E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSWomen who rode into Iraq during the 2003 Coalition invasion or who withstood on-base mortar attacks that killed other U.S. troops raucously cheered news of the impending lift of the female-combat ban, shouting the same three spirited words.
“It’s about time!” said Laura Cannon, a 2001 West Point graduate who rolled into Iraq with the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division, spending seven months there. “Women have been on the ‘front lines,’ per se, for years. Now they're getting credit and authorization that is long overdue. The landscape of combat has changed so much that front lines are ambiguous, and frankly, what I believe to be an obsolete concept.”
“Yes!” added Julie Weckerlein, a Air Force veteran who served in Afghanistan and Iraq. In 2007, she sought cover and was not far from Army Sgt. Trista Moretti, 27, who was killed when mortars exploded on their base in Nasir Lafitah, Iraq. “There is definitely a sense of ‘it's about time.'
“This decision means the military is finally removing that useless ‘attached, but not assigned’ verbiage that meant absolutely nothing on the field, with the boots on the ground,” she added. Weckerlein worked as an Air Force combat correspondent, traveling throughout Iraq and Afghanistan, documenting the missions of Air Force joint terminal air controllers and Army infantry soldiers at remote provincial reconstruction team locations and at forward operating bases. In other words, she shadowed military men who were doing “male only” jobs.
Women now compose about 15 percent of the U.S. armed forces.
Placing American women in combat is “a great idea,” especially because "my gosh, women have served in the military since World War I," said Terri Kaas, an Air Force veteran who spent time in Bahrain and Germany.
“Women in the military should be able to do the same jobs as men, whatever the mission is. Though the military has desegregated, women are still treated differently,” in part because they have been held back from combat, Kaas said.
“I know, you still hear: 'It’s a man’s military.' But we are all service members,” she added. “Look at the Marine Corps — they have equal standards of fitness for both genders. If the men can’t respect women for the job they’re doing maybe these men shouldn’t be in the military.”
In fact, argued Cannon, the policy and political path is now clear for Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to eliminate “gender-based restrictions on military jobs and career paths altogether.”
“I think every branch should have its own set of criteria and physical requirements, instead of the basic, existing standards that say: men need to do this and women need to do that,” Cannon added.
“Pilots in the aviation branch certainly don't need to physically perform to the same levels as that of infantrymen. So have new standards applicable to every job. Then, if a woman can achieve all of the requirements necessary to enter the infantry — by all means — let her!”
Related: Defense chief Panetta to clear women for combat roles
Leave a Comment:
Newsflash: men and women are different. Women are infinitely more likely to be raped should they be captured. I think we're taking this whole equality thing a little too far. Can we accept that we are different and that differences are good?
Hit it right on the head. Deny claims for rape PTSD and they can fight all they want. The rape level right now in the military is probably close to 50%. I guarantee when the numbers come in, you would not have your daughter serving in the military because of this reason. I think the folks in charge are a little polyanna when it comes to war. THey string a guy up or torture- its war, you string a gal up by her hoochie and all hell breaks lose. Maybe thats what they want....In the end, they will be sayn to themselves, DAH ,,,I didn't know dat would happen...duh.... It makes you wonder.
Why would anyone actively seek to be "cannon fodder", to be in a position where they are using lethal weapons to kill others and the others are shooting at and trying to kill them? And then celebrate their choice. I don't know of any infantrymen who celebrated going into frontline/foxhole battle where they had a good chance of being killed. These women obviously haven't experienced any really active battle circumstances where their friends right next to them are killed in a horrific fashion, where they get serious injury such as having an arm or leg blown off, where they experience post-traumatic stress syndrome and are psychologically scarred for life, where they are captured and tortured/raped, etc.. Good luck to them.
Boris, one of the first way to 'de-man' a man is to rape him. It is common practice to rape POWs of either gender. The women are more apt to be raped by their comrades at arms than the enemy.
Spot on.
Easy targets for the enemy for torture.
if women could sue mother nature for not being able to produce sperm, they would. long live feminism!
Being happy to be in a position of killing and being killed . . . I weep for the human race.
Maybe one day there will be a huge arena built, say in the middle of the Sahara desert, and there will be sponsored wars. All people wanting to shoot at others and be shot at themselves will report to this arena and all heck will break loose.
The benefits are that old ladies, children, the sick and infirm, plus infrastructure will all survive. Only those idiots who want to fight need fight. Imagine the corporate sponsorship opportunities. The advertising. The bill boards along the edges of the arena. The spectators.
It's a total win-win situation. Wonder why some rich arms dealer hasn't already begun construction.
Private! Get over there and pull that wounded marine up behind those rocks before the enemy finishes killing him.
But Captain! He weighs 200 pounds, and I can't possibly move him.
What!! How did you get thru boot camp and infantry school, private?
Sir! We only had to do ten push-ups to qualify, with a rest after the first five, and our back backs only weighed fifteen pounds and we only had to run a quarter mile every day.
OK Private, get off the radio and get back up here and I'll send someone else down to get him.
But Captain! It's two hundred yards up to your position and I'm not sure I can climb up there. Besides the enemy is shooting at anything that moves. I might get hit.
Oh Good Grief!! Here Lieutenant, take this radio and take over. I'm going back to headquarters and resign my commission.
The marines do not have equal standards. When it comes to PT, women have lessor standards than men.
As a retired Infantry NCO myself, I believe if a female want's to, and has the abilities to fight combat, nothing should stop her.
For those of you who are STRONG Israeli defenders, have you ever heard of the Caracal Battalion? I've seen them, they are worth their salt. Why do I bring them up, well hey, you love Israel, love with they do also.
I understand it's mostly republicans who are against these female's becoming Infantry.
I take it you have never served in America's Armed Forces? Are you female?
I've known guys in combat who couldn't wait to get back into combat. In combat there's always that chance of dying, so I don't know who the hell you're talking about in your last sentence.
You need me to walk that wall, FOR YOU!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo
If they want to fight let them..are we not supposed to be a free and equal country..If a woman can endure the unendurable and become soldiers then they deserve the same chance to die for their country as anyone. I salute all those who dare to fight.
I'm a disabled Vietnam veteran, and I find it hard to believe that anyone would be excited about being able to into combat with the enemy. Incoming mortar attacks are very much different than being in a fire fight or even hand to hand combat. A few people have said that some guys couldn't wait to get back into combat. That is true to an extent, but the first time a person does go into actual combat, are wishing they were back home in front of a TV. Combat, screws up the body, both physically and mentally. My whole take on this is, women have a chip on their shoulder and they let this chip control their thinking. I was always very macho and I never thought of a female as useless or worthless. So good luck females, have fun and get your "rocks" off in combat. When you lose both your legs or some other life changing injury, that "chip" will look pretty stupid.
How stupid can they be, the women? There is no equality in warfare for females. You are idiots to think otherwise. But, have at it and complain later about being raped and whatever else. Stupid!
Women are apt to be raped anywhere on the planet at any time.
So using that as a way to put women down or imply if they do get raped its their fault. Classy.
Damned if you do and damned if you don't if you are a woman, women more than men should be taught on how to protect themselves from childhood up.
In any armed conflict be it civilians or not, women are the ones who are going to be punished in some way by invading armies, and I refuse to believe some sick bastards aren't raping male prisoners so that argument is invalid.
Boris , news flash. The majority of our active war theatres have combatants that are just asa likely to rape man as they are women.
Also, the majority of rapes that occur in the US are those that happen in prison. Both male and female prisons.
Prior to Caracal's formation in 2000, women were barred from serving in direct combat. The unit has since been tasked with patrolling the Israeli-Egyptian border. It took part in Israel's unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in the summer of 2005.[4]
The unit's first combat engagement took place on September 21, 2012 on the Egyptian border; responding to a radio report of an attack on their positions, a female Caracal infantry soldier killed a terrorist by detonating his suicide belt with gunfire. One male Caracal soldier was killed and another wounded in the exchange of fire. After an extensive search, the female soldier who made the initial report was found hiding in a bush and was verbally disciplined for cowardice by her brigade commander.[5
Well, the human race could call a truce and stop the killing. But, nah.
Shows how much you idiots know, women have a naturally higher pain tolerance than men so your torture arguement is completely invalid. If you think they don't rape male prisoners too, you're delusional. There is 100% equality on the battlefield for men and women, the only difference is women have natural hormones that allow us to handle pain a lot better than you little boys. I love how the "macho" club is so threatened by this ruling. Really brings out the insecurity in you guys, way to go!
Well women and men certainly don't have equal physical requirements in any military branch right now. Not to mention the minimum requirements for men aren't even that impressive as it is. Some of the guys are tiny little stringbeans who couldn't pull a 180lbs soldier carring 60lbs of gear out of burning uparmor in the middle of a firefight. Also, I know one or two female soldiers that probably could. Because of this, I honestly agree with modifying the requirements to match the job...for any gender...and both genders should have to meet the same requirements. I think the real issue with these changes are the implications to the combat training camps. Right now, male-only camps tend to be pretty savage both physically and mentally. However, co-ed camps kinda run like a christian fatcamp, with lots of rules about over-stressing and hurt feelings and no-touching and no swearing. It's getting a little silly and a lot of it has to do with the emotions (and lawsuits) that females bring to the table. Too much emphasis on TRADOC can probably be a bad thing when it comes to preparing our soldiers for combat. So if these new combat women can hit much higher physical standards and take a real ass-whooping/ass-chewing...cool, but it won't happen like that. Things are gonna get a lot less BAMF (Bad A** Mother F**Ker) and a lot more BTML (Bad Tushy Mother Lover).
If they can carry around a 100+ pound pack of gear have at it. There are some women that are more of a man then me. If they want to try and avoid the rape train that is up to them too. Why someone would want to get shot at is beyond me.
@Gilamonster "Boris, one of the first way to 'de-man' a man is to rape him. It is common practice to rape POWs of either gender. The women are more apt to be raped by their comrades at arms than the enemy."
@Steve "Boris , news flash. The majority of our active war theatres have combatants that are just asa likely to rape man as they are women."
But I thought we were mostly fighting extremist Muslims who kill gay people and do not tolerate them... You mean they would rape men and take the chance of being labeled as "gay"? LOL. How do you even get you dick hard to do it with a stinky smelly hairy a$$ and Mr. happy hanging there if you are not gay, broomstick it?
PizzaandWings is absolutely correct. Infantry combat in a World War II, Korea, Vietnam type war is far, far different than today's war. I was an Infantry rifleman in Vietnam 1968-69 and it never occurred to me that it was a "career oportunity." Being sniped at or mortared is totally different that the grinding, crushing fatique, sickness, filth and hunger and fear that is the daily life of a Combat Infantryman. As far as women being able to "complete the training" for the Infantry, that means NOTHING. I went through Infantry training before Vietnam and I was astounded at how little the training meant once you got there. If you think Infantry training is tough, let me assure you, life in the Infantry in a real war is much, much worse. If and when we get back into a big knock down, drag out war the women seeking this "career opportunity" are going to be in for a rude awakening.
Wrong, the marines hold physical standards as the same for men and women, that's why women have to work extra hard to become a marine.
I retired from the military 8 years ago, so what I am wondering, physical readiness tests for women were slacker than for men at that time. Women had more time to run, had to do fewer sit-ups and push-ups then. So now, are they going to be required to match men in those tests? It seems only right that they must if they are going to be asked to perform the same combat duties as men. I personally have nothing against women in combat as long as they can pull their own weight. I've known some women who are better qualified than some men, but not as many as men who are qualified. But at the same time, I've seen Arnold Schwarzenegger looking men bawl like babies while Barbie Doll looking women tough it out.
Firstly I have to say that I do not belittle the women that are serving in our Armed Forces, as they do all of us a great service by there service in our military, I can only honor that service by saying Thank You!! They quote a woman in the article who claims to be a USAF veteran, and also claims that there are no differences in standards for Marine physical fitness tests, this is what I found although I couldn't find the date for these standards:
Marine Corps PFTs are scored the following way for males:
Marine Corps PFTs are scored the following way for females:
The "USMA report on the Integration and Performance of Women at West Point", cited by Mackubin Thomas Owens, in Proceedings reveals sex-norming schemes whereby women receive A grades for the same performance that earns a man a D. Navy women pass physical readiness tests by performing 11% fewer sit-ups, 53% fewer push-ups, and running 1.5 miles 27% slower than men. The Marine Corps discovered that only 45% of female Marines could toss a hand grenade beyond its burst radius; one Army study reported only 12% could. Navy studies show that only 12% of women can accomplish the two-person stretcher carry, a requirement critical to ship security. Women may be able to drive a five-ton truck, but need a man's help if they must change a tire. Women can fire field artillery pieces but often can't handle the ammunition.
Women soldiers are four times more likely to report ill. The percentage of women being medically non-available at any time is twice that of male soldiers. Then there's pregnancy. Each year, between 10 and 17 percent of servicewomen become pregnant. In certain posts the rate is higher. In 1988, James Webb, Secretary of the Navy, said 51% of single Air Force and 48% of single Navy women stationed in Iceland were pregnant. During troop deployment in Bosnia, between December 1995 and July 1996, a woman had to be evacuated due to pregnancy every three days. These and other factors mean that women suffer a higher rate of attrition than men and because of the turnover they are not as profitable training investments.
The sissification of our nation continues.
It's a shame our military is complicit in this nonsense also.
Women who are in effect on the front lines in today's combat will now receive combat pay, which is fair.
Also, if 50% of women in the military are raped by our own guys, it shows their unrivaled strength in staying in the military. I have no doubt that people are assigned by their qualifications, and if either a man or a woman is incapable of handling a particular mission, the superior officer will assign someone else.
The treatment of women in the Armed Forces has been nothing short of deplorable, and whether guys like it or not, powerful women are here to stay. For women to fight to be acknowledged; that raped military women until recently couldn't receive an abortion; that women are on front lines already and not paid is being rectified by Panetta. He is doing the country a service.
I have no problem with women in combat if that is their desire, but as another stated if they can pull their own weight. Other concerns have already been addressed so I won't go any further with them, but what about distractions? Would a male soldier endanger himself, his comrads or his entire unit attempting to save or rescue a female soldier? Would the males instinct to protect females get in the way of getting the job done? On the flip side, imagine the humiliation these Islamic or Muslim combatants would feel by getting their a$$ kicked or shot off by a woman, who many think are beneath them!
Looking back at history, think of the different armies and forces the world has seen. From the Spartans to our present-day Marines there are reasons women have not been included in direct combat roles.
Think of it this way, a unit comprised primarily of men are deployed somewhere in the world. Then fighting breaks out and everyone is supposed to pull their weight and have each other's back. You trust your 'buddy' with your life because you know they, in turn, are supposed to have your backside too. But can you? If things came down to hand-to-hand can she take out a 200lb gorilla while you already have your hands full? What are you supposed to do- fight your fight while simultaneously be concerned about her and her safety while some baboon stomps her guts out? Then she's a liability- the same liability some higher up in the company ordered your platoon to take out on a dangerous mission for the sake of PR.
Or, one soldier falls in love with a fellow warrior in the same platoon. After a long period of time in the field, the two are caught making whoopie and the morale of the platoon is compromised. Silly example, but illustrates the complexities of mixing the sexes together in this regard.
For a fighting force to remain effective, it is only as good as its weakest links. If women are cut slack due to their sex then the effectiveness is reduced. And this is something that cannot be tolerated for obvious reasons- historical armies knew this, why don't we?
If marine men and women have to meet the same physical standards, marines must be a bunch of wimps these days. I know it doesn't take any strength to pull a trigger but I know you couldn't find 1 out of 10,000 women that could have gone through what I went through when I was in the army. I'm 63 years old and I could still out perform 90% of the women out there. Women don't have the upper body strength of men unless they're taking steroids. Oh I know there are some wimpy men out there but most of them have enough sense to stay out of the military. If the women want to be in combat why don't we just have women's combat units. Let em carry their own crap and take care of themselves. If they didn't have the modern conveniences of warfare and had to take care of themselves, after a few weeks in the field it'd be a difference story.
Great....we have queers in the military and now we have women wanting to fight in combat, so let em!! They will find out real quick its not so gd easy to be a military man! lol BUT, mark my words that in a few years there will be some big f**king scandal or lawsuit because of this!!!! There needs to be a special waiver signed that if they want in combat that they must pass all military requirements a man does and that they release all liability towards the U.S. and commanding officers! Whats going to happen when they wake up with cramps and that b*tchy, "leave me alone" and "I dont have to do what you tell me attitude" they get? That will go far! lmao....... Just another instance when I'm going to grap the popcorn and watch this time bomb explode! LMAO
A female combat soldier armed with an M-16 and PMS - God help our enemies.
Ladies - kick ass and take names.
As to the APFT standards, they vary for men by age group.
IT's silly to put them in combat. When America is seeing it's daughters captured and beheaded on TV, it will lose it's resolve to do what's right.
I'm for it. They will "Nag" the enemy into submission.
Wait until the body bags start coming home at the same rate as then men, then you gals wont think it to be so good to be 'equal'.
Knowing how PC our military has become they will probably reduce the endurance and strength requirements to allow for Jane to get her CIB. We are doomed, defect to canada
I don't mind us women fighting for our country and I am all for more rights, especially over our own bodies, but I better not hear one woman cry when she gets raped. You get what you asked for.
Kittstar are you a grunt, have you served do you have your CIB or are you just a REMF? I am wondering becuase you have no clue on what the life of an infantry grunt is like.
All I know is that when I was a wave in the Navy, boot camp was different for us. We got to do less physical requirements, we got to keep our hair ( no crew cuts), and we wore skirts. Some women got pregnant to get out of the Navy. So telling me that the Marines did everything the same for Women as they did for the Men is simply wrong.
P.s. Why do they make the men get crew cuts if they don't make us get them?
Are you ignorant or high? There ARE separate standards for men and women in the Marine Corps as well as the Army. (The Air Force may have the same standards, but the Air Force is a joke.)
Make ONE PT standard and throw out any and ALL OB/GYN B.S. If a woman gets pregnant, she either gets an abortion or leaves combat arms. That seems fair. After that, let them die all they want. And if you have any problems with any of it, then you're not asking for EQUAL rights, you're asking for BETTER rights. Welcome to combat, ladies.
Not sure how we are doomed when we are going from boots on the ground to drone strikes. I think boots on the ground will be only mop up crew in the future.
Boris wrote "Women are infinitely more likely to be raped should they be captured"
Who cares? Why is a rape more significant than any other torture? Only Feminists are obsessed with rape. Women die from a beating but never from unwanted sex.
The Department of Defense (DOD) knows that women aren’t suited for combat — even if it won’t outright admit it. The easiest way to demonstrate this is by considering the differences in Army standards for physical fitness for men and women . . . and how the Army skews those differences to the advantage of women.
For instance, if a 33-year-old male were to do 43 push-ups, 55 sit-ups, and run two miles in 15:18 for his Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT), he would earn a score of 224 points (out of a total of 300). This would be considered average at best. Yet if a 33-year-old female did the exact same, she would score a 272 and be considered in vastly better shape than the male.
We can further contrast this discrepancy of standards by comparing how a 21-year-old male and a 21-year-old female would score using the same outcome (43 push-ups, 55 sit-ups, and a 15:18 2-mile run). The 21-year-old male would receive a score of 192 (and would just barely pass his APFT) while the 21-year-old female would receive a score of 263 and might be highly commended.
This demonstrates that the Army (and by association, the DOD) realizes that men and women are different — and that it expects men to possess superior physical abilities.
Out of the seven months she spent there, how much actual combat did she go into? Another Eager beaver, west point grad, with something to prove. Did they intentionally pick feminist for this article?
Let's see them pass the same PT standards as men.
You're in the fricken Air Force: the branch with the easiest PT scores. I could probably walk your PT test and max it. What in the world do you know about Marines? You consider a cot and tent substandered living conditions. No, they don't have the same PT Standards and you have no idea what you're talking about.Give me a fricken break.
Go ahead, try changing a hummer tire by yourself. What are these idiots smoking?
I attended a military academy for 6th, 7th and 8th grade. Our physical education test was 6 chin-ups, 20 push-ups, 45 sit-ups, and running 40 laps around the gym. The average student was able to perform at least 85% of it.
As a former Ranger (1/75 Regiment) I say GO FOR IT LADIES!!! I served from 1982-1990 and met quite a few female service members that could kick ass!! Quite a few exceeded their male counterparts in jump school.
I say form a unit for female members only and for one week a month they will be the most effective fighting force the world has ever seen!!!
Guess the girls will learn the hard way !!!!!
Life out in the field, in a free fire zone 24 / 7 is no bowl of roses even on a good day. You are dirty, you stink, your fatigues are so dirty they stand up by themselves ( no starch needed )and best of all, You ran out of toilet paper. Get use to using leaves, grass or what ever you can find girls. Forgot about your second best friend " THE BUGS ". Like your first best friend ( your weapon ). You eat, sleep, fight, and ( yes that too ) with them at your side. You never go anywhere without them. True your first best friend is always locked, loaded, and off safe. Don't expect to sleep out in the field. You cat nap at best. You are always hungry, thirsty, and on the move. Oh did I mention that your life expectancy is 3 / 10 of a second when the first round is fired . Life in the field is fun ( only if you survive ).
On one hand it is a reason to celebrate, on the other - we are now going to see far more women getting seriously wounded and dying in our military. The price of such equality is paid in blood.
If they want to be in combat then make it equally punish them if they purposely try to avoid deployment. Half of the females would puposely get pregnant before deployment just to avoid deployment.
not being in the military myself, I have to defer to my cousin who did 3 tours in the hell hole that is the middle east.
AND I quote.." There is your weak link "
Only good I can see from this is when they come back as Vets and try to get assistance and fail, then maybe we will hear such a cry in the news as only women can achieve that maybe the government will finally take them seriously and give them the help they need.
I'm 55 years old I grew up in a different time, I was raised by a real woman my mother. You protected your women, my mother went to work every day her and my dad provided for our family, but dad protected the family, my brother, me and my father protected my mother, I protect my wife, if there is trouble she runs for help, I die if I have to, that is the way it is, I don't want to see or have to worry about trying to have some woman trying to fight off an attacker, I don't need to be thinking about that. I know there are some women who can beat the living Crap out of me and men 10 times me, I don't care, I don't want to see women coming home in coffins. Men and women are not the same they are not equal. They should be paid the same for doing the same work YES. Should they be doing the same type of jobs, NO.
bubba
Why not just allow those women to choose for themselves?
I am 68 years old I I understand how you "old guys" think. (Maybe I don't think as old as you do) You think you are doing women a favor by treating them the way you think they should be treated and you believe it is justified by paying them equal pay for the same work. That does not help much when you want to deprive them of the ability to do the same work.
You do not respect women enough until you respect their right to make their own decisions.
Women are infinitely more likely than men to be raped simply by walking down the streets of a US city. We are talking the equality thinking too far. Let's "protect" women by following the lead of the Saudis and prevent women from appearing in public unless they're completely covered and accompanied by a male relative.
The military is a volunteer force. If a woman is there, it is by choice. Let HER decide if she wants to take the risk. As with abortion, men should stop trying to control women's choices.
Okay, so for those of you who are always looking for another lie from MSNBC to be able to say, "See, I told you so!" (I'm talking to you, liberals) here's the truth about the military ostensibly making the physical requirements the same for both genders. And for those of you with no knowledge of the current requirements, presently women are required to only do a flex-arm hang but not any actual pull-ups:
"Come 2014, women will be required to do at least three pull-ups to pass the PFT (physical fitness test), with eight needed for a perfect score on that portion of the test.
Men must do three pull-ups to pass the test, with 20 required for a perfect score.
As Marine Corps Times reported last year senior officials have debated this idea for a while. In June 2011, following initial research at 12 installations across the Corps, the service’s physical readiness officer produced a detailed position paper calling for the test’s upper-body portion to be amended.
That study of 318 female Marines found that, on average, they could perform 1.63 pull-ups."
So did you get that? Although they're making the requirements the same in principle, in practice they're not even close. The goal of every Marine should be to score a 300 on their PFT, yet in order for a male to do so he would have to do 20 pull-ups (women only 8), 80 sit-up in two-minutes or less (women only 50 crunches, or at least that used to be the case), and run three miles in 18 minutes or less (women only two miles). This article doesn't even address the run or the sit-ups, which tells me that those requirements will still remain substantially lower than what's expected of their male counterparts.
By the way, did anyone see the average number of pull-ups out of 318 women Marines? 1.63? Are you kidding me? For all of you male Marines, I hope you never need one of these "combat-ready" women to pull you out of the line of fire in the middle of an ambush.
With all of this said, however, I'm actually in favor of putting women on the front lines. What I don't agree with is integrating them with the real Marines (read men). Allow them to form their own units, and let them live or die as their own unit. This way they get what they want, they'll have no one to lean on but themselves, and the men won't be distracted by the numerous challenges that integration will bring to bear.
See, problem solved...
Kittstar: Please read the above post since you, like most other liberals and militant feminazis, are deluding yourself about this whole equal physical requirements thing.
don97524, I would never deny a women the right to do any job they wanted to do as long as they could do it. we are just made different, I don't want to see and I don't think women a cut out to be, football players, weightlifters, boxers, I don't want to see women with big cut mussels, I like to see curvy women. I love intelligent, what I think are attractive, and independent women. I don't want to see women FIGHT, this I have to have a bad azz attitude that they think they have to have now is not in the least attractive. A women being tough, like a man, no, that is not the way to go. My mother was tough,she tended a bar on the weekends in the 60's and 70's as a woman you had to be tough, most of the clients were Chicago cops. If it got out of hand though there were men that with just a couple of words let them know who was in charge, my mother.
Conservatives continue their disrespect of women.
Who are these guys?
With high intellect like this is it any wonder that men have made such bad decisions involving women?
Many of these comments would be funny if they were not the way these people actually think. Sadly, they are serious and even sadder, many of these folks actually vote (Republican, I am sure)
Once again, Don has proven that liberals are the dumbest educated people you'll ever have the displeasure of meeting.
Don't get me wrong, though, don, we love liberals like you; makes everything so much more entertaining.
Bear in mind that most women do not want to be your woman. Most women do not care what kind of woman you like or find attractive. Most women do not want you or any other bubba making their decisions for them. If a woman wants to develop "big cut mussels" (sic) I believe it is her decision to make, in spite of the fact that bubba doesn't find them attractive.
@Bubba .. what YOU want is important. What matters is if women CAN do the job. I'm shocked to see so much sexism in the 21st century. However, it would be fascinating if we knew each poster's age. There's probably a positive correlation between age and sexist attitudes ... the older a person, the more likely they oppose women in combat.
Carryingconcealed
I listed a number of examples of statements from conservatives that I believe are demeaning to women and demonstrate irrational thinking in men. You have no examples ..... just the kind of insulting comment you typical of your Newsvine behavior. By the way, phrases like "dumbest educated" reveal your own level of education.
What is your idea of a "liberal", someone who believes in women's equality? Then I am a PROUD LIBERAL.
Don must have a hard time with reading comprehension...
Those were not my words.. those were the words of a family member who did 3 tours over seas.. I most agree with him after some of the less graphical stories he told me.
MOST women, will not be able to do the physical duties of a front line soldier.. How many women do you know who could fireman's carry a wounded 250 lb man out of danger. Women are physically built do to that. **** hell I couldnt either, but I am about 25 lbs over weight, out of shape nearing 40 year old ****
I'm sure all our adversarys would love to fight an army of women. It would be a piece of cake for them. They would fly over the female soldiers and drop sales coupons and leaflets from JC Penny Macys, Dillards etc. Those women would be so busy looking at the sales the enemy would walk right in and take over. We might be able to use the women for entertaining the real troops. They could do some dancing for the male soldiers. They could also rub the soldiers feet when they come back from patrol.
Jeremy
When you believe someone else's opinion is important enough to repeat, it is very clear that you share that opinion. My opinion is that both you and your cousin should let the military worry about the duties of military personnel. The DOD made this decision based on an unanimous decision of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Surprisingly, they consulted neither you nor your cousin.
Obama has divided the use
Not surprisingly, your sexist opinions of women are about as useful as your disparaging remarks about the President. No doubt you vote Republican.
No doubt you don't consider that the meeting of top level Republican politicians on inauguration day 2009 was divisive ..... you know, the meeting during which they agreed to oppose President Obama on everything, even those things that they themselves had previously proposed.
No doubt you don't consider Mitch McConnell's remarks in 2009 that his number one priority was "to make Barack Obama a one-term President" were divisive.
It is obvious that you either don't have any respect for truth or you fail to understand the meaning of the term "divisive."
By the way, your insulting screen name is divisive.
Jeremy ... your post indicates why decisions about who should be able to serve in combat should not be based on stereotypes. Not all men are up to the task, while some women are. Elgibility should be based on the qualifications of the individual, not generalities related to their sex.
Hmm .. that must be why no one fears the Israeli Army ... except for their enemies.
don97524
Wrong Don. I am ashamed of our president for the way he has conducted himself, not because he is black. He has rammed obama care down the countries throat,but granted waivers to his big political donors and the labor unions. He is a typical corrupt Chicago politician. His friends are crooks, anti american or both.
He has declared war on America’s coal
industry by promising to bankrupt any company that attempts to build a new coal plant while using unconstitutional EPA regulations to strangle competition, ensuring Americans see their energy costs rise year after year.
He has aided America’s enemies, violating his oath, by sending funds to insurgents in Syria who are being commanded by Al-Qaeda terrorists.
The screen name is the truth about Obama. It doesn't divide. You do Mr. Bigot.
Don Don Don: There is nothing wrong with the phrase "dumbest educated" in the context in which I used it. Yes, it is a glaring contradiction of terms, but certainly not incorrect. You don't like it because I was using it to describe you and your liberal brethren.
As for my definition of liberal, I have many but they all eventually lead back to the same thing, and that is a person who believes he/she is owed everything, contributes nothing, pretends to care about others but in reality only cares about what they can get for themselves in the way of personal rights and freedoms they don't deserve and haven't earned, yet won't lift a finger to defend those rights and freedoms, hates themselves and everyone who disagrees with anything they say or believe yet claims to practice tolerance, who's book-smart but can barely exhibit a sign of functional intelligence, and who would sell-out their own country in a second if they thought there was something in it for them.
Now does that answer your question, Don?
Carrying
You decide based on my defense of women that I am liberal. Then you define liberals as those who contribute nothing but are owed everything. I want to know how that relates to women in combat. Is it because you think they contribute nothing? Is it because you believe they think they are owed something they did not earn?
Your definition has nothing to do with my opinion about women in combat nor about the women you are insulting with your over-the-top insulting comments. Your ranting is irrational and you have not made a single rational point.
Obama has ......
I noticed that you had no defense of the divisive Republicans. Is that because no defense of their truly divisive action is possible?
Don
Sorry but my definition of a liberal doesn't have to conform with anything you believe or don't believe, and it is mutually exclusive from anything to do with this topic of women in combat. You're the only one trying to connect the two.
The only reason I even stated my personal definition is because you asked, and now you're trying to make it out to be something more than it is.
I have made many rational points here, but in typical myopic, liberal fashion, you've failed to grasp any of them and that's your problem, not mine.
And BTW, I didn't decide you're liberal - you ARE liberal. Own it!
Carry
You classified me as a liberal based solely on my defense of women in combat. You also made some moronic comments trying to justify prohibiting them from combat positions. I don't deny being a liberal .... in fact read my #1.61.
But to the point, you classify liberals as those who "would sell-out their own country in a second if they thought there was something in it for them" but would deny women the right to serve in combat. Do you believe they are "selling out their country"?
Allowing women to serve in combat is a liberal position and, once again, I am a PROUD LIBERAL.
Funny, now that the wars are wrapping up and coming to a close, a few these conniving Bettys want the same benifits as Johnny and Jimbo. So, they can impress and support their love interest Angela back home, and CLAIM they have the sack to do the dirty work for Americans to keep their country free from tyranny.
I say lets give them the chance, time for show and tell. Lets get the best WOmen together, that our armed forces have to offer, and form a company. Then send them out to be human targets, in the very next dangerous mission that comes down the pike, and let the men flank the enemy. What do you say ladies? You got the gumption? Time to put up or shut up!!!!
don, actually Carryingconcealed made a great point by letting the women serve in special unit all their own and see how that works out. It's the only way to find if they can do the job without men around.
when I see a woman playing pro football- I will concede they are ready for combat. We only take the best for playing a game, why would we take less for defending a nation.
come on people....try to use some common sense here, we are talking about war, and I would hope to say its a bit more hazardous than football.
I am also glad we didnt try this social experiment on D-day, or Iwo Jima, we would all be speaking Germanese.
I know from a lot of comments above that there are many here who do not agree with women being "on the front lines". There was a time I would have agreed with you, No more.
Women; by far, are much more protective and dangerous when angered than most men are. America means a lot to us also and we do have a right; well for those who are in the Military, to fight for our country. For those of us who are married to the military through our Husbands we can fight for our country too.
Our homes we will defend, our children we will defend, our towns, cities, work places, our Country. If a woman makes a choice to join the Military they should not ask for or receive special treatment and they should be able to fight on the front lines if they choose.
Jim, I know you were possibly overseas but I believe there were some all women's baseball teams; Not football, but still a "man's" sport and they toured America back in the day. You may not have seen them but they were there.
If women want to be in combat then they should be allowed to make that decision. But, the military should not lower its standards to accommodate them to do so. In other words, they too must be able to carry a 210 lb man with his combat gear on and not leave him behind.
Also, if this is what they want and its been approved then its now time for Congress to change the law and women, like men, must register at the age of 18 for selective service.
To my fellow RWNJ's (I wear the title proudly!), arguing with a lib is like...sorry, can't come up with anything definable. Ladies, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE! Me, I want a uterus. Why? Because it is the "source" of such great beginnings in life. Seriously, I want a uterus! I'm waiting for legislation to give me a uterus...and fallopian tubes...and...whatever! There is NO sense that half the worlds population can have 'em and I can't damn it! It's just NOT fair damn it! Only then will I be whole. Only then will there be true equality...yea...when the US Government legislates my new uterus...yea...then and only then will we be out of the dark ages where men are treated differently and less equal then women...when I get my new pink and fluffy uterus :)
There's a great old saying that goes roughly, "If we're all the same...then there's a lot of us that aren't needed!" Viva la difference:)
as a vet..I ask this one question ?...why would you want to go to war in the 1st place if you do not have to as an infantry men ?....most that are relegated to that roll are done so by the arbitrary computer assignment quota system & by low test scores in the more techinical/mechanical career fields...why would you volunteer for the infantry ? other than you've watched too many "John Wayne" movies and think your going to be a hero and most heros end up dead . remember John Wayne only played the part he wasn't the real deal....like many that are shooting their internet mouths(chickenhawks) off that have never served in the 1st place...plus enlisted infantry is not the ideal career path to promotion or civilian job skills other than for discipline and a good work ethic...I don't get why these feminist think the way they think ?....war from an infantrymans perspective is dirty primitive and cruel....why would you want to put yourself thru that if you don't have to ?....to prove what ?...I know infantry war vets who wish they never went thru the experience....its life changing ..go to a VA facility and if you got the guts and ask the infantry vet and see what their advice is ?most of them will say if you don't have too then don't do it...but if you're their you better be able to perform to the standards and then some
Obama Ignores Deadly Risks to Women in Combat
By Arnold
Ahlert
It didn't take long for the Obama administration to advance a pernicious
piece of its promised radical agenda. Two days after the president laid out his
far-left vision during the inauguration, senior defense officials announced that
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta will lift the military's ban on women serving
in combat. The move overturns a 1994 provision that prohibited them from being
assigned to ground combat units. Panetta has given the various service branches
until 2016 to come up with exemptions, and/or make any arguments about what
roles should still reman closed to women. Thus, another bit of gender radicalism
has been shoved down the nation's throat through executive fiat - and this one
is sure to have deadly consequences.
It is precisely those deadly consequences - especially for servicewomen -
that are irrelevant to feminists and their enablers, who have long pushed the
idea that men and women are essentially interchangeable. Nothing could be
further from the truth, and combat is where those differences could produce
deadly results. Ground combat is arguably the most physically grueling activity
in which one can be engaged, and despite what the feminists would like Americans
to believe about equality, science says otherwise: men have almost twice the
upper-body strength as women.
This is a critically relevant consideration. According to a 2009 article in
National Defense Magazine, a soldier on a three-day mission in Afghanistan
carries approximately 130 pounds of gear, and efforts to lighten that load have
not succeeded. This is primarily due to the reality that the essentials of food,
water, and ammunition cannot be replaced with lighter items. Other equipment,
such as sensors, tripods, cold weather clothing, boots, sleeping bags,
flashlights, and protective eyewear, have all been made lighter. But the fact
remains that the average soldier is expected to carry enormous amounts of
weight, simply to better ensure his chances for survival. Furthermore, a soldier
must carry that weight even during periods of intense fighting. The overwhelming
majority of women are not capable of meeting such standards.
What is the Pentagon likely to do? In New York City, when most female
applicants to the Fire Department were unable to meet the strength requirements,
feminists filed a successful lawsuit, altering the standards so that a number of
otherwise unqualified women could pass the test. Thus it is likely the Pentagon
will pursue a similar strategy of "gender-norming" for the entire service that
is already part of the Army Physical Fitness Test. That test requires
proficiency in push-ups, sit-ups and a two-mile run. For sit-ups both genders
have the same requirements. For push-ups and the run, the grading scale for
women is easier.
Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, illuminates
the folly of pursuing such double standards. "Revised 'warrior training'
programs sound impressive, but gender-normed standards emasculate the concept by
assuring 'success' for average female trainees," she wrote in 2005, when the
Army began a surreptitious program of putting women in smaller, direct
ground-combat units. Donnelly then added the critically proper perspective to
the mix. "Soldiers know that there is no gender-norming on the battlefield," she
explains.
There is also nothing that will eliminate the natural differences between men
and women that play out in a number of other ways. Few things are more important
for enduring the rigors of combat than morale and combat unit cohesion. It is
ludicrous to believe that mixed units will be immune to the potentially
de-stabilizing effects of sexual attraction. And as night follows day, sexual
attraction leads to pregnancy. In 2009, Major General Anthony Cucolo, running
military operations in Northern Iraq, was forced to deal with the serious
downside of that reality. As a result, he initiated a policy under which troops
who got pregnant–and the men who got them pregnant–faced a court martial and
possible jail time. Cucolo issued the directive because he was losing too many
women with critical skills. "I've got a mission to do, I'm given a finite number
of soldiers with which to do it and I need every one of them," he contended.
Yet consensual sex is only part of the problem. A military report released in
January 2012 revealed a stunning 64 percent increase in violent sex crimes
within the U.S. Army since 2006. The most frequent sex crimes for 2011 included
"rape, sexual assault, and forcible sodomy." The report further noted that while
only 14 percent of the Army is comprised of women, they represent 95 percent of
all sex crime victims.
It stretches the bounds of credulity to believe that sexual tension,
regardless of the legitimate or illegitimate motivation behind it, would be
lessened under front line, life-threatening combat conditions. Nor is it
inconceivable to think that close personal relationships of a sexual nature
would make some soldiers take the kind of unnecessary risks to save a lover that
might not only endanger themselves, but their entire unit.
There is another reality that feminists and their enablers fail to
acknowledge. As it currently stands, there is little appetite demonstrated by
women themselves for serving in combat units. Army Research Institute (ARI)
surveys taken from 1993-2001 revealed that the majority of military women were
strongly opposed to combat assignments–so much so that the ARI dropped the
question from its survey the following year. Less than a month ago, a Huffington
Post article regarding interviews with "a dozen female soldiers and Marines"
revealed that they had "little interest in the toughest fighting jobs,"
contending "they'd be unable to do them." When the Marines asked women to go
through their infantry training course last year, only two women volunteered.
Both of them failed to get through it. No one volunteered for the next one. Army
Sgt. Cherry Sweat, who did a tour in Iraq installing communications equipment,
reveals a sentiment that most military women apparently share. "The job I want
to do in the military does not include combat arms," she said. "I enjoy
supporting the soldiers. The choice to join combat arms should be a personal
decision, not a required one," she added.
Lory Manning of Women's Research and Education Institute thinks women's
interest in assuming combat roles will be higher than anticipated. "If you asked
someone in 1985 about going to sea, she would have been thinking: 'Girls don't
do that and so I don't want to do that,'" Manning contended. "But when push came
to shove, they did it, they loved it." That is a ridiculous comparison. Going to
sea is hardly the same as front-line combat. Moreover, when "push comes to
shove," it is highly doubtful that there is more than a microscopic number of
soldiers who "love" being in the mortal danger that combat engenders.
Unfortunately, such realities are no match for those who champion diversity.
Putting women in combat units "reflects the reality of 21st century military
operations," said Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin
(D-MI), in announcing his support for the program. No doubt he and others see it
as the next logical step following last year's announcement, opening 14,000
combat-related positions to female soldiers. At that time, the Pentagon still
insisted on keeping women out of direct combat roles, even as they noted they
were committed to lifting such barriers eventually. At the time, they claimed
that making such sweeping changes would be difficult in time of war. Another
factor was the lifting of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy allowing gays to
serve openly. Allowing women to serve on the front lines at the same time was
considered one big social change too many.
No longer. The new policy expands the number of military jobs available to
women from last year's 14,000 to more than 230,000 positions. Part of the
impetus for the change may have been two lawsuits filed last year challenging
the combat ban, but according to a senior military official familiar with the
discussions by the Joint Chiefs, the ultimate conclusion was that this is the
time to "maximize women's service in the military."
Writing for the Washington Post three days ago, Elaine Donnelly reiterated
her position that putting women in combat is a terrible idea, presciently noting
that "even the if the results of the Marines' research do not support
unrealistic theories of feminists who consider land combat to be just another
career opportunity, administration officials might press their egalitarian
agenda anyway." She further noted that the "Pentagon-endorsed Military
Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC) has called for an end to women's land
combat exemptions, based on a new definition of 'diversity.'"
That egalitarian agenda, like so many other progressive agendas, may produce
an unintended consequence. The 1981 Rostker v. Goldberg Supreme Court case
exempted women from being part of the nation's Selective Service System. America
no longer drafts civilians into the military, but as Donnelly notes, the
elimination of such combat exemptions will involve civilian women registering
with Selective Service. She then makes a recommendation, not only anathema to
the Obama administration, but one that only three days later was ultimately
ignored. "Congress, which represents the American people, should not be shut out
of this decision-making process," she wrote. If the draft is re-instated, one
wonders how the American public will take to having their daughters every bit as
vulnerable as their sons to forcible conscription. A rising tide of Islamist
terror in the Middle East and now in Africa could provide the answer.
Once again, elections have consequences. Barack Obama has made it clear that
part of his progressive agenda includes forcing gender radicalism down America's
throat, absent any input from Congress. Once, the United States military was all
about projecting lethal power around the globe to protect America's interests.
Now, it is all about promoting diversity, inclusion and equality of outcome,
irrespective of military readiness and cohesion. For progressives, who have
elevated political correctness above all else–national security included–such
radical egalitarianism is cause for celebration. For Donnelly and countless
other Americans, it is anything but. "No one's injured son should have to die on
the streets of a future Fallujah because the only soldier near enough to carry
him to safety was a five-foot-two 110-pound woman," she contends.
WRONG. I'm a USMC veteran, and while the standards have changed over the years to be more equal, you are still incorrect. The standards are still not the same, although they SHOULD be, if we're going to talk about "equal opportunity."
For the Physical Fitness Test: Starting next year women will have to meet equal standards as men for both pull-ups (at least 3) and sit-ups (at least 50 crunches in 2 minutes), but the 3-mile run times are still different.
For the Combat Fitness Test, the activities are the same, but they are scored differently (which means that the standards are NOT the same):
When they raise the physical performance standards for women to perform at the same level as the men, THEN come talk to me about "equal opportunity" and whether we should look at opening the infantry to women. The demands of combat don't discriminate--you either have what it takes or you don't.
It might interest you to know that the Marine Corps has been experimenting with allowing women to take the Infantry Officer Course, but so far none of the women who volunteered and were selected to participate have been able to successfully complete the training.
This is one article about the two women who failed out in October 2012 (along with 26 men) http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiedrummond/2012/10/16/marine-corps-women/.
This article from a woman Marine officer (combat engineer) with combat experience in both Iraq and Afghanistan raises concerns about the physiological differences between men and women: http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal
We haven't even discussed the social interaction issues that would likely arise from injecting a woman into an infantry squad or platoon. For example, infantry men train as they fight. They eat, sleep, shower, and go to the bathroom together--there is no privacy when you're out in the field sitting in a fighting hole. If we start putting women into infantry positions, are we going to mimic "Starship Troopers" and simply have women integrate into the existing facilities as a unisex approach? Just curious how that is supposed to work, exactly.
There is an article on Drudge that says if the women can't perform to lower standards. HELL NO,
If the women want to be in battle like the men then you act like the men, you wear what they wear and you do what they do. If you can't do it then step to the rear.
There is no woman out there who is going to put our men in harms ways. If you want to wear the britches then wear them like a man. Put on all of the gear, stand up and fight like any Military man would fight.
I have an idea, let's stop having wars. Instead of arming men and women, why not talk, negotiate and resolve issues in a peaceful manner.
As for woman fighting, I would not want that for my daughter or grand daughter but it is not for me to say. This is an issue for the women in the military.
And for those of you who believe woman cannot life and do the work of a man, maybe you should be a nurse. Nurses have been lifting very heavy patients for years. There is a method to meeting the needs of obese patients. I have seen some pretty weak male nurses who could not figure out, how to get a patient for a to b. Well trained nurses were able to move these patients, all by themselves. I was one of them. And I never hurt my back in the over forty years of nursing.
I believe women will do very well, on the front lines. Do I think they belong there? It is not for me to say.
this is going to be a cluster fuk the 1st time women go into combat next to men....we ARE different and besides all the BS posted about higher pain tolerance and what not it cant be denied that there may be some very serious problem in regards to interaction...meaning you cant erase a male instinct to protect..if a guy gets shot to his left and a women gets shot to his right...this admin with its PC BS is over the top.....Equal rights gay rights all that civilian crap has no place in an army that needs to be effective...if you disagree you've never served in heavy combat...so don't tell me I'm wrong...its not about who has the right to get up front when mortars are taking off the tops of trees on a narrow street and there's 2 a-holes with sniper rifles pinning 8 of you down right before a 2000 lbs bomb hits from 16K feet shaves off the side of a building and lifts you 5 feet in the air covering you with shrapnel including a sliver of steel the size of a pencil right through your nose.........All of when these liberal idiots are saying sounds great until you put it into practice..I.E. don't see many gays putting a spotlight on themselves since don't ask don't tell was repealed because they know better...they know if they wave that flag in a platoon of marines there careers are still done. All of the above is unfortunate but still true
Judy. That doesn't work with these nut jobs out there. If you think it does, then you are gravely mistaken. We have whackos in Korea and the middle east that don't react to diplomacy and instead the people suffer. Surely you can see how well diplomacy worked for Hitler. He took over Poland and they allies were still trying to negotiate. That man lied through his teeth the entire time. You are a sweet girl in a dark and cruel world.
Next point. My girlfriend served in the Marines. Marines are crazy, they are wired for combat and they are trained to kill. They are trained to be in the hottest area before the Army goes in. Now from her opinion and she is a strong woman, she doesn't think that women should be on the front line as it is called.
Women need to train and condition the same as a male should. She knows that men are built differently than woman (Which is true by genetics and hormones) and that their are tasks that are very difficult for woman to do. Secondly, the "enemy" doesn't have the compassion or structure we do. They will rape a female POW. There are cases of rape in our own military, but we have deterrents and punishments, due to the structure and the UCMJ. The enemy doesn't care, just look at the journalist in Libya raped and killed during the "Arab Spring." Or the reporter raped in Egypt during the "Arab Spring."
This liberal administration is playing politics with the military. They keep weakening and transforming the military.
I wonder if a soldier that pisses out in public when they are on the march will be punished because there are women around? And where are these women going to piss? Will they have to take time and put up a shanty so she can piss?
The key word in all of the posts that are for this is "IF". IF a woman can do this, IF a woman can do that... Tell me, when a 200+ lb soldier carry 100 lb worth of equipment is hit in the leg, will the woman be able to pull him to safety? Most of the women in the forces can't... What are we supposed to do when it's her time of the month and she is having feminine issues? What about pregnancy on the front lines? When the navy issued women aboard one of their ships it became known as the love boat since 40% of the women got pregnant. What are the soldiers supposed to do when they haven't showered for days and find a stream and strip down for a quick dip to get the filth off them and they all start getting aroused. These people are under serious stress and sex is one of the best ways to relieve stress. Are they going to have to shave their heads like the male soldiers on the front lines in order to keep them cleaner?... Does this also mean that all women have to sign up for the draft at 18?
I'm all for equality, but the truth is that not everyone is equal and everyone wants to be equal in only certain ways and not in others. This wasn't well thought through at all.
don97524..a few questions for you ?
1. have you ever served in any branch of the military ?
2. if so what branch ?
3. if so what was your MOS/NOS/AFSC ?
4. have you ever been overseas in a war zone ?
5.what makes you think you know what it takes if you can't answer any of these questions with an affirmative and a correct understanding of question#3
6. do you have a daughter , and would you want her to experience an infantrymans war when you probably can't yourself .if you can't answer any of the aforemantioned questions with a YES ?
the experience of war is life changing.. a happy go lucky extroveredt person before the experience many times becomes a sad gloomy introvert after the experience especially in the combat arms specialties of the Army & Marines...go to a VA hospital and see it for yourself
I can't stand certain types of people , those who say what the military should and shouldn't do and yet never served , those that try to act as if they served , when they didn't ,those that think its all a game and a playground for social experimentation and then have the chutzpah to tell those of us that have been there and have done it and yet tell uswhat its like to be there and when are opinions which are counter to theirs thru experience and then tell us that were neanderthals....when they haven't served one friggen; day even themselves...who do you think would no more about going to war ?..those that have or those that are hometown chickenhawk commando liberals ? ...like you don..tell me genious..I still live my war again for the last 7 years for some reason in dreams at night once in awhile and that experience for me was 40 years ago and I wasn't infantry either , also I'm not a Republican or a Democrat...probably lean abit more lib than conservative ...actually libetarian...but don't listen to those that have been there done that we don't know more than those that haven't , right ?...Don you're just another anal orifice that doesn't know squat with a degree...guessing from your comments you seem exactly the type that pisses me off
DirtyPantiesLover banned, multiple of HotViagraGuy69, also banned. Don't register multiple accounts.
As a woman, I really hate to see women go down this road. OK to kill your unborn children, now ok to kill on the frontlines. Killing goes against everything a woman is born to do, and I am not so liberally insane as to think that there is no such thing as gender differences, there sure and heck is. There are reasons that there is masculine and feminine. I am the first one to admit, that I am very much a "tomman" like my mom and sister. I know I could kill someone in self defense, but don't think this is a good idea women on the front lines. They will need to be every bit as tough as a man, just like an officer has to be so your partners can count on you to be able to do the job.
That is your opinion ..but it is they're right to chose not yours so go back to your quilting class and enjoy the protection those women will provide when they lay down their lives for you.
Well said Carol-301690. You are correct.
Roger, thank you for backing me up on my post and thank you for your service. I was in Vietnam in 67-68, mostly I was at the DMZ, Hue, and Phu Bai. From what I am reading here, it seems like most females think that combat is "easier" today than it was then. Also from what I am reading, I guess now cambat is a lot different. I know when I was in the "bush" the temperature, humidity, and making my way through the jungle was very hard to handle. Plus the mosquitoes were very bad. And killing people isn't all it's "cracked up" to be. But like I said earlier, "if the girls want to go into combat, good luck". I hope you come home with all of your body parts intact and your brain not a mess.
Carol wrote "As a woman, I really hate to see women go down this road "
This is because women enjoy their privileged, protected status. Woman's life is worth more than a man's. I'm all for the ladies joining the killing and the killed as long as there aren't physical standards that discriminate against men. The average woman has the height, weight but less strength than the average 13 year-old boy. There are some women that are stronger, but for every such woman, there are 10,000 men that exceed her. That is why the Olympic female records are the same as those records set by the best 15 year old boys.
@Hope - your description of a venue to let people that want war to exist and let them duke it out while saving the infrastructure has existed for years, it's called a Neutron bomb. The idea being that it vaporizes water molecules thereby essentially vaporizng humans and other living beings while leaving the infrastructure intact
Carol ... guess what? You don't have to join the military. Problem solved.
@ Akita.. the problem with your argument concerning "thier right to choose" is that THIER right effects the REST OF THE UNIT. Not just themselves, combat is chaos, I want a person by my side that I know can do everything then need to do when they need to do it.
Not saying that no women should be in combat MO's, there are some that could handle it, but make the standards equal so there is NO DOUBT in every soldiers mind that she deserves to be there.
Also, being x-military and in a combat MO, these women need to be able to shower with everyone else, piss and crap next to a guy out in the field, take wet-nap baths out in the field if you ever want to feel clean, pull thier own weight.
As far as the rape goes, a woman that is tough enough to go into combat SHOULD be tough enough to kick a mans ass thats trying to rape her. Or she will be unable to defend agains the 1000's of men trying to KILL her.
Stupid is as stupid does.......
Not my daughter panetta. Hell no. You just opened the draft in the event of war to women. Over my dead body, will you take my girls.
What if they volunteer? How ya gonna stop 'em?
They are not owned by anyone. I think Panetta made that clear.
I never understood this argument, "Do you want your daughter to be injured or die in combat?" well, no-can't say that I do, but I'm not crazy about the idea of my son dying in combat, either.
Right on
George... As a mother of three sons I applaud women who are willing and even eager to have a chance to lay it on the line for their country. Women enjoy the benefits of living in a free country and they want to help protect it. If I had a daughter and she chose to fight for her country I would be very proud of her. As far as the draft goes.... doesn't sound like these women will need to be forced to fight. They are ready willing and able. I'm sure when assignments are made the military leaders will assess strengths and weaknesses. Say they need brains instead of just brawn in a particular situation they will now have a choice. I sent a husband to Viet Nam and had a sister, son and daughter-in-law in the military. Both my sister and daughter-in-law are pleased by this decision. By the way, this has nothing to do with being politically correct or with women's lib... this is about finally recognizing what has been happening for several wars and giving women the credit they deserve.
george wrote "You just opened the draft in the event of war to women. Over my dead body, will you take my girls."
Why are the lives of sons worth less than the lives of daughters?
Though, rest assured that the net result of the new policy will be fewer women near the front lines. When the physical standards are lowered to accommodate women, more men will be qualified.
My two cents worth:
Firstly, women have been serving on the "front lines" in special roles, mostly communications and coordination. The fact that they have a different role doesn't seem to have mitigated the opportunities for the enemies to attack them very much. In other words, they're already on the "front lines" (how do you have front lines in a guerilla war?), they're just not getting combat status or pay.
Secondly, I think go for it. They quoted that woman saying that you should have one standard for the training for a role, and if the woman passes, she passes. That sounds great to me. Fewer women will probably pass the strength tests than men, but they may make up for it elsewhere, or there are still other roles to fill.
Thirdly, if the women want to go fight for our country, why not let them? We say that men should be allowed to go fight, why not the women? Do they not have just as much to lose if we lose? Do they not have children and loved ones that need protection from our enemies? What reason would they have to stay back while all the men go off and die, if the men lose because there weren't enough and we lose the war? Does a woman's sacrifice on the battlefield mean more or less than a man's? Will his children just shrug it off, while hers will be scarred for life?
I know, we need to do more to uncover the cover-ups of rape in our military. We need to make the environment a little more professional and a little less sexist. But our military people are professionals. They can handle that, there is training, and they are good at training, if we have competent and interested commanders looking over their shoulders. But, there is nothing inherently "manly" about war. It's death and destruction on a large scale. It's not a place really anyone should be. But if we have to send men there and women want to go to, let them. They can help, whether fighting on the front lines or in support somewhere else, just like the men.
Put 70 pounds on your back, go sleep in a hole in the ground, and also at the jobs at the MEPS station, your told that all the jobs are gone and only 11b, 19d cavalry scouts jobs are open. So you suck it up and do the job, because you have no other place to go, is 80% of the combat soldier. Then they learn and want to believe in the country, and all honor goes to the infantry soldier, because he dies. Many female soldiers honor, respect, and bow their heads to the infantry around them as they are attacked on supply runs......I ask were you there? Or you a civilian or a soldier that was state side? You certainly do not talk like a real female soldier I meet in person, in a combat zone? AS far as the test go young lady, the woman do have lower standards and do fill in important roles to support the front line. All support roles, HONOR THE INFANTRY. If one woman has muscles of a man and wishes to go then so be it. she pass the same tests, do the same run, falls down on a road march with tears coming out of her eye, as a Sergeant is barking at her, and treats her like a soldier and not a female that is weaker..out of respect for her as a soldier, then sure she can go to the front line. Also, it is not the responsibility of commanders to stop sex, rape, and all the things that happen, they are enlisted to fight a war, and do a mission. As far as professionalism in combat, and the education to keep such primeval thoughts in check, you really think it is the responsibility of the captain? They put out power point, and point out it is against regulations,. that is about all they can do. If it is the men can not handle woman being in combat next to them, what you wish to do? get rid of the infantry? The liberals are invading the military like never before young lady. This whole agenda for votes for liberalism does nothing but destroy the United States from within to cause serious problems int the ranks, as I was there and witnessed this. Woman get combat pay?? what is the deal to go jump in the mud all about really? Votes? power to the liberal party? what does this have to do to the defense of this country that is daily being hated by all international nations? Please Civilians stay out of the military please, for the sake of the country thank you.
Jerome -
Firstly, don't address me as woman, girl, or female. You may address me as man, or sir.
Secondly, no, I'm not a soldier, current of former. I'm a civilian.
Thirdly, last I checked, the military in this nation is answerable to the populace, not the other way around. And, the political winds are blowing in favor of keeping a tighter rein on the military, especially as we wind down two wars.
Fourthly, the officers are not only there to complete a mission, they're also there to look out for the well-being of those under their command. This includes everything from ensuring they get their supplies on time to making sure any who fall sick or injured are treated to, yes, educating their soldiers as to what is or is not appropriate, not just in the war theater to avoid war crimes, but also on base at home. That's why we have a command structure. I'm not saying they need a personal relationship with each and every person under their command; but they should be keeping an eye out for trouble, and definitely not creating more trouble by covering up incidents that need to be prosecuted in court.
Finally, as far as the structure goes, I'd like to see a sex-segregated force available. Women, as so many have pointed out, do not generally have the strength of men. I think it would be good if we got some women who did have that strength, but truth to tell, not all of it is needed all the time. There could be roles for less-strong women on the front lines, where they don't have to carry absolutely everything a typical grunt does, or there could not be. But, if in their own groups, then they don't have to worry about carrying a wounded man that weighs twice as much as they do back behind cover. They don't necessarily have to carry everything that an all-man platoon would. They could have their own standards, hell, even train differently.
All I know is, we're saying that they're just not up to the task of defending their country, when they're chomping at the bit for a fight. If we don't allow them to fight for their own freedom, what will it mean about us?
In your subsequent post #4.9, you further note that you have never served in the military. In light of that additional disclosure, I'd like to point out that not only have you never served, you also seem to know nothing ABOUT the military--as indicated by the statements I've pasted above. Combat pay is determined by the area where you are located, not by what your individual specialty is, so let's dispense with the false argument that "women aren't getting paid" for combat.
As to your other specious argument, there is a world of difference between having to defend oneself in event of an enemy attack that occurs while you are performing a non-combat function and having your full-time mission being "to seek out, close with, and destroy the enemy, by fire and maneuver" (the mission of an infantryman).
If you would like to discuss a topic, and have your opinion be of any value to the discussion, then it helps if you have at least some understanding and knowledge of the subject matter. You lack any personal experience, and your comments indicate that you have no knowledge or understanding of the military or life in the military.
I suggest you go do some reading and talk to some veterans if you'd like to get a clue, and stop taking your talking points from the leftist media that pushes its agenda without regard to the implications or consequences.
I also suggest that you read post #1.84, I think that you'll find it illuminating.
Yup, now women can die a mans death. Are you liberals getting what you want now? How those equal rights feeling? Now women are going die in combat...you bunch of butt wipes.
I didn't know the ways of death were gender specific. People die in combat why should the guys have to be the only ones.
Besides, war should always be a last resort. Maybe now some of you folks won't be so quick to go and smite the enemy.
Next the liberals will want to see toddlers be able to go into combat.
That was just stupid.
They have to make it out of the womb first. RVW
Actually many of our enemies used toddlers in combat. Some of them won with kids fighting on their side.
Women are already dying in combat; over 140 female soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. they were volunteers. They were doing their jobs, protecting America; I honor them, as I do all the male soldiers that have died. What is your point?
I hate to say it....but the world is over populated and less women means less rug rats being born! Maybe less liberals? Hmmm...now that's a thought!! ;)
LJ, if you have a daughter, than put her on the front lines big guy or shut up!
that number of 140 can now jump to 4000. You think America is ready to see that? Liberals aren't just satisfied killing the unborn anymore, now they are taking it one step farther...
So, you don't want women to be in combat at all, even as volunteers, but you want LJ's daughter on the front lines whether she chooses or not? Make up your mind.
They already are, but the Marines call them "Sailors"
again..... when I see a woman playing pro football, or even making the draft, I will concede they are fit for combat.
They are not. Lets use common sense here people... football you have 4 downs.....combat you get 1 chance.
if a woman volunteers and makes the cut fine....but to draft them is not a good idea what so ever...as a vet and a father of 2 daughters , I don't want them in the military unless they choose to volunteer , NOT DRAFTED , I will not stop them from VOLUNTEERING , but I will tell them of my experiences and would advise them not too or if they are set on it to stay away from the Army & Marines..the Coast Guard , USAF or Navy in that order would be my recomendation with a job guarantee...they would get better training that is more useful later in life from those 3 branches than the other 2.....alot of these idiots who think war is like a computer game , don't know didley squat or understand the sadness that remains with you and never leaves the rest of your life after experiencing war in any compacity...I still have dreams of being there and when I do , I feel sad the rest of the day sometimes...I wasn't a grunt or boonierat but I was USAF in Thailand during "Nam" and it was alot of hard work , long hours and sweat...and when a plane didn't return from a mission , a sadness would decsend over the flightline . especially for that crew chief...we may have been thee enlisted making sure the aircraft were good to go....but we all knew the officer air crew that took are machines we were responsible for into harms way since we would help get them strapped in and were usually the last face to face human contact at the base for some of them , so it effected everyone when they failed to return....even later on during peace time after training accidents the same vibe would come over the line....war is not a game for social engineering by a bunch of overly educated political morons who HAVEN'T BEEN THERE are not going to do the actual sacrificing themselves nor are their daughters or sons...just to get a vote from some feminist butch bitches or weak dick chickenhawks...WAR SUCKS MAN a complete waste of treasure and LIVES !!! ,been there and done that..not like many who comment in favor of such a thing who have fought only "Call to Glory" games and watch the military channel on TV or read it in a book.....and since Korea all the wars the USA has gotten into were for rather dubious politicial reasons and the military industrial complex profit margins...not one has been really justifiable in my eyes , especially the one I'm a vet of
Totally agree with you Boris. I think we are collectively, completely going insane!! The ramifications re if captured are horrific!! Then the psychological damage resulting from this horror on the rest of the troops in the field unfathomable. Can one imagine the fall out. We have not seen post traumatic syndrome yet, the scale which would result from putting female troops purposely on the front lines for combat!! Women are designed differently than men. Sorry!! Forced pregnancies by the enemy are just one of many horrors that are ready to befall capture!! Nuts!! We are really going nuts!! It's one thing if we are here, defending our homeland and we need to fight, quite another to purposely place females in, let's say, Lybia etc.....
I think you're an idiot. Capture is just as likely for a field engineer or medic as a frontline soldier, more actually. Your concerns are pointless.
Alright Kittstar, I have no idea what your problem is...but if you're going to call someone an idiot for simply stating their opinion, you should fix your grammar first.
...and a double idiot for Kitt :)
Are you old enough to vote?
As many of these posts show there, is an incredible lack of looking at the real world (maturity) by Kitt and the left. I would love it IF there were NO significant differences between men and women on the front lines...look in the mirror Kitt...you have mammaries! We're different...hallelujah! If you think that's the only difference then again I question yours, and most of the lefts, emotional age. The diversion away from sex is hilarious by the left. "Turn it off guys."...really? You really believe it's that simple for men and women to turn off the natural tendencies that God, yoda or the tree fairies instilled in us? You really think that a man is going to treat a woman the same as he treats a man in the field? And yes I've been in the field...with woman (training exercises)...and the "allowances" are numerous to ensure the lefties don't sue for all of the opposing reasons they want the woman in the field or trenches for, e.g. they are supposed to be treated the same...but don't expect the same 'cause they're woman (it ain't fair you see!).
The liberal party, that does this for votes, and personal agenda is what is destroying America, many woman now in the army would not even wish to be infantry, many men go that job because the other jobs were gone. If this is for real, the PT test would need to be changed to be considered, Honorable to all soldiers, as it is a woman at 20 years old has to run 2 miles, at 21 min. A man at 20 has to run it at 14 mins. Also there are times a soldier will collapse with the weight a infantry demands of the soldier must put on the back. It is very labor intensive job. Many professional real female soldiers bow their heads to the infantry soldier with great Honor. As the logistical people were being attacked when I was in Iraq, the grunt would then show up on our left and right to protect us, to keep down the deaths of our mission to protect the supply routes. Again the liberalism of this country is destroying this country, causing hate, The Russians, put in jail anyone that thinks close to this type of thinking, North Korea announced to target the great enemy The United States, by openly making a nuke for us. United States is now becoming a Island with now friends, as to be so bold to say we not need anyone else in the world. Islam, use the Liberalism as a hate fuel towards the United States to point the finger at the immoral reasoning of our country, how are we to defend now as the military is melting away, becoming weak, as the old adversary of long ago are coming back at us to call us on our bluffs. We are no longer taken seriously to the international community, we look as clowns to all the nations...read international news not Msnbc and all these news agency that only goal is to make money.
Unfortunately, it is the female P.O.W., not the female combatant, that will end up making the front page news. The atrocities that "will" be perpetrated against these brave, heroic women, will shock the country like we have never seen.
While I, an Air Force veteran, agree to women serving in combat positions, women on the front lines is a HUGE Pandora's Box.
While I would never stand in their way, I would discourage my own daughters from seeking a front-line combat position. It has nothing to do with "equality" as much as it has to do with the animalistic nature of the enemy's men. I just shudder at the thought of what could happen. What will happen.
God bless our men and women serving this great country!
You would be crazy to send your daughter to combat...The military is dangerous enough with all the garbage going on. These morons have no idea what they did. The feminist, I think they need to be up against the wall first in war. Be brave young kitty, their is a male rapi st waiting for you.
We're crazy to send any of our kids to war, but we do it. And it's all volunteer now.
do you remember how the taliban openly killed jeff pearlman, the journalist? i bet these animals will capture female POWs and tell them that their culture likes rape and being molested. it will be far worse than a bullet to the head. let the feminists have their cake.
As long as no standards are lowered in training and women pass the training I see no big problems on the female side. On the male side there could be big problems with them doing something stupid while trying to protect the female(s), during battle or while captured.
Is the American public ready to accept women coming home in bodybags just so the women can wear stars on their shoulders.
Women are already coming home in body bags; over 140 female soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. So I'd say the American public is OK with it.
People are so delusional. The chance of a field medic or engineer being captured is a lot higher than a frontline soldier. Females are more tolerant to pain and torture, and it's generally stated that women learn firearms and become better shots faster than men. There's no reason women shouldn't be able to fight as long as physical standards are equal, that's the ONLY aspect women would need to work harder at than men.
I don't think I saw it televised on CNN or MSNBC.
No problem is, All or Nothing! Meaning that All females of a given MOS can and will be assigned to line unit positions with no exceptions. Either all members of the MOS can be assigned or no positions in that MOS can be open to unisex! No choice in the assignments, just like males. And good luck with the sanitation and hygiene needs being met while on the move.
Kittstar-2720691, please stop it. Ask a real Combat Infantryman from World War II, Korea or Vietnam what they think of this idea of women in the Infantry. I promise you, it would be 100% opposed. If future wars are like those wars, women going into the Infantry will wish they had never been born. I was an Infantryman in Vietnam and I am begging Secretary Panetta to forget this awful idea. Yes women can be brave and shoot straight. It means NOTHING. The primary quality of an Infantryman is the ability to endure fatigue and hardship.
ron
Be realistic. Sexually active heterosexual women are more familiar with being physically penetrated than heterosexual men.
@DRK...twice you have brought up the 140 women deaths in this story. I find all military deaths are painful but that is nothing compared to the over 6000 men who have died..... Not counting the 1.3 million men who have died in Americas previous wars!! So just stfu with your bullsh*t!!
Kittstar, you need to have your brain checked out. I can't believe some of the things you have said. Have you ever gone long periods of time without food, sleep, soap and clean water? Have you ever smelled of @!$%# for days on end? And from I've heard in my life, that time of the month for females can be very painful. If your squad is on the move, you can't stop for cramps. You can't stop to take some Motrin. There are many times when you have to pee your pants. If you females are up to all of that, fine, do your thing. I will tell you this though, it isn't easy. It also isn't easy being scared every single day. It aalso sucks to wear the same clothes for a couple of weeks at a time. Combat ain't the movies. And like Roger said, "you can train all you want to for combat, when you actually get to the combat part, it's alot harder than you could have ever imagined".
@kittstar-2720691
nobody is questioning the pain tolerance of women. but the fact is standards are different for men and women. In addition, there are women who have fought who will verify that women's bodies do not stand the grind of prolonged combat as men do. it is physically proven that the ligaments and muscles of men are stronger than that of women. of course there is always exceptions to the rule and if women can do the same requirements and tests as men than thats great, but they havnt yet. Also to the physical difference point. why do we have different leagues for men and women in sports? i mean why not have women play in mens leagues?
Excuse me uthoops11.... ever been through 24 hours or so of labor to have baby? Don't tell me about endurance! Outside the maternity ward, I'm not the fastest kid on the block but I can go forever and I've left big strong men behind when it comes to endurance. Keep in mind also that we don't fight wars like Korea and Viet Nam anymore. What you guys went through was hell but it also doesn't apply to modern warfare. Woman have skills and strengths that men don't and vice versa and they can compliment each other. Also, male soldiers have a couple of years to get used to it so they can stop with the "I might have to protect her" stuff. She can protect herself or she shouldn't be there. Get over it. She will not be your mother. She will not be your sister or wife. She will be a soldier just like you.
@ kittstarr:
Clinical studies by the journal of Psychosomatic Medicine found that "men had higher pain thresholds and tolerances and lower pain ratings than women" when exposed to cold pressor pain.
DRK-1183578 their are things worse than being a KIA in war at least the suffering would be over...ask anyone who spent time at the Hanoi Hilton , Moosburg or a Japanese POW camp and survived , if they even want to talk about their living nightmare since remembering such trauma may cause them to relive it in their sleep
Only crazies would want to go to war. Either sex.
Panetta is smart and the roman, napolean and every other empire has been wrong these last few thousand years.
You might want to look up who commanded the only army ever to capture a Roman Emperor. And who commanded the army that burnt London to the ground in the first century.
Commanding an army and killing someone in hand to hand combat are slightly different things.
If we women want equality, most of us do, then we need to share the same burden as the guys.
If the women can cut the mustard within the same standard as the guys then I'm all for it. All of this butt hurt about the possibility of rape if captured, if you think guys are immune to that, guess again.
Very foolish. Women are physically weaker than men - on average. Yes, there are few that are stronger but if you think they can haul a 190 pound guy out of a combat zone...... I don't want a 110 lb gal doing it. I am 230 and I barely could get a 200 lb person moved. It doesn't work. If they want to press the button that sends a tomahawk, I don't mind that.
like I said jolly, if she can cut the mustard for whatever job requirements the job call for then by all means have at it.
You won't find too many women who can, but the ones who can, deserve the right to perform.
Sometimes the front line guys go without changing their clothes for weeks. That will be fun for those girls who get their periods and can't change. The flies will love them.
Yep, I remember that. When I was in the jungle in Vietnam, I would go long periods of time not brushing my teeth and washing my body. My breath stunk, my hair stunk, and my body stunk. I had all kinds of skin problems and lost a ton of weight. My jungle fatigues reeked of human and animal waste, were caked in mud and dried blood, and who knows what else. Combat isn't like it is in some hollywood movies. Good luck girls and have fun.
People are so delusional. The chance of a field medic or engineer being captured is a lot higher than a frontline soldier. Females are more tolerant to pain and torture, and it's generally stated that women learn firearms and become better shots faster than men. There's no reason women shouldn't be able to fight as long as physical standards are equal, that's the ONLY aspect women would need to work harder at than men.
Equality is all members being assigned fairly regardless of gender. All or nothing. If you hold an MOS and a position is open you go fill it even if you do not want to.
LJ 51. I have a question for you. If women want equality why not have equality and fight for equality for everything. why did women fight for a WNBA and a LPGA. Why didn't the womenf ight for equality with the men and compete equally with the men if we are in fact equal for a spot on a NBA team. why do we have male and female events at the olympics. i am for equality fair across the board if it is fair. It seems to me women who always complain about equality are the first ones to complain because they can't get into a job because they can't physically compete with men equally. I wonder if america made everything equal and did away with those seperate events at the olympics and did away with the wnba and lpga etcc. I wonder how many would complain that they could not find work and no endorsements. then we would hear nothing but women complaining it isn't fair. funny thing is the marines have opened up combat officer training for a year now and no woman has passed yet. sure some will but not on the same percentage that men pass so there is a difference.
Kittstar, you are one IGNORANT American! Get a clue!
as proud as i am of the women that i ran across in my years in the marines i have several points to make 1. while the myth of shooting better on a rifle range was true in the 90s things have changed new shooting skills have been instituted that require snap shots and judgements hesitation is becoming a problem on the range while its only a score your getting there out in combat you just got half your company killed 2. morale issue i have seen this first hand losing a male marine brings the morale down among the company we lost a attached female marine it made a noticeable and troubling situation that was hard to snap them out of and these guys where battle hardened 3.when we where in Afghanistan in 2002 our average marines gear weighed 95lbs wasn't easy for a 200lb male i don't see it being possible for a woman that weighs 130lbs 4.we had constant fighting hand to hand combat wasn't unusual i don't know what people think that all our enemy's are small dwarfs or something i add one last thing if you change military policy for sake of votes one day you find out that all you have left in the military is unqualified people having driven out all the real war fighters
If females are going to be in infantry and other combat arms units, the PT standards will have to be the same.= as for men. Women may claim they want equal rights, well now let them have equal loads. I dont think many females in any branch can hump those 140 to 200 pounds rucks 20 miles. This is not crawl in the a hole and fight. This is carry your own @!$%# and fight, stay out in the bush for 30 days maybe longer. Oh wait the ladies will need to flown back for showers, there is a reason we wash from a canteen cup and call it a whores bath!! We were out for 90 days at a time. and everything we needed went with us. Food water ammo were dropped in.
some idiot is dreaming if there is any woman going to be able to put up with that.
After blowing out both knees I went Armor, Still there is not any woman that can work all day and put track on a tank. Let alone torque all the wedge bolts to 275 ft lbs torque. Cannon lift cylinder is a one man lift at over 300 lbs. roadwheels, hey let them be part of the upload of an M1 A2 44 round at 85lbs.
4 seconds to pull a round from the rack and load it.
Yea some woman have seen some combat, but not for the extended periods!!
I wouldn't want a woman going out on a patrol with me. Girls aren't tough enough.
Really? And who hits the wall first on a long distance run?
And who bleeds uncontrollably once a month for a week? A wounded soldier? No. A woman!
And which gender has better vision, fine motor control, and maximum tolerance for pain?
Death doesn't care what gender you got or what gender killed you.
I wouldn't want a woman going out on a patrol with me. Girls aren't tough enough.
Funny, I bet "the girls" say the same about you.
People are so delusional. The chance of a field medic or engineer being captured is a lot higher than a frontline soldier. Females are more tolerant to pain and torture, and it's generally stated that women learn firearms and become better shots faster than men. There's no reason women shouldn't be able to fight as long as physical standards are equal, that's the ONLY aspect women would need to work harder at than men and even that standard can be met.
who hits the wall faster on long distance runs. I don't know lets compare olympic times for the marathon mens and womens. Oh men had faster times so to answer that question women hit the wall faster than men in long distance runs. what is the fastest time for the 100 meters oh a man holds that right.
kittstar are you serious combat medica have a higher chance of being captured. so that is why they are first in the loop for SERE -C at bragg right. ahh no. never seen medics go out by themselves excpet for PJ's who are men. seen combat medics assigned to infantry units but they are not walking point and they are not running to assault the objective but instead witht he command and control element to aid and assist in the treatment of the wounded in the event there is wounded. get your facts straight.
Kittstar, I just have to complement you on your cut and paste skills. Surely posting the same thing a few more times will get your point across.
Kittstar and hamjam: I notice you are more than happy to point out differences in men and women, but only if it proves the women to be superior. But you blithely ignore the most obvious difference (well, besides penises and stuff...), men are generally significantly stronger then women.
Jake, in the interest of EQUALITY we need to eliminate the segregation of the Olymics. Men and women should compete in the same events against each other.
I'd suggest that would be the women, based on the physical fitness requirements of the military, actually. Until recently, women in the USMC had to run only 1.5 miles, while men had to run 3 miles. Now the women have to run 3 miles too, but they are given more time than the men to do it.
Of course, if the physical requirements were actually based on the demands of the job, there should not be ANY difference based on sex. The standards have been "gender normed" because the military recognized that there are physiological differences between men and women, and that not enough women were likely to meet the higher standards. I've always been against having different standards, because combat does not discriminate. Either you are able to meet the physical demands, or you shouldn't be there.
See post #1.84
YEEHAW! Now when I'sa raggin' I kin go out and git me arse shot up just liken them 19 year old boys do. Where'd I put my tampon?
Buncha sexist little piggies on this vine. What's the matter, does your manhood feel threatened?
No, I just want to see you physically abused by 10 guys in a camp who are horny to shut your pie hole. Its war you know so its just part of the experience.
I'm sure the would-be female soldiers are clear on that. It will be their choice not yours.
War is Hell.
You do realize that this will not be the first time women have been in front line combat, right?
I agree with LJ. The amount of sexism here is startling.
Only difference really now is that the women will be eligible for star rank and someday joint cheif of staff.
Women are already flag officers with stars.
if there is one set standard I am for it. But to have different standards and claim we are different is bs. either make it equal or don;t mess with it. people get so excited over the dumbest of things of they are giving me this but what are they really giving you. if i was a woman and i wanted stuff to be equal i would fight for equality on all aspects of life. i would be fighting to play in the nba and not settle for the wnba.
No darling, it's not about feelings, it's about surviving and winning.. And I only want the best with me. I can't carry you and concentrate on killing them at the same time. This is not a femminist experiment this is War and if you don't send your best you will lose. The enemy will never surrender to a Woman and neither would I.. USNavy SF 6'2" 235lbs
Are all the leftist wackos on here completely ignorant of the military and military life? Wait, the question answers itself...
Somehow, it seems to have escaped your attention that we already HAVE women flag officers ("star rank" as you put it), and that this isn't a recent development. Women make up a fraction of the military, so yes, there are a lot fewer of them that make it to the top ranks--whether officer or enlisted--when compared to men. But opening "combat roles" to women is NOT a requirement for women to be eligible for the highest ranks, as you claimed.
See post #1.84
Be careful what you wish for, girls...
War is no longer a man's job only.
I cringe when I see our young men come back in pieces. It breaks my heart, so I can understand your angst.
Please try to understand, that the frail sex, ain't really that frail.
Thank you. There is an old joke, but I think it fits that if the woman had the first baby, and the man had the second, there wouldn't be any more. Women are a lot tougher than many of you folk think. True, they don't have the upper body strength, but they have strength and endurance. And they have courage!
I was in the Army in the early eighties women where still new to Military companies ..They did all the PT training with us they did all 30 mile road marches all the military drills the firing range and hand grenades etc etc I was there with them ..a few had to bow out because they couldn't cut it but then so did a lot of the men(boys) more so in most cases. Yes the ones who rode it out where true athletes they hanged with the big dawgs and a lot of them graduated with honors. I have been impressed every sense those glory days with the abilities of the opposite sex..There are many nay Sayers and that's to be expected but the women who complain and wine and cry about their same sexes being on the battlefield I say to you don't go no one is making you but the few and proud special ones who can cut it should have the right to go and now they do. I applaud them and I say phooey to you...you are just to girly for the job and don't understand nor should you worry your poor little head off about it. So go have some tea and crumpets and forget about it.
Unbelievable to read some of these commets, bad enough boys hurt and killed, worse when it's our daughters. Next thing you'll want is queer marriage. And today some 'butchers' now celebrate the abortion right of one's unborn child. How sad, what could possibly be the next depraved view. There are only 2 answers, Jesus, or Total Global Thermonuclear War. Choose one.
People are so sexist. The chance of a field medic or engineer being captured is a lot higher than a frontline soldier. Females are more tolerant to pain and torture, and it's generally stated that women learn firearms and become better shots faster than men. There's no reason women shouldn't be able to fight as long as physical standards are equal, that's the ONLY aspect women would need to work harder at than men and even that standard can be met.
kitts star you are an idiot. field medic and an engineer really. do you want me to give you the percentage of MOS's to be captured I can and neither of those are in the top of the list. field medic you mean combat medic right. who is with an infantry unit. even SF team has a medic and he does not go out alone. so what makes that one person more likely to be captured.
I think our society takes war for granted and are now numb to the devastation it causes because we expect guys to sacrifice their bodies.
Well now, this is a wake up call. When the women join their brothers on that sad flight home, maybe it will become clear that war isn't played from the couch by watching it on CNN.
nope maybe the statistics will say 5,000 dead female soldiers and only 182 dead male soldiers. I say let the women fight make everything fair. one standard for all. one event at the olympics, one basketball league, one golf league. one everything and may the best person win and have employment. say let women in the infantry and the men can do the support jobs and lets switch roles for a little while everyone needs a break
If a woman can handle combat fine,some men can't,pussies like Rush,Cheney,.Romney and LaPierre were to cowardly to ever fight in combat. So if a woman is capable there should be problem.
I think some folks assume that women are incapable of being a ruthless enemy.
History says differently.
Clinton, oh, he gets a pass, he's a Democrat.
Don'y forget Reid, feinstein or Pelosi
Which branch of military did Obama, a Democrat, serve in before becoming president.? Oh, I forgot, he was a Navy Seal & killed Bin Laden.
Right on Zheng He, our leaders have lost their F&$#ING way a long long time ago. Panetta is compounding the problem. Oh yeah, then he pops smoke next month and he's out! We had to listen to him last year declare the month of June military gay pride month! Hey Leon, is it okay if we make July heterosexual pride month or is that too strange for you?
Obuma has no military experience. On the Bin Laden thing, the only thing he did was say okay, kill him. He had many highly qualified military people telling him what to do. Why everyone gives credit to Obuma for Bin Laden is beyond my thinking.
Pizza; People with brains do not give him credit..... Only libs do.
Thank you.
Ridiculous idea. Really ridiculous. But once again, let's pretend boys are girls and girls are boys, so we can all get warm fuzzies about being "inclusive" and blah blah blah-- until some really heinous things happen. And then, many of us will be saying "what the hell were you thinking, anyway?", while the "everybody is entitled to equal opportunities" crowd will still be arguing philosophical niceties that have no place in the realm of RPG's, capture and torture, and high-stakes wartime extortion. Political correctness run absolutely amok.
Mike, since you seem to be one of the boys, have you served our country in our Military?
People are so sexist. The chance of a field medic or engineer being captured is a lot higher than a frontline soldier. Females are more tolerant to pain and torture, and it's generally stated that women learn firearms and become better shots faster than men. There's no reason women shouldn't be able to fight as long as physical standards are equal, that's the ONLY aspect women would need to work harder at than men and even that standard can be met.
P.s. Mike you're an idiot, not sure why I felt the need to point that out.
Chill, you don't have to spaz about it. Part of engaging the enemy in combat is keeping a level head. We all hope you're not next to us at that time.
Kitt; Many people have pointed out your ignorance when it comes to the military so I guess I will also. The chances of a medic or engineer being captured is so low that it is null and void. Every war there are plenty of infantrymen captured or killed and maybe one or two engineers or medics. Pull your head out of your but and do some research before showing you are a complete moron.
As far as women getting combat pay for being in a combat zone I am all for it and totally agree with it. Many of women are currently in combat zones but do not get special pay for being there. Having women becoming actual front line troops like infantrymen, PJ's, ETAC's, Seals, Ranger or Berets of any sort I totally disagree with though. I am sorry but the requirements for those positions would have to be lowered for any of them to make it. Heck only 1 in 75 men are able to make it!!!!!!
I know that the women do not have to meet the same requirements to be in the military because I actually served and I saw first hand the differences so if they want to be equal lets make it equal. Sit them down in the chair and shave their heads, do not allow them to wear make up or jewelry, exact same time limits and requirements for PT, when in the field they suffer just like men, carry their own weight in backpacks just like the men and if they do not then boot them out, period. If they make it, more power to them.
I am just not sure how it is going to play out the first time a women is paraded in front of the camera and tortured.
I know that we took chances to go after a couple of women that got caught behind enemy lines in Iraq and put a bunch of guys at risk to go get them, not sure the same thing would have been done for me or another guy though in that same situation. I am not saying that we have not risked many of lives to rescue one or two guys but the time in Iraq was a mission of a total different demon for one little girl and I will never forget the look on her face when we walked in the room....
I have seen many of men that we went into rescue but never one as terrified as Jessica was, Sorry but it is just the truth. Unfortunately the other girl did not make it and do any of you remember how that went down in our nation.....
I am quite sure that if the number of casualties was 2000 women in Iraq and 3000 in Afghanistan people would sure be thinking differently right now. If large numbers of women start being killed I can already hear the screaming from the left and the feminist groups. They all think they should get equal rights but not have to take the same risks or pay the same price for it.
Remember the NAACP and AL complaining that 25% of the troops being sent to the first Gulf War were black... They said it was not fair and how the white man was sending in the blacks to be killed. They left out that the military is roughly 28% black though. Now imagine all the yelling from the left and feminists if this happens to women......
I am a combat veteran and my son is a Green Beret. I have no problem with women getting the equal opportunity to kill and die for their country. I agree Mike, some pretty heinous things happen. My fear is that when it does happen to a female combatant, some Squad leader is going to get sued because he didn't protect someone's daughter. Equality is fine even in combat as long as everything is equal. My son rides a bicycle 25 miles each way to and from work and spends 4 days a week in the gym between missions. As long as you are willing to support the rest of the people in your team/squad, go for it.
You call Kittstar ignorant (and correctly so, because she's clueless), but then you go on to claim women aren't being paid for being in combat zones?? Really?
Combat pay is determined by whether you are serving in a designated combat zone, not by your sex or MOS. If you're prior service, then you should know that.
Patience, Hell man, woman have waited long enough. Now they want to kill something. Taliban is lucky we're leaving when we are!
I bet you there are plenty of women just itchin to lay waste to those effers.
I would love to get my hands on the POS that shot Malala. Who in the hell shoots a 12 year old for reading? Asswipes. Let the capable females at them.
How you gonna keep'em barefoot and pregnant when they find out how much fun it is to blow sht up?
David I agree. I would love to arm that lady that had her nose and ears cut off by the Taliban. I bet she'd like a little payback. I mean they bury both men and women past their waist and then throw stones at them until they are dead. Arm the locals and let them be the boots on the ground and fight for their own freedom. Obama should've gotten out of Afghanistan early in his first term. We can't leave soon enough as far as I'm concerned. So I guess we don't totally agree. But I wouldn't underestimate any woman.
As an old 11B Infantry, I wonder what is going to happen, when the squad leader tells his squad to advance by fire, and its that time of the month ? in order to save lives and win battles you can not stop for any reason the male soldiers do not. keep them out of Infantry, Tanks, Bradleys, anything that involes direct or indirect fire. Or the suicide rate will go up. Good Luck.
Women are actually more powerful in body and soul during that cycle. I have always worked out and played hard, right through my period. The better shape you're in the easier the period (no cramps, light flow).
Trust me on this, no fit military female soldier is going to stop just because of a little ole period.
Thanks for your service Sir.
I wouldn't want to face a woman who is already at the top of her pissed off mood. Trust me, the enemy won't even see it coming.
THE BIG LIE: The better shape you're in the easier the period (no cramps, light flow).
My perfectly fit daughter has massive cramps at 21.
Not sure if you idiots are aware of this but men go through hormonal imbalances too, it's just more obvious for women. :)
Damn a different post from ittstar, was beginning to think that was the extent of your abilities.
Having served 2 tours in the military, 10 years apart, I can honestly say that the female body makes adjustments for stress. I went through basic training, not once, but twice. A monthly cycle was never an issue while in training. That part of the female body often shuts down. If a woman is under a great deal of stress or experiencing a situation that would make a pregnancy dangerous, a woman's body may stop producing eggs. No eggs means no reason for the monthly cycle. In addition, I'd like to say that I have experienced training both segregated and co-ed units. The training I received in a woman only unit was much more difficult than the training I received in the co-ed unit.
So what are you trying to tell is Kittstar, that you would be able to carry a 260lb hunk to safety, if he is wounded. Women have not been created physically the same as men and that is dinkum. There are brave women, nobody can deny that, but you will become liabilties in the field, although fighting and killing the enemy may satisfy your lust for killing and save the unborn, that you so easily kill nowadays
Kittstar only acknowledges differences between the sexes if they show women to be superior. And to the high pain threshold thing; I've seen men injured, and I've seen women injured. If the volume of the crying is any indication, women's pain thresholds are not all they are cracked up to be.
She completely oversimplifies the pain tolerance difference, the area in the brain that detects pain signals is larger in men in order to keep them from breaking their own bones when working/hunting/fighting, it was an evolutionary benefit to know when to stop to avoid injury, since women don't have the muscle mass (thus the strength required) and they have the added burden of pregnancy, it benefited them to evolve a smaller pain detecting brain region, meaning they 'feel' a similar injury much less severely, if we're really talking about tolerance women's is higher, but if we're talking about the ability to deal with pain, that trait clearly goes to men-we feel it to a greater extent and must push through it anyway. There are several key differences between male and female brains, the most significant is the size difference, Kittstar's brain is obviously a pretty small one, even for a lady.
Actually, when i was on deployment, the amount of physical activity cut my period off all together. but then, i guess thats because i was already a female in combat role. I rode out of the gate everymorning behind an M2 machine gun, and ran missions with a company seperate than my own because femalse were needed in civil affairs missions.
I then came back in the evening, not long enough to shower, or grab a meal from the dfac, to hop in another truck behind a 249, to go on convoy security missions. It took a lot of hard work and effort on my part during training, but the males in my unit, (12B combat engineers) actually wanted me to go on missions with them because they respected me, trusted my judgement, saw I could hang with them, and new I was a good fast shot behind the gun when @!$%# got heavy.
I do agree that most females are not cut out for that, but then again, so are most males. Women in these roles should be the exception, not the norm, but it should be allowed and recognized.
I couldn't help but notice how you said that your "combat role" consisted of riding shotgun in trucks, manning an M-2 or an M-249 (not sure why you'd have mounted an M-249 instead of the M-240, which would have been the typical mounted machine gun, but whatever). While you may have seen combat, that isn't actually a "combat role," that's a security role--holding down and defending areas/positions that have already been taken by the people who DO hold the combat roles.
That duty is not even close to being the same as infantry who are humping it by foot up and down the mountains and valleys with full combat loads, sleeping in the bush and staying out for long periods of time, searching for and engaging the enemy. That's the kind of "combat roles" they're talking about opening to women.
I appreciate and thank you for your service, but please let's dispense with the BS notion that your experience is in any way comparable to that of a grunt. See post #1.84.
Females will be allowed to work at the battalion level in the Infantry. Wow and i really thought they were going to do somthing good with this. That is the samthing as saying women are just as good as males at answering phones and typing on the computer. Smoke and mirrors, this stuff is already happening all over the Army
These women (As being one of them/recalled to the USMC back in feb. 2003) want the recognition of combat. Being right there in the thick of it and then be told that you weren't is crap. It serves no purpose to have a "front line" when there is no longer a "front line" and then tell someone...anyone male or female...that they weren't there or not give them the same medals or credentials as the man standing 10 feet away and doing the exact same thing.
Indeed. I understand women were already working in harms way and not getting the pay and promotions for it.
veterans are not respected in society. honor? lmao. better to be a CEO or a wealthy socialite as a woman. not this joke of a thing.
Some gals are into it. If they can do it, why not? Besides decorated veterans look good on director boards.
Wow, you have some serious mental problems. Medals won't get you a cup of coffee in civilian life. I know, I have more than I can count, but I also don't have any legs on me to count anymore. All this free of charge from Vietnam.
Sorry about that, Pizza&Wings. If there is a table of soldiers in a restaurant I am eating in, I try to but them dinner if I can afford it.
Chicks in a combat zone get pay for it, lets not make stuff up.
Where are you getting this garbage? What "medals or credentials" do you think women aren't getting? The only possibility I can think of is that you're referring to the Army's "Combat Infantryman" badge, is that it? Well, here's the criteria for it (note that you have to have an infantry or special forces MOS, which no women do):
As for your concern about the women standing next to men (presumably infantry) who could get the CIB? Then, those women are eligible for the Army's Combat Action Badge:
As for any other combat-related medals/badges, women are eligible to receive any for which their actions qualify, so I have no clue what you're talking about. Be more specific in your complaint so people can give you correct information.
This was not difficult information for me to locate...so I don't know why it seems impossible for the left-wing wackos on here to learn something BEFORE posting.
I don't know where you obtained your information, but you're incorrect.
Great - now when a President's daughters hit 18, they can be drafted and taught to kill human beings just like the guys. Great thinking Leon... I applaud you.
(This will mean "equal opportunity" for being drafted as cannon fodder - right?)
My ass. The rich and elites have never been drafted. Everyone knows they draft the trash first. Besides their father took an oath to defend and uphold the constitution and still stomps on it. You really think he'd let them serve?
I am all for it, but I do have a serious question: how would a young female soldier deal with her period when she is pinned down in combat or under siege, or having to walk for hours?
And if women are now "allowed" in combat, does that mean that young women will have to register for the draft?
1. The period can be controlled by BC. Beside, what's a little more blood in the blood shed of war ay?
2. I believe that our service is all voluntary now, but in the future, I think so.
Why is it that everyone thinks that having your period is so debilitating?
Women will have to register with the selective service when they turn 18.
This is only a Pentagon rule change. A change in the selective service system would have to come through Congress, i.e., no draft registration for women yet.
Well, the females better start registering with the selective service right now.
I dont' think having them register is a bad idea. As a matter of fact, I think every US citizen should be required to serve at least 2 years in a military branch, regardless of sex, wealth, social status, etc. It wouldn't hurt the youth of this country to learn some respect for authority and what it takes to keep a free nation free.
Texas lady; I have been saying that for a long time. It might actually build some character in some of the worthless little brats we have in our country. Teach them that it is not all about them and let them see what life is really like in other countries.
All of you guys's knee jerk ranting is so hysterical and emotional. Really, you sound like what you think girls sound like.
Nah, we could never be that whiney and bitchy...but nice try.
LJ is right, lots of the guys posting need to take some Aleve and a hot bath, it really does help with the cramping.
Gee, what a surprise; the pathetic misandrist, aka Kittstar, is attempting to insult men. Women like yourself need the Aleve and a hot bath. Go nurse your cramps with more ice cream, ya cow.
OMG. Some of the worst bitches I've ever met were men.
And some of the worst bitches I've ever met were from Texass
wow 0311veteran, I thought this was about women in combat not bashing each other about who's infantry is better or as you put it f****ing suck a**. I am a combat vet of that infantry you are bashing and I don't recall it being a walk in the park for any of us. Especially after coming home and being physically disabled for the rest of my life.
How are men and women the same? Are you trying to say that every woman who wants to enter a combat role can carry their load and keep up day in and day out? I don't think so. What about those times when she has her "womanly" week. That will without question slow down a mission. Let me point out another fact, regardless of what anyone says, real men--not these with bent wrist--will be inclined to be a real man; they will protect a woman even on the battlefield. A real man will place himself in harms way hoping to save a woman's life; whereas, with another man, they both will enter harms way. We talk about post war syndrome, get ready for the line to get a lot longer. Every "REAL MAN" (NCO) faced with a woman who is killed in from his unit will have mental stress beyond imagination. People on capitol hill needs to take their back sides off their shoulders and stop changing laws for less than 15% of the total force. Now, and lastly, since I mentioned 15% of the forces, that equates to o/a 1% of the total force that wants women in combat roles. The news media and those on capitol hill will only report or quote those in favor of a change. A twisted way of doing business to make their change appear to be endorsed by all.
I am currently serving in the U.S. Army. While I'm not combat arms, (I'm a Blackhawk technician), I do feel that this decision was inevitable. I've seen some women who can fight pretty well but I do have my reservations. I think for combat arms it should be one standard for all physical requirements since it is a tougher line of work.
As to the possiblity of rape or other acts against women, it's unfortunate that some men can't control themselves. I serve with women in aviation and found them to be equal and in a few cases, more knowledgeable than I. To me, it's a chance to learn.
0311Veteran, really....you're not doing the Marines a service by your comments. I can carry that weight and then some a lot further....and I'm 44. This isn't about what service is better. We do the same job. You do it from the beach and we do it from the air. My father-in-law was a Marine in 65' De'nang in Vietnam and finds your comments childish.
marines, infantry, cavalry, rangers. My hat is off to you, as well as many of the female Sergeants in the United States, army and National Guard. Even though you all have your attitudes of how us POGs, not do the dirty job you do we do support you..............as I too am a ex front line dude. I am to old to be there and have a support job now. O ra...whooah. Rodger Out.
I agree. I think it's pretty sad that they must degrade us further such remarks. I, personally, don't want to be in the military or combat, but if a woman wants to do that, let her. I'm also tired of people dividing lines, Republican and Democrat, stupid and educated, conservative and liberal. I'm a conservative Republican who thinks that it sucks to not be paid equally when a man with my job makes more. I also hate being treated like I am some sex object, which I have been treated like for most of my life. I hate how some men still believe that women who want equal rights are ugly, lesbian cows (as I have heard some call us) liberal, and feminazis. I am a conservative who supports this as well. Stop drawing all these stereotypical lines on both sides. It makes even you "educated" people seem stupid.
Kayeal I couldn't agree with you more. As soon as you land in kuwait everyones ID card gets swiped and the combat pay and extra entitlements start. So there is the equal pay for all. As far as promotions I know several females that have fast tracked and been promoted faster than their male counterparts. I am for letting women in infantry as long as it is equal and we have the same physical requirements. To be honest I am for true equality and doing away with gender specific events at the olympics since that isn't equal. I think it should be one event since we are equal. I think we should cancel the LPGA and the WNBA since that is just adding to the seperation on the genders. Make one league one basketball league and men and women try out equally. They play college and enter one draft. Same with golf. use the tees that the men or the women are playing from and both sexes play from the same tee equally. Let the best person win. However; I will say I think if that happened a lot of women would complain that they did not have enough career potential because of the number of people competeing. But I could also see men complaining when they lose their job to a woman. So I think it is lose lose.