don't have a chance in hell if the other side does not lower its standards too, and our enemies are just not going to do that.

GIJOE,

I would say that this is not a question of if, but of when. And when it occurs, people like yourself will have to have a decision to make - accept and learn to work with it, or step aside and let others who are willing take over.

As far as the O7 or O8 pension, good luck.

As long as they can meet the same standards as any other soldier, let them fight if they want to fight. Does that mean they're willing to be drafted, too, if that becomes necessary in the future?

Terry,

Women don't play for the Dallas Cowboys

And the world doesn't conduct military operations and wars in gender specific leagues. And, do you really place football and serving your country equally on the same level???

Better,

Yes. Sign me up for the draft. Fair is fair.

@Sarah

And, do you really place football and serving your country equally on the same level???

Actually, I have noticed over the years that most of the Generals,(especially the ring knockers), do treat a battlefield exactly like a football field. I've seen an enemy get overwhelmed just to hear a General scream in the radio "TOUCHDOWN"!!!! And instead of flanking movements, they call it "going out for a pass". Kind of weird actually.

GIJOE,

I'm from Detroit, until this season, if you yelled, "Touchdown", I'd respond with "What the fu** is that?" You know, the Lions and all.

I chose my MOS, 11B, and served it out for 8 years. I cannot imagine being down range with women. No way, no how. Can you imagine a day when women are in combat roles and a world war breaks out? No women, no children = extinction of species. Also, I understand Australia is allowing women to serve in combat roles. Although there's little chance the US will ever face Australia as the enemy, what would it be like to open up on a battalion of women? Could I do that? Seems like a dishonorable thing to do: blow the hell out of your mother, sister, daughter, etc. Tragic. And no, in spite of the good points made by GI JOE, I do not believe I would ever feel compelled to rape a female grunt (I bet that ass gets REAL nasty in the field) for any reason. Especially since I was fighting (in my mind) for my wife and baby girls back home. But I would not exactly like to carry her @!$%# for her either.

No women, no children = extinction of species

Yeah, we don't impregnate ourselves, you know. Our wombs stay empty without your sperm.

Seems like a dishonorable thing to do: blow the hell out of your mother, sister, daughter

If you aren't ready to "blow the hell" out of an enemey then it seems as if YOU aren't ready for combat. Someone mentioned the ability/necessity to shoot children enemy combatants, as a disqualifier for females in combat, what's the difference here?

GI JOE, you are full of sch!t. I think you did serve in the military, however, not as an officer, not as a SF or a JAG officer. You know some of the military terms like QMP or Qualitative Management Program. However, you claim you were a victim of this. But, the QMP is a tool used for Senior NCOs, not officers. It is not used for people who are above zone for commands, and forced into another branch. It is a tool for identifying NCOs who to not perform to standard (Qualitative) and are either separated or retired. See AR 635-200, Chapt 19. You also call people in non-combat MOSs "pogs." It is "pogue" If you had served in the National Guard while going to college, then you would also know that time does not count as Active Federal Service, and would not be counted against you.

Also, if you were an officer, then you would have known that women have indeed already proven themselves in combat arms units, on the front lines in countries like Isreal, and fighting for the Soviet Army in WWII. It would not be an "experiment" as you say.

You may be able to sell your story to these Poor F'ed up Civilians on here, but not to us true career soldiers. And yes, I served for 26 years total, 6 Reserve and 20 Active. I also served in Combat Arms, and Combat Support and I have met female soldiers who couldn't cut it in Combat Arms, and I have met some that could, and would put you or any other male soldier to shame. One of my female soldiers got in a head shot at 100m into a moving truck, and took out a terrorist driving a VBIED. While everyone else on the gate were diving for cover.

Sarah

Its just one of those "if you haven't been there done that" type things that you'd be hard pressed to understand without actually doing it. I know investigative minds like yours need everything laid out in stats, graphs, and irrefutable internet proof, but everything in this world isn't that easy to quantify. Knowledge,(verifiable)+experience(also verifiable)= this thing called wisdom.

Now I know your all caught up on the feminism, I'm equal to everyone else, bandwagon, and that's fine. Everyone needs a cause.

However, you could do the world a lot more good by focusing on the inherent sexism in organized religion, sexist salary disparities, etc.. This issue is a nogo to the overwhelming majority of those that have served, and those that are currently serving.

You say you refuse to be penalized for someone elses conduct. See, the Army doesn't work that way. In the Army you start refusing and you start having serious problems. Like these two women. If they want to throw their careers away, their pensions,their attorneys fees, and maybe even their freedom out the window, to gain a position that's untenable, then more power to them. They both have so much rank they couldn't benefit from a combat arms job anyway. PLUS they're in the reserves which only compounds the fact that they'll never see action. Glorywhores seeking out 15 minutes of fame at great personal expense is all they are. If I were closer to retirement I could say much much more, but since I'm still a few years away, I can only express my opinion in a way that doesn't tell the whole story.

War is indeed hell. Be thankful that you live in a society that attempts to protect those least capable of dealing with it.

Remember, one man and 100 women can have 100 children every nine months.(not counting infant mortality rates). 100 men and 1 woman can only have 1 child per nine months. Its only natural that a smart species would attempt to maintain itself by protecting its women.

@raddave

I only used the term QMP to keep the concept simple for an enlisted person who may or may not be aware that officers suffer the same fate. Granted, its different terminology, but the same concept.

As for you questioning my military service, the newsvine code of honor prevents me from telling you what I really feel. As best I can tell your just another troll more interested in personal attacks than posting anything of substance.

As for what the desperate people in Israel and Russia have done, I don't see that that has any bearing on our military or whats going on TODAY.

Unlike yourself I respect other peoples right to have an opinion. Perhaps you should do this yourself.

As for my military service, I'm not going to post my personal info in an open thread, but message me and I'll be happy to give you my post phone number and accept your phone call to the Ft. Bragg JAG first thing in the morning. EST. 0900 or later works best for me.

GIJoe,

Now I know your all caught up on the feminism, I'm equal to everyone else, bandwagon, and that's fine. Everyone needs a cause.

However, you could do the world a lot more good by focusing on the inherent sexism in organized religion, sexist salary disparities, etc.. This issue is a nogo to the overwhelming majority of those that have served, and those that are currently serving.

Wow, just when I thought you couldn't get anymore patronizing... Please, continue to tell me what I should/shouldn't be focused on, my poor feeble, female brain can't handle deciding for itself. BARF.

I know investigative minds like yours need everything laid out in stats, graphs, and irrefutable internet proof, but everything in this world isn't that easy to quantify.

Expecting someone to be able to back up their postition with more then just their assertions... I know, I'm soooo high maitnance.

War is indeed hell. Be thankful that you live in a society that attempts to protect those least capable of dealing with it

You actually have NO IDEA if I'm the least capable of dealing with it, because you won't even give me a chance.

Remember, one man and 100 women can have 100 children every nine months.(not counting infant mortality rates). 100 men and 1 woman can only have 1 child per nine months. Its only natural that a smart species would attempt to maintain itself by protecting its women.

There are 7 Billion humans on this planet. I don't think we need to worry.

You say you refuse to be penalized for someone elses conduct

Yup, if you can't keep it in your pants, that ain't MY fault. That is 100% true.

Not all women want the standards lowered, I personally want the standards to the be same all around. If a women can't cut it she shouldn't be in, just like if a man can't cut it he shouldn't be in. The fact that the minimums for my APFT are 19 push ups, 53 sit ups, and 18 something for the run pisses me off. I end up overmaxing because I meet the men's maxing criteria. Not all women are weak and defenseless. It just annoys me that people automatically say ALL women can't cut it, because there are those few that can and want to serve their country and if they meet the physical demands they should be allowed to fight for what they want. If they don't meet the SAME physical and mental requirements then no they should not be at that level.

Since everyone freaks out about men and women fighting next to each other, then why not just have a female infantry platoon. Have the best females in one platoon.

Also dbblonde, there are shots and other medication that can stop the period from happening, so that problem can be fixed before any women were to be deployed. That should be a requirement and I don't know why any woman would fight that if they were going into combat.

Its only natural that a smart species would attempt to maintain itself by protecting its women.

Thanks, that's what I was trying to say. I'm beginning to think Sarah is a troll.

And yes, when I was in AFGH, (and Panama) ROE allowed us to open up on enemy combatants, regardless of gender or age. But an entire battalion of women? No, that scenario has NEVER been tested.

@Jacki

I think a platoon would be too small. Perhaps a company sized element. Preferably a battalion or larger. I like that idea, and THAT I could support.

That way the battalion is judged by its own deeds, and its large enough to be shielded from the negative effects of a coed unit.

raddave

Come clean on that story !!!!!!

As a decorated combat Vet I know the game . A GRUNT does what a Grunt has to do when their time comes to do it . No ONE ever knows what they will or will not do until that moment comes . If that happened sooner or later the out come might have been different . I know this to be true. Why or how do I know this ??? Because when I had less than 30 days left in country. In the middle of a fire fight I stood up, ran out to retrieve a wounded comrade , all the while under enemy fire. One never knows when or if the call ( from a higher power ) comes what they will do . Each does the best they can at that moment in time .

bob

@Dave

No Sarah isn't a troll. Shes just got her own views and isn't afraid to express them, which is as it should be.

Now on the other hand, the guy making personal attacks, and telling fish stories about combat.............................Well thats a different story.

All of this rambling about sexism is capability and none of you noticed that these two women don't even know which amendment provides them with equal protection, it is the 14th not the 5th.

GI Joe

What is the size of an Infantry Company ?????

Our AIT company was 220 men . Got to NAM and my new company . We had a morning report strength of about 103 people . We had an actual field strength of 75 people . Yes we were used as a recon unit . That is all we did for the year I was there . Nam was fought by small groups pushing the enemy into a position , where we could attack with a much larger force . Afghanistan , Pakistan, and Iran have been fought this same way . Long gone are the days of large scale attacks , Battalions , Brigades , and so on you refer to. We had 2 squads to a platoon consisting of 2 fire teams each . But only 3 platoons went out and humped the boonies . The 3ed stayed back because it was a mortar platoon .

bob

@bob

Typical infantry companies run about 110-150 men depending on how understaffed they are. A typical SF company runs about 90 guys and doesn't usually suffer staffing problems. But that's just an off the top of my head estimate. You better go double check it with the Army. I wouldn't want raddave to be disappointed by another wrong answer. LOL

As for the size of a deployed element, I can't think of too many scenarios where a battalion cmdr is going to let his companies get too spread out away from the TOC. The Bn may not be engaging a full head on assault, but if a company sized element engages, the Bn won't be very far away. On today's battlefield, a Bn is about the smallest sized element that's going to be going out by itself.

Nunya,

Are you speaking of me? Because if you scroll down to post number, 2.19, you'll see that I said this was an equal protection issue, which, yes is the 14th Amendment. I promise, you don't want to get in a Constitutional argument with me.

Dave,

Threatened???

GIJOE,

Thank you for the defense.

GI Joe

Guess you could say that our company was under staffed !!! If you can check out the 1st. Inf. Div. year book 1969 . January the Lyons roar , is the heading I believe . You will see what a small group of people ( my friends and I ) ran up against . It took a mounted Cav group to get us out of that mess , believe it was the 1st of the 4th Cav.

bob

GI JOE, I don't question that you did serve. But, you are not as experienced as you claim and you are NOT a JAF Officer. You have proven this over and over again, by making inaccurate claims. And, you know how I know you aren't a JAG officer? From your last post to Sarah, when you said that these women "want to throw their careers away, their pensions,their attorneys fees, and maybe even their freedom out the window, to gain a position that's untenable, then more power to them." See, as reservists, they are not subject to the UCMJ unless they are on active duty. Since they aren't they cannot be punished for this lawsuit. Next, if you were "QMPed" you would be out, not allowed to change branches.

As for the relevance of Israel or Russia, it proves that females are capable of performing in combat situations.

You may even work in the JAG office at Ft Bragg, but not as an attorney, maybe a clerk.

@raddave

You show ignorance in some of the things you say. ANY reservist, hell for that matter anyone drawing a VA disability check, can be called to active duty and subject to UCMJ, and all it takes is one little signature from one of the many JAG'S in ANY branch of service. Granted, in a lot of cases this would be seen as a highly unusual move, but it's perfectly legal. If you want to practice law without a degree, at least don't be a low info attorney.

As for my current position, well hell that's easy. Just look up the phone number for the JAG at Ft. Bragg,(its listed under 18th ABN HHC), call it, ask to speak to the OIC of Trial Counsel, and when I answer just say "hey this is Dave". I'll know who it is. Trust me, I won't have a plethora of strange phone calls from civilians. But do wait til tomorrow after 0900. I'm enjoying my day off today bringing the internet netizens up to speed.

"Called to and Subject to" However, they are not subjected to it in a Reserve status. And, no not anyone drawing a VA disability check is subject to being recalled. and it takes a signature from a lot higher than a JAG office to do it.

Funny, Trial Counsel is NOT listed under 18th ABN HHC in the post phone book. BTW, I am not a civilian, I am a retiree, the real deal, unlike you. Also, you forgot one tiny, insignificant detail. Tomorrow is a FORSCOM training holiday. Good luck in the office tomorrow.

As for the size of a deployed element, I can't think of too many scenarios where a battalion cmdr is going to let his companies get too spread out away from the TOC. The Bn may not be engaging a full head on assault, but if a company sized element engages, the Bn won't be very far away. On today's battlefield, a Bn is about the smallest sized element that's going to be going out by itself.

Try again, "GI" as a Scout Weapons team leader in Iraq, we were often broken down to platoon or team size for missions. Infantry companies were often deployed down to at least the Platoon level.

I think it's a difficult question, but I've always been of the mind that if a woman can meet the same standards as the men to qualify for a combat job, then they should have the right to pursue it (however misguided that decision may be). Where I have issues is when different standards are applied-- which is dangerous. Same standards for the same job and I'm on board.

Now, I concede that there are complications that will arise from this. Coed units will have troubles with rape (either alleged or actual), sexual harassment (boys on the line are a dirty bunch even without women around), and I think it's fair to say that some men, especially commanding officers, may have distractions to contend with as a result (command will have to deal with the increased harassment complaints, for one). You also have to consider the problem that being in the line of fire creates-- the "one last time" complex. Let's say an otherwise normal American boy joins the army and after 7 months deployed, he watches half of his platoon eviscerated by an IED. He's thinking: "Holy F*CK! That could've been me!" Then he starts wondering when his time will come and all the things that he's going to miss out on-- which gets him thinking, gosh darn it, he just has to get laid one last time before this patrol or that mission or this convoy. Suddenly, he's not concerned with long term consequences of his actions-- he has no idea whether or not there is a long term-- so he acts on impulse. We've seen it happen against civilians already-- put a female in the C.O.P. right next to him and that will almost certainly lead to some bad press. Most of the boys out there are young, hot blooded and sex-starved. Putting a woman in their midst can be dangerous.

So, what to make of it all? Well, I think the idea of having a segregated combat unit is appealing-- but would you find enough women that could meet the requirements and (perhaps more importantly) had the aspiration to fulfill a combat role in order to fill the whole unit? In the short term, co-ed units would be a necessity, I think, just looking at the numbers. Would the combat units immediately turn into seething, impulsive rapists? I'd like to think not... but it would be the burden of the commanding officer to ensure such dishonor wouldn't occur. And if the commanding officer is "bad egg"? Well... god help the women in such a position.

All that aside, though-- history does inform us that women can be capable combat soldiers under certain conditions. There were a multitude of female snipers in Russia during the Nazi invasion, for example, and they were highly decorated. Admittedly, those women were desperation pawns in a difficult war, but they were also extremely effective. Even now, because the front lines are essentially non-existent, many non-combat roles are seeing heavy combat anyway, and women have proven to be effective soldiers in those scenarios.

So yes, I think there are logistical problems that need to be addressed as well as psychological considerations, but I think that allowing women into combat roles is okay-- provided the standards are not watered down to meet some mythic quota shoved down the military's throat by an uninvolved politician looking for some non-existent "Equalitopia."

Imoen,

you have clearly never played World in Conflict then. In that game a disturbingly plausible set of events occurs that allows Russia to fully land an invasion army on West Coast America. It borrowed heavily from Red Dawn though so it is similar.

@raddave

Your argument is laced with semantics. What does it take to call someone out of reserve to active? Oh that's right, anyone with a star on their shoulder. (which includes most jags). I don't mean the JAG office, I mean the JAG himself. And your right, Trial Counsel ISNT listed in the phone book. Apparently following simple instructions isn't your strong suit. Here, let me break it down in outline format for you and perhaps it will be easier to digest.

1: Look up the number for the JAG. Trial Counsel is in the same building.(I would give you the number, but then again I might be lying about it). So your telling me you don't know how to contact the JAG even if you needed to? Doesn't say much for you. Because I can tell with your attitude, if you really were in that long, you've needed the JAG more often than not.

2: You're going to get an assistant, probably an E4 or below to answer the phone.(I would tell you who was going to answer, but they rotate and aren't individually assigned.

3: Ask to speak to the OIC of Trial Counsel. The call won't go to another paper pusher, it will go directly to the OIC or voice mail of OIC. If you don't call, you're just trolling. I'm not biting anymore.

As for the training holiday, the repercussions of that won't catch up to my desk til sometime next week. But thanks for the well wishes.

I am a former paratrooper combat engineer who did deploy to Iraq. Let me tell you, it just wouldn't be proper for women to serve in combat alongside men. War, and the honor and glory which accompany it, are reserved for men. Regardless of the physical detriments of women, which are real, there is an existential reality behind war which women cannot grasp. Gi Joe is absolutely correct in analyzing the physical underperformance of women in combat but, this only tells one side of the story. Without a code of honor the military would be worthless. I believe it would be dishonorable for our men in combat arms roles to serve with women; or homosexuals for that matter.

Lots of G.I.s talking here. However, this will be decided by Congress not in the Pentagon. Congress doesn't have very many veterans anymore. What you gonna do about your politicians deciding this?

GI, it takes more than a star on the shoulder to call a reservist to active duty. it takes authority of the Sec of Army. I don't know about Bragg, but here at Ft Irwin, the SJA (not JAG) is a Major. And you're WRONG. Trial counsel is listed in the phone book, just not under HHC 18th ABN, and not under JAG. So, you don't even know the org structure of your office??? LMFAO. So no, I am not going to call the OIC of the trial counsel office at Ft Bragg, because I know it will NOT be you.

You are trying to overstate your expertise and stepped in it with both feet. You and I both know you are full of shi!t. Like I said earlier, you may be able to sell your junk to these PFCs, but not to us real career soldiers.

Spades, you have a warped sense of honor.

Command Sergeant Major Jane Baldwin and Colonel Ellen Haring, both Army reservists, said policies barring them from assignments "solely on the basis of sex" violated their right to equal protectio under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

What's protectio? Don't they have an editor?

Everyone wants to be an expert on the constitution these days, or at least quote from it as though they are an expert. Normally this comes into play when some minute constituency wants to boost their own projected distortion onto a legitimate restriction to get their way through a legal loophole. Even a rudimentary examination of the bar on females in combat will tell you there are very legitimate reasons for prohibiting females from the battlefield. First, anytime you have close quarter co-ed, male-female interaction, sexual tension increases. Automatically, you're endangering unit co-hesion, because there's always that one person who can't control themselves or gets emotionally involved. To say anything less is pure denial of existence.

Second, here are two high ranking reservist, who fail to take into account anything other than their careers. Sure, for a O6 and a E10, who want a notch on their belt after retirement, this sounds like a good idea, but what about the "vertically challenged" lower enlisted females who comprise a majority of the reserve units? The average females in the unit's I've served with have been under 5' and weighed maybe a 120lb soaking wet. Added on to the fact that a lot of the men were over 6' and over 200lb, this move makes about as much practical sense as letting gays serve openly in the military when there's not one MOS in the military that requires a soldier to be gay, or disclose their sexual orientation, but let some ego-tripping feminist and their puppet politicians tell it, and before long there's no legitimate reason to prohibit women from combat. Personally, I don't see this going far legally, but that won't stop feminist groups from seeing men as the cause of all their problems.

What is an "E10?"

Skull Bones
Command Sergeant Major Jane Baldwin and Colonel Ellen Haring, both Army reservists,

Notice it says Major, Colonel and Reservists.....they know they will never have to do it and want five minutes of fame....what they are doing is wasting tax dollars having Congress even discuss this......Put those two in combat first.......oh, wait.....they are stay at home grandmothers who play army 2 weekends a month, or has that changed too........

The more things change the more they stay the same. How do you know that they haven't had or aren't on active duty tours or in AGR positions? How do you know that they have not had tours in a combat zone?

The more things change the more they stay the same. How do you know that they haven't had or aren't on active duty tours or in AGR positions? How do you know that they have not had tours in a combat zone?

I don't believe it stated the MOS or branch of the soldiers in question. But you're statement is begging the question by assuming their motivation is patriotism rather than ambition. It's generally, the ones who have never been in combat who are begging to go. That's on the assumption if they had an active duty tour they spent any time in actual combat. Just because you're in a combat zone, doesn't mean you may ever see combat. An AGR Position just means you do your military job every day rather than M-day status, so in a non combatant MOS, that kinda doesn't mean squat.

an E-10 is a mindless drone made by Rayethon.

raddave
What is an "E10?"

An argument. LOL!

http://prhome.defense.gov/RFM/MPP/qrmc/Vol2/v2c3.pdf

An AGR Position just means you do your military job every day rather than M-day status, so in a non combatant MOS, that kinda doesn't mean squat.

Kinda shoots down the playing Army two weekends a month argument. And the first part of your argument isn't relevant. It does not matter what the motivation that landed you in a combat zone was.

3. The MEN WILL WANT TO PROTECT THEM Argument -

I doubt that this argument applies to younger people today. The younger generations, for the most part, tend to accept the sexes as equal.

@Bassai,

Not entirely as the National Gaurd has been in every major war, and the duration of service or simply being located in a combat zone, are not indicative of whether or not one will return fire on the enemy. That's on the assumption being on a patrol always results in small arms conflict, or that every soldier, who ended up in a combat zone, was self motivated to be there. Some deploy because it's in their contract Is it logical to say that every person who was ever fired upon wanted to be there? .

Mr. Barry -

The whole purpose of having two sexes is to procreate the race. The prupose of family is to protect women and children in order to procreate the race. If the younger generation do not understand the purpose of human sex, then they will lead us to the failure of the human race.

It is all about children and pregnant women.

The CSM and Colonel involved here are well into their 40's or 50's in age. I doubt they could qualify for or complete the 11 Bravo training.

@Raddave-

Gi Joe does indeed work at JAG in Ft Bragg, and the organization's name he states is 100% correct. How do I know? Because although I'm currently in Afghanistan, he was the JAG officer that I worked with to prepare my wills, POA's, trust accounts, etcs. He's a real person, an actual JAG officer, and he's also a pretty cool guy.

There's an article in the health section of MSNBC today which has some illuminating things to say about this subject. What it comes down to is that women are psychologically more frail and more prone to PTSD and all the problems, in this case: suicide, that go along with it:

According to a study in Psychiatric Services, among women ages 18 to 34, female veterans were three times more likely to kill themselves than nonveterans. (An earlier study found that male veterans were twice as likely to commit suicide as were male nonvets.)

Statistically speaking, female soldiers have greater access to firearms than civilian women do. But that doesn't explain the difference between female and male soldiers' suicide rates, compared to civilians'. Psychologists theorize other causes: the number of service members suffering from symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which women develop at more than twice the rate of men; and the additional exposure to traumatic events as a result of multiple deployments.

Because women may be reluctant to share their feelings with a unit full of male soldiers, they are unable to benefit from that social support. Even the ability to share daily gripes or discuss female-related concerns (imagine getting severe menstrual cramps in the middle of the desert, in 104°F heat, with no privacy) is lost when there are no, or very few, women to bond with.

"Women in the military can feel very alone," agrees Kelley. "They may go through an entire day without seeing another female soldier." And yet, they are confronted with experiences they may feel comfortable sharing only with another woman. Also, "the rate of harassment by male soldiers is high, and sexual assault is high," says Kelley. "And women process stressful events differently than men do. They are much more susceptible to depression."

These psychological differences, clearly documented, may put a hitch in the plan to open combat ops to women.

You know, there's always a middle ground-- what about robotics? Women would be perfectly capable pilots of the robotic soldiers looming in the near future. They'd have the capacity to lead troops, albeit robotic ones, influence the battlefield and earn their glory. I know it's not the same thing-- but let's face it, more and more robotics are being developed to keep men and women off the front lines anyway. This is the future no matter how you feel about it.

Here's a simple solution: DON'T pussify training. If they insist on going to battle, so be it. Pass all the requirements and we'll let you.

Here's a simple solution: DON'T pussify training. If they insist on going to battle, so be it. Pass all the requirements and we'll let you.

Totally agree.........when a women can pick me up (190 lb solid muscle) and put me over her (130 -150lb.) shoulder, and secure both of our gear (100 Lbs +/-) , and get us out of there, and be able to shoot a 10 year old kid holding an IED, or RPG.....then she can stand beside me.....not until then....Here is the difference...... "I can do that."....

When I first enlisted in the US ARMY there were no women. As I neared my ETS there were a few that were in HQ as desk jockeys and such. Although I am not against women serving ANY role in the US Armed Forces, I AM against how they have lowered the physical standards to allow for that, and that is BS!

I know a few women in the National Guard who were in Iraq and Afghanistan and can barely carry 2 full bags of groceries across the parking lot! One is 5'2" and weighs 125lbs. soaking wet! How can a soldier trust his life to someone like that in a front line battle?

Skull Bones summed that up very well...

"...when a women can pick me up (190 lb solid muscle) and put me over her (130 -150lb.) shoulder, and secure both of our gear (100 Lbs +/-) , and get us out of there, and be able to shoot a 10 year old kid holding an IED, or RPG.....then she can stand beside me.....not until then...."

I'm an extreme anti-feminist, and I'm a woman. If this should pass it should be because it was the choice of these 2 women-not forced on every female in the military.

This type of attitude is how woman got themselves sucked into the workforce to begin with, forcing it on all women with no alternatives, and now has made the lives, especially the lives of working women with young children, a living hell.

I don't want my 7 year old daughter, an only child, fighting in any wars someday unless it's her choice. Theres some lines that should never be crossed, and this would be one of them.

I hope the courts shut these two women down immediatley, and tell them to go back home where they belong!

All i have to say is if your a 230 pound man with equipment and armor on the front lines and you are downed by a gun shot wound, how do you expect a women lacking the physical ability to lift that much dead weight, to pull an injured soldier out of combat under fire safely and effectively. Its suicide. we're not talking about rights, we're talking about lives.

All praises be to dawnm.

To all of the sexist pigs that refuse to let women serve in our military, I say know your roles and shut your pieholes, you jabronis. You all do a disservice to our military. However, as for the people that criticize women having different standards than the men on the battlefield, I have to agree with you. Now with that being said, I am going to tell you of real world cases and real world reasons on why women should fight alongside men on the battlefield. The most obvious example of allowing women to fight in full combat positions comes from our closest ally (which is, ironically, a Judeo-Christian nation). Yes, if you're wondering what that nation is, it's Israel. The Israeli Defense Force has some of the most brutal training out of any regular military unit and all of its citizens are required to give two or three years of service. There's a reason why women are allowed to fight alongside the men in the battlefield there and that is because Israel is at a constant struggle against terrorist regimes and terrorist groups. When you've fought in six different major conflicts since your reemergence as a nation in 1948, you naturally have to have every available person to be able to help defend your country and, yes, that includes women. However, Israel has also done this sort of thing in the past and the story of Deborah in the Bible is a very good example of this sort of thing happening in the military. Deborah was a woman who was married to some guy (I forget his name) but Yahweh told her that she was supposed to be the leader of Israel (this was before ancient Israel had kings and queens). Deborah, if you recall the story in the Bible, was not only a prophetess (which that, in and of itself, was a very rare occurrance in the Bible and she was only one of two women that was recorded in there that was in that sort of position) but that she was also the de facto commander-in-chief of all of the military forces in the nation of Israel and she was the leading judge in Israel (what we would refer to as a chief judge or chief justice in our modern society). In addition to those tasks, Deborah was one of the first, if not THE first person to utilize modern special operations-type attacks in battle (which was proven by both Biblical and secular historical records), specifically guerilla warfare, the pincer formation, and night time battles (the last of the three being the hardest task to do without the aid of modern technology). This argument alone should more than prove that women can and do, in fact, have the skills that are necessary to fight alongside the men on the battlefield. Deborah proved that she could hang with the boys and she did it with flying colors. The Bible also records her as being one of the best leaders, historically speaking, of all of the leaders of the nation of Israel (one of the top five leaders in my book most certainly).

However, Israel was not the only nation that had a plethora of women who fought in the military. Ancient China had women warriors as well, most notably Mulan (of Disney fame, but, like Pocohontas, was based on a real life historical figure), and Sun Shang Xiang (who was a descendant of the legendary Sun Tzu of "The Art of War" fame, which was and still is considered one of the absolute best books on military strategy of all time), not to mention numerous other women in Chinese history. However, we are not immune to this phenomenon happening to our military, too. There have been many women who disguised themselves as men historically that have been in the military but the most significant example of such an individual was a woman by the name of Molly Pitcher in the Revolutionary War. If you recall the story in your history books, Molly Pitcher was a normal woman who had lost her husband in this war. Infuriated by the loss of her husband, she demanded that she fight alongside the men on the battlefield and as a result of this action, she was considered to be one of the best cannon operators and soldiers of the entire war and she was also reportedly given a few medals for her courage in taking up the place of her husband in this war.

As the commercials go, "But wait, there's more!" Women have good reasons on why they should fight and not just because of the four cases of women that I had mentioned to you here. Now before I continue, I just want to say that Israel wasn't the only nation that had allowed women into their ranks. The ancient city-state of Sparta had women as their last line of defense when it came to conflict and, yes, women trained right alongside the men on the battlefield. Sparta was the true essence of the warrior culture and if they could do that in those times, then we can do it now. Other ancient empires probably have dozens of examples of women being able to be in combat without it being a distraction and other modern day nations, such as Brazil, openly allow women into combat positions.

Here are a few more arguments on why women should be allowed on the battlefield. As you all know, when a mother is robbed of her babies or when her babies are threatened in the animal kingdom, that mother is going to do all that she can to fight for the safety of her babies. The same principle also applies to human mothers who are in the military. I also pointed out the case of Molly Pitcher earlier and there have been plenty of women that have been in her position. The current War on Terror is the most glaring modern example of such thinking. I read a story online where a woman joined the services of our military after her fiance was killed in Afghanistan. I do not know what you faux patriots think but to me, that speaks of a true, old-school patriotic spirit, much in the same vein of Molly Pitcher, and it is THAT kind of soldier that we NEED in our modern military; the kind of soldier that picks up right where their fellow soldier leaves off. Finally, I've also heard of instances where women who were not in a combative role in our various wars and conflicts have been forced to fight in those roles and that they did their jobs admirably, too. This has also happened even in our current War on Terror.

Let me sum it up to you all who wish to become a bunch of sexist, elitist, chauvenist, troglydytic Neanderthals towards women. Yes, sexual harassment can and does happen in our military but it can also happen between people of the same gender. I could go on and on about that particular issue for quite a long time but that is not the point of this discussion. I say that it is an inevitable and unavoidable risk in our military structure, much as it is within our normal civilian workplace. If we can deal with it there, then we can surely deal with it in the military. Yes, there are conflicts within the workplace about such issues but this is how it should be in the workplace and the same thing holds true within our military. To you I say grow up and wear your big boy britches because it's always happened within our ranks in the military and it's going to continue in our military, regardless of how you feel about the issue. Women also have the right to choose to serve our country by whatever means possible, as do our men, and if it is through a combative or noncombative role, then so be it, let them have the choice of how to do that in our military. If men have that option, then why not let women have the same option? Also, from a common sense and biological standpoint, if nations like Israel and Sparta had to permit women into their ranks not by feminist ideology but by the simple fact that the numbers of those people in that nation were few, then I say that it's a smart idea to utilize whatever resources that you have, which are human resources in this case, and allow women to join you in the military because if you don't, then you're going to be short-handed and you're also probably going to have your buttocks handed to you on a silver platter a whole lot more quickly than you would if you allowed women to fight alongside you in the military. Also, as I stated previously, females will do whatever that they can to protect their children but in the case of human females, they will also do it for the men that they love, to preserve their legacy, and to give honor and respect to the people that they knew that had died for their country. No one in their right mind should even DARE to contemplate criticizing these brave women that do that and the brave men that had died in their lives while trying to protect them and their families. To do so otherwise would be a grave injustice and blatanly unpatriotic and completely disrespectful to those fallen soldiers. I am not a feminist, nor am I a chauvenist and, yes, I do agree with quite a few principles in both camps and both camps make a lot of good arguments, but I am glad to say that I am neither a chauvenist nor am I a feminist, rather, I am just simply a guy who believes in the Golden Rule in the Good Book, which says, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Furthermore, if our mutual Creator was not only not offended by women serving in combat roles but that He had personally appointed women in both ancient and modern times to that role (and not just in the nations of the USA and Israel, might I add), then who are WE to judge the Being that had created us in HIS image? We are nowhere NEAR even taking that first step toward our Creator. Women are going to fight in our military and if they proved it just as hard as the men, then they need to do so in our modern military with no bias or favors, period. However, if you feminists do not like that, then are you not forgetting all of those women that had done the task that was equal to any man and did not ask for anything easier and that had done their roles without complaint? If you women wants to become true patriots in our modern society, then you need to suck it up and do as much as the men, regardless of your physical structure. Suck it up, shut up, and remember the cause that you are in and why you chose to volunteer your service to your country. If people hate me for that, not to mention the fact that I've not been in the military myself in any sense other than being descended from various military personnel, then so be it because you need to relearn what these people did and why they did what they did and to be like them and not complain about anything unless it absolutely needs to be complained about, like gender discrimination or rape or attempted rape. The boys will razz on you girls but that is because that they are afraid of women becoming their equal. However, women, that does not give you the carte blanche right to act all superior to or seperate but equal to men because if you do so, then the men win anyway. Just do your job like the men do, don't let them distract you (unless one gets involved in your personal life, which is okay by me), and serve our country with pride. However, there will be those people that will argue about women being unable to carry as great of a load as men. To that I say look at the scientific principle of fight or flight. For example, in the civilian world (and quite often in the military world), I have seen stories of people who were very small in stature (and yes, that also included women) who would have this supernatural strength to be able to lift a car or some heavy object from another person. This is also reinforced by the Bible in the Scripture of Philippians 4:13, which states, "I can do all things through Jesus Christ who gives me strength." If our Creator gives us our strength, then women can also deal with carrying that weight into battle. Thank you and good bye.

with all of you people questioning if women can operate in the combat platoons, or in any other areas of combat, why not ask the other countires around the world, like Israel, and most other countires for that matter, that utilize women in those very roles. Time to grow up people.

Truthteller your epic rant is too much info to read, but I hope you feel better for it.

@Srich

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Srich, GI JOE - Reading too much of a challenge for you? Only function in a sound bite world? Then let's put it in simple terms you can both understand. Women have already proved themselves in battle and there is ample evidence for that reaching back 3,000 years.

And, Skull Bones ...
"Totally agree.........when a women can pick me up (190 lb solid muscle) and put me over her (130 -150lb.) shoulder, and secure both of our gear (100 Lbs +/-)"

Here's an actual case scenario for you: 5' 7" (straight) female, 145#. Single max dead lift 225#, 25 yard carry 190#.

Don't be a douche. I've seen guys that can't match those stats. And, if you doubt it, check any local fire department with women on the squad. If they can't pass the training, they don't get on the department. Pussifying combat training? Muscle development is not restricted to men. And, don't be afraid, the women won't emasculate you. Men do that through their own ignorance and ego.

thetruthteller - My point was not to say that women cannot be fine soldiers. Time and time again through history we have seen them perform this function. However, pointing out individuals from different cultures (or in different time periods), as examples of why women should be allowed to, within our own culture is way off the mark.

Social norms within a culture play heavily on this topic - my example of pussifying basic training is an example. The history of military training was the same for them as it WAS for our fighting men in the past, but that has changed because... instead of women accepting the military social norm, they have changed it.

It may have been "Sexism" that kept women out of the military to begin with, but the barriers that they face today are ones that are created for them by women in US society. I would have no problem supporting a female soldier who has been through unadulterated military training. But it is the cries of "Sexism" that are polluting it now, and causing severe damage to our military. (Pick up a copy of "Full Metal Jacket"... that type of basic training does not exist anymore, but it is a prime example of what the training once was. It has been turned into some "PC" training.)

I'm pretty sure that the Israeli Mossad didn't have to scale back "sexism" in its training to appease the PC atmosphere of Israeli society. Demeaning the individual has been a part of military training since ancient times, it builds a soldier. To think of the things that have been said to male enlisted men while going through basic training... only to have to scale ALL of it back, just to appease "social norms" of allowing women in the service, is ruining our military.

I honestly blame this for the current state of discipline in the military today. I am not questioning their bravery, just criticizing the major character differences between soldiers of the past and today (because those those social norms have influenced BASIC training). With the OLD style basic training, you wouldn't have the constant flow of stories of misbehaving soldiers in the field. Every time I see it I think "who the $$%# is training these guys?"

The bottom line is the development of society - in the current state of society in the US, most women are NOT inclined to send a group of young men off to an inevitable death, without question. The instinctual nature of motherhood has been fostered greatly in our society, and that instinct in the battlefield is not needed. While we can argue that it might be needed at the very TOP of the leadership chain, it is most definitely not needed at the bottom.

And we can argue that those social norms need to be changed, and that the military has been used in social experiments in the past (integration) - there is a major difference between the military accepting a race/sex/sexual orientation into its ranks, and CHANGING the military to fit the needs of those being accepted.

Dawn,

This is about allowing your daughter to have the choice.

I could say some stuff about the rest of your post, but I don't want to be suspended. Listen, you can whine, and "poor little 'ol me" all you want, that's fine, but to actively work against those who don't feel the need to rely on a man for everything is well, I'm censoring myself here.

I thank God, for the brave women that have allowed me to enter the work force, whether or not you do, is moot. For some, it's their only option. If it isn't for you, then keep your mouth shut about it, instead of disparaging those with the guts, or without the opportunities, that have lead them there.

dawnm-244,

"I don't want my 7 year old daughter, an only child, fighting in any wars someday unless it's her choice."

You seem to think that there is a choice to be made if war is necessary. It's "well sure I saw them crash planes into those buildings so maybe I should enlist. On the other hand, why don't I just let someone else do my job for me? Why should I have to endure hardships like fatigue, drill and maybe a chipped fingernail? Why should I have to sacrifice my time to help my country? After all, all I want is everything without working for it." Typical lame-ass civilian.

Why yes Wordsmith, only the complicated task of reading kept me from that mess... and I find it comical that you needed to state the word "straight"......and then the word "douche" to describe us. It won't help your case. Oh, 5'3"103 lbs.... I'm not here to challenge you.

There are practical issues regarding women...How do you spend years in a combat zone on your period?! Is Tampax widely available in the jungle. Yuck! And men can become brutes in those environments. The issue goes beyond "fairness and equality". Women have different strengths but these strengths are not glorified or finanically rewarded in our culture like war is.

I think if women were paid to RAISE soldiers (i.e. as mothers) fewer would want to BE soldiers. I think that is why we see women encroaching on the male dominated military work and women themselves stimagizing, marginalizing the work of women raising children. The men get paid for their nature to protect/fight/conflict. When women act on their nature to bear children, they are penalized financially, professionally and even personally for it.

It is no wonder women want to do what only men should do -- and I consider front-line conflict one thing only men should do.

Heather,

How do you spend years in a combat zone on your period?!

Have you ever heard of birth control shots??? For the love of Jeebus...

Yuck! And men can become brutes in those environments.

So we should punish women and hold females back, because men have behavioral issues??? And, by the way, men do have frontal lobes to their brains.

When women act on their nature to bear children,

Really??? I have no desire to have a child. Straight, female, of child bearing years, not even smidgeon. That might be YOUR nature, but the world is bigger then YOUR reality.

I think that is why we see women encroaching on the male dominated military work and women themselves stimagizing, marginalizing the work of women raising children.

What an insult to all the women who fought their asses off for equal opportunity. Key word, here... OPPORTUNITY. If you don't want to take it, that's fine, but don't stigmatize those of us who not only appreciate and utilize it, but depend on it.

Sara, not all women can take these shots. They made my daughter violently ill. I wish to be clear, women are smart capable- often more capable than their male counterparts. But the few women who wish to be on the front lines may in effect, make it mandatory for all in the future. From an equality stand point.....maybe this should be on a ballot.

SRICH,

Sara, not all women can take these shots. They made my daughter violently ill.

Then your daughter would be weeded out, just like men with flat feet or color blindness, or she wouldn't be placed in a combat position. It's no more then we ask of our men, why shouldn't we carry the burden with them?

From an equality stand point.....maybe this should be on a ballot.

It's a matter of equal protection and gender discrimination, i.e. civil rights. We don't vote on civil rights.

I was in the Army for 4 yrs. My basic training was Ft McClellan AL. There was a time when we had to do night training and I tell you some of those females were not suited to be in anyone's branch of service. That was back in 1976 a long time ago. I would not have wanted to be in a fox hole with them. Some of them didn't know the first thing about holding their weapon correctly. Drill Sgt Labeau had to take their weapons from them. Was stationed in Seoul Korea had a small skirmish between North and South Korea some of those females made me want to shoot them myself. Played war games in Fort Ord CA before they shut it down and lost half of the females in the company. Instead of ducking and hiding they stood in the middle of the field covering their heads and screaming. I for one would not want to be on the front line. For those females that choose to do that then fine but don't make it mandatory for all females in the service. I served my country in the capacity that I wanted and all females should have that choice. Being on the front wont be as easy as some of you think it will be. For that female that said men do it and women should do their share too, then you go for it. I wonder how many men would consider having a baby versus being on the front line. Women are not built to do everything a man does. Being on the front line in a war in not a game, it's serious. I remember the times having to go out in the woods and I hated it. Not being able to take a shower everyday. Seriously I loved my job just not that part. So the females need to think long and hard before they go asking for something they really might not want. Look at the tow it takes on our men imagine what it will do to you as a woman. I consider myself as a strong woman. I made it through basic and I passed all of my PT test with flying colors. I didn't have anyone carrying my gear or helping me over the wall. I am 4'11 and I weighed 100lbs when I joined the Army. Yes I had to get a waiver because of my height back then. But I did it and didn't ask for special treatment either. I held my own. I just think the females that want to be on the front line let them but don't push for it to become mandatory is all I am saying. Some things just need to be left the way they are and has nothing to do with women's rights. I don't feel that makes me any less stronger or capable of doing anything that I choose to do. I just don't choose to be on the front line. If you're a woman and that's your choice then go for it.

So Sarah, my daughter would be weeded out for weakness because she can't take a birth control shot? What about women who will refuse all birth control and state it is their right to do so? (religious reasons? ) The whole you dig is getting deeper. If you restrict a woman's eggs, at that point women will demand to restrict men's seeds? There are differences, many very complicated.

A daughter's right to choose is secondary to defense of our nation.

"This We Will Defend!"

Srich,

So Sarah, my daughter would be weeded out for weakness because she can't take a birth control shot? What about women who will refuse all birth control and state it is their right to do so? (religious reasons? )

I don't get why it's hard to understand that we would handle this the same way we handle it with men. Same standards, same weeding out process, same religious exemptions...

If you restrict a woman's eggs, at that point women will demand to restrict men's seeds?

Uh, this makes no sense. No, we wouldn't do anything with any sperm, and the majority of women are already on BC.

The issue Tyrone is serving in a combat arms MOS. Its much different than a non combat arms job. As for your assertion comparing females to gay men, that's not too far off the mark. Most gay men pick non combat arms jobs for just that reason.

Like here in the JAG where I currently work. A gay man could come out of the closet and not suffer any real persecution. If that same man were in some of the infantry line companies I've served in in the past, he would be putting his life in danger coming out of the closet.

The women get all pissy because the combat arms jobs promote quicker. They don't seem to realize that those jobs promote quicker because nobody wants those jobs, so the slots open up quicker making the promotion available. If everyone wanted a combat arms job, it would promote slowly like support jobs currently do.

GI JOE-You prove the point of allowing females to try for combat arms MOS. Females not able to pass mustard (physically or mentally) would end up on support status. Those who prove they can should be allowed into combat arms positions like any man.

@JoeG

And if shes got half the men in the company focused on screwing her instead of doing their jobs, how do you think that will effect overall unit performance?

On the one hand I'm inclined to say to hell with it, let them try out, but on the other hand, I know what the ultimate outcome will be.

It's like Airborne School,(this is where you learn parachuting). They went coed with that on the condition that you have a combined 220 pt score, with no less than 70 in each of three events. (slightly higher than the regular pt requirement for regular troops). Pushups, situps, and 2 mile run. Only problem with that is the test is weighted so that a female gets a 35% curve added to her grade. So even though on paper they are qualified to be there, in reality not so much.

I went through jump school back in 1989. I spent the same 4 weeks there as thousands of paratroopers before me, and after me did. They had a whole company of females in the same school, and I didn't see ONE, yeah that's right, not even ONE that could hump her own ruck without assistance from either a vehicle, or a man.

Then in 2005 they changed even that standard so a woman didn't have to hump, or jump with a full combat load like the men did. Sorry, but a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and in combat its all most men can do to carry their own load, let alone carry the load for someone else.

P.S. I think you meant "pass MUSTER".

It's Pass Muster....I am a female combat vet (many times over) and this was inevitable. Not withstanding, why is it upper-echelon female reservists are asking for it? Because most women on active duty fully understand what being on the front lines is all about. GI Joe is right, we had a few females get pregnant even tho the order was out there...sex is illegal in the combat zone, yeah right.

I was as rough and tough as any male Marine or soldier and could handle anything they threw at me. I survived many assaults. Still, I am a woman. I could not tote a 50 cal without assistance. That's why it was tasked to a large man. He could carry it. I did carry heavy loads myself. I maintained a lean, hard body and worked just as hard as the men and they respected me for it. Notwithstanding, there were the occasional "chester molesters" out there that would try to cop a feel. I quick slap across the face would take care of it.

On the flip side of that same coin, how can a "pussified" man be compared to me? That's an insult. There were many mentally tough women and men deployed with me and a few men and women who were not. Is was an equal balance. If a tough chick wants to try it, by all means give it a shot. Give them the same EXACT opportunities that the men get. DO NOT water down the training so they can meet the standards. Make them MEET the standards, same as the men.

Keep congress and the Mothers of America out of it!

And if shes got half the men in the company focused on screwing her instead of doing their jobs, how do you think that will effect overall unit performance?

I did my time almost 30 years ago......but from what I hear about the military today......the women would be safe, its the straight guys that have to worry about being screwed.......in my day we had "blanket parties" for such people.......and no you didn't want to be the guest of honor at the party...SNAFU...:)

GIJOE, if a man cant focus on his job then he shouldnt be doing it.

Wow, with so many people saying keep women from serving, you would think this was the 1920's or something.

Here are some general facts as I see them:

The US military is very large, several millions. Women make up a very small percentage of that total. The military needs anywhere from 3, 4, 5, ... number of personnel just to support just one soldier (each) in the combat arms. There are far more men (large percentage) in uniform that are not in combat arms MOS. Given the basic argument of these women in regards to combat and promotions, there are far more men who can be considered "in the same boat." What we don't hear is all the same men, in support MOS, phissing, moaning, crying, whining, filing lawsuits, all for an opportunity to pickup a rifle, strap on 80 pounds of gear, run across hundreds of yards of open ground in the searing heat, praying the entire time you just make it across in one piece, all for the chance of maybe getting a promotion.

I do not think any tests should be watered down for women.

Skull Bones said it best...

" when a women can pick me up (190 lb solid muscle) and put me over her (130 -150lb.) shoulder, and secure both of our gear (100 Lbs +/-) , and get us out of there, and be able to shoot a 10 year old kid holding an IED, or RPG.....then she can stand beside me..."

But the problem is, even if she CAN do those things, she still wouldn't be allowed, because she would be a "distraction" to the men. I feel it is wrong to punish the women simply because men can't keep it in their pants. "sorry, we men can't control our urges so I guess you women will pay for it by having less options than us"

Ok before everyone freaks out and tells me to serve in the military before making comments, I ask any man to first be a woman before making comments.

@Ru

If they had to get rid of all the men in the Army who would rather screw a woman than focus on their job, there wouldn't be anyone left. LOL

I ask any man to first be a woman before making comments.

Sorry, the only thing a woman can do that a man cannot is give birth and breast feed a baby.........:)

The fact that people find this controversial or sexist are the ignorant ones. Women aren't as physically capable to do what men have to in the infantry when it comes to the Marines or Army. If a man goes down a woman isn't going to be able to lift him let alone carry him out of harms way. Think back to high school remember how almost every girl at some point complained about how heavy their backpack was? Now think about a girl coming straight out of high school, with a 60-100+lb pack, pulling or carrying and injured person, my whole life I've only met maybe 2 women that might be able to do that. I have nothing against women but the reality is women aren't physically equal to men. Maybe that'll change in 100 years but that's the current reality, look at it this way. Sports are the best example, the strongest woman isn't as strong as the strongest man, the best woman boxer couldn't beat the best male boxer, the fastest female swimmer isn't as fast as the best male swimmer, and etc.

oh I truly believe that most women are not physically capable. I am just talking about those few that are..I have known a couple tall muscular women who could kick most guys asses. I am not one of them, I am the wimpiest girly girl, and I would never wish to join the military and slow all the guys down. And please let me not forget to thank all the men and women who risked or gave their lives to protect me, I am grateful that there are people far braver than me out there!!! But there are a few beefy and mentally tough girls out there, and to deny them the chance seems not very nice.

@skullbones, I am totally confused....who is talking about childbirth??? not sure what that has to do with anything, I think you missed my point.

spiritus333 - There's no need for any of us to be a woman before making comments. Why? Because it's the biological nature of man to want to have sex. Can we resist? Yes. But that doesn't make it any easier to have women in our fire team and still continue to focus in our downtime.

As a former 18D I will tell you first hand why it's not good to have women at or beyond the line with men. If both get injured, the man being more critical, other soldiers and even the medics will generally aid the female first then the man. That's because we are naturally wired to protect the females since men are (reproductively speaking) a dime a dozen.

That's just one part of the whole issue. Female PT standards are not even close to what the mens are. As an example if a male has to do 60 push-ups in 2 minutes to pass the minimum requirements, a female only has to do about 20. Tell me "as a woman" how any man should feel comfortable on the front line with a female who can barely do 1/3 the physical needs he can do. I'm not even going to begin to touch on 2 mile run requirements for females and how they still struggle with that.

As GI Joe has stated before - if a female can't pick up a 190+ lb soldier with at least 60lbs of equipment plus his combat load and get him to cover then Females do not belong on the front lines. When a Female can do that plus shoot a kid without a second thought because the kid is a threat, she can serve on the front line. There are female medics - that's as close to the front as they'll get and most yet again can't pull their own weight. They rely on the men to do the heavy lifting. Most are attached to anything but combat units.

Female soldiers are great and needed but not in combat roles. When taking indirect fire or involved in a skirmish they are fine, in true combat it's another story. Let's not talk about the fact that females want to serve on the front line (or want t be allowed to) but most of those same females won't say a single word about being involved in the draft.

I AGREE that you don't need to be a woman to comment on this. Neither do I need to serve in the military to comment on this. I was using that statement to make that point, which I obvioulsy didn't do a good job of because no-one seemed to get it. Sorry. My point was, ANYONE is allowed to comment on ANYTHING!!!!

spiritus333

@skullbones, I am totally confused....who is talking about childbirth??? not sure what that has to do with anything, I think you missed my point.

Sorry, I must have......my apologizes...... :(

johndoe, I will copy and paste my earlier statement:

I do not think any tests should be watered down for women.

Skull Bones said it best...

" when a women can pick me up (190 lb solid muscle) and put me over her (130 -150lb.) shoulder, and secure both of our gear (100 Lbs +/-) , and get us out of there, and be able to shoot a 10 year old kid holding an IED, or RPG.....then she can stand beside me..."

I was agreeing with skull bones...I don't think they should be sending in any mamby-pamby girls.

I guy I dated once said something similar to you about if a girl goes down, it is just simply a primal need to help her. I really do respect that. You are right, and also, because I am a woman, I can't know what that feels like. I appreciate you and all the military and non military men giving their two cents on here, because I don't really know what it feels like to be a man serving in the military. So this is a learning experience for me. And you're right about the draft...I am all for women having these rights, but yes I personally would freak out if I was ever drafted!!!!! Ugh, ok you boys win!!!

GIJOE,

And if shes got half the men in the company focused on screwing her instead of doing their jobs, how do you think that will effect overall unit performance?

If you can't be around a woman without focusing on screwing her, then YOU are the one who isn't ready for combat.

Sarah,

I think GI JOE is being extremely honest about his perspective. If we want the men to listen to us honestly, we need to listen to them. Men can be very raw in civilized places. Women in their lives -- from mothers to lovers -- help temper that. Men need to be raw and agressive in a war zone...it's no place for women who could be their victims in these environments. I respect and accept his point of view.

Another commenter mentioned women in combat zones would be naturally inclined to care about the human toll. He's right! Women would be more effective if we worked to prevent wars on an economic and social level instead of agreeing to send more of our children into battle zones.

skull&bones,

You are right that as women, we are the only ones who can give birth and nurse babies. And guess what? Men are not fighting to get that job like they are to get combat work -- and for good reason:

Equality should never imply sameness (but in America, it has come to be understood this way)

Don't worry Sarah, there isn't a man on this planet that would want to screw you. If you wore high heels you'd strike oil.

lol......anyone who is focused on screwing when the 120mm mortar rounds are impacting on them sure has an interesting perspective on life.......make that a SHORT interesting perspective on life.

It must be nice to be part of a military that can sit back and be particular about who it puts in combat situations. Keeping women safe, macho guys only at risk on the front........pure fantasy.

Look, when the bubble bursts, war is not played by a set of rules that governs who plays, or how it is played. There are no safe rear support areas. That communications unit 60 miles behind the front that is staffed by that woman in the Army recruiting ad, that is ground zero for a tactical nuke, because it puts entire combat brigades out of communication.

The idea of starting off with conventional forces, then a gradual escalation to tactical nukes, then another gradual escalation to strategic nukes, under the idea that each can be avoided by reason, is simply a western civilian fantasy. It ain't gonna happen.

War is about inflicting the maximum damage possible as quickly as possible. It is about coming at the other side with everything right from the get go. If that means women serve in the front line shock battalions, so be it.

The reason Al Quada didn't send 4 jetliners into targets on 9-11 is because they only had three. And they sent all they had, never holding one back. If Al Quada had had a nuke, they would have sent that too.

If Al Quada has female suicide bombers, they will send them. If they have children suicide bombers, they will send them. And when Al Quada gets a nuke, they will send it too. Look for Jamal, or Fatima, in their Toyota in Times Square.

War is not about "rules", it is not about "safe", it is about inflicting the maximum damage and winning at whatever the cost.

You send everything you have, only a fool worries about the sexual desires of the cannon fodder they are sending.

Men are not fighting to get that job like they are to get combat work -- and for good reason:

HaHa...got me there...nope,did my time in the military and have raised enough kids...it's me time now...

I'm too old to be drafted, and already a disabled vet....women can be bullet stoppers all they want....I was referring to the fact, that I would not want a woman on my team....and its based on physical facts, not equality facts.....Combat support from behind the lines is one thing, upfront is another........that is all I'm saying.......or else my wife will kill me.......... :(

We should not encourage women to make more stupid choices than are currently available for them. Combat support upfront the lines by women may be a "choice" but it's still stupid!

Skull & Bones, I meant to say "Men are not fighting to get more birth/baby work while women fight to get combat work". In certain cases boudaries are necessary. Women should understand that. But men should understand that while being a soldier pays a check, being a mother doesn't (and if it does, she's stimagized). This is why we see women reach for unusual options.

The Truth,

Shucks, and here I was so hoping to get to sleep with you.

I always find it funny, when folks go straight for the insult. It normally means you're threatened and/or jealous. Either, you know that you have no chance in hell with me, and therefore are trying to beat me to the punch, so to speak, or you have a really small, well you know, and harbor some serious insecurities. If you're a woman, you're probably being cheated on.

But alas, that's just me, the big fat as*! I do have to give you credit, at least you made me laugh. Normally the insults I get on here are really trite.

Heather,

We should not encourage women to make more stupid choices than are currently available for them

Women would be more effective if we worked to prevent wars on an economic and social level instead of agreeing to send more of our children into battle zones.

It may be a stupid chocie for you, however the world is greater then YOUR reality. To limit the choices for others because they aren't right for YOU, is to enforce your will and way of life onto EVERYONE. All of what you wrote is YOUR opinion, based on YOUR capabilities, which is fine, but do NOT try to dictate to me, based on what's right for YOU. I'm not you.

Equality should never imply sameness (but in America, it has come to be understood this way)

Wrong, in America, we have equity in OPPORTUNITY, and that's what this is about. The opportunity. Those who can't make it, don't get to do it, or get weeded out, just like with men.

Tell you what Sarah, when a female can do everything a man can do in accordance with the EXACT some PT standards and other physical/mental requirements as a man - I will willingly fight for her right to be in a direct combat role.

Until a woman can complete the exact same physical activities as I can then turn around and put 4 rounds from a MK19 downrange with little consideration for who gets hit - then by all means come on up to the front.

There are already effective procedures, if followed, for avoiding child delivery in combat. It is not an issue.

John Doe,

Can you quote where I've ever said we shouldn't meet the same standards?

Sorry folks for starting WW III, I said if they could pass the same requirements, not be the strongest nor the weakest person in the squad, they should be allowed to serve. Guess my view point of women is slightly warped due to being a paramedic for so long after my discharge, in some of the worse areas of St. Louis, and some of the gals I worked with were and still are every bit as tough as most of the guys. And yes Joe I did mean muster. Also have to say if you can not concentrate on business during a fire fight you have more problems than the gal.

I guess like in the fire fighters situation, The Armed Forces will be lowering their standards, so that

females can pass the exams - mental AND physical.

mberbae-do not know how things were done in your neck of the woods but I knew some of the first female fire fighters in the St. Louis/St. Louis County region and I can tell you their standards were not lowered at all. In fact these were some of the toughest women you would want to meet-some even had to promise lawsuits to get hired, but they kept their jobs by proving their abilities.

IsntTHATspecial:

Let's not forget just like Food, water, oxygen......sex is a need not a want.

Please cite one instance of a human death attributed to lack of sex (and not by someone else's hand).

Isn't...cial You have the right of it concerning special treatment. In '74 I was assigned to the division signal battalion at Ft. Lewis. The switchboard section (all men) under a Sergeant Jackson had the best record in all training tests, basic soldiering to MOS specific.. Then the Army, in its wisdom, ended the WAC and "integrated" many non-combat units. Sergeant Jackson, the poor bastard, had half of his section replaced with women at one time. Not through normal rotation mind you, but by shuffling soldiers around with reassignments no matter how short the time from their last PCS. The section went from winning all tests to last place every time. And Sgt. Jackson? He was given a letter of reprimand for requiring a female to drive a ground rod for the switchboard. Why? Without the required upper body strength, she was incapable of the task and began crying when he "belittled" her. Luckily for him an assignment came open in Korea.

I do have an answer for the assignment of women to combat arms. It smacks of segregation (and is). Create separate combat arms units which are comprised of only women, from the lowest bitchface to the highest general; 11 series, 12 series, 13 series and all combat support troops. Then after appropriate training and fine tuning, assign these units to the next war or "police action". Continue these assignments for the next 250 years. Let these units be "first in-last out", with male combat arms units sent in to do the "mopping up". Of course, if the Army cannot meet the quota for the Athena Combat Arms Regiment,Selective Service boards, comprised of women will have to draft enough 18 to 21 year-olds to fill the positions. Yes indeed, equal opportunity a good thing!!

Thank you, marinejoy and IsntTHATSpecial, for posting the two most brilliant comments on this post today.

ok go back and read what all us MALE combat VETS are saying, if a woman can meet the same standards as a man let her fight . 8 years as a Marine 3 as a instructor at School of Infantry, i had man young men that had same build as the average female.That could not hump the rock , could just meet and pass PFT. In Somalia we had 60 lbs basic issue in pack then 1 mortar round, 200 rounds 556 for the SAW, 1 IV bag 4 M67 FRAG , 2-2qrt canteen . then on body flack vest 10, 30rnd mags, 2 M67 FRAG 2-1 qrt canteen asspack full of crap first aid kit, bayonet ( would not cut butter ) helmet thats another 30 lbs or more on your body plus abou 100 on your back plus what ever you weigh in at. Lady if you can hump that rock i would go into the @!$%# with you any time

The problem with your rose colored glasses view is you have never been there. Combat is NOT for social meetings. What does this woman do when our Humv gets RPG'ed. I weigh 210lbs plus 80 pounds of gear.

She needs to pull me out of a burning vehicle and fire her weapon at the same time. By the way she is wounded also. Chances are 98%of women couldn't do that. And sometimes thats what combat is about. It's blood,guts,crying and LOTS OF FILTHY LANGUAGE. It's dead and wounded bodies blown to pieces. Stop smoking your crack and get some real thinking. I have a friend who's wife is a GREAT RIFLE SHOT. I would not want to be within 1000 yards of her and have her mad at me. I would be dead for sure. But to have her drag me out of a combat zone, while fighting....Not going to happen. She weighs 120 lbs. I weigh 180 plus gear. There was a case in Viet-Nam of a SEAL dragging his brother out of a swamp. While fighting NVA and 1/2 his head was shot away. You POG'S have no idea what happens in combat.

Now our enemies have women fighting with them....the difference woudld be when she gets hurt they shoot her in the head and go on. We don't work that way.

My MOS was 0331/2111, well I had two actually. A WM said that she did not have to hump the M2 and she was tasked to a bigger guy to do that. Welll that sucks for him. Receiver 60 pounds, barrel 24 pounds each and there are two of them, and M3 tripod 44 pounds, and then that nifty tool box with T&E, pintle, and cleaning gear which let's say 10 pounds more. Now there is or at least was a STUPID 80 mile 2 day hump when I was in. Whole battalion got to play that game. Heavey Guns was normally always short of bodies never did figure that one out. Well we would have to hump our crew serves, the WHOLE system, all 6 guns. Oh and still a full infantry load out. What is funny is that there is a reason we were for the most part a vehicale mobile platoon. Also the ONLY reason we did not have to hump our MK 19's is that there was no real way of breaking it down to make sit on top of your pack. That and at 72 point something to 74 point something pounds she was heavy. You can find multi prints with different weight for her so I don't think anyone really has a clue to the true weight. LOL So when some one gets hurt or drank to much before the hump and I now have all my gear and personal weapon. I have a 60 pound receiver to start the hump. I also have one of the 24 pound barrels from some one who fell to the heat. Now I have the 44 pound tripod because someone fubar their ankle on a pothole. To finish the last five miles I took one more 24 pound barrel. Finished the hump and blew out a inner core temp of 106.5, but I got 4 days rest in a nice.... (Ha) never mind it was at "crippler". So where was my big guy to help carry all the xtra gear. I was 5' 11" 195 pounds at that time, been out for a while now so those are old stats. I have no disrespect for a WM but if you have to have someone else hump your gear????? Anyway.... and yes I said WM, because as far as I care PC is what I am sitting in front of. GI JOE-1977278 thank you for your time and your posting. I wish you the best of luck trying to get your point across. Semper Fi, sir.

They already have a few subs shipping out with mixed sex crews on a trial basis to see how it works out. I'm thinking the sexual assault cases are going to go through the roof.

You know how it is. 100 people go down, and 50 couples come up. :)

How much of a fresh scent do you think a woman would have, when required to stay out in the field indefinitely without a shower? I was in field artillery for 14 years. The headquarters unit of our battalion went in for showers on a regular basis, while we stayed out in the field without them. A woman's personal hygiene is a huge factor, in my opinion. There's no way they could stay out there without a shower like men can do.

I'd pay to see a battery of all female gun bunnies. I'd pay even more to see them try to load an 8incher by hand. Upload the vid of it to youtube and it would shut down the entire discussion.

GI JOE I fell you 100%. I was a grunt and just a supple drop had guys jumping out of there tent to see a female. As of right now women in the military are rape by there own troops 3 time more often then being killed in combat. I can see that going up FAST!

I forgot to mention, how about brain smarts? Do you think I would want to go into combat with the two females in the article that want to try and run the US Army? They taint right in the head. First, they are in direct violation of the Chain Of Command. If you are a member of the US Army, even as a Reservist, you follow orders and you follow the Chain Of Command.

A young Marine SSGT just found that out the hard way that he did not run the USMC. Do them two nitwits even realize they can be activated for Courts Martial and if convicted, be demoted, DD'd (Dishonorable Discharge) and spend some vacation time at Fort Leavonworth, Kansas? Probably not.

Interesting point. A woman PMSing could be a questionable decision maker at a crucial moment. As a woman, I'm being honest.

"I guess having the special privilege to murder babies isn't enough." Its their body not yours, who are you to Judge? Why do individuals believe they have the Right to control other people?

When you're in the armed forces ,your government gives you the right to be a mass murderer, You get to kill any and everything in the name of Democracy,freedom,liberty or so they say. Babies,Men ,women pets they are all in open season. Bitch about that killing not about the aftermath of bareback sex. You are probably against contraception too!

No, I'm NOT against contraception. I am 100% FOR contraception and 100% FOR women taking RESPONSIBILITY for their own bodies and reproductive systems.

A baby isn't a tumor. It's NOT her body. It someone else's body and she shouldn't have the automatic right to murder it at will. At the very least, abortion should include a mandatory hysterectomy. If it was, in fact, HER precious body on the line, abortions would drop overnight.

Women just want to go into battle and fight to get... a promotion! With the war wrapping up, it is a very small chance they will see battle now, I guess that is why they decided to wait. Both are senior officer and senior enlisted, will they actually see front line combat even if the ban is lifted? I think this is a pathetic attempt to contribute to the feminist movement or, these women are gay and act like men, therefore want to be more like a man and contribute to their masculinity portfolio.

Isn't it rather strange that an embryo, which has NO social security number nor ever paid taxes, has more rights than a grown woman?

STOP SHOVING YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS DOWN EVERYBODY'S THROAT!

"It's NOT her body. It someone else's body and she shouldn't have the automatic right to murder it at will."

I would have to agree with this, BUT only after the child has been delivered. Only then is it someone else's body. Prior to that it is physically attached to the mother making it a part of her body to do with what she chooses...

After serving 8 years in the military right along side many women. They were the biggest PITA in my Combat Engineer Unit ever. A female Heavy equipment mechanic that could hardly pick up the wrenches needed to work on Dozers and trucks.

We had 2 that could hold their own. What people don't understand is that women have many differences than men that, well hinder long bouts of not showering. Tell me how many men want to be in a foxhole with a women who hasn't bathed in 2 weeks and is visiting with Aunt Flow.

Strength Sorry not many women can take the load that a combat arms solider packs day in and day out. Upper body strength is a very limiting factor. You have to be able to pull your buddy up a cliff or drag him out of the line of fire. Tell me how a women weighing in at 110# wearing another 80# of gear in 120 deg and has been humping for 2 days is going to drag a 6' tall man weighing 175# with 80# of gear out of the line of fire?

For me it has nothing to do with the fact that women are weak. Women's bodies are not build for combat. When humans first started on this earth Men hunted for food women picked food on the ground of slightly over head and raise children.

What happens when a women gets knocked up in the middle of a combat tour? They go home, Now how will that effect the combat readiness of a unit if 10% of the unit has to go home to have babbies and what do you think is going to happen when they get home to their husband PREGO by a dude in her unit.

We had females in my unit and when we would go train with 1st Cav we would have to take an extra vehicle so the females could drive to a base camp or back to main side to shower and perform personal hygiene putting us down 4 people and a vehicle.

If you have never been in or served with a combat arms unit you just don't understand what goes on and what is expected of a person.

Studies have been done about women in the military. I seen one that looked at All female units all male units and mixed units. All female units had lower PT scores, lower promotion rates and more disciplinary problems with mixed units next and all male units having the highest moral, pt scores and promotions.

OMG, KAREN!!!

A woman speaking out against women's rights! I thought I was the only woman (other than fundamentalist Christians, please say you aren't one) who ever did that.

Are you old enough to remember when there used to be men--before they were all emasculated and became overgrown little boys playing video games? And when children were raised by their own mothers instead of farmed out from birth by a bunch of self-centered breeders prancing around in their slutty little business suits, pretending to compete?

Women had (past tense) something totally unique and precious to offer. Feminism, instead of working to make society recognize women's contribution, destroyed women AND men. It's no wonder homosexuality is rife--other than appendages, it's hard to know what you're in bed with these days. That is, if you even have any libido left.

I didn't, until I recently met a foreign man from a country where genders still exist. He wakened old memories--among other things. Delicious.

No one is stopping you two from serving your male masters.

If you two do not want to be treated equally, that's your choice. If you think baking tollhouse cookies is the most a woman should do, go right ahead.

If employment blurs the gender lines for you, maybe your issue isn't equality. Like it or not, employment for both sexes is a requirement now for most families. Unless you two are willing to pay their bills.

One day women will have to own up to the fact that they will never have a male organ. they are what they are; which makes them no less by the way.

Men and women are different no matter how much you try to deny that.

Patter, with you. The more we try to be the opposite sex and now embrace who and what we are to the fullest, because God created each of us as special, the worse our family life gets, the worse our economy gets, the worse our Country gets -- and it is getting worse every day.

I have far too many friends who have husbands that are the sole supporters of their family, and they live quite well, to listen to people say it can't be done.

Stop making men compete for jobs with women and maybe they can afford to support their families once again.

Stop making "things" more important than family and kids and it can be done.

If employment blurs the gender lines for you, maybe your issue isn't equality. Like it or not, employment for both sexes is a requirement now for most families. Unless you two are willing to pay their bills.

You just don't want to man up and take responsibility.

In many cases, it actually costs more than a woman earns for the wife to work--that is, assuming that she re-learned the skills women used to contribute, before they became pseudo-men.

But don't worry. Women have nearly completed the task of taking over the position of men. Soon you won't have to do anything except say "yes ma'am, no ma'am."

I have far too many friends who have husbands that are the sole supporters of their family, and they live quite well, to listen to people say it can't be done.

You live by the exception and not the rule.

I am happy some families can get by on only one income, but many can not. Not everyone can get a 50-60K a year job.

Something tells me nothing I say will matter to you two. Live your Donna Reed lives I guess.

Tell the truth, Mike. Wouldn't you secretly love to have a "Donna Reed" wife? Wouldn't you love to come home to a clean and beautiful home, to a woman who looks good, smells good, isn't frazzled and exhausted? Wouldn't you like to sit down to an old-fashioned, home-cooked meal with well-behaved kids who actually respect you? Wouldn't you like a back rub and someone who is truly interested in how your day went? Wouldn't you love having a woman who has time and energy for you in bed? One who thinks more about pleasing you than your serving her? Wouldn't you like looking around yourself at your home and possessions and know that you provided these things for your family?

No? None of that strikes a chord? I'm not surprised. Most men have been raised from birth by women and don't even remember they once experienced pleasures more subtle than friction.

I agree that men and women are different, and we should celebrate those differences. It would be boring if we were the same.

I don't know anyone who can get by with just the husband working. And what about single mothers like me? I have to work. I can't stay home and bake freaking cookies all day. Wish I could.

Patter123, can I have a Donna Reed husband? Your account sounds wonderful. I can picture it now, I come home from work and he does all those things for me...yay!!!

Oh my goodness Karen and patter, hush your mouths, you are giving Gloria Steinhem a cardiac arrest. Seems the three of us were raised in a age when such a thing as (gasp) Chivalry still existed. Women were comfortable being women and doing what women do. They expected well raised men to open doors for them, to give up their seat on the bus or subway rather that see a woman standing, and oh yeah, at a restaraunt to pull the seat out for the woman.

Oh yeah, I forgot the open the car door thingy. Maybe it's just me, but, for some of you old duffers, didn't women sorta have it made back then without all this equal rights bullroar?

Maybe it's just me, but, for some of you old duffers, didn't women sorta have it made back then without all this equal rights bullroar?

Yes and no. It's the real world, and nobody gets to "have it all," despite propaganda to the contrary.

Women worked hard, made serious sacrifices, and often were not appreciated for all they did. It actually is hard work to run a household, cook at least two meals a day from scratch, raise children, supervise your kid's schooling, promote your husband, wash and iron clothes, make kitchen curtains, do volunteer work at church or for the community or school, keep yourself looking good and make your husband feel like a hero and super-stud.

On the other hand, if you do a good job, you have children who adore you and a husband who fanagles a long lunch hour which he spends with you rather than his so-called "administrative assistant," and a lifetime filled with experiences much more gratifying than a "sexy" car.

There are women who do not want to get married and have children like me. I want to work. I do not want to be a mother. I respect the women who want to have kids and stay home with said kids but I would also respect a man who stayed home with the kids as well. My equal rights to be allowed to work and not get married and to not have kids should never be questioned just because you and your friends want that role.

Btw, couples can make it work so that one parent can stay home regardless of whether I and other women work or not. It's all about saving and planning for that person to stay home. I, too, know couples who do it but they would never suggest that women should not have equal access to a job. In fact, many of those stay at home parents choose to go back to work once their kids are school aged.

I will not be made a second class citizen that has to be taken care of by a man (what? Am I, a women in her late 20s, supposed to stay home with my parents because I'm not married?!) just because you think I should. You may do what you want in your life and I will do what I choose in my own.

" Women were comfortable being women and doing what women do"

no they weren't!!! If women were happy with the way things were, they would have never fought for women's lib. What was all that bra burning in the 60's??? Those were not happy women!!! If women were happy with the way things were, things would still be that way!!! It is very simple logic!!!

Thank You Sarah! :) I don't see any reason why a woman can't be in infantry! What is with some of you on here anyway? like that guy on here that says about sacrificing their daughter for the liberal agenda crap, give me a break! So it is ok to sacrifice a boy though? grow up! As a military wife I fully support this move, it is about time. If a female can handle what is needed to do infantry then go for it!

Why don't you stop living in the 1950's already!

Tina

Why don't you stop living in the 1950's already!

It's fun here in the 50's, honey. Quite delicious and VERY hot. ;)

Erin-- I agree with you. Women should have the legal right to compete with men in all things. But no concessions should be made. If you want to live like a man--and you have enough testosterone to do it--go for it. Just don't try to force feminine women to be like you by legislating androgyny.

Spiritus333 - I'd be your "Donna Reed" if I could, but being a crotchity old bastard, I wouldn't last for long. I would be very willing to trade my 60 hour week for a 168 hour week if I could find a woman who could put up with my "impossible" wants and needs. Dang, it's hard to be a human!

Patter123, will you marry me? (on my knees here...)

I'm a career Army officer, and I approve HALO Jumper's message.............

Why join in the first place knowing that some fields are closed to women?

Because that is how change and progress happens. If you do not challenge things, there is no progression.

With that logic, women should have never stood up for their right to vote. After all, they knew they didn't have the right to begin with, correct.

Why join in the first place if you know thw real reason WE are at war with the Muslims...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_ZN2H-QZJc

I am female, my husband hears me roar! Hahahahaha. Past that I'm really with you guys, women don't belong in combat on front lines. It's one thing to see pictures of people dead and dying, I am sure (though I have no personal experience) it's a whole other story when you are actually there contributing to the death of others. I don't see women handling the end results of war very well. Maybe I am being too severe on my sex, but that is my own opinion.

@NY Mike

Read what Halo said. It's pretty obvious that you have never been in boots. The Army Reserve is strictly support units- NO combat units. The Regular Army, and the Army National Guard, are comprised of front line combat units-i.e., infantry, armor, artillery, etc. Simply put, Army reservists would never be intentionally put into front line combat, as that is not their job.

90% of reservists who are activated, are activated for the purpose of taking over a stateside fort or base while the active components are deployed overseas. I've seen the Army deploy the hell out of the National Guard, but SELDOM the reserves. Not saying it doesn't happen, but it's rare as hell.

23 year submariner here.

I love women, but the drama that comes with them (no one in particular at fault) is not worth it.

Also, be careful what you wish for. Equal rights also means equal responsibilities. I don't want my daughter susceptible to the draft.

I know that will pi$$ some folks off. So? I served. If you want to disagree with me, you'd better bring some context.....

Axel thanks for this. When you get a group of men and women together under any situation we know what follows, it's instinctive. I think there are certain women that would do very well, this would be a minority. People, even professionals under extreme duress- find a release.

The article also mentions that these women are "Reservists." The Army Reserve does not have "Combat Units," only Combat Service and Combat Service Support Units.

The 100th Battalion, 442nd Infantry, is the only remaining Infantry unit in the Army Reserve force structure. Its headquarters is located at Fort Shafter, Hawaii, and its units are located in Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam and Saipan. Under the command and control of the 9th Regional Support Command, the 100th/442nd's wartime mission is to be one of the maneuver battalion's of the 29th Separate Infantry Brigade, Hawaii Army National Guard.

Great points!

But women have lower physical standards than men, so they don't meet the standards.

True, women operate under a completely different set of rules that they rarely complain about:

• Grooming Standards
• Uniforms
• Physical Fitness Requirements

I did 23 years and hated keeping my hair short and tapered. I never prosted.

Did your mom molest you or something?

Thank you for your service, Marine. I am so proud of our female Marines but the reality is that those packs weigh nearly 90 pounds.......my son is deployed and he is very fit and strong and strains under the weight of them.

This isn't sexist, it's just a physical reality. Women could serve in other capacities but not in armored units - not a good idea.

Be careful what you wish for......

I have been an army wife for 13 years. If women want to be in all aspects of the army then they need to play by the same rules, no special PT rules or anything "because you are a woman" if you want to be treated the same, have the same haircut rules, be required to have the same PT scores, etc. Putting women in certain areas puts all the soldiers at increased risk. I feel what they are and are not allowed to do in the army is fair. And keeps my husband safer.

I think the whole point of this article is to give women the rights to try. I being a women, I totally agree with what the majority of the people are saying about PT tests being watered down and made easier for women. Personally, hearing this erked me a bit, especially after reading one comment about women only having to do 20 push ups. Thats rediculious, I could do 20 push ups in 5th grade, women are capable of A LOT more. The tests and requirments are there to save our lives, men and women included, so everyone should be held to EQUAL standards. Personally though, if a man is being distracted by a women on the field....he shouldn't be allowed out there. Everyone is out there to do a job, be focused and keep your mind on why you are there in the first place. Giving women an EQUAL chance is what is important. Stop the curves and the "dumbing" it down aspect. There are some women out there that can do it and live up to the mens standards. If they want to try give them a chance. Its only right if they an honestly and truley live up to the standards. Just my opinion.

"I want a female right now to put a 50 cal round through a three year olds head and still live with it."

You need help. Please, call a mental health professional.

But he's right.

You know what shandril, Ive been to Shrinks, Psychs, Counselors, and The chaplain. Do you know what angers me the most is that I have to return to the civilian world and no one has the skill to help many vets that are trying to cope and come to terms. Do you think a person holding a Ph.D is gonna help us? Nah they would just put us on meds and try to give us useless information. Yes I do need help and you need help too.

P.S. Enjoy your freedom American.

If the women have to meet the same physical requirements in training and exercises, then they should be allowed to fight in any front line situation. However, if they are given less stringent physical requirements then they should not. I'm not sexist, but when you rely on a team member to keep you alive, you should know that they are 100% physically capable.

I have met some women that would destroy me in a hand-to-hand fight, so the sex isn't really my concern here. They (any armed force) wouldn't place a man on the front lines that was physically incapable of performing the needed tasks either.