I believe there should be exceptions made on a case by case basis. I've served with some absolutely outstanding females that were right beside us through hell and high water. I'd be proud to serve with them again any time. However, the majority of females in our detachment were deployment queens and were only useful as fobbits.

There's always going to be exceptions to the rules, but I do not think we should reduce and reshape our physical fitness / training to let them in.

In my experience working in extreme environments on response spills, most of the women can not handle the strength requirements or extreme temperatures like the men can, or maintain an energy level for 14 hours straight. When they get tired or cold, mistakes happen.

In the combat field, she's right, people will die.

Some of these comments overlook the fact that she did pass the tests and excelled. Women have different bodies. I know that as a personal trainer. For a woman, I am in great shape, but compare my stats to those of a man. My Vo2max is lower. Well, because women cannot process as much oxygen per minute. We have smaller hearts and lungs. Even the strongest women are hard pressed to do one chin-up. Forget about pullups. Further, women now are suffering PTSD at a much higher rate than men. Would you like to be the only woman in your infantry platoon? What about rape and sexual harassment? What if you are taken prisoner war? Frankly, I'd commit suicide before I'd allow myself to be drafted into that. By the way, I was in the military.

patty027,

You stated, "You can't presume that one's biological make-up represents women on a whole."

With regard to women in the infantry, I disagree with biology being the precise reason. Women are significantly more prone to UTIs & yeast infections (which are practically non-existent in males) menstruate, and experience PMS with its now well documented accompanying hormonal and behavioral impacts.

In isolated forward deployed combat situations, where sanitation and medical care are not always the best, these health issues would undoubtedly impact a female warrior's combat effectiveness - whether she was in a leadership or subordinate role.

Additionally, requiring units to supply and support the items needed to compensate for these additional hygene and medical requirements, places an additional burden on both front line and support echelons with regard to combat logistics. Valuable backpack or medkit space, that could be used to carry additional ammo, rations or battle dressing, would potentially be given over to the items needed to sustain female infantry soldiers that I outlined in the previous paragraph.

Unless one requires women in the infantry to undergo hysterectomies or pump them full of the testosterone needed to sustain their muscle mass under long-term isolated combat conditions as part of serving in the infantry, these health issues and the logistics elements required to mitigate them, would always be a factor.

i'd be willing to bet there are men on the front lines, that when all is said and done, fail to live up to the standards set. but we arent advocating to eliminate the front lines.

if women want to try and can pass the standards and get on the front lines and fail, pull them off the front lines - the individuals, not all women. just like you would with a man.

end of story. why are we making this more complicated than necessary?

and rape and sexual harrassment? here's a novel thought - hang any man who rapes any woman from the highest tree (or erected stand) possible, it should never be "EXPECTED" to happen in the armed forces, nor accepted as just something that happens...

our military shouldnt have anyone willing to rape another human being in it, PERIOD.

The desert was tough but if a female can pass all the physical tests needed AT THE SAME LEVEL AS A MAN, then she should be let in. However, if the perimeters of "successful completion" have to be changed and made easier because it's a female, then all we are doing is lowering our standards of excellence just to be fair. War isnt about being fair.

I have no problem with this so long as the military doesn't lower the bar in order to cater to less capable females. You want in? Fine, but you'd better keep up.

I've seen some women who could kick anyone's behind, any time any where. I've also seen some men who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag on a rainy day.

It would completely depend on a case-by-individual-case basis who should have the ABILITY to go and defend our nation. Blanket policy based on an archaic, men-centric world shouldn't. If my son can go and fight, and possibly give up that last measure of devotion, his sister should be able to as well.

On a lighter note, I paraphrase the late George Carlin:

Most of the women who are against women' rights, are women that no one wants to sleep with anyway.

1. You have a son/daughter deployed in a hot zone

2. Their infantry unit contains a majority of women

3. However, you have the power to move them into
another unit that contains a majority of men.

Its not about equality here...its about lives and probability...

Seems the US and its allies still downplay the role women can play in combat situations. During WII Russian women fought just as well and better then many of their male counterparts. We still have this stigma of the fairer sex, something they (women) fought to change for equality. Now, "putting a woman" on the front lines is a big no-no for the same women who fought for equality. Double-sided coin toss!

I am a woman that spent 8 years in the United States Army Military Police Corps, and served in Saudi Arabia for the first Gulf War. If a woman is physically able to pass the same test as a man in any job function, she should be able to serve in combat.

We should only let women in combat roles if our enemies agree to do the same thing at the same percentage levels. Good luck with that. Maybe there should be two women in the offensive line in every play of every team in the NFL too. The whole thing is just stupid and all the politically correct blah blah blah is ignorant as hell too.

She, like so many others (including the generals), are missing the point. The point isn't to lower standards to let women in. The point is to not limit the opportunities of the few women who can fight like men.

Women should be made to sign up for the selective services too. I hate that I had to sign on, but a female doesn't.

I call sexism here, against men.

For one thing this woman is 5'3"-- a huge difference between her and a woman who is taller. I'm 5'8", have a fairly large frame and I am pretty strong, but even when I was in my 20's at peak level of fitness, I don't think I could have passed this fitness test. Maybe with more training? However,I've worked with some women who were much stronger than any of the men in the company. One woman I knew was 5"11" tall with a large frame and extremely strong. The much smaller men would always go get Margaret if they needed some heavy lifting done.

As a female, I agree with Master Bob. As a mother why should I be okay with my sons having to serve but not my daughter.

This young lady has common sense!

If a woman could perform at the same physical level as a man, then by all means add them to the front lines. Until then, do not ask to be there because it will cause lives.

I am sure there are brilliant, great leaders, steady under fire, excellent shot woman who would serve the military well. But when they can't, most all can't, keep up with the physical demand of the the infantry, live will be at risk and the mission will breakdown.

I am all for treating people equally, but there are differences in all people. Not everyone is a great runner, but should we treat people as if they are. Not every one is strong, so should we treat people as if they are. We are to be treated equally, but we are not all truly equal. If we were there would be no contests, as they would not be needed. There would not be job interviews, as they would not be needed. People deserve the same level of respect and be treated that way. The needs to be understanding that people have limitations. Ignoring those limitations for in the name equality, could end up getting people killed.

50 years or ago, she would have been told that the only place for her in the military would be as a nurse or secretary. Bet she wouldn't like that line drawn for her, so she shouldn't draw lines for other women.

If a woman can pass the tests, as they are, then I see no problem with it. As for the menstruation issue, the right birth control can put that on hold indefinately.

IT is wonderful to hear women and minorities speak common sense as this Captain has done. Saw her on TV 2 days ago. When men talk like this of course their only possible motivation is becasue they are chauvenist pigs. But here is a woman who has been there an noboby can question her abilities. She has a fantastic resume of accomplishments. All the combat arms (Artillery, Armor, Infantry) and combat engineers require a level of unGodly effort in physical capability and sleep deprivation that many of the other Corps don't require. Compromise the standards and you get people killed when the crap hits the fan. Just because people are willing to go there doesn't mean management should let them. This isn't about giving all the kids a trophy. It's about achieving the mission at no additional cost in casualties. And it is possible to do well in 6 or 8 weeks of training but deteriorate in many months of sustained field and combat conditions. The casualty rates in Iraq and Afhgan are enormously high already. I've seen reports of 20% to 50% of all the people who got on the ground there are filing claims for a medical or disability reason when they get back to the states. It does not seem wise to take any action that would increase those rates.

Women's bodies are physically different for a reason. They are designed (by nature) to carry and nurture children. They have less muscle mass and more body fat so that they can carry a child in their womb for nine months. That is evolution's role for women and it is a very important one. Women need to be protected, not fighting as infantry.

Stop trying to impose your silly made up social ideas on nature, crazy human race.

I don't want her representing me or my capacities! Besides what she fails to mention is a huge amount of men on disability thanks to the rigors of the marine corps [best buddy was a former marine & his back is all jacked up]...IMO they are doing it wrong if the training breaks them down harder than they would experience in an actual war situation. Marginal terrorist groups are not super human, they travel light and are opprtunistists in their environment [creative]...brute strength is not the measure of a person, survivability is. I have 20/10 vision and can see further than most and am an excellent shot with about any fire-arm, plus I would not hesitate to shoot someone if my life depended upon it. Mental fortitude and stamina are not gender specific!

Master Bob

Women should be made to sign up for the selective services too. I hate that I had to sign on, but a female doesn't.

I call sexism here, against men.

Or we could just get rid of selective services. I find a lot of irony in a supposidely "free" country which can subject its citizens to forced servitude in the government's military at any time.

what you guys are forgetting is hollywood rule #1: woman runs from creature/bad guy/danger, woman falls down. happens EVERY time. so if you have women in combat, they will get the order to charge, jump out of their fox holes and fall down. can't win a war like that, nosirree.

For all you people saying "well they should be allowed if they pass the same tests...". Well yes, that would make sense. IF they could...but the fact is, not only are the physical fitness requirements lower for females than males, in some cases, they aren't even subjected to the same tests. Females do a flexed arm hang; males do pull-ups. Those are not even close to the same thing. The body fat% allowed for the youngest female Marines (17-26) is higher (26%) than the percentage allowed for the oldest males (46+, 21%). This same thing is repeated all over the military and public services (FBI, CIA, police, fire). Currently, the FBI is being sued by a male who failed their physical test by 1 pushup. If he was female, he would have passed. The same thing is also repeated in women's sports. Gofers play on a reduced length course, and tennis players play best of 3 instead of best of 5.

If you want to be considered equal, hold yourselves to the same standards. Until then, an argument should not even be brought up.

As a man i hope to god this never happens. Men and Women are different.. this is not about equality infantry combat is not about fair its about killing and some of the most horrible things imaginable. This is not a sport or a video game or a position at a job.

BTW these woman are NOT your average woman. Your summisive girlfriend who mans sandwich for you, or the type that blows kisses and have a low hanging teeshirt.

Has society's conditioning really get to you guys?

If you say male marines are superior to woman, dont you think the things the marines are doing are perfect? which by the way arn't, with every respect

Its all fun and games till you get on the two way firing range. Any one on this site that has been in combat should know.

@ johngis men and women are SOCIALIZED differently...while there are physical differences, men can lift more.. women tolerate pain better...but aside from that both can be efficient in a war scenario. Have both in combat [like the Israelis] I am an excellent shot and would not hesitate to defend myself. Ever see Full-metal Jacket? The sniper in the bell tower was a WOMAN! We don't fist-fight in war...we shoot people...hello????

Look at the current physical training standards and you'll see that females don't have to perform at male levels now. This is absolute proof that females can't perform at the same physical levels as males. Yes there may be a few that can, but you can't base a policy on exceptions. In my Army experience I've worked with some very dedicated and capable woman, but they required help with the heavy lifting and more strenuous activities. In the environment I was in, the slack could be picked up by the male soldiers. This isn't a luxury you have in an infantry squad when the crap hits the fan. It's refreshing to see this woman Marine with the courage to speak the truth.

I do not want to start seeing more men dying in combat because we put women out there with them and the woman did not have the strength to drag an injured marine or soldier to safety. Physical fitness tests are largely based on strength relative to your own body weight. Doing pull ups is not a test of raw strength, it is a test of strength relative to body weight. I do not care if some 5' 3" 115 pound woman can do 10 pull ups, she is not going to be able to drag a 6' 200 pound marine to safety. She is not going to be able to carry an 80 pound field pack. Once we open the door to allowing women into these combat roles it is inevitable that the physical standards will be compromised. I doubt the military going to start placing different minimum height and weight requirements on women for them to be in combat roles than the general requirements for them to be in the Marines or the Army. Women in general simply do not have the same physical strength or endurance to be in combat roles. Also, there are hygiene issues that women have to deal with that men do not. A man, regardless of what time of the month it is, can go for days in a combat situation without access to clean running water or a place to wash up. I can not see a woman who is at that time of the month going for days with access to facilities to clean up. You will end up with female personnel continually getting sick and getting infections due to their inability to follow needed hygiene practices. This is not being sexist, it is being a realist about the different needs of the different sexes. I just do not see that placing women in front line combat positions makes any sense for a purely practical standpoint.

Consensus seems to be those women built like a man should be allowed in on a case by case basis. Huh? There are a Ton of roles in the military that are not infantry. Common sense please! The number one concern for this female soldier and her experience is for those who depend on her in the field; endgame and stow your equal opportunity narcissism.

We failed to talk about

When these infantry women are taken captive they will be raped and tortured like men and worse.

kman

Are you really kidding me? Women have inherient medical issues? How insulting a remark. You think having your period, being prone to UTI's and Yeast infections is a subject related to this story? First of all...this Marine told "her individual experience in deployment" that does not mean it is a replication of every woman's experience in deployment. And to make sexist remarks regarding UTI's and Yeast infections or talking about requiring women to have Hysterectomies is absolutely insulting and ridiculous. Most males deployed suffer from IRS (irritable Bowel syndrome) within weeks of deployment at a rate 200% higher than women. Also, men generally speaking have a more ramped up metabolism than females, hence require more fluids to maintain bodily functions or they get UTI's. And Mr. Kman, believe it or not, MEN are 40% more likely to develop depression under stress than women.

It's one thing to comment on an article but to use the arguments you used are insulting and degrading to women. It boils down to whether a woman has met the physical guidelines for combat, same as a woman meeting the same physical guidelines to make it through the police academy or fire academy. I have known some women much stronger than men and I will bet that this particular marine's deployment experience is not much different than a 19 yrs old, 5'6 young man who weights 145 lbs trying to make it in a front line infrantry combat unit.

Men and Women who serve in our military or public safety in our country deserve respect and our constant appreciation for the sacrifices they freely make for us. This story is about one Marine's experience only.

@ imrightnotyou I'd be more worried about your ass over there than mine...there are a lot of angry arabs stuck in the closet because they view homosexuality as an abomination, so don't think for an instance men don't get raped...they just don't talk about it. Incidentally women handle rape better than men because they do talk about it and seek counseling. As far as torture goes women have a higher pain tolerance-@!$%# a bowling ball terd then come talk to me about pain! And for all those men out there mentioning 'hygiene issues' just because u fallen and tripped into a vagina once or twice doesn't make you an expert on women's hygiene issues...there is NO issue and I've never had a yeast infection in my life, and a period is just an inconvience its not life altering for f*ck's sake...eesh >.>

JS- raw strength? I'm 4'11" and a bit out of shape, and today on my lunch break I had to take (carry) my 44 lb dog to the vet (some a-hole didn't have their dog on a leash and it bit mine). Didn't break a sweat, even though it was already in the 80's at that point. I can carry both my kids (about 60 lbs combined) when needed, and they move around alot, unlike a backpack. I think it's entirely possible that a woman could pass all the physical requirements. Not all, probably not most, but some could do it.

As for the 'monthly hygeine' issue- I go years without that issue when on a progesterone birth control (shot or IUD). Some pills have that feature too.

imrightnotyou, wow raped & tortured, we face this in our country daily along with abusive husband & a world of phychopaths. The differnce within women or men is their ability to defend themselves. Some will continue to be a victim & others will defend themselve by any means. Cast Iron frying pan, my favorite is my Winchester.

The question should be when it comes right down to it can a woman or man take life without hesistating. Isn't that what war is really about, life & death.

inmissouri

JS- raw strength? I'm 4'11" and a bit out of shape, and today on my lunch break I had to take (carry) my 44 lb dog to the vet

OMG!! I am impressed that you could carry a 44lb dog. Could you carry one that weighed 200lbs? I can.

IReadYou AND Fossil Fool

our bodies were made to carry babies

and

ungodly effort in physical capabilites and sleep deprivation

Nice remarks...tell me how many men you know who get maybe 4 hours sleep per day, take care of a household of children, cook, clean, do laundry, carry bags of groceries weighing 40-60 lbs a pop, PLUS work full-time up to 8-10 hours a day and still get it all done. Who carry one baby in her womb (as Mr. Fossel Fool indicated) while carrying another 35-40 lbs child on one hip while pushing a shopping cart only to stay up most of the night working on projects for our full time jobs? And this is not a 8-9 month deployment. Our deployment last 18 years!!!

Women are alot stronger than you think. This article was about one woman's experience in infrantry deployment. And just for the record, over the last 8 years I have personally known both as my son's friends and family members who have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan and to hear their stories of deployment are very difficult. Not much different from this Marine in the article.

It is not a WOMAN ISSUE, It's a repeated deployment and prolonged deployment issue for men and women. Don't ever believe that men are a stronger species (by nature) than women.

shamrock66646

Disgusting...not only showed bigotry and sexism, but a complete lack of respect for any woman serving in our military. I'm sure the parents, children, or spouse of a woman who has served or lost her life serving our country will be really proud of your remark.

It isn't JUST about physical capabilities.. it is about a LOT of things.

First, there IS a medical issue. Not just the fact that women have "women parts" that would have to be accounted for, in the field, in combat situations. That alone SHOULD be enough to see the high cost of doing this (not in just dollars, but in lives). Imagine a medic who has to, under the pressure of enemy gunfire, assess a situation.. hard enough to do, but add that the physiology is different, that medic now has to consider far more information, while under extreme pressure. But add to it that women are, on average, less physically capable than men. That means MORE injuries in the field. That means more medicines they have to carry. The same thing that makes women's medical insurance premiums higher would put a higher burden on taking care of them in the field. Like it or not, medical is an issue, one that is multiplied greatly in a combat situation.

Second, and perhaps more important - Not only is it an inherent nature in men to protect women, but OUR culture has ingrained into us the need to be more protective of women. In a battle situation, if a woman on the front lines was targeted by the enemy, the men would be more likely to risk themselves and hence everyone in order to protect or avenge a fallen female soldier. It is a weakness that the enemy WOULD exploit in a combat situation. Anyone who thinks it wouldn't happen is fooling themselves.. there is no civility in war, it is about winning any way you can. Furthermore, if troops were captured, the enemy could use the females to get the men to divulge information that could lead to more of our people being killed. Not just the fact that they would likely rape the women, but holding that over the male troop's heads would go a long way toward getting what they want. Sure, some cultures wouldn't be as inclined to these weaknesses, but ours IS, and psychology is a big part of an effective army.

Third, there is a question of cost. Resources are what win wars. If you have to provide separate quarters for female infantry, separate facilities, add privacy when out in the field, etc, you incur more costs.

Don't think of the military as some institution where you go to get money for college. Don't think of the infantry as a job where they leave their houses or barracks at 8 am, head out to the field, and are back at 5 pm for dinner. Instead, think about WW2.. Think about Vietnam. Think about Korea.. Think about the battles there where men were cut off from supplies, cut off from relief, forced into incredibly difficult and rigorous situations. Think about the times in history when U.S. men survived the unsurvivable, and turned the tide of a battle or the entire war. Now throw women into that kind of hell and tell me it would have turned out the same.. Not because of physical capability, but because of the psychological differences. Think of a few hundred troops facing thousands of enemy troops, holding on to a position with everything they have, just a tiny thread of moral left, maybe all that is keeping them sane and fighting is the fact that their wives are at home and if they don't stop this enemy threat, they may not be safe any more.. Now take some women and force them to watch them fall along side their other brothers in arms. What would that do to them, and could they have still overcome the situation?

Take ALL that and then ask if women could do the things that have been required of men in the past.. If a female infantry has a child back home, is she as likely to lay down her life to save the man next to her? Is she as willing to shoot a child running toward them with a bomb strapped to them? Is she as willing to put an extra bullet in a downed enemy to make sure that enemy doesn't get up when her fellow troops move past? These are the kinds of horrors that are asked of infantry, and they have to be able to do it without hesitation. I am not saying men are all capable, but at least the military knows how to condition men to do it reliably.. Women ARE different, especially psychologically.

Lorraine, this is the new military, not your grandfathers military. These women are wild. I've met a lot of military women. I must say those Navy girls, are the wildest. Those girls should pose for playboy. Hugh Hefners girls ain't got sh*t on these. A night out with those Navy girls, sent my a$$ to sick call.

Terry- I'd probably have to sling it around my shoulders, but yes, I could if I had to. I'd probably have to visit the chiro afterwards- at 36 my joints aren't quite as accepting as they used to be.

shamrock

Your remarks are insulting regarding women in general. I'd like to know what branch of the military you served in to have so much "insider" info. Your statements are derogatory in nature and maybe your a$$ does belong in "sick call" as you refer to it, because you obviously need it.

we all need to be trained killers...you never know when somebody will invade your country...because of the wmd's and terrorist activities...you people crack me up...

I love the people who sit in their peanut gallery and pass judgement about something they have absolutely no clue about. This woman does not strike me as a wimp and believe she's expressing a reality that some feminists don't want to hear. If women are so gung ho in taking a position that they should be part of the infantry, then put your money where your mouth is and actually do it before casting judgement. Anything shy of this is nothing more than hot air.

I believe (it's an opinion) that Men who join armed forces are very patriotic and gungho types, and for this reason I believe that it may hamper the men having women fight along side.. that desire to protect the women may overcome their fight insticts. If it's a long mission there are certain bodily functions that could also hamper a womans ability, then there is the sexual aspect... I just don't think it's a good idea.

Lorraine - you assume that only women can handle the rigors of motherhood.. I think you are assuming that it is anything near the same thing.. I have carried around two children at once for hours on end, worked 8-10 hours a day, gone on 2 hours of sleep for weeks straight, and still taken care of my house and be the primary breadwinner as well. I don't presume it is ANYTHING like the physical, psychological, and emotional strain of active combat. These people work longer hours, carry heavier packs, in intense environments, and still have to then shoot people and be OK with it.

Don't ever believe that men are a stronger species (by nature) than women.

We aren't a different species, we are a different sex, and on average, we are larger, stronger, and the chemicals that control both the physical and mental mechanisms in our bodies are more suited to the violent nature of war and the physical demand of hard labor. Yes, there ARE women who can handle it, and there ARE men who can't. But don't ever believe that if you took a half million men and a half million women and subjected them to the rigors of combat that you would have an equal share of them being capable of doing their duty. The simple fact is that women are NOT built the same way as men, and in this case, men are better suited for this kind of job. If all it meant was hiking 10 miles a day with a 50 pound backpack and shooting a gun, then anyone could do it.. but it isn't.

I know plenty of people in the military, and of the men, some are 5'3" - 5'6".. they are NOT infantry.. they are chaplains, or mechanics, or work in supply, or in clerical duties.. Except one who is about 200 lbs and all muscle.. he is 5'3" and I guarantee he could take two 6 foot men, one on each shoulder, and carry them from a battle. I have known a few 5'3" 200 lb women, but all they can carry is the cookies and ice cream from the fridge to the couch. Sorry, infantry isn't a place for the exceptions, and on average, women are smaller, weaker, and more prone to medical conditions than men. All are qualities that are undesireable in infantry.

This woman is used to her easy job in the military, and she's afraid if women actually have to start serving on the frontlines, she'll lose her cushy engineering job. The fact of the matter is, our women CAN fight, they WILL fight, and they WILL kick some ass. I'm sorry if you get outshined by a woman fellas, but at the end of the day, it's if we win or lose that matters, not if a man or woman shot the final bullet.

Well, K-man629118 hit the nail right on the head, and he was the only one that did. Able, yes, but there are things a female combat soldier will need that WILL create logistical, and health related issues. When a female has to go days without a full cleansing, their chances of getting a disabling infection are increased dramatically. That is fact, no matter which way you slice it.

And for LorraineH, I am a 34 year old male, and former soldier. I do laundry, cook, clean, care for my three kids, tend to the house repairs/maintenance, keep the car/truck going, make sure the yard is watered/mowed, the critters are fed, AND I work every day at a regular job, that includes me being on call 24/7.

I'm am not a sexist. I have four daughters. I think women should be allowed to serve in any job they can qualify for. There were some women who commanded the space shuttle and flew it perfectly. I am a submarine missile boat navy vet. On the boats all jobs could be open to women, and in all the service wide air units. Same with the coastguard, but when it come to direct combat, boots on the ground stuff, there would be so few women who could qualify, it would not be coast effective to have so few women in the trenches. Remember the film "Starship Troopers", is that what we are talking about. There are a lot of men who couldn't qualify to serve as marine or Army infantry. I remember those pictures of marines fighting in Hue during the 1968 Tet offensive, do we want to put women there; yes, some women could do that, but not enough to make it worth all the changes. Like the young marine Lt. said, in the Olympics, men compete against men, women against women. I take her at her word.

I think it is important to recognize the difference between a right and an ability. I have the right to flap my arms. But that does not mean that by doing so I will be able to fly to the moon. I have the right to sing until my heart is content, but that doesn't make me a good singer. So maybe women have the right to serve in the infantry, but how many of them have the ability to do so?

DaveK

There is no doubt about it that a man can handle all the things you and I both stated in our comments and in today's world they certainly do. And that makes my point about women in the military as well. We don't live in a world with defined roles anymore. One question, have you ever served with a woman in the military, known a woman in the military, or one who ever served presently or in the past? I would kind of think you don't know one personally. I may be wrong. But believe me, this young Marine's story of deployment in Afghanistan is similar to many many brave military members who serve for multiple and prolonged deployments. It is not just a WOMAN vs. MAN thing.

Absolutely not. I could write a book. As a veteran myself, I absolutely would REFUSE to go into combat with females. That is neither sexist, chauvinistic, macho, whatever people may accuse me of. It is pure, unadulturated narcissism. Females want to fight? Hey, more power to them, I'll stay home. However, they can have their own (scary as hell) warship, crewed female from the youngest Navy & Corp 'booters', clear to the C.O. Give 'em bombers, helo's, fighters. Give howitzers if that's what the want. There *IS* a place for them. But you will not serve, boots on the ground, with me. I'd do some prison years, willingly, as that's better than dead. Yes, women maybe better shots than any man in my platoon. Better runners, more stamina. Better snipers. Better with a knife, etc. DOES NOT MATTER, I will not serve with them. Very simple, really. I am 6'3" tall and it's probably important to say, truthfully, that my waist is only 32"'s, so people don't assume I'm 'lardo'. I am a slab, and I weigh well in excess of 230 pounds. Simply put, incapacitated, sucking chest wound, whatever, our position being over-run, we have to bag-ass RIGHT NOW... and even the smaller guys can toss me back and forth as we head for the LZ and the dust off. Mary, and Jill in this instance? "I'm sorry man! Love 'ya, but we 'gotta haul ass! Good luck, BYE!"

I promise you, I love women, think they are GREAT co-warriors when they want to be. But not with me. Levenworth ain't THAT bad! A true marine officer wrote her article.

An all female unit want to take possession of this villa, or that range? Fine, but not mixed with intelligent minded males. And, of course, my friendship and love for my female comrades would neccessitate my *not* wanting to be forced (at gun point) to watch a few hundred enemy combatants rape each of these women, in case of capture, in EVRY orifice they possess. Yeah, shocking, it's like that. What did you think?

I want no part of it. Incapacitated, I want stronger men around me to better my chance of survival. I could continue with more examples that I've LIVED through... but those that do not want to understand, or pretend not to due to a hidden agenda... well, you'll bash away at me regard;ess of how much I write.

You serve with 'em, because I'm not going to.

Having been a long time proponent of ERA (Equal Rights Amendment), I have served in the US Military with many Women since the 1970s.

After being offered to either resign my US Military Officer Commission or switch from the Nuclear Weapons Career Field to US Military Asymmetric Warfare (Special Warfare*) "Middle East" Qualified since the INF (Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces) was going to be retrograded and deactivated, in US Military Asymmetric Warfare attached to the Agencies I have seen many very more than capable women in actual Combat as we are the First In and the Last Out before the US Military Conventional Warfare Forces (including the USMC).

*Even during the so called "Peacetime" US Military the US Military Asymmetric Warfare Forces were conducting Combat Missions while attached to the Agencies, 1980s US Military Training Teams at US Ally Iraq accompanying Combat Units into Combat during the Iran Iraq Wars; US Military Training Teams to Pakistan/Afghanistan during the USSR 40 Army Occupation leading the 1980s Pro US Afghan Muhajeen into Combat (Operation Cyclone). 1990s Redacted; UN Mission Kuwait, Liberation of Kuwait, First Gulf War (LRS-D), UN Mission Somalia, Operation Gothic Serpent, weeks after the 9/11 2001 Attacks to Afghanistan, 2000s Operation Hotel California, etc.. In some cases sources unknown (I believe trained by the Agencies) with women as Redacted percent of the Teams.

Maybe now my Lionesses* can finally get their overdue (previously Earned in Combat) Combat Infantry related Awards, Medals, Decorations, etc., to advance their US Military Promotions and Careers.

*Female Lionesses do the Hunting and Killing, while the Male Lion lays around licking his nuts (testicles). The term "Lionesses" for Female Warriors was changed from the 1980s "Amazons" (Fierce Female Warriors).

What I am seeing from since the end of the Vietnam War is the down grading of All Training (Male and Female) of US Military to become "Politically Correct". When I found out that the Drill Instructors could no longer yell obscenities in your face, etc. and all those wonderful things they used to do as induced stress (to see who can and cannot make it) as I experienced and WTF is a "Stress Card".

Later after College (Vietnam GI Bill), I joined ROTC, our Cadre were all Vietnam Veterans (Special Warfare), as Future US Military Officers our Cadre pushed both Males and Females to their breaking points. Those of us that were prior US Military Service (Vietnam Veterans) understood exactly what the Cadre were doing (stress requirements for Future Combat). Later on I started to see the advent of the "Politically Correct" US Military, so from firsthand experience, what the training then and now is completely different (minimal stress and weeding out (wash out) processes). I believe that this is why the majority of the current US Military Conventional Warfare Forces are no longer in the same physical condition as previously Manditory, our US Military Asymmetric Warfare Physical Fitness Tests have not changed; while the US Military Conventional Warfare Forces Physical Fitness Tests have continously been downgraded (lower Minimum Standards).

Steve-2570999 - At this point in history we do not need to send troops anywhere. We boycott products and the country dries up.

How about this Steve-2570999 you do that, and afterwards when you no longer have your current US High Tech Standard Of Living, maybe then you might be able to figure out the relationships.

Steve-2570999 - For instance - the biggest export of Afghanistan is opium.

Yes, sure (Not). Ever since the ages of the Pharaohs of Egypt the Mineral Wealth of Afghanistan has been the Main Export, this is why there are thousands of miles of former mining tunnels. In the case of the opium the majority of that goes to the Chinese via the Old Silk Road.

Steve-2570999 - I am still tee-off that all my hard earned money in the 70s and 80s went to buy nuclear weapons that we later destroyed ( did we get any of that money back? )

If you were even alive during that time as a cognisant adult (doubtful based on your comment) you would know all about how the US leveraged the USSR with those 1970s to 1980s US Military Nuclear Weapons. Having been a Nuclear (Weapons) Physics Teacherduring that time, later deployed to the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF), I knew firsthand. In one occasion to persuade the USSR not to Redacted the US Military INF put the Pershing I's into the upright mode (Informal Declaration of Nuclear War) the USSR backed down and did not Redacted; on another occasion the USSR Threatened to Redacted, the US Military INF put the Pershing II's into the upright mode (Informal Declaration of Nuclear War) again the USSR backed down and stopped all activities at Redacted. The 1980s "Advanced Design" US Military Nuclear Weapons used to later bargin from a US advantage with the USSR during the INF Treaty, SALT, START, etc..

So, Steve-2570999, you got more than your money's worth (how about we put a cheap dollar value on your life); with us risking our lives (First targets of USSR Spetsnaz (USSR Special Forces) and USSR Nuclear Attacks)(most of us exposed to radiation, heavy metals, chemicals (chemical weapons) at some point) and finally getting the USSR to destroy most of their High Yield Large Quantities Nuclear Arsenal, monitored restrictions on types, quantities, designs (no more continent killers), etc..

It is my Honor to Serve with my Lionesses; especially those that must by Islamic Custom search the Afghan (previously also at other Islamic Nations) Women with my Snipers covering them (takes a lot to know that someone being searched might be wearing a suicide bomb vest); my "Amazons" that were with me during the US Military Training Teams to US Ally Iraq during the Iran Iraq Wars (leading US Ally Iraqis Military Women into Combat), Redacted, Redacted, UN Mission Kuwait, Liberation of Kuwait, Redacted, renamed "Lionesses" during Redacted, etc..

Gary

Well, you made it pretty clear how you feel about serving with women in combat. I guess you are talking from some real experience you've had during a deployment. I'll bet your story was or would have been different while I was paving the way for ground troops to cross into Iraq flying my Tomcat saving your butt taking ground fire during Operation Desert Shield as an 0-2. I'm glad you love women....because during the Persian Gulf war, it was the largest female deployment in our nations history, over 40,000 of us, and over 15% of us who served where reservists called up. Not bad for just a bunch of women.

Lorraine

Yes, a good friend of mine is a mother of 2, married to my former marine friend who is 5'3" (the one built like a brick craphouse), and she served in the Army. We were just talking on the 4th about this sort of thing.. She is a tough chick.. grew up in a small town and worked at the bar.. she had to fend off men all the time, got hit a lot, nearly got raped a few times.. She is typical size, around 5'4", and about 150 lbs.. not fat right now.. she roofs houses for a living, and does construction in the summer. She loses muscle mass FAST and plumps up quickly in the winter, while her husband was on disability for 6 months, didn't do a thing, and barely lost any muscle mass at all. She was telling me how her black belt in tae kwan do would help her fend off a man for enough time for other men to come help her.. How she knew how to incapacitate a man long enough to get help. But she never assumed that a 6'3" man intent on subduing her would fail. Sure, she *might* get away, and might even get in a lucky shot and take him down. But in the end, size matters, and most men are bigger than she is.

The bottom line is, yes, she could fight if need be, and she is tougher than most women you meet. If someone invaded her home, someone would leave the house a corpse, no question. But would she want to be infantry? No. She understands why too. Again, I am not saying that there are not women who could do it.. but the question then becomes could the men around them handle it? Could men and women in the same unit bond on the same level as all men? Could they all trust that she will have their back in a combat situation? Could they all trust themselves to follow orders and not just rush to protect her if they saw her go down or get in trouble? Could they stand watching her be tortured or raped without giving up vital information to the enemy? In GENERAL, I say that is enough reason not to allow women into combat. There are so many reasons, and no need to do it.

BESIDES ALL THAT, infantry is made up of the men that either want to fight or can't do another job.. If you wash out of everything, you go infantry. If you CAN do something else, you DO something else.. WHY would a woman want to join infantry? The only reason I can think of is that they have something to prove, and face it, that usually is what gets people killed.

Does menstruating in a foxhole filled with bacteria infested water, while your friend beside pleading for his/her life with bullets, motors and shrapnel flying around, then worrying if the enemy combatants are going to take you hostage and rape you sound appealing.

War brings out the worst in people. With the intention of killing someone before they kill you.

As a female, if they want to do this on a case-by-case basis, fine (although personally I can’t figure out why you’d want to but that’s just me). However, I agree with the men, no special treatment, for any reason. I don’t want to see a troop of men (who are special to someone out there) die just because a female in the group had cramps that day or couldn’t keep up with the pack or because she needed to lift something heavy and couldn’t because she doesn’t have the necessary muscle.

As to the woman who popped off about rape – yes, a man who rapes should be severely punished however, you may be hard pressed to get that point across to her captors. It is a real possibility that if she is caught that she could end up raped or several other horrid things they don’t normally do to men. It’s called life and it’s something these women need to consider very seriously because there will be no whining once you get back. If you were out fighting and were picked up by the enemy and end up used and abused – I’m real sorry about that but you put yourself in that situation, deal with it. And for those of you thinking “oh I could deal with that if I had to” – talk to someone who has been raped. You’ll find it’s not that easy.

I also don’t want to see a whole bunch of media coverage when these women are captured, killed, etc. They don’t do that for most of the guys. If you do this, you’re no more special than the guys are.

Lorraine, why you tripping? Don't be jealous. I think we need to install stripper poles in the barracks.

Jessica wrote " here's a novel thought - hang any man who rapes any woman from the highest tree (or erected stand) possible"

Since when is death the sentence for rape ? And why should rape be prosecuted more harshly than other types of violent assaults which result in severe injury to the victim?

LorraineH wrote "Women are alot stronger than you think."

On average, women have the height and weight but not strength and stamina of a 12 year-old boy. Nearly every 12 year-old boy can do several chin-ups while adult women rarely complete even one.

It shouldn't be they should all be hung.

There's plenty of roles for women in the military, supply, mps, clerical etc and they require competent marksmanship, a certain level of physical fitness, and some basic combat skills but in combat arms all those skills are on a whole different level.

I'm no doctor, but I did serve as an infantryman... 2/325th AIR, 82nd Airborne Division among other units... with all the mess that this Marine Officer had going on (muscle atrophy... severe restless leg syndrome, and a spine injury pressed on her nerves) I can see why she thinks it's a bad idea, but her opinion should not be attributed to all women...

Personally I think some women are fully capable of serving in the infantry, if it's something they are willing to put their minds and bodies into, just as any man (all men are not capable)... second, regarding this Marine Officer in question and her "issues", from everything I've seen about those problems, maybe some physical duty would have prevented some of those conditions.

DaveK

This entire post is about women serving in the infantry combat senerio, this woman you describe with all the stories of her fending off attacks, yet by your own statements, she did not ever serve in combat with an infrantry unit. Then where did this mayhem for her occur? Do women suffer extreme prejudice in the Military, you bet they do. Stateside, there is zero tolerance for it. In combat is a different story. Most combat unit members are not thinking about sex....they are thinking about staying alive, being a team, supporting one another and having each other's back in order to stay alive. They must have total trust in their unit members, they are not only a team, they are a family, watching out for each other and you rarely want to engage in misbehavior with a team member who is supposed to have your back.

All this ridiculousness of muscle mass loss and everything else said here happens to men as well. And if this Marine who found her deployment so difficult to Afghanistan was that debilitated, she would have been removed from duty, especially as an officer in command. Her readiness at question, would have put her unit at risk. And this goes for any MALE officer of a unit as well. As far as suffering a back injury with nerve damage and everything else....these are probabaly issues secondary to her deployment same as male members of the military. Even the way you speak about this friend of yours with the military experience, you state how "she plumps up in the winter". Like women are prone to be lazy or fat and just lounge around. Men "plump up too". I don't know where she served in the Army at or when, but what you described is unlawful and any member of the army who perpitrated those types of attacks on her would have been arrested and faced serious charges that would have changed their lives. Did she ever report these incidents? Probably not....unfortunate her experience was so bad.

Male egoism is at work in the comment section. As a male, i dont not understand how you can say a woman is inferior to a men. I just read a comment about how they cant handle the TEMPERTURE. WTF?!

Woman are more responsible, can communicaite well and do everything with percision. If they can pass the test they MORE then deserve to join the marines.

Is the problem that they are breaking tradition? that male should be the dominant gender? what are still in?the dark ages?

And oh yeah, come to think of it. If something happens there thats bad, there is a higher chance of it leaking out, cuz females dont tolerate it.

BUT HEY, MALE MARINES, BULLYING OTHERS TO SUICIDE , KILLING INNOCENT FAMILIES WHILE DRUNK HAPPENS TO BE MORE SUPERIOR TO FEMALES. OR DID WE 4GET THAT ALREADY!?

(also, physical strenght difference? does a bullet fly some other way if a woman shoot it? i bet it curves and swags in the air when a woman fires it. Smart ass people here.)

You have never been in the military... If you had any idea of the subject you are ranting about then you would already know your answer. Women do not ever have to compete at the same physical level as men. It's called gender normalizing. I have seen a visibly overweight female marine get a perfect score on the same part of their physical fitness test that requires 20 dead hang pullups for a male to get a perfect score. No man that overweight is getting a decent score. I say let them in the infantry, but don't dare try any of that gender normalizing bs. That equipment isn't going to magically get lighter because a woman carries it...

Man ,I wish we could send all these women and men, who think if a women passes some test she should be allowed the "right" to fight in combat, to a combat zone together and only pull them out when they begged and promised to vote Republican the rest of their lives !!!

Her experience does not represent every other female. Who are we to say where a specific individual belongs? If she can pass the tests and excel, and she wants to be in infantry, then she deserves that opportunity. You can't presume that one person's biological make-up represents women on a whole. That's ignorant. Women deserve every opoprtunity that a man has, if they can exceed the same standards.

Except that when it comes to combat and it's rigors women can't meet the same standards. She could bench 145 lbs and squat 200 lbs. I hate to break it to you but compared to a man that is nothing. I'm 33 years old 6'0" 180 and haven't bothered to be in shape in 10 years, but even out of shape I can rep with those weights. Imagine you have a 225lb soldier who is shot and can't walk. The only person near him to get him out is her. Well she's not getting him out cause she can't lift him so he dies.

There is also the psychological component. Men are raised very differently from women. Most boys from a young age do something similar to fighting, wrestling etc... Most girls have never been in a fight. A few weeks of training will not fully prepare most women for the mental rigors of combat.

Women are, biologically speaking, more valuable than men. Read that sentence again. If you have 1 man and 10 women you can procreate the species normally. If you have 10 men and 1 woman, you have a real problem. This is the reason for years and years and years why women have been not been on the front lines. It's not oppression it is a protection of our most valuable asset.

Women should not be placed in combat except as an absolute last resort. Argue for equal rights all day on many other topics, please, I will support it, but not on this. Women in full combat roles puts other men's lives at risk and is a potential risk to the society as a whole for all the reasons stated above.

I served in the Air Force for 25 years, 1970 to 1995. In the early seventies a woman in the service was immediately discharged if she became pregnant. Then in mid-seventies the services came out with maternity uniforms for the women because of all the in-equality sexism displayed by the services on pregnant women. A battle that was won by women who demanded equal rights. Over the years more and more careers in the services became available for women so that today you have women piloting fighters, helicopters and bombers in combat zones all over the world. Now if a woman is capable of being physically and mentally able, she should be okayed to fight on the from lines. Women fought for years, decades, for equal rights and if they join the services they should be capable of combat roles if necessary. Combat is not, if one has ever fought on the front lines, mentally or morally acceptable for 95% of men, or women, who have been in combat and most, if not all who have seen the carnage war produces, suffer for years and years after the experience. Politacally correctnes calls it PTSD, I call it shell-shock, and will take my experiences from Vietnam and other conflicts I was involved (my ghosts) to my grave.

So, why should women be excluded from combat roles if they are capable. The smallest men I fought with were the most agile in battle so why can't a petite woman?

You don't wanna mess with a woman having PMS.

Go do a search for and watch the Documentary Lioness (2008). Women are already serving in support positions without proper combat training and then coming under enemy fire in combat. This makes it dangerous for the woman and the unit of men to which she is attached. At least train them properly so that -even when in those support roles they are allowed- if they should come under attack that they know how to use all the weapons at their disposal. One of the women in the documentary had to ask for training for the bigger weapons. Another who had been trained with the Army's "tap out" method got left behind by Marines who did not "tap out" her. Media and other documentaries are ignoring the fact that our women are already in combat. The American people are hiding their heads in the sand by refusing to acknowledge that women are already seeing combat overseas.

While excellent points are being made on both sides of this issue, I have to go with: women should not be in the infantry.

On the whole, men are no better than women and vice-versa, but the simple fact is: our bodies are different, and they are made to COMPLIMENT each other, not be a SUBSTITUTE for one another. There are always going to be aspects about one gender that give them an edge over the other, that's just the way it is. I realize there are exceptions to every rule, but those should be very few and far between and decisions made on a case-by-case basis. If an exception is made, under no circumstances should the test standards be lowered or changes in any way.

I thought the point at the end of the story about the Olympics made the best bottom-line argument. If women were allowed to compete against men, it is possible they would never even qualify in the trials for many of the individual events. Then you'd have everyone howling that women were not being allowed to shine in their own right, so there ya go.

As for the daughter/son question posed by someone above, my daughter can do 8 pull-ups without a problem. She is extremely fit; however, she is itty-bitty. Should I be willing to let her go into combat if I am willing to let my son? Yes, and not many things would make me more proud than to see my kids willing to fight for their country. However, unless it was a last-ditch Hail-Mary battle for our very existence and we needed the sheer numbers of troops, I would want to see them placed in positions that would make the best use of their talents and abilities. Knowing she would surpass many males on most of the tests, is it still not better to face facts and realize there will be limits to what she can do purely based on her size and how her body was made?

If my son's life depended on where she was placed during combat, that would actually make me feel pretty good knowing her instincts, abilities, character, and drive are all top notch! However, I would rather know she was in a position away from the infantry, because that way, she would have BETTER ODDS of saving his life, rather than risking it.

As in most areas of life these days, I would like to see us start CELEBRATING our differences, rather than trying to minimize them.

I served 26+years, from Combat Engr to Avionics - USMC and retired with NO medical conditions...

My 5' 3" Wife served 10+years, Administration - USMC and was medically retired...

If a person is physically able to preform the duties of the MOS for extended periods, and suffer NO perminate disabilities. They should be allowed to preform in the MOS. This includes both males & females...

Some MOSs destroy your body; both physically and mentally. Ask any Grunt about his; knees, back, shoulders, etc or a Combat Veteran that was exposed to the constant threats from IED and others, coupled with never-ending deployments...

IMO - There should be alternatives for these people to retain their services/skills in less demanding MOSs. Not just throw them into the civilian workforce, with a disability check...

The US Military and especially the USMC ground units, is not for the average American. This is a fact and is proven by the numbers of people medically discharged, during Peace Time and numerous Combat related deployments...

There were studies that were made during the 1980s that signaled the changing demographics and the need to open the MOSs to women. Or there would be short-falls in the numbers of US Citizens that would be able to meet the needs of the US Military...

The sports analogy was used and I believe it should be literally used here...The NFL was mentioned...Well there are all male sports and all female sports so why not just use all female platoons? Then there would be no arguments and you could see exactly how good they could perform....It was used prior to minority ( Well just blacks were singled out Asians and people of Spanish descent and Jewish were allowed to serve with everyone else) integration in WW2 they had all minority airmen wings and guess what they excelled....I think that in our racially and sexually biased country when people of the same discriminated category are allowed to prove themselves they always excel especially when working with those just like them( Because when you add others into the mix they will contribute to failure just to prove their biased point of view) Now don't get me wrong I think people are different and women for example have different good and bad qualities but they still shouldn't be discriminated against nor should they be given special favors because that is discriminatory towards everyone else..

Dave, enough said. Perfect on every point. In this B.S. world of political correctness the answer of could should always be overruled by the question of should. As men we are groomed, or should have been, from the age of sperm to protect women at all costs. If a woman in combat is in an untenable position, we are pre-programmed to run to her rescue. We don't have the wiring to logically assess the percentages. We would act rather than think. Which in turn would get you or your fellow soldiers killed. Personally I would tend to think I would do something stupid to try and save a female than I would a male who is my equal and knows the risks. Just sayin.

Many women can be ready for combat after training and they don't need to be Amazons because there are many smaller framed men in the U.S. Military service that can do the same as women in terms of physical activities. Some may be even better suited.

Equal pay for equal work, hmmm I guess not.

OK I don't get why some women have a hard time admitting that men are *generally* faster and physically stronger than their female counterparts. It's simple really. Men have, on average, greater muscle mass, higher testosterone levels and even slightly different skeletal posturing than women. Infantrymen are not rocket scientists, but they are well conditioned soldiers who can generally physically outperform women. Whether that means women should be allowed to fight alongside infantrymen is another thing all together, but I just don't get why women here sometimes seem so insulted by the truth. You are much better at some things than men, but when it comes to physical prowess, sorry, no.

Women need to accept the fact that they are different from men. Sure they can think under pressure as good as any man and they can be just as good firing weapons, they can be every bit as tough as men....but they are still women!

What do these women intend to do if they are in a combat zone and their period rolls around? Will they really be willing to change their pads out in the open? What will they do if one of their fellow soldiers gets injured and need to be carried out?

Don't they realize if they are captured they will more than likely be repeatedly raped? I guess no one remembers what happened to Jessica Lynch? She was lucky to survive and fortunate she doesn't remember much of anything. All the cases coming from the various military schools and training centers here in the states, about rape and sexual harassment from fellow soldiers, do you think it won't happen when they are in a foreign country?

There should be plenty of things they could do without being in actual combat; why can't they be trained to operate drones and fire missiles, if they are set on killing..... but show some sense and do not send them into battle just because you don't want to hurt their pride.

ok this is just rediculous.on one point i say let the women go fight for our country just like the men do.that way when a woman complains about equal rights she can actually say that millions of women have died in our wars just like men did.people today take the fredoms we have for granted.and forget how many men died in the world wars so you can have this freedom.not to mention vietnam,korean war and civil war.but hey keep complaining about your freedoms.and how women are treated unfairly here in the usa.point is just like this woman said our bodies are different period.men are stronger on a grand scale of things.period....if you disagree with that ;then wake up.next do you think our enemies care if its men or women or children whom attack us?talk to a vietnam vet once and he will tell you about the kids coming up asking for gum.with bombs attached to them.....wake up people.......women don't fight for one reason and one only.when millions of healthy men die in the wars one man can reproduce with many women.biology 101 people.i say give women equal rights all of them!no more special treatments.treat them just like men.then they will have something really to complain about.o no what will i do without alimony?o no i can get drafted into a war?o no if i hit a guy first he can hit me without going to jail?point is women here have it pretty damn good....but it is never enough.

next i am glad we don't have a war today we would lose.ever pay attention to the kids today.worthless all of them.mommy and daddy have done everything for them for so long they wouldnt have a clue.about all they can do is text on their cell phones that mom and dad pay for as well.and the girls,o man they are getting dumber by the day.sat scores are at all time low for high school girls.boys are up.what the hell is going on here in the usa?

In our nation’s brief history, we’ve had some strange prejudices. Blacks had it rough but seem to be pulling level; gays still have a long way to go; atheists are only just now starting to experiment with visibility; but, oh man, if anyone says anything against our holy armed forces they'd better run for the woods. Well, I’m going to risk it.

What kind of people sign up for death and destruction? Oh, don’t tell me ‘to defend their beloved country’. You don’t charge to the other end of the playing field to defend your own goal. So, ‘defend’ is certainly the wrong word. There has to be another motive. Hey, how about ‘getting a job, any job’? Or ‘staying out of jail’? Yeah, I guess even I would have to buy that one. How about ‘feeding your ultra-macho urges’? That has to be part of it (and you women are included). Or ‘the pure thrill of your gun being your best buddy and licensed to kill’? Ever kill anyone, folks? Must be a good feeling somehow, tons of people seem to like it.

Why aren’t our forces lined up along our borders? Too boring, not enough street respect? Why aren’t all the TSA employees military? It’s security, isn’t it, defence, isn’t it? And all these overseas bases? I can see the sense of surrounding our vital oil fields or embassies, or ports where we need access, but just hanging out in Germany, Japan, and other places just in case, seems a bit too much Big Brother.

Here’s the thing, millions of cops and millions of grunts need a treadmill of crises. There’s certainly not much room for them in this jobless society. What the hell would we do if peace came or crime left? Oh no. Got to keep stoking the danger. Go ahead, sign up. Just leave all that aggression behind on the battlefields when you come home.

Lorraine H; Don't tell me. Go tell the Marine Captain. She is the one that says your wrong and she has the credentials. She's been there. You haven't. You don't get how this works, do you ?

Equal pay for equal work, hmmm I guess not.

How about equal work for equal pay? By staying home when the rest of the males in the unit deploy and are exposed to the rigors of war while drawing the same paycheck whether it is PFC, Sgt, Lt, Capt, etc is hardly equal.

It isn't that they are forced to join the infantry in the volunteer military, they wanted to join. Let them fight also. What makes them exempt from PTSD-inducing working conditions?

Very refreshing to see a discussion where there are actually a lot of folks w/educated opinions rather and good discussion over the garbage that seems to be far more common these days on the vine.

As for Brits 1.90 above, kind of sad, on several levels. I lean liberal, did not agree w/our reasons for going into Iraq and believe it is a big part of why we are in dire straits w/our economy today and has caused us to do some things that changes the worlds view of the U.S. in a negative way as far as due process and human rights, has resulted in lots of people needlessly killed . However, the world is a complex place; we elected our leaders, and they have more information than I, and while the political process can influence us so that selfish motives are part of our motivations, I have to believe many of our leaders really are there to serve. We should critically analyze, but in the end, the decisions were made, we need to support them. The blanket statements on us "just hanging out in Germany, Japan and other places" and "don't tell me to "defend their beloved country"" are extreme oversimplifications, and worse, appear to reveal a complete lack of exposure to or awareness of true selfless service to an ideal or belief. At least the writer has not seen what I have. Many, many people in this country who truly are there to give everything they have, including their lives in service. That same set of values can apply to a janitor or a senator or a civil servant. You don't have to believe that your leaders or your country is correct in every action, in fact it will be wrong sometimes because of bad decisions or changing circumstances, but the second you begin to ascribe all the negative conclusions to other groups and to all our other aggregate actions, you are becoming part of the problem rather than being part of any possible constructive solutions. I know of too many Koreans and Germans and many, many other nationalities who themselves would give their lives to the U.S. in gratitude for what they believe we have done for them, and the world would be a lot different place, not to our personal liking, if we weren't "hanging out" there.

Do we need to re-evaluate our presence and adjust based on practical economic considerations and do we need to critically look at potential waste and abuse? Probably. But it does our country and millions of past and present leaders and civil servants, including soldiers a huge disservice to be throwing out the blanket negative ascriptions.

As for women in combat roles, including the infantry: I think that there should not be any outright barriers that say they can't do it, but they should be held to exactly the same standard as males and very, very few women, in the end, should ever be in those roles. From what I can see, over the last 20 or 30 years, the military has done way too much to accomodate for differences primarily w/gender but also in other areas. The result is huge costs w/additional services and support infrastructure and a loss in the ability to quickly mobilize. A woman should be able to perform any role she is FULLY capable of, as long as her presence does not require building separate facilities or services either for her own sense of comfort or to preserve focus on the mission for the unit as a whole. If she can get through the physical or academic parts of training w/no special accomodation, put her in a unit. If not, don't. If, when natural biology kicks in the unit so that single female starts catching the interest of all her male team she can stay focused and can successfully get the message to her battle buddies that it would be safer for them to focus on the enemy than on her, keep her in the unit. If she makes the personal choice to get pregnant, she goes, just as a male soldier would go if some physical thing affected their ability to do the work.

Military service can involve many different types of work that require different sets of skills and abilities. I have met some military women with the will, the dedication and the skills such that if I were on the other side and came up against her in infantry-type combat, I would be very concerned. I am very grateful for their service, they deserve the opportunities, awards and recognition for their service. However, the minute accomodations need to be made that cost money and affect the ability for the unit to quickly deploy and successfully carry out the mission, they should not be there. This is not a sexist orientation; it applies w/o regard to gender, race, sexual orientation or anything else, to all positions in public OR private service- the best qualified should be doing the task- personal drive and dedication (including to a set of values) goes a very long way in motivating the individual to acquire and maintain the right skills and abilities necessary to do their very best w/the task at hand.

I believe the military has changed a lot since WWII especially since the all volunteer period started. The military had to become more of a sales job and increase spending for comfort and accomodations to keep them - such as AC, fast food and video conferences home every night in war zones not to mention the condo living instead of 50 people in a common barrack shared with a common head.

Anyone who thinks women will perform well in combat should read a few books on WWII especially about Marines in the Pacific at Iwo Jima, Peleliu, Okinawa and some of the many books about Viet Nam with the weeks in the jungle on S&D's.

I know recent combat has changed also but there is no guarantee that combat will always be the one sided and convenient arena we have now, in the future.

I agree anyone who thinks women will preform well in combat should read some books on WW2 like those on the Russian front (the most brutal front of the war) and it’s battles like Kursk, Stalingrad, Moscow, Leningrad and so on.

On average women are smaller and less muscular than men. While I can certainly see letting volenteers in, they should meet the same physical requirements as the men do.

So no, we are not all created equal. I don't see any men creating babies inside them either. But again, we are talking averages. I know plenty of men who couldn't make it as a Marine Infantryman, and I'll bet I know at least a handful of women who could.

You’re right Dennis, we are not created equal, but as that old American saying goes, God did not make man equal, Colt did lol. At this point I’d like to remind people that there are far more “combat roles” in the military then just frontline infantry, so maybe we could give women a position in those units as a middle ground? :)

Once I ran across an interesring statement. I have forgotten the exact circumstances, but since then, I have, many times, considered that statement in light of many different circumstances, and found that, in general, it seems to work pretty well. The statement is "THE RIGHT TO BE EQUAL INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO BE INFERIOR." What that means, of course, is that each person is entitled to equality before the law even if, for some reason she or he fails to measure up to the so-called standard. I could probably name hundreds of examples, but one of the most well known is the premise that a wife is entitled to support from her husband, even if HE earns most or even, all of the money. Another very well known example is the statement by President Abraham Lincoln that a man should, HIMSELF, be entitled to the income derived from the sweat of his own labor, slave or not. (In this, Lincoln was not justifying slavery in any form, he was just leaving the moral and legal questions aside to address solely the narrow question of man's rights, IN OR OUTSIDE SLAVERY.) Concerning women in combat, I am not going to try to give a definite answer to this question I have my own opinion, but even the overwhelming number of people who would favor it agree that, in fact, the number of women, who could qualify physically is minescule compare with men.

Allowing women to serve in combative military roles is not a question of can vs. can't, it is a question of should vs. shouldn't. Many women are fully capable to do so, even more so than some men. But we as a society are supposed to adore, protect, love and cherish our women, all of them, and not allow them to be put in harm's way. Somehow this has become not enough for women, probably because there are so many men that don't treat women properly, so that many women want to show everyone how capable they are to do everything a man can do. What a shame it is that we've come to this. The sooner we all take a look at what we each can do to improve this situation, and stop pointing fingers everywhere else, the sooner we can get back on the path toward right roles and right relationships.

Sadly, this entire thread has ended up being filled with people that have had their manhood wounded. Their role as the shining knight and great protector of all things feminine has been wrecked by the fact that women just might be able to kick as much arse as them, much less serve just as competently. The last vestiges of absolutely male authority are set to crumble with this, and they just can't take it.

It really is saddening to see the sheer sexism here. By the way, if you have to say you're not sexist when you make a comment, you're probably sexist. It's kind of like saying "I don't mean to be rude" before you start insulting/being rude. Still, I suppose some will do anything to keep the status quo as is. Frankly, the past has been filled with valiant, brilliant women, who usually were rewarded with death by friendly fire, just to keep that status quo. Joan of Arc comes to mind...

Have we really not gotten that far beyond the times of ancient? Must we shelter and keep women sacred, afraid of them stepping forth and becoming just as strong, and brave as the men around her? Do we really think so lowly of our soldiers that one would rather save a woman than a man from their same squad, when the code of conduct is No Man Left Behind? Or is that more macho bullcrap packed into Hollywood cinema?

.Tha monkeh, your delusional if you think women would fight as well as men on a front line, meat grinder type of combat and for a minuscule percentage that MIGHT , we should be FAIR and provide them a shot to maybe cause American deaths to prove your silly political theory !!!

Losmuertos is correct but incomplete. Once Stalingrad and Moscow settled into trench warfare and rubble warfare as opposed to open terrain warfare where running great distances under heavy load, diggin in each night, etc etc., women snipers could come in take a position and being great shots just like the guys they could make their contribution. But WWII Russian assault armies and assault divisions were men and they typically lined up side by side till several hundred thousand men were assembled then burst out of the trenches and ran across the battlefield and attacked the Germans. Once in Berlin and the house to house business started again you see women fighting. This use of women was very intelligent and it gave the assault troops a very little chance to breathe. But the US military was very intelligent in WWII also. I think some of us think, based on what we see nowdays, figure the modern military will not be that intelligent.

Johnny N.

Your argument was made 50 years ago when females want to be police officers and fire fighters and believe it or not mailmen. Woman do not have the ability to drive and use a radio at the same time, they can not shoot as well as a man without help, carrying a mail bag is too hard on the female body and they you need them to remember to look at the address and pick up mail at the same locations on top a driving a government vehicle we are asking too much of the female species.

You need to find a better argument.

Females need to have different equipment then males - Packs are made with the male frame in mind, cause the females need to be adjusted for their body type and there are a lot of different types. Woman need to have less of a load and thus not be able to stay out as long as the guys. This is a good argument cause it would not be fair to guys and it would cost the military a lot of money to modify packs just for a generic female. But once done, Just like the guys, it can be modify it to fit their body type. So it is not cost effective at this time to have females on the front lines. That was a better argument (then your comment just a few spaces above).

Lorraine H.....I love how women always pull the, lets see a man raise children and have full time job too...like there arent plenty of us out there doing the very same thing. And don't go telling me you carry 40-60 lb grocery bags....I carry those same bags and they weigh maybe half of that. Take your self-rightiousness and stuff it! There are a whole lot of men that care for the children, take care of thier households and hold down full time jobs...you are not something special....Men and women are different, a man and a women who are the same size, weight and equally phisically fit will perform vastly differently then each other in almost every physical category, its called physiology....a man will build muscle quicker, and atrophy slower than a women under the exact same conditions. A mans body will continue to function longer than a womens when deprived of sleep (and not the, I only got 4 hours of sleep last night bull@!$%#), water, nutrients. Also, back ot the sports analogy, women in sports suffer from a far higher percentage of muscle, ligament and joint damage then men do which goes towards the whole rigours of being on the front line......even a women who can pass the physical fitness test is still going to be more prone to general injury then men because thier bodies are not designed for the same types of rigours as a mans.

A news story not involving a political puppet... Yes!

Jessica-1170252

"i'd be willing to bet there are men on the front lines, that when all is said and done, fail to live up to the standards set. but we arent advocating to eliminate the front lines. if women want to try and can pass the standards and get on the front lines and fail, pull them off the front lines - the individuals, not all women. just like you would with a man."

Jessica, with all due respect for the valuable and indispensable role that women have come to play in the military, serving in a line company is not a test or a competition. The reason that infantry units engage in such rigorous physical training is not to see if the soldier or Marine can pass the tests but to build them up so that they can survive prolonged combat on the line. Women start with a basic disadvantage caused by their physical makeup and, as Capt. Petrino mentioned, over a period of time I expect that their bodies would tend to wear down quicker and more completely. Sustained combat is a hard, hard thing. You survive it not because of patriotic zeal or pride in yourself, but because you do not want to let your buddies down. Believe me, even for the strongest that's all that keeps you going toward the end of the thing. I think that's what Capt. Petrino meant, she felt that she was letting the others down because of her physical inability to cope with the terrible demands of sustained combat and knew that at the end she could not pull her weight, no matter that her heart was willing to do so. I respect her both for her valiant attempt and and her candor.

K-man had this to say:

With regard to women in the infantry, I disagree with biology being the precise reason. Women are significantly more prone to UTIs & yeast infections (which are practically non-existent in males) menstruate, and experience PMS with its now well documented accompanying hormonal and behavioral impacts.

Bull. Women who are in combat would have medication (probably an implant) which would prevent menstruation. Not all women experience PMS--some do, some don't. Many men, however, experience monthly hormonal and behaviorial changes--bet you didn't know that, did you? It's called "Irritable Male Syndrome"--and, yes, this is a medical condition.

We could go into the problems that men have which are unique to them--such as having such exposed genitalia. There are also physical conditions that men are predisposed to--if they get the flu, they feel it more than women do. That is, many men are complete babies when they become sick. And, yes, this also is a medical fact.

The point here is that "combat" is not just about the guys who carry the guns and trek across the desert. "Combat" can be about being in a tank or being a gunner on a vehicle. Women will probably be just as good in tanks as they are in fighter planes (quite good, by the way). Women can be just as good or better gunners. In both cases, this is because of their slighter stature, not despite it.

While I do actually think that it will be the very rare female who will be able to meet the fitness requirements for something like hand-to-hand combat in the infantry (though there will be some who can do it) and toting those really heavy guns around, your reasoning is sexist, dated, and just plain wrong. The only limitation that women will face is that they tend to be of slighter stature--and that would matter, just as it would matter for a male of slighter stature. It's not the gender--it's the size.

The woman mentioned in this article wants to put her failure down to her gender rather than owning up to the fact that she isn't mentally strong enough and wasn't physically prepared for the rigor of combat, just as a few males probably discovered. Rather than admit her own failure, she wants to blame it on her gender and let herself off. It's kind of sad, but it's understandable.

The point remains that we are all created equal--slight men will have just as much trouble as slight women. Slight women will have just as many advantages as slight men in situations where being slight is handy. There's no reason why a woman can't be a sniper, for example. The average woman's smaller size, superior eyesight, better fine motor control, and greater patience should be an asset. There will be some infantry roles that women can excel at, and there will be the rare woman who could do even the heavy lifting of some roles.

You can take your "men are superior in every way" attitude, and . . . .

That's the part of the story that kind of annoys me. Of course, she's there serving and I'm not so I'm very thankful for her service and I know I wouldn't be able to go through everything she went through.

But the article at least reads like because she wasn't able to do it that no woman should even be able to take the tests.

What happens if you get a woman who's strong enough or fast enough or skilled enough to play in the NFL or compete at the Olympics with men or serve in the Marines? I'm sure it's going to happen eventually.

Israel allows women in the infantry btw.

As long as they are required to meet all of the same physical and other standards as the male infantry, I don't see the problem.

@ASH, EXACTLY, When I was in the service in the early 80's there was 2 different sets of standards for Men & Women which was B.S. There should be one set and if they meet the physical and mental requirements then by all means they should be allowed to serve.

As a former female Marine I too believe there could be a very few women who could physically and emotionally handle being a grunt. The Marine Corps is the only service with gender segregated boot camp with female drill instructors. After sexual harrassment of Air Force recruits by instructors came to light I again reiterate it isn't right or fair but these young women in training are vulnerable and inexperienced. Female Marines are working on a limited basis with grunts in Afghanistan. The Female Engagement Teams (FETS) go out on patrol and interact with the women and children in the vilalges. This nets information and establishes good will. FET members have additional training and are chosen based on their prior performance in the Marine Corps. These women are not however grunts and in most cases I don't believe they want to be.

Now, put that amazon woman up against an amazon man. The average woman is a shade under 5'4.

I'm thinking the average woman could not physically qualify to be in the infantry. But that does not necessarily mean that no women could qualify. I agree that only women would could be at the same strength levels as men should go into the infantry.

By the way, when Petronio said her thigh muscles were atrophying ...what would make that happen? I thought lack of exercise caused muscle atrophy -- can overexercise cause it also? How horrifying. Any medical types on the boards today that could weigh in on this?

DRK-1183578

I thought the same thing about her muscles. I am going to look it up and see what I can find. Will report back if I find anything that causes muscle atrophy other than slothness, illness, or age.

What would happen to a civilization that had women as a fighting force? It would have gone extinct. No civilization would have been stupid enough to risk its women in combat. Women are physically shorter on average and have less muscle mass for an important reason: They are made to bear children.

Amazons are a myth.

Jodeman & DRK - The reason a woman's muscles break down faster is because of less testosterone. The same reason why most female bodybuilders don't bulk up like the men. When you are in combat, you are under constant strain, poor diet and little rest. All these combine to make even male's muscles break down, females simply don't have the protection testosterone gives. It's also the reason more women experience bone loss over time. Simply put, nature and evolution have designed men and women to be different physically. Women are better with complicated dexterity jobs. Place the soldiers where they will do the most good, not where politics and pressure groups dictate.

@Fossil Fool: Although I believe women should not be in combat, I disagree with part of your comment. I'm 5'9 1/2 and have a hard time finding men my height or taller than me. I believe women, on average, are getting taller and men are getting shorter. I have many, many friends and can only think of a handful who are taller than me or several of my friends who are girls (who range between 5'8 and 5'10). Trust me, this a bummer.

Muscle atrophy develops due to lack of adequate protein in the body during times of overwhelming stress...remember, these guys aren't eating 3 square well balanced meals a day..they're surviving for weeks at a time on MRE's...

That Marine officer makes some good points. However, just because she herself was unable to keep up doesn't mean that no woman ever can hang and keep up with the men.

I say keep the physical performance and testing standards for infantry the same (unlike the current system, where females have to pass a lower bar re physical fitness and performance), and if a woman can pass the same physical and performance requirements and tests that males have to pass, then by all means let her be a grunt if that's what she wants.

Far as all those risks of harassment and sexual assault and what have you, well - there's a UCMJ for that, and obviously whichever women volunteer to be pioneers in that know the risks involved. It'll be a novelty at first, but in a generation or two a female grunt would be no more different or noteworthy than a female cop.

This is beyond pathetic. There is no way that a female, and I don't care how big and strong she is, has the same physical strength as a man. No way, no how. Put Serena Williams on a tennis court against the 100th ranked man and he'd destroy her. You put the smallest male Marine against the biggest strongest female in the Marines and he will mop the floor with her. This "politically correct" insanity has to stop. NO women on the front lines, let them fly jets and drive trucks, I don't want them in a fox hole. Crazy world we live in. Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people.

and don't even begin to tell me that females do the EXACT same regiments as males, that is a lie.

Interesting. Thank you, Rich. Still would like to see women who can satisfy the infantry's physical requirements being given a chance.

As I understand it, one of the other reasons that men can gain more muscle is that their bones tend to be bigger. Bigger bones, more room for muscle fibers. So a big boned, tall woman, it does not seem that unlikely to me that she would be so much worse off than the average grunt.

Looking at the photos accompanying this story, Capt. Petronio is not only 5'3, she has a rather petite frame; her shoulders are not very wide, for instance, and her wrists look quite small. She pushed past her strength and endurance working those 16 hour construction jobs. But would a stocky, 5' 10 woman have been? I think we need to find this out. Were there any slight 5'3" guys working with her? How did they fare?

I guess to me, there may well be a Venn diagram overlap here. Here's the circle of men in the infantry. Here's the circle of women in the military. The men's group, on average, is stronger than the woman's group. But do the two groups overlap to some extent? I think they might. The only way we can tell is if we put women through the same course, with the same requirements, that the men go through. If none pass, then so be it. If some do, then they deserve their shot at the infantry.

Fossil Fool,

Good point. It matches up well with the WWII Russian Army and Israeli Army women in combat defense proponents of allowing women into the infantry often fall back on. Last time I checked, the Russians during WWII were in a fight for very their survival as a people. Same could be said for Israel. However, they currently seem to get their wars over fairly quickly i.e 7 Days War - so the protracted time in isolated frontline conditions isn't so much an issue for Israeli female soldiers.

If the US found itself in some future "Red Dawn" type situation where the survival was in doubt due to some massive invasion, obviously that would be an effort requiring all hands to step to the frontline.

Israel allows women in the infantry btw

Different culture than Americans.. I would not hesitate to believe that an Israeli of either gender would have any issue treating a female any different than a man.. if anything I imagine they would treat them with less respect, and their enemies couldn't use that to their advantage. Plus you are talking about people who were raised in a FAR harder environment, both physically and culturally.. Worlds apart..

All this talk about physical, psychological, etc. differences reminds me of the WWII anti American Citizens of Japanese Ancestry (US Army 100th Battalion, 442nd Combat Infantry Regiment), and anti "Negro" (US Army Air Corps "Red Tails", Tuskegee Airmen) "Studies".

About Current Warfare, it was known even before the Defeat of the USSR as taught at Command and General Staff College, and War College; that all Wars after the Defeat of the USSR would be Asymmetric Warfare and not "Conventional Warfare"*. Before anyone asks, the reason that the US Military did not train up to US Military Asymmetric Warfare (aka Special Warfare, especially Insurgency, Counter Insurgency, Counter Terrorist, FID (Foreign Internal Defense) and Humanitarian Assistance Missions) from US Military Cold War Era Conventional Warfare was because this was unpopular with the US Politicians (US Congressional Defense Appropriations, monetary control of the US Military) as the US Military Conventional Warfare Forces require the very expensive US Military Equipment manufactured in their States (US Jobs).

So instead of US Congress (All Political Parties) investing in long term retention and decades of Training (if you start at age 18-20 you will be about age 35 before being almost qualified (no Required College Language(s) and Culture(s) for Area(s) of Operation(s)) to become US Military Asymmetric Warfare (aka Special Warfare), US Congress invests in the very expensive US Military Conventional Warfare Equipment with minimal Training for US Military Conventional Warfare Forces Personnel, with most of the US Military Conventional Warfare Forces Personnel considered as "expendable" (acceptable losses) and easily replaceable (short training times, months, zero "Operational Experience", minimal maturity).

* The term "Conventional Warfare" comes from the 1907 Hague Convention and 1949 Geneva Convention. With these Civilian Politicians (most that did not Serve in their Nation's Military) attempting to make War "Civilized" (Civilianized Laws and Rules). The Results of the 1907 Hague Convention, the idea that it was an honorable death to charge machineguns in human wave attacks during Trench Warfare of World War I (One), ideas of War being limited to fixed Borders (no violations of other Sovereign Nations to flank an enemy's defenses), Static Defenses, etc.. The Result of the 1949 Geneva Convention, UN Policy Action Korea (aka Korean War), rushing up hills to hold ground, static defenses, etc.. Historically, Conventional Warfare automatically loses against Asymmetric Warfare, as the "Minutemen" (individuals with firearms, no uniforms) of the American Revolution held off the British Regulars (British Military, "Red Coats", trained in Napoleonic Conventional Warfare as be at the scheduled Battlefield on time, stand in nice neat rows, march to and from the Battlefield in easy to ambush columns, etc..) until the First (American) Continental Army could be formed, trained, armed from the "Organized" Colonial Militias that fled with the Founding Fathers after their Armories were seized by British Generals Cornwallis and Henry Clinton before the start of the American Revolution.

Emotion is not confined to women folks. I, along with my brothers, cried on the battlefield, broke down to the point of not wanting to come out of the next battle alive. Guilt, anger, sorrow and depression are equally shared in men and women.

I would hope that women at least participate and take up arms in combat roles if this country were invaded!

The oath servicemen and servicewomen takes does not discriminate between sex when you swear to defend the Constitution of the United States! There was nothing in the oath that said "women excluded!"

go watch the documentary Lioness (2008) and learn how women are already seeing combat but ignored by the media

As I said above, women are physically different in a lot of ways, many of them internal and on not belong in infantry. However, I think that some of the complaining about women needing to meet different standards are out in left field. You can have different sets of standards when are not expected to do the same jobs. Further, as a personal trainer, my requirement is that everyone is to work at their ability level; the military has that same standard. It's called honor. For women a lot of upper body exercises that are strength exercises to men, are endurance exercises for them, i.e. non-modified pushups, although women can develop the endurance to later switch to non-modified pushups. However, some of our male clients have complained about the unfairness of it. Imagine! People are willing to pay to complain and slack off.

As I said above, women are physically different in a lot of ways, many of them internal and on not belong in infantry. However, I think that some of the complaining about women needing to meet different standards are out in left field. You can have different sets of standards when are not expected to do the same jobs. Further, as a personal trainer, my requirement is that everyone is to work at their ability level; the military has that same standard. It's called honor. For women a lot of upper body exercises that are strength exercises to men, are endurance exercises for them, i.e. non-modified pushups, although women can develop the endurance to later switch to non-modified pushups. However, some of our male clients have complained about the unfairness of it. Imagine! People are willing to pay to complain and slack off.

What I find truly remarkable is that the majority of comments on this board from males have been, "I don't want females to serve because it is intensely physical and damaging, I don't want to see them hurt, I don't want to see them die, I don't want to see them violated, etc..." While the majority of the female comments have been, "I'm sick of the male attitude that says only men in the military. I'm as good as or better than you and I'll prove it!"

Really? Is that what our society in America has come down to? "Let me take that burden from you because it is a great burden to bear and it could mortally wound you." "What? I'll die proving I'm better than you!" So much for society helping its members out and doing what is best for the nation. It sounds to me like women on this subject have forgotten who the "enemy" is. It's not your fellow soldier ma'am, point the gun the other way.

There are some jobs I don't want to do and I'm happy to bypass. A heartfelt thank you goes out to all the plumbers, construction workers, farmers, etc... who are stronger than me and can endure much more physical labor. I love you guys and the work you are doing and I will do my part to keep the cycle of life in America going and respect you for doing your part.

JCB-1236504:

You put the smallest male Marine against the biggest strongest female in the Marines and he will mop the floor with her.

And what are you basing this assumption on, other than blatant male chauvinism?

Yeah, this is what I think is unlikely. Talking about actors here, not soldiers; Lucy Lawless could beat David Spade up pretty bad. Look at their relative sizes; he's 5'4/12", and skinny, she's almost 5'10", and is a broad-shouldered, muscular woman. (Please note, I realize I'm not talking about Marines, but come on. A tall brawny woman could of course beat a small slight guy. Common sense). I also disagree with the commenter that says the hundredth ranked tennis guy could take Serena Williams. Roderigo Dutra Silva, that's who we're talking about. He's one inch taller than her, and weighs ten pounds more than she does. Do you really think that will make that much difference? She's ranked 4th in the world in women's tennis. He's ranked 100 in men's tennis. Tennis is a sport that's not just a matter of brute strength, either, but of skills. I'd like to see that match.

We're the same species, dude. We are sexually dimorphic, sure, but we're not that sexually dimorphic.

@SparkPark I disagree with part of your comment. I'm 5'9 1/2 and have a hard time finding men my height or taller than me. I believe women, on average, are getting taller and men are getting shorter. I have many, many friends and can only think of a handful who are taller than me or several of my friends who are girls (who range between 5'8 and 5'10). Trust me, this a bummer.

What's wrong with dating men shorter than you? Hmmm, women always complain about men being superficial when it comes to looks. The sad thing is that women have a much longer list of superficial requirments than men do.

Her opinion is actually fairly dumb -- sure frontline infantry has a toll. But it also has a toll on men. She thinks she's the only one who got injuries and physical and mental toll? This is just perpetuation of the stupid notion that guys don't get affected by this stuff. There are plenty of guy veterans who spend the rest of their lives afflicted by the toll ...

The article alluded to experiences in "other countries" but didn't elaborate. In Israel both gays and women openly serve in combat. You see, they are very practical people, they only care that the soldier is a patriot, not their orientation or gender. We should be looking at how they do it.

Only someone who has not served in the infantry would want some one to have that opp. Respect her views she earned the right by her sacrifice.

Julian, you said this is perpetuated by a stupid notion.. yet no where does anyone say that men are NOT affected by this. Sounds to me like you didn't comprehend the article very well.

Joe, we have plenty of women in the military, just as Israel does. But this topic concerns serving in open combat.

Women can and do play a strong role in the military. However, in some military jobs, their brain is trying to cash in checks that their body can not deliver. Some women can do limited special ops, tactical ops, but I doubt that the strength is there to sustain months or years of close combat, and dirty warfare. Put it this way, if women where just as good in the arm forces as men, from day one, we would have them in combat operations on the front line. Remember, the spartan groom the best of the best, and then asked for 300 men, not women. Therefore, stop spending tax payer's funds on issues that most of us know the answer.

If there's never any integration attempts, then it makes sense that it would impact the unit negatively. We are uncomfortable with things we aren't used to. Once, we become acclimated, then it is less likely to have a negative impact. People need to stop running and hiding from the unfamiliar. This is a changing world and we need to adapt or become extinct. You're all too comfortable with a world that will be very different in 10 years. Get used to it. If a woman can make it, then she deserves the opportunity.

The difference Patty, is that it could put OTHERS lives at stake. Inegration for the sake of inegration isn't worth it.

Why do these women WANT to get shot at? Serve your country doing your best job. War isn't a game for crying "No fair, he gets to play".

@Duckworth Some women just want to fight...at 16 I wanted to be a mercenary not a wife. It's not all about brute strenth either, I am smart and quick and would have NO PROBLEM with gutting you like a fish ;)

@Mjollnira Do that after being up for a week schlepping, 80 lbs worth of ruck sack, then add on your Body Armor, Ammo, weapon, and Web Gear. Double the weapon and ammo weight if you're humping the 240B and it's 800+ rounds of love.

Being a Merc, spy or w/e is completely different than being a Soldier or Marine on the front lines day in and day out for 7-12 months. I have a friend that was in the infantry with the 101st ABN in OIF 1. He went 47 days without any type of shower. I could be wrong but I think that would be bad for a woman with "indoor plumbing". I was lucky and only had to go about 3 weeks before I could bird bath with hot water.

@ Mainah Its funny...its like stupid people are in charge of the war effort. Do you even know how we won the revolutionary war against Britain??? it wasn't lugging all that crap around..we used Guerilla tactics, much like what our opposition is doing...If it was up to me I would pull all our people out and bomb that place into frigging glass...worked in Hiroshima.. Incidentally, I grew up in the woods and have taken extended hikes for long periods [up to 2 months] in remote areas, I can live without a shower and my 'indoor plumbing' is just fine!

The reason we're wearing all that crap is because of the threats we're facing. They have even added Ballistic Underwear (it looks like a diaper, in fact that's what we call it: the kevlar diaper) because an IED explosion directly under a Soldier will sever the femoral artery and the kevlar diaper covers it. We aren't facing smoothbore muskets. We're facing snipers, IEDs in the ground, walls, trees, anywhere the taliban can put em. Guys who will hide, fire a few rounds and then run away. That doesn't even count all of the communications gear the leadership carries to talk to each other, higher headquarters, and aircraft. No one WANTS to carry all of that weight (you'd have to be a masochist to want to) but each and every item protects us and our buddies.

"While I agree excluding anyone from any job because of gender (or race or religion or whatever) is inherently unfair, that's just life. Bullets and 100-lb packs don't care about equality."

If every man was over 100-lb and marine service fit, the whole damned country would be in the elite forces. The point seems to be: if you qualify, serve, if you don't qualify you're no damned good here.

That has been considered "fair" enough standard for recruiting men into the service for years.

Another "just life" thing is numbers. If your enemy matches you in every other way, the determining factor can be who's got the most soldiers for the strategies to be implemented at their best. Numbers limit what strategies can be used. Numbers, bigger numbers, make more kinds of strategies possible. Sometimes the most effective for the circumstance.

As far as Mz. Petronio, I'm concerned that she will fake her efforts to achieve what could possible be her goals of seeing women not being reasonably considered for infantry by misleading the people conducting this study with purposefully worsened efforts and misleading answers to any surveys or psychological analysis. I would urge the conductors of the study to be on-guard for any other such participants like that. If she, or anyone else, believe that women should not be marines, or any other qualified American shouldn't serve[ For reasons such as For example maybe in someone's (or many's) eyes blacks steal 'more', most Latinos are short, and pandering to every traditionalist should take precedence over making the efforts possible to make the armed forces the best and strongest they can be] resorting to flubbing an Military experiment is a low-ball maneuver that deserves no one's respect--its one step above lying. Let's hope that she is not, nor plans on, resorting to such. It ain't befitting a captain of the girl scouts, no less her level.

Letting qualified women who aren't noticeably, and righteously so, pains in the ass do their part in the infantry--not the axillary--doesn't mean that you have to let in the light-weights who can't pull their weight--or yours when it has to happen.

The Marines doesn't let in 100-lb men who can't do pull-ups, pushups, or endure heat, cold, etc. Changing that institution of standards is unacceptable and should not be done to allow in non-qualified women. The institution should be applied to women who do qualify: no 5"7' 180-200-lb qualified woman should be turned down any more than any 100-lb 4"11' one should be let in.

Problem solved, partially, only let in the women who can pull their weight and can pull their comrade's weight when they have to.

Integrating women doesn't mean juicy but who plays stupid to seduce military studs will be on the same level as a professional to be "fair" anymore than integrating blacks meant that your comrade would be by default middle-aged, bobbling his head, tap dancing, and uneducated--overall the kind of thing no darned body wants to be and even more so darned-near nobody is when not acting--usually to get something from, or please somebody else when they are unable or unwilling to get what they want by acting civilized or what some reference as "normal".

Get real: no lowered standards. NO 100-lb men, no 100-lb women, no non-physical passing men, make the physical the same and no non-physical passing women. It sounds like many people on this post believe that maximizing our drafting resources and the capacity of our society to provide soldiers means lowering the bar by default. Think about whether the sky will fall and kill us all if you don't lower the bar during this trial period and then you might see fair is giving a shot--to fail if necessary.

Letting in a qualified man doesn't mean that you have to let in a 100-lb one. Letting in a wo-man that's qualified doesn't mean that you have to let in a 100-lb one unless YOU loose YOUR head and make it fair and decide it's smart to let one in. Letting in runt women with qualified ones who want to serve for the same reasons you do is a mistake that only certain superiors in that force could make--whether it's likely considered that they don't seem to let in runt men with qualified ones already...should be considered in reason. It would cause the same problems with new recruits the same way it would with old, it doesn't have to be done and probably won't be done.

Wars aren't won with Barbies here and Kens there, strategies win wars. People win wars. Some strategies will need more people than we'll get if we cut out workers who serve for traditional qualities or the misguided stereotypes of people who act as magnets for certain kinds of women.

A janitor will give a different view on what women are "like" and what they "can't" do than a man with money or looks would. To cut to the chase getting the nut of facts of it should guide decisions not the kaleidoscope of many different arguing people's opinions guided by, "One nation under God indivisible, with, liberty and justice for all."

Consider whether that can be guaranteed in a crisis with an unnecessarily smaller force. Consider whether it's worth putting on the line for "aesthetics" and Barbie vs. Ken. In the event that something as unanticipated as 9/11 forces us to operate with what we've got to capacity consider whether making that capacity smaller given are enormously land mass and ridiculously large coastline and borders which we can't even guard from "illegals" should be done for "tradition". Tradition could be what we're hung on, more or less, instead of national defense. Qualified is qualified, unqualified is unqualified. No question with the recruits we've got for the current marine posts but question for the new recruits.

It sounds like women of Amazonian size of 5'-11+" and 160 lbs would be ok in a combat zone, but not the smaller 5'-4" 120 lb women. Let them do it if they want, but i think it will cause undo hardship on the other men in the unit.

I doubt there are many women who actually want to be in combat, so if they open it up to women, those who have no desire for it will be forced to be in combat units. Everyone will not be convinced that this won't work until it is actually tried, so the faster this is started, the sooner it can be brought to an end as a failed concept.

Because women are more valuable than men. Men are cannon fodder. With one man and a few women you can build a civilization, but one woman and many men are doomed.

Yeah, exactly. She mentions the physical and mental toll it had on her. Well guess what -- it has the same toll on guys too. Just talk to guy veterans. Heck, there are even veterans from previous wars decades ago that have bum knees and trouble sleeping years later.

Her experiences in no way validate that women shouldn't do that work. If anything it validates that no one should do it. But someone has to, so might as well share the pain equally.

JulianAb,

No, the effects aren't the same between guys and women. Let's be honest, women don't have the same physical standards in the military that men do. Until they are willing to have the same physical standards, we shouldn't even be having this conversation.

@Chuck-1032729 ". Let's be honest, women don't have the same physical standards in the military that men do. Until they are willing to have the same physical standards, we shouldn't even be having this conversation."

Ask for them to have the same standards if you like. Believe they should have the same standards if you like. The potential service members this debate applies to do not rank to make the decision on physical standards.

There are MANY more reasons why women should not be in combat, physical attributes is one, but not

the most important.

Are any of those other reasons not blatantly sexist?

No most of the are psychological.

The mentality of men is far different from women.

Men have a built in need to protect women.

There can't help it, "they were born that way".

And that alone makes women on a battlefield a detriment.

So the answer to Ash's question, is "no." All of your other reasons are, in fact, blatantly sexist. Thanks for clearing that up.

Get real! Accomodations would need to be made for femine monthly issues, strength and yes, emotional difference! So, for the sake of being "fair" you would rather endanger the lives of others!

The problem is that many of you are saying "men are tougher". However, reality shows that it is not true. They're breaking down physically and mentally all over the military. Gee, they're so tough they're committing suicide at record levels.

In terms of women "endangering" others, that is stupid. Some nutcase guy, or some scrawny guy, is just as much a danger to his unit.

Despite popular opinion, the facts are that men don't handle stress better, handle killing better, or are less injury prone.

The fact of the matter is, if these women were as physically strong as would be necessary, they probably wouldn't menstruate. Once your body fat reaches a certain lower-end point, women do not menstruate. Many female athletes don't at all; the body recognizes that should she become pregnant, she would not be fully capable of carrying to term. If you'd like to use the argument that women shouldn't serve in certain capacities because of physiological differences, realize too that we have the medical technology to limit many of those differences. If menstruation is such a problem, there are many forms of contraception that halt it. I'm not suggesting that they need to be implemented, only that if you want to make such an argument, it should be recognized that there are solutions that don't harm the women or potentially put those around them in harm's way either.

As to the argument that men are "born" with an inherent need to protect, I call BS. That is something that we, as a society, instill in men. We tell them they have one purpose, to be big and strong. Which means it is potentially an attitude that could be reworked and changed in favor of further equality. Don't you think women have a strong instinct to protect as well? And don't you think that a close-knit group of soldiers would strive to protect one another regardless of gender?

yeah, NO BIGOTRY FROM SKINNY WHITE NERD BOYS!

You are a hypocrite.

JulianAb,

Men are tougher. That's why women don't have to pass the same physical requirements that men do. Yes, men are breaking down all over the military, but your conclusion is wrong. That isn't proof that they are no better off than women would be. It's showing how incredibly taxing and devastating combat is. Women in the infantry would be hit far harder physically (and therefore mentally) than men would be.

I served 26+ in the USMC and started as a combat engr (1371)...

There is a difference between a PFT result and the ability to carry the required loads and preform for extended periods...

Prior to retiring I could cold-turkey a PFT with a 1st class, but I would not have been able to preform the task required of a basic Combat Engr...

Thankfully as my rank increased, so did the physical requirements of my MOSs and I was able to retire with NO Medical conditions...

Every MOS has different requirements, some require brains and some require strength. A person/the Military should select those that are suitable for their abilities to fill the needed requirements...

What is that old line, "What I use to do, all night long, now takes, all night long." Ha! Ha!

She may have been a Green Beret but she wasn't a very good soldier if her clips were full of makeup. Regardless of the time or the place; some things just shouldn't be done. SMH

That was the point he was trying to make I think lol. The "I'll be right behind her" comment translates to my Marine Corps ears as "she'll make a great meat shield to soak up all those pesky bullets while I return fire."

Just what I heard though -_^.

There has never been a female American Green Beret. There was a Brit Royal Marine Green Beret - but she couldn't serve as a grunt.

Oh you made that stupid story up. It is obvious bull.

You never served with any female green beret, you idiot.

I can absolutely guarantee that if I were serving in combat, there would be NO makeup, perfume or special lotions and potions anywhere on my body or in my duffle bag. Not a girly-girl in any way. Tomboy all my life. I wear makeup, but I do know when not to as does any woman with sense. Your story does not fly, I cannot believe any women would carry makeup over bullets. Any women who would, would never ever be in the military to start with!

You need to say less. There is never been a female member of the American Army Special Forces that was "S" qualified. ( Former member of the 5th and 3rd Special Forces Groups )

Where was her ammo? Is make up really important on the battlefield? THAT is one reason women don't belong there.

Bull crap!

@CWater, he made up that story.

And second, the military would immediately kick out any woman who packed makeup instead of ammo. They would never make it past basic training if they pulled that shiat.

Contrary to popular/Hollywood belief, the kind of woman that goes in for combat training is not going to be the frilly, vapid, valley-girl type who prances around all day in bright outfits and glittery makeup.

The IDF usually only flys planes and drives bulldozers.

Ground battle since they started allowing women has not been proved.

Your statement is also flawed logic because you are setting the IDF and American forces as equal. They are not. We operate in a very different fashion.

I think she is referring to 'natures" natural call...

1)

"The IDF usually only flys planes and drives bulldozers.

Ground battle since they started allowing women has not been proved."

That is absolutely false.

2) Her medical condition is not gender specific.

Her argument is:

"My performance was effected by muscle stress in combat. I am female. Therefore, the performance of all females in combat is effected by muscle stress. Therefore females are not suited for combat duty."

She is not the only female in a combat role in recent years, but she is the only female who claims her performance was effected by muscle stress. That doesn't mean that there weren't more, but it certainly doesn't apply to all females - only to her.

But more importantly, this is a condition that also effects men. So, by the line of reasoning she uses, if she were male, she could the made the same conclusion with the genders reversed:

"My performance was effected by muscle stress in combat. I am male. Therefore, the performance of all males in combat is effected by muscle stress. Therefore, males are not suited for combat duty."

Totally agree. Her experience doesn't validate her conclusion.

Her other logical error is the assumption that her experience only happens to women. But there are lots of men who end up with repetitive stress, bum knees, bad backs, etc. from service.

First of all, men take a similar toll of injuries and stress. We may not talk about them as much, but basically any man who serves front lines will never be the same mentally or physically.

This is the most idiotic "controversy" that won't stop. People saying "women should be allowed to do whatever men are allowed to do in the military" either have zero military experience or have absolutely no idea what it takes. I don't care how butch, in shape, tough, or masculine a woman is, women aren't physically equal to men. That's not a sexist statement it's just a fact of life. The percentage of women that could meet both the physical and psychological demand of just getting to the front line is so incredibly small that it would waste even more money then the military already does. Women simply can't go miles with a 60lb pack, in full gear, in the desert, while potentially carrying another soldier.

This is the most idiotic "controversy" that won't stop

It's only a controversy because you make it so. You're the one that objects.

That's not a sexist statement

Yes, it is.

The percentage of women that could meet both the physical and psychological demand of just getting to the front line is so incredibly small

1) Not all women can do it, but neither can all men. In fact, neither can most men without rigorous physical training.

2) You're argument is:

"Since not all women can do it, then no women should be allowed to do it."

The same statement can also be made for men:

"Since not all men can do it, then no men should be allowed to do it."

Women simply can't go miles with a 60lb pack, in full gear, in the desert, while potentially carrying another soldier.

Yes, they can.

1) while it's true that the average man has about 45%-50% more upper body strength than the average woman, a trained woman can have equal or greater upper body strength than an average man.

2) 60-80 pounds is well within the parameters of a females upper body strength. But that doesn't matter, because the weight of the rucks, body armor, etc are not being bench-pressed. The whole body supports the weight, not the arms and shoulders.

If it were being be bench-pressed, 60-80 and more is easily within the parameters of a females upper body strength.

3) Muscular strength is not muscular endurance, which is the physical issue regarding running with a loaded ruck and body armor. The average male Marine can not best the times of female marathon runners or triathletes. In fact, there are plenty of male military personal who compete in marathons and triathlons who finish behind females.

So, upper body strength is not the issue, those weights are well within the comfort zone of a fit female, and females are entirely capable of the muscular endurance required.

In fact, in running or hiking long-distances , females may have certain physical advantages to men.

Here's what Maj. Jane Blair, a Marine with combat experience in Iraq, said:

While it is indisputable that the average man has more upper-body strength than the average woman, women have different physical abilities that enable them to offer unique capabilities in combat.

Distance running is one such arena, and it’s relevant because combat can be as much about physical endurance (sustaining activity over time) as physical strength. According to a study analyzing track-and-field records and published in the journal Nature in 1992, the gaps between male and female performance narrow as the distance is extended, and some studies show that at ultramarathon distances (100 miles or more), women with equal training as their male counterparts outperform men. Researchers theorize that women’s ability to metabolize fat more efficiently contributes to their endurance and success in longer runs. Women also tolerate hot and humid racing conditions better than men because of their smaller body size, according to a 1999 article in the European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology.

Foot patrols involve carrying 50 to 100 pounds of equipment for miles at a time, and I’ve seen male Marines who can bench-press 300 pounds but struggle to walk two miles with 50 pounds of gear. And you don’t have to bench-press 300 pounds to pull a trigger. If a woman passes the physical requirements, why shouldn’t she get the chance to fight?

Its all fun and games till you get on the two way firing range. Any one on this site that has been in combat should know.

The problem isn't when the @!$%# starts, because we all know that it's usually over pretty quickly (though it seems like it lasts years). It's all the sitting around WAITING for the @!$%# to start that will be rough on the female physiology. And there is a LOT of sitting around waiting for @!$%# to happen. Males have evolved, after years of hunting and providing, the ability to easily adapt to those kinds of conditions. They have evolved the ability to have effective group communication (you know, when @!$%# just comes TOGETHER and everybody knows WTF they have to do without being told or explained) and are very coordinated when doing group activities. Females have not evolved these skills because they didn't need them. It's evolution and genetics, it's not sexism.

Blame God (or whoever you believe designed us), but that's the facts. People have already pointed out the fact that muscle mass is far less (you don't need muscles to pick plants), body fat is higher (to support a life in their womb), and they loose massive amounts of minerals and important nutrients every month during menses. Males do not have these shortcomings, and yes, when bad guys are throwing lots of @!$%# at you, these are shortcomings. Imagine if your platoon leader gives you an order to move out and he can't even stand up because his muscles and ligaments have atrophied so much. I would think twice about putting myself in that situation.

Granted, everyone has the ability to be a fierce warrior for a brief moment. We need people to be fierce warriors ALWAYS, not just in a superman, heroic fashion. A good war effort requires sustainability, not one time heroes.

He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious. - Sun Tzu

Looks like you're on your own there pal.

Probably the MALE cooks and quartermasters.

You are absolutely correct. Fact is God made men and women different. Maybe it's because I'm from a different generation but I have not seen one comment here about the men being more likely to risk their lives protecting the women in combat. No reflection on men or women, just the fact that we are different. I love the fact that I'm a man and my wife is a lady, and that we are different. Equality? Ever wonder why if a man wants to be a fashion designer, everyone says he's gay. Why don't we think if a woman wants to be in combat she's a lesbian. Just plain ignorant, God made us different, and we have different roles in life. Why can't we just accept that and quit worrying about who's feelings we might hurt.

Yep testosterone shots and male troops that can be trained to leave a wounded female on the battlefield long

enough to finish a mission before they return for the wounded.

Neither of these is a reality.

As a SNCO you assign the jobs in your Unit, to enable you to accomplish the mission...

Some of these guys have different skills and abilities, you play to those strengths...

Being happy and willing to serve with someone you think is qualified, is not a option...

A good leader, enables his people to succeed, through training and supplying the needed equipment...

I'm sure the Marine Capt was carrying the same loads as her Troops. And then suffered the physical consiquences on her 5' 3" body, where a larger person would have not. IMO - EGO and lack of experience was her down-fall...

During the Normandy Invasion, more people died from drowning, than were killed by the Germans. It was the Policy of carrying EVERYTHING you might need, that killed them. Later in the War, these loads were greatly reduced...

You have to remember that a Capt has only been promoted on their abilities TWICE. Maybe, she should have used her SNCO's more and her back less...

Probably because there is no balance.

I did know a tough ass female Navy Seal once, but all she did was stay on a radio, yell and direct.

She was good at it too.

But she was not being shot at.

Viewer-- I don't know who you think you know or what role she was actually in, but she wasn't a SEAL. BUD/S is not open to women, and never has been.

He is talking about the movie with demi moore probably....in the real world of facts you are correct in that there has never been a female graduate of BUD/S.

justross, YES she was a seal and not just a female, she was also a black female. We airdropped them from C-130's in the Pacific at night fro Barbers Point in Hawaii.

I was there.

I helped kick the DUCKS out the back.

Two of them burned in (chutes did not open) and yes SHE was directing "traffic" and YES she was on a Seal Team.

This notion that guys are going to risk themselves on a battlefield for a girl is just made up. A guy is just as likely to risk himself for a buddy. These are trained professionals (especially Marines), in battle self-preservation kicks in, and it's not like the women who make it would be particularly feminine (i.e. wouldn't really kick in the chivalry sensibilities in a guy).

aren't they supposed to be concerned for ALL of their squad anyway?

Are you speaking for your mommy . I think if my life had to depend on it I would try my best to be color-blind , gender blind, and stero-typical blind. Let the person do the job they can do . There are men I would hate to depend on in any situation and women too. A few years ago they were saying the same things about women who were trying to be police officers and firemen. The women showed they could do the job. How many men do you think might have caused an infantryman to perish . I grantee you it has happened.

by high school i could do 195 and 350. someone should tell that one female marine who mentioned professional sports, and who is obviously uninformed, that the nhl has had a woman player.

That is just great the whole NHL has one woman player. So now the whole USMC can have, what, two or three or six "women grunts", yep, PC for sure!! The only way this works is to have one marine core. Everybody trains together and qualifies together, @!$%#s, showers, and shaves together, lives together, and yes, dies together. No distinctions at all. Semper Fi. Is that possible, you tell me.

Benching 145 is NOTHING. As a new soldier in 2000 at 19, I could bench press 210, and squat nearly five hundred (I was and am 5'2" and about 130 lbs). Her physical "qualifications" would not be up to par with what the Infantry has to endure. Which would be why she is NOT and never could be in a combat MOS. If she were trained and qualified, she may well have been able to handle it. If people are so concerned about the women in combat, what about the woman is IS a cook or in supply that is forced into that position? There have been many women to fight and made it through no worse off than men.

barlow, nice one. assuming that cause i said they have had a woman player that there was only one. you know the saying about assuming and why you never do it?

Personally, I never had a problem meeting the "male" standard. It's not really hard. Maybe the run because of our hip differences, but I have never understood the difference in the requiremants. If a woman wants to be a soldier...she should meet the "soldier's" requirements. No matter her MOS, because she may well be deployed and be faced with combat.

This issue can be debated until we all turn blue—millions can be spent on studies and the best minds can share their point of view and yet the ultimate reality will be the same. If women want to be in harm's way then so be it—they should have the same responsibilities and duties as their male counterpart, only then will all the questions be answered and all the opinions laid to rest..

Being a Disabled Veteran myself, as a woman who was in the military, I have always thought that I would not want to be in the "thick of things", but should I have a reason, or if circumstances warranted the need, I would like to have been able to defend my team, my squad, innocents and myself. Learning what is needed should be mandatory for "all" military personnel, and hopefully we will would not have to use the knowledge. Don't leave soldiers out in the rain because of their gender.

Yes, because its fair "To expect them to go 16 hours or more a day, 7 days a week in grueling, physically challenging combat is unrealistic" when its a male, simply because they're a different sex. Doesn't matter how they're built, if its a male its fine, if its a female, its not. Generalize much?

I agree. Instead of men resisting women in the service, men should just say: yeah, now it is women's turn to take the risks and ruin their bodies and minds in defense of the country. People shouldn't be fighting about who "gets to" do this, we should be arguing about who "has to". It takes a toll on everyone. Just start researching the toll it's taken on a generation of men, with lifelong injuries and mental trouble.

Great response, and a bit further, some countries even have children in their military, will we go there next?

Great response, and a bit further, some countries even have children in their military, will we go there next?

We have children in our military now, djimi. People can enlist at age 17 with parental consent.

Are you really equating women and children, by the way? What a farfetched slippery slope argument!

not so slippery drk....to be completely honest (and this is a generalization , NOT every case 100%) but i would far prefer rely on a 17yr old male "child" in combat than a female. again, not every case but nearly. the male will be much stronger both mentally and physically. no question about it. anyone who states otherwise is a bit foolish and naive.

what really bothers me is many females enlisted are basically on vacation yet earning as much as a male doing hard time and will have all of the benefits. i can confidently state this as several members of my family are serving, both male and female. daily, the females are posting on facebook multiple times and talking about their great adventure and what all they got to see today....yet the males are coming back with very opposing views since they are in the trenches. and this is equal rights?

i am far from the mindset of "women's place is in the kitchen" but i also am aware enough to know there are differences, very big differences no matter how much advocate groups want to claim there isn't.