Nor were they receiving the experience on their records or pay for being in combat.

Bryan,

You're soooo tough. Feel better?

:)

Again,

This author has missed the same gripe that is being repeated over and over again. IF, and only IF, a woman can meet every single one of the PT, shooting, etc requirements of men, most people will not have an issue with this, including myself.

It's the exceptions, and alterations, to these standards that most people are protesting. You are weakening a part of the unit for equality at that point. And the result isn't a missed field goal or blocked punt, it's that people are going to die.

I could care less if they have to get hosed down together or become humiliated. They signed up for it, they deal with it.

The whole issue of "women in combat" is sexism.

Women are already serving with valor on the front lines, shooting and working in combat roles. They are just not getting the combat pay and recognition that comes with the service. It's time they are recognized for doing what they are already doing.

If they meet the requirements, they should be able to do the service. Give them a chance.

Bryan. not sure what to make of you. I guess Sarah does.

Hey, D.Man,

The correct expression is "I COULDN'T care less....." -- which means you care so little about something you couldn't possibly care any less. When you say you COULD care less, it actually means you care enough that it is possible to care less.

To all the people that tell Sarah to get in the kitchen and make a turkey pot pie...you all have been seriously owned by her...again and again in these "women allowed in combat roles" stories comments...says the 100% disabled female vet. Of course, I was just in the Air Force and sent jets out to save your ground pounding a$$es so what do I know eh?

Also, I see alot of comments on here trying shut other people down by discounting anything they have to say on the subject because they were never in combat. OK...then turnabout is fair play...if you have a genetic XY make-up...you can never mention a females menses as a reason why they should not be in combat. One, you know nothing about it. And 2, you are uneducated in the application a hormones to prevents a monthly cycle.

And here is my personal opinion on the subject.....if a female can pass the tests...she's in.

Marty, I guess all the female cops and firefighters and EMTs aren't qualified. Nor were the thousands in the Soviet army in WWII, not the females in the Israeli army. Whatever the standards, once they get into combat, they are just as effective as men.

Bill Murray will finally be vindicated.

So do women now have to register for the draft when they turn 18 just like males do? If not then they are allowing exceptions to women and therefore not giving males equal and same treatment. That would mean their policy is not balanced still.

I never thought about that. As a man who served in combat in Iraq, for any government program (financial aid for college) I had to be registered for selective service. If the barrier is down, the barrier is down. Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

Here comes the sun: So is it fair for women to already be sent into combat roles (and they are, go check) but not be paid combat pay? Or not be recognized for valor? How is that equal and fair? Hmmm?

It's either in combat and recognized, or positioned stateside and not recognized, and the country has already chosen to have them in combat situations because we don't have enough male soldiers, unless that is you really do want the draft.

If they want to be there...god bless them. Women have fought valiantly in combat for millenia...many without a choice and just needing to survive. Women don't need to prove their brave hearts. I just don't want any of the liberal, bleeding hearts who have never served in frontline combat whining on the news when they see the brutality these woman will be subjected to...especially if captured. Combat is not heroic or pretty. It is survival at the most basic...and you only think of living in the moment, trusting those around you...and for a brief, miraculous instant...those that you love come to your mind. I gladly give up my job at the front lines to any woman who wants it.

I agree that if a woman passes the same requirements as a man and the standards are equal 100% then she deserves to be their but if she can not then she doesn't belong. That goes for the males as well. The time i served my country I saw many service people that couldn't even fit through a scuttle let alone run a mile and that was pretty bad. I feel there are many issues not addressed within our military and the issue of the women in combat is just one of many. I praise those serving my country everytime I see one in uniform and will never stop regardless if they are male or female.

the funny part is that anyone that is in or has been in knows there are two physical standards that they test to. for people to say ok, as long as they pass the test is full of bull. they dont currently have to meet the same standards, this is all about politics.

you all say we have the same standards for women and men are lieing, even the civilian sector has different standards just look at reccomended weight charts.

all this crap is just that crap

Crap? You wanna talk crap?

The real question is whether women in combat will give up shaving their legs.

Ron-975213: Right on. Women in combat isn't the question. It's "Anyone in combat".

Monkey, I have no problem with "Anybody" serving in our military. Also no, it is not fair they aren't paid the same. However, if it is the case that now women have to register for the draft just as males do then that is the only way to say it is equal for all. Personally I know my 18 year old niece would be distraught if she had to register and even worse if the draft for some reason were to be inacted and she had to go off to fight in a war. Just a simple fact. That's not saying either sex is better prepaired than the other. Another question I have is in the event the draft is activated and you have a married couple that are both qualified to fight, what do you do if they children? How do you decide which should go into war. If you do not choose both then once again it is not the same treatment for all capable adult Americans. That I guess Is my main question. Is it now going to be the same for everyone or is there still going to be certain instances where gender is used to allow or disallow persons from serving?

Here comes the sun: Sorry. I meant to say that war is wrong. It's a bad place to be, for women and men.

My brothers spent multiple tours in Iraq and came back beaten and wounded.

I wouldn't wish that anyone goes to combat. War is a bad thing, as Ron was saying.

I don't know why we would have an argument about it. After all, we let the gays in. I was surprised that historically, it happened in the order that it did. I'd have thought, women would have been in this part of the military years ago. I'd have thought getting the gays in would have taken longer.

If a women meets all of the requirements then why can’t a women serve in front line action. My only worry would be what I call the "Little Sister effect" it was found that in Israel, were women have been included in front line action for decades, male soldiers were found to take unnecessary risks protecting female members of the unit. Males are wired to protect females and children, it is just who we are. I do believe that if any military can make this work it will be the US armed forces. Best trained and equipped military in known history.

I'm not really worried about the whole men getting into more "mischief" as the article states, I'm more worried about the gentlemen type guys. If they see a woman in trouble, they may feel more obligated to protect them over the other men fighting along side him.

At least, that's how I would feel. I guess I would feel better about it if I actually witnessed a woman taking out an enemy combatant. But I can't say anything. the closest I've been to combat is Germany. Those clubs and bars will f*ck you up. :p

This is a very poor decision driven by politics rather than a real practical evaluation of the issue. Panetta waited until he was ready to depart to make this decision so that he could score the political points of doing so without having to deal with the real world ramifications of the decision. Women simply are not cut out to be in combat roles. There are very few women who would be capable of dragging a typical male soldier in full combat gear to safety if they are injured. This decision will not only result in women getting killed, it is going to up the body count for the men as well. There will be male soldiers who will die because some female was incapable of getting them to safety after they get hit. In addition, there are physiological differences between men and women that make this a bad decision. A woman's physiology does not provide her with the same stamina that men have. This is a very important issue. Everyone in combat needs to be able to carry their share of the load and women just are not built to handle a 15 or 20 mile forced march carrying 90 to 100 pounds of gear with them on their backs in addition to the weight of their body armor, and other items that might need to be carried like a mortar tube, etc. There are also medical reasons why women should not be in combat. Men in combat can go for several days at a time without access to an kind of facilities, and definitely not running water to clean up. Women have certain hygiene needs that simply are not compatible with being stuck in the same clothes with no ability to wash up for days at a time. A woman at that time of the month will end up with a major, life threatening infection if they are not able to clean up on a regular basis. Women can call me a sexist pig all they want, but this is a biological reality that no amount of feminist bluster can change. Are we going to start allowing women to stay behind on an operation and have a unit go out short handed because it is that time of the month and the women need to stay where they have access to running water. On top of that, I do not think that the American public is prepared to deal with the repeated stories of women soldiers being captured and repeatedly gang raped by the enemy. Particularly when dealing with an Islamic enemy this is a problem. Their views women are such that they would feel completely justified in raping them, since they do not see them as equals and see them being soldiers as being against their religious societal rules and therefor fair game for abuse. This is a very poor decision that is going to cause major problems. Hopefully the incoming Secretary of Defense will realize the stupidity of Panetta's decision and reverse it.

JS in SD; they do make sanitary wipes for this purpose, the same that the men use when they can't shower. You think that they actually don't do anything to clean themselves? After all, if a males' "part" isn't cleaned, it developes infections too.

On a side note, which gender of many species is generally the first to kick some butt? Most of the time, it is the female. Cattle, horses, apes, bears, any of the cat family (large and domesticated), dogs...when there is danger, they usually don't just sit back and watch.

According to Sen.McCain, women are "not really" in the combat zones and if they get injured I guess his thinking they are just collateral damage???? Will someone take this old horse and put him out to pasture!!!

Really JD: In what war weren't women gang raped by the enemy?

"During the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, he wrote, his unit went more than a month without showering and then was lined up naked to be pressure-washed. '

“It would be distracting and potentially traumatizing to be forced to be naked in front of the opposite sex, particularly when your body has been ravaged by lack of hygiene,” Smith wrote."

Sounds like this "tough Marine" biggest (pun intended) problem is that "some girl" might see his little pecker... This is the very same argument they used for not allowing a gay person to serve... I remember when the first woman paratrooper came to the 82nd Airborne Division, 1979 or 80'... anyway we all thought "...oh well, there goes the neighborhood...", in truth, I never severed with her, but I never heard anything bad about her either... but I can tell you this, for every issue these folks have with women (except the obvious women issues, which are not even issues) you can find the same complaints about some men... can't meet the physical standards... too emotional... whatever, get over it, it's going to happen with or without you.

Here's another tid-bit... during that same action the Marine notes where he didn't bath... a woman pilot, from the 3rd ID, flying a scout helicopter waaaaaay out in front of ALL US Forces was the FIRST American to make contact with the enemy.

JS, you took the words out of my mouth....TR, whatever, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Again, the minority (femenists) speaking for the majority (sane women who do not want to go to war)! For the record, the sane women are the one's most men out there are fighting for!!

You wanted equality,now you got it. So sign up for the draft just like I did.

Here's to looking forward to all of those new draft registrants. Equal is equal and all.

As a former military member who served in a combat role I'm still noodling over the ramifications of this decision. I fully support the role of women in the military and I served with some very fine female soldiers, but combat and all that comes with it cannot be taken lightly.

Wolfen Thank you for your service. IMHO it just seems that through all our wars women have been on the front lines in one role or the other and therfore in harms way as well. It always seems so convenient to say those ambulance drivers, and those cross channel pilots weren't doing real work in real battle conditions. But if they were shot down they certainly weren't treated better than the "real" soldiers. Are the dangers are the disabling injuries that women such as yourself or the well known Tammy Duckworth (to put a face on it) suffer while in the battle zone really all that less than the "real" soldiers. I really wouldnt think so. Unless you want to tell me that a women's leg or arm or sanity is worth less than a man's. Or that pulling woulded, fully equiped "real" soldiers into an ambulance underfire unarmed and then driving like a bat out of perdition under fire and shelling to get them safely to an aid station or evac unit indicated you didn't have what it takes, not the strength, not the courage. When the supply truck has made it all the way to the front line supplying all those real soldiers, do they think you haven't faced real danger. Thank the lord they let you carry a weapon now. In my Mom's and my Grandmother's day they did not.

All I know is that all of the men in my family have served most of them in war. My day always said he would rather face any foe than to face an organized group of really really motivated pissed off American women on a mission armed to the teeth. While it sounds like a joke, he was serious. He had no delusions about the capabilities of women. Maybe we lack the upper body strenghth of men but it has been proven over and over that we can out last you in every way, and overcome you with our seriously better endowed lower body strength. If all it takes to be a "real" soldier and succeed in combat is bigger bicepts then yes, women will be at a disadvantage.

AS for showering, etc. I am so tired of hearing the old St. Paul argument that men just can't control themselves around women. Seriously? You folks are worried about hose down showers and possibility of seeing each other naked. The point being I guess that the gals in the magazines and pictures that you always seem to have can't actually be jumped on by the red blooded, out of control if you see a naked woman, men that appear to populate our military today.

js I assume you have read the stories of our male soldiers who have raped natives of countries they are stationed in or their fellow female soldiers? Those stories are just as abhorant. Right now there are DOZENS of stories about our own guys raping their fellow soldiers and not even in front line combat positions.

As to feminine hygiene... I'd shut up about things you have NO experience with. You lack the practical 2working knowledge on the issue to actual form a valid opinion on the subject.

You do know our female soldiers ALREADY have faced front line combat, capture and DEATH? At least now they will get the training and honor for something they are ALREADY doing.

...

New Zealand
Canada
Denmark
Finland
Italy
Germany
Norway
Israel
Serbia
Sweden
Switzerland

Are American women anymore or less woman than these? At least four of those countries allow women in SOF's.

JS, while I'm not crazy about women in combat, I don't worry about their hygiene. There are birth control methods that can almost completely eliminate a womans monthly period, so that's not an issue.

I do agree that if they women want to serve front line combat, then all restrictions should be eliminated, and at 18 women should register for the draft, just as men have to.

I'm just worried that for the few who would really support this, what it would mean for the rest who ordinarily wouldn't.

Ultimately, this will improve unit cohesiveness and combat readiness.

Instead of asking for volunteers (from the women available) to round out a unit, units will already be complete, with everyone fully trained.

Women have been for the last 20 years, doing most of the jobs. Most often, they do not receive the full training regular combat unit members receive. Most receive their training "on the job", as needed to fulfill the missions they "volunteer" for.

As has been pointed out, they just haven't been getting credit for being in combat. Their immediate CO's might know what they've done, but two or three transfers later, they won't KNOW what really happened because it can't be put into the file.

For each and every position in the military (special forces included) there are men who won't be able to meet the physical, mental or emotional requirements. There are also women who will. Denying them the opportunity just to meet some 17th century feeling about the roles of men and women is more than wrong, its just stupid.

" ... they dont currently have to meet the same standards, ... "

And why don't they have to? Is it because they don't choose to? Or because someone else made the choice for them?

Is their training separate because they chose it to be? Or because someone else made the choice for them?

So why is it they they don't have to?

Because some insecure male decided that it was so. Because some ignorant Neanderthal decided that they were incapable. Because some small minded MAN made it that way.

Now some men have decided that it's time to stop being ignorant, small minded and let them do the job if they can. Just like they do men.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, quickly announced his support for Panetta’s decision. But he said Thursday that he wants to be sure “to make sure that the standards, particularly the physical standards, are met so that the combat efficiency of the units are not degraded.”

Good luck with that Uncle John, It's no wonder you lost the election in 2008. There's no way you will be able to keep the same effeciency. Standards MUST be lowered or only two or three out of five hundred females will make it through the first few days of boot camp.

Betcha good money they will be considering base housing for gay couples before the end of the year, 2014 at the latest.

As much as I support 100% gender equality for civilians, women in everything, etc., this is a bad idea. I served in the military in a forward combat unit (the kind where you won't come into contact with a woman for years) and also in a forward support unit (fully integrated, men and women filling the same kinds of roles type of unit) and while it's pretty to think that this is possible, it will achieve nothing more than creating unnecessary stress on already fatigued soldiers.

Here are the reasons:

1. Women are simply not as physically strong as men. A combat soldier needs to be prepared, mentally and physically, at a minimum, to sustain 72 straight hours of continuous engagement. This involves moving into position, engaging, withdrawing and relocating for up to 72 hours. They need to be able to do this with up to 50 lbs of gear. That's the ideal. On average, most soldiers are able to maintain that level of physical performance for about 6 years (around 24 years old) before they can no longer hold a direct combat role. For mounted combat soldiers, they can go until about 32. Every women I ever saw attached to a unit of this type was finished in two years (usually in a rear capacity where the unit mirrors the forward unit - they're not even involved in combat).

Now - what do they do when they are finished? They all get pregnant and are moved into restrictive duty. I remember at Fort Benning we had a room where six women, every woman in the company, who all got pregnant at the same time, sat all day. They all got dressed in their uniforms, reported in the morning, sat, got paid and occasionally the company commander gave them something to do. That is very common in the military and those are slots that could be filled by people who would contribute. Men do the same thing (not getting pregnant), but they do it much later. Around the time they are finished in the direct combat role, they begin to move into NCO positions and take a part in company management. With women in these roles, they'll either have to promote them out of the direct combat roles, causing an increase in unseasoned NCOs or they'll have to find non direct combat roles within the unit.

2. Discipline makes the military work. In a single sex company, it is far easier to maintain discipline.

I know that women don't like to hear the - you can't be in a combat role because the men won't be able to handle it - argument, but this is life and death. In a combat environment, raising your head three inches at the wrong time gets you killed. That's the level of discipline that is necessary. In the rear support unit I served in, most training engagements were little more than camping orgies where men and women were going at it in port a potties, the backs of trucks...you name it. In the direct combat unit, you didn't have to worry about that stuff.

3. Fewer than 10% of soldiers in the Army are direct combat soldiers and from personal experience, I can say, 90% of them are screwed up. They're all killers, but a good many of them are seriously deranged. I wouldn't have let my sister so much as walk through a forward unit barracks, let alone spend time around those guys. I encountered every manner of personality disorder imaginable, from narcissists to psychopaths to sociopaths to depressives. It's like a fraternity with guns and knives and a whole lot of crazy. Most of them, through the discipline (which they NEED), and the guidance from older more stable males, learn how to function. Some even thrive in that environment, get married, have children. What makes this possible is the removal of the sexual component from their daily lives. Removing that stress and pressure, the violence between men that it causes and giving them a relatively structured environment makes otherwise dangerous people useful to society. This push to include women into that environment is only going to make a difficult job for leadership more difficult and put some women in danger. The women (and politicians) who push for this will blame the men, but here's my question to you - if you see a rattlesnake ten feet away, walk up to it and then put your hands on it, who is to blame when you get bit - the rattlesnake or you? Combat unit discipline makes unstable and highly dangerous people useful to society. Throw some women into the mix (especially the kind of woman that wants to buck convention and take part in a forward unit purely to satisfy her need to be 'just as good as man' and you'll have problems. Also - that idea that a women can be 'just as good as man,' shows that this is about the women and how they feel. Being a part of a combat unit is about forgetting about yourself, how fantastic you think you are and working as a unit. That type of attitude is going to cause problem and get people killed.

That's really the BIG point. Forget the Hollywood version of combat or what we hear from the media (We all support our soldiers, yah, yah). The reality is that the Army moves the people it couldn't care less about into the combat roles. A lot of this is political. Most men and women in the military are doing everything they can to get out of these positions. So - when the Sec of Defense says women should be able to serve in combat roles, this probably means they are having a hard time filling those roles. They're using the politics of gender to widen the net.

Combat units are about a lot more than combat and 'kicking butt.' It's about finding a use for people who have a hard time functioning in regular society. It's about being effective and accomplishing missions. Gender has no place in this environment (you would find that homosexuals are actually very welcome in these types of units because they are non threatening).

bryan: "feminazi's"? Try that one around your significant other, your children, at school, at work, in church, interviewing for a position, at a town meeting, applying for a loan etc, etc.

One's speech cannot help but reflect one's attitude. There is no "except" in equal rights, or equal responsibility. You've acknowledged your bigotry, and you'll have to live with it - the rest of us have other options.

if a woman meets all the same requirements that a man has to meet for the specific position, then she earned herself the job.

They aren't required to meet the same physical standards; that's the point!

Ron (#1.16) aren't you complaining about the wrong party? In case you've missed the past several decades, we "bleeding heart liberals" are the ones who WANT equality. Who has fought hardest against racial and gender issues? Who has been fighting hardest for LGBT equal rights? Are you implying that we "bleeding heart liberals" believe that torture being administered to one of our captured men is any less horrific than it would be on one of our captured women? Do you think that we believe that what was done to the women during the holocaust was any worse than what the men endured? Do you believe that someone like newly elected Democrat Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth, Army vet and Purple Heart recipient, a woman in what you would believe to be a support role, suffered more from losing both her legs and one arm than a man would have? Do you have any idea what just the natural process of childbirth is like if you are a woman alone with no person or medication to ease the pain during that process? Buddy, you need a few history lessons not only on "bleeding heart liberals" but on what women have not only endured but triumphed over in just this country alone.

ItIsWhat!t!s

if a woman meets all the same requirements that a man has to meet for the specific position, then she earned herself the job.

They aren't required to meet the same physical standards; that's the point!

#1.44 - Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:04 PM CST

Really... says who? Or would you want to renegotiate the standard to a point that it seems more unattainable? Those are just fears of men who do not want to make room and probably had problems making the "standards" themselves.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! The scent of a woman!

I can do a hundred more sit ups than my son. He can do far more chin/pull ups than I can, and I'm thrilled for him. He's combat ready, and he's military. I'm pushing 60. What has the "same" standards have to do with anything? If women, who are prepared to go into battle and meet the standards, best wishes to all of them. Same goes for men!

As for the worries of serving 'down and dirty' next to a member of the opposite sex as the complaint, then the higher ups have a lot more to worry about than just sexism. (I actually laughed out loud when I read that comment about being dirty.) Combat has a lot more problems than just being dirty and smelly. I absolutely guarantee you that every woman I know wouldn't think twice about it. It's combat, if you can get over that, you can get over some dirt and nudity. My heavens, you would think that our military has never seen a naked member of the opposite gender! Pffffft. Nudity does not equal having sex. Nudiity is just a naked body. I think we all have very similar parts (as per gender), and in a variety of different shapes and sizes, but pretty much, we're all the same.

And the draft? Why do we still require anyone to sign up for it? It has not been used in decades. It is an antiquated system that, if used, would probably cause more problems than it solves. That's one bug-a-boo that should just go away. If it were necessary to reinstate it (heaven forbid), then both sexes of the appropriate age should sign up for it. (I'm of the mind that all of our youth should spend time in the military or equatable public service, right after they finish high school--but that just me.)

For our all our military/combat men and women: ALL THE BEST. We know you are the finest people in the world, and we are extremely proud of you.

Contrary to popular belief, the command of the US Military does not adjust standards so that a specific gender or class can fill a position. In each and every case, they seek to fill each position only with a person who is qualified for that position. If the navy needs a body to put into a nuclear missle submarine, they don't just grab somebody.

THAT is the essence of the all volunteer, professional military the US has had for the last 20 years. None of the current members of the military was ever drafted. Each and every person chose and was chosen for the specific jobs they currently fulfill. This is no different than chosing the right person in any other industry.

The real difference is that if you don't properly train the people, because you are prevented by Neocon Tea Party Evangelical Christians who want to take America back to the 18th Century, you end up with a lot more dead people and even more positions to fill.

Excellent analysis, JJJ.

But I'm sure Sarah will rebut it after she finishes eating her Hot Pocket.

imnotlost: Your avatar suggests otherwise. Define 'liberal'.

Just another 'yeah, but' marathon. I'm absolutely, positively, unconditionally in favor of equality......except.

SDN@ #1.51 Definition of a liberal: One who endorses or supports (usually outlandish) actions or changes that serve to disrupt and belittle huge pockets of the population of a country, the result of which has no beneficial and often costly consequences, both monetarily and socially.

imnot: Wrong: Become enlightened - a whole new life.

"favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual."

"Tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others."

"Somebody who favors tolerance or open-mindedness."

"Freely giving money, time, or some other asset."

Courtesy of Encarta (Left Wing, Libtard, Commie Edition)

Your source?

Rather enviable qualities in my book.

Reality can be a real pisser, no?

@tr

Sorry, but I saw your comment and you have no idea the differences in male/female physiology in humans vs most mammals, nor the aggression tendency of them. You mentioned cattle? Bulls are much more highly aggressive compared to cows.

Females are more protective and aggressive in more specific ways than males. Males tend to be territorial, protecting a collective or area vs a singular such as offspring.

Now, females are PHYSIOLOGICALLY stronger than men, hence why they can bear children and tend to have a longer life. HOWEVER men are PHYSICALLY stronger, being able to carry greater loads with less training. I haven't worked out in years, but I can move my 320lb friend with relative ease, which would be slightly more weight than your average lock and loaded marine in full combat gear. One of my best female friends who is a strength trainer struggles to move me at 220lbs. And I'm talking dead weight move, i.e. your squadmate has been shot and is unconscious.

Sorry, not sexist in anyway, but if my and my squadmates lives are on the line, I'd rather not have a woman watching my back. Give them combat pay if their jobs position them accordingly (pilots, etc), or warzone medics, but as far as the FRONT lines go? PHYSICALLY the typical woman isn't strong enough.

Sarah, you want to Sh^@ in a fox hole with a man next to you because you don't get to leave it, Pi$$ and sh^@ your pants because your under fire for hours and you can't leave the fire fight you don't get time to pull your pants down. Oh you get to live in it, live around rotting dead bodies, want to see the head of the person who you been living with blown off right in front of you eyes how about having his stomach in you hands of laying all over the ground while he screams so long, loud and high you would think he's a girl. Would you like to have his blood sprayed all over your pretty little face maybe drink a little of it because it got in your mouth. Watch four or five of your friends just disappeared in a nice red cloud , end up with an eye ball on your shirt, sounds like fun ya. You woman want equal rights, this is what you want. OK. Bet your family will be happy when you bring home your friend in a box.

Has any one here seen the movies Private Ryan?

If the intended solder can up the ante by telling the commanding officer to "suck their dick" irrelevant that they have one or not, then they should be able to serve as equal in any combat scenario situation. This is my two cents. The intended combat person need not be a Hollywood stunt double and be pretty but needs to be fit, and capable, for the position. On a side note, the women also need to be able to be ready to be abused just like a man in a capture situation including because of gender, including RAPE death and torture. If they are willing to proceed under these conditions (and I think they would) then they deserve a chance to go forward with their endeavors just like any one else (just like a male counterpart). It's all int the head, a psyche game. Beyond that, It's a political Jump Ball.

This isn't about training a child can train, this is about killing, about living and dieing. This is about hours of boredom and seconds of intense adrenlin rushes. You live or die. If you live you live with the guilt that you didn't die.

So... bubba-1946427, re #1.56 - Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:32 PM CST

Have you sh!t or pis$ed your pants lately... or is that something you heard someone say that happened to them? I gotta say, in all my 22 years on active duty, the first seven years as an infantryman, 3 years in the 2/325 AIR, 82nd Airborne Division and 4 years the 2/75th Ranger, I have got to tell you that I have NEVER sh!t my pants... not even on a moonless night while jumping from 1250ft AGL into a dry Korean riverbed full of boulders the size of basketballs... and not even when parachuting under fire into Grenada or Panama... or the last 15 years I served in SF, no, I can't say that's ever happened to me, or anyone that I know... so please explain? Were you "pinned down" in the trenches by the Germans, I don't get it.

It's Saving Private Ryan, genius. Any woman anywhere can be raped, it doesn't require being a POW. Why does everyone have to bring up this as a detriment to women in combat? Women have been in combat for years now without getting paid or credit for it.

Women are already being RAPEd by soldiers in their units and others on our side. When we get women in combat positions, perhaps we'll get different handling of their reports other than it being swept under the rug and them being transferred or mustered out. What's worse is women are being blamed for their rapes. It's past time for the military to change.

You can't frighten us with the rape boogieman any longer. Give it up. We're moving up in the ranks and we're going to change everything. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

SDN @ #1.54: Oh. And that too.

A lot is said here about how women can't meet the physical requirements. For that matter, most men can't either. It would probably be the case that not as many women will, but there will be some. I remember some pretty husky girls in my old high school. It was Dutch Reformed (later called Christian Reformed), so there were a lot of persons of Dutch ancestry there. Some of those Dutch girls were HUGE. I have seen some women bigger than some men, with big shoulders too. There are some women who could meet those kinds of physical standards.

There are all kinds of people, including those who don't mind being dirty, carrying heavy packs, getting shot at, and marching for miles. It wouldn't be me. There are people who glory in such things. Let them glory in it.

It is rather ironic reading all these posts how women aren't made for these sort of things and should we LET them do this. On the other hand our country "lets" women do something similar every day already, even women who don't meet qualifiers first. It just happens. If you have ever been homeless, you have experienced some of this sort of thing. Your "qualification" is just not having money for a place. If the Republicans get their way, we may even have more people "qualifying." What is that like? Finding a safe place to sleep is a problem. You better get good at hiding. If you use a little pup tent, you better not let anyone find you. There are weirdos that can rape or hurt you. You can't lock the door. The cops are not on your side. They would chase you out of your spot if they found you. You are "breaking the law" (anti-camping/sleeping out rules, vagrancy, and so forth), so you are in "enemy territory." Chances are you are alone or maybe with one other if you are lucky. You don't have the comfort of a whole unit. You wake at every sound. It is hard to get good quality sleep. Some nights you don't sleep, and you can go about foggy in the head for days due to lack of sleep. During the day, you can be stuck hauling all your personal belongings around. If you can manage, you may find a hiding spot to stash your stuff; but you have to be sure it is secure. In the day you try not to "look homeless" because people treat homeless people badly. Keeping clean is a challenge, and bathing is often skipped. It is typical to take somewhat of a sponge bath in a public restroom if no one is looking, but that is hard to do. A river or stream works, but it feels so cold when it is in the 40's outside. Being homeless pushes the body to extremes. Going in a remote forest is better where there are no people. The critters are much easier to deal with and sleep is better. Homelessness teaches you to hate people. So remember, everybody, there are people under your noses in your towns and cities living in similar to combat conditions, and some of them are women. I think if our homeless women can handle it, our military women can.

I find these arguments against women going in the military hypocritical because it implies that women should be the gentler sex. But if a woman acts feminine she is shunned in today's society. Women today are expected to be as tough as the guys. If a woman is more fearful and clings to her man she is ridiculed. If the woman cries because of sadness the men tell her to "Stop that leaking". And wonder what her problem is. Today's men Demand the women act as tough emotionally and physically as the men do. No one wants to be the chivalrous man any more. Women are expected to bring home the "Bacon" as much as any man. So why not the military? Even military men want their women to be strong at all times especially the younger men. There might be a small pool of older men that does not fit this description because they still hold true to being the man of the house and have natural protective qualities towards their women. So when these men say that they do not want women in the military they are speaking the truth from their way of seeing things.

@ Peridot-1693859

I brought up "Private Ryan not to belittle the woman, but to enhance the woman's position. If she has the balls to do what other combat soldiers do then they are fit for the position. Period. Don't beat around the bush, burn the fuc*ing thing.

Women on frontlines 'distracting,' say critics

...... only if you are a male chauvinist pig. Oink.

If they reduce the physical requirements for women simply because they are women, then they do them a disservice, by allowing them to get into combat without having the same training and requirements of men, they put both them and their male counterparts in danger.

Having the same training the men do will at least prove to the men that a woman can stay right with them, and in a kill or be killed situation knowing the person next to you can do what you can do and as long as you can makes a deference.

Women, (or some of them at least), seem to be more emotional than men, how they handle the blood and guts of war will be interesting, wearing parts your buddy for a couple days is not something anyone likes to do.

Women on frontlines 'distracting,' say critics

We the Women on the frontlines are soldiers, not zoo animals: Stop gawking...& focus on your work, you male chauvinist pigs.

to jjjj-2003719

Thank you for taking the time to make your very valid comments. I agree completely. Please write this in a letter to the NYT or some other place where it will be widely read. Thanks again.

'Ya know there is a country where their greatest war heroes were sisters (that makes them women). Their female soldiers are highly trained for combat and service is compulsory just as it is for the men. They are NOT a super power and have a fraction of the firepower of the U.S.A.

Are we so back-ass backwards like some middle-east countries that we think our woman are not equal and simply can't contend?

By the way, that country's WOMEN soldiers sure kicked our asses (of just men).

Men/women ... that M16 is a tremendous equalizer

http://georgezilla.newsvine.com/">George from Wa. State

" ... they dont currently have to meet the same standards, ... "

And why don't they have to? Is it because they don't choose to? Or because someone else made the choice for them?

Is their training separate because they chose it to be? Or because someone else made the choice for them?

So why is it they they don't have to?

Because some insecure male decided that it was so. Because some ignorant Neanderthal decided that they were incapable. Because some small minded MAN made it that way.

I think the reason for different standards is the exact opposite of what you said, they did this to allow women to make it through the training, because only a few women would make it through with the same standards as men. I'm not against women in the military, I have 2 female cousins who are in the military (and I am proud of them), but it is a fact that men in general are stronger then women, which doesn't mean that women are less valuable as combatants, its just that their strengths may not be the same as men (they can aim with a gun just as well tho).

Woman can do the same job as men. If the men cannot deal with working side-by-side with a women, it is their problem, not the women working as equally as hard to protect their country. The logic does not make sense. Women's work is not as important/equal/relevant? Really? This is so 19th century. Women deserve the same opportunities as men and they can do it. Watch them do it!

To Kathy and all these others saying women can do the same job as men, all that needs to be said is, "Bullsh**!!" I was in the military 30 years ago, one of the first to include females in Basic training, and they were NEVER held to the same standard. Women CANNOT carry the loads men can, certainly not for the distances required, they DO NOT have the same PT standards, and CANNOT endure the constant physical pounding combat requires. I've seen it, lived it, and I'm telling you from experience, that women DO NOT belong in regular or specialized combat units, as they will WEAKEN readiness. But that's the Bozobama's wish, to weaken our country, so that's why the coward Panetta did this and is running away from dealing with the consequences. The first female to be captured, tortured , raped, then killed will turn the tide on this, I guarantee you.

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.

@kraussk - You are basing your experience on "one of the first to allow women". Seeing that if you were in the military for +30 years, then you certainly remember getting your ass kicked by a country whose greatest war heroes happen to be women, and where women are compulsory in the military, trained and combat ready (Vietnam).

Is it only "American woman that are weak" or are you making a case that you and not just your female comrades that can't contend???

I kind of like the idea of a foxhole built for two.

SDN: "Tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others."

No, not really.

I'm using the Navy as an example but the physical standards expected out of men and women in the Military are not the same. Women in the Navy aren't even expected to do push ups in the same manner as men.

FEMALES: AGE 20 to 24 YEARS

PERFORMANCE POINTS CURL PUSH 1.5-MILE SWIM
CATEGORY UPS UPS RUN 500-YD 450-M

Maximum 100 105 48 9:47 7:15 7:05
Outstanding 90 98 44 11:30 8:45 8:35
Excellent 75 87 39 13:15 10:00 9:50
Good 60 58 21 14:15 13:15 13:05
Satisfactory 45 46 16 15:30 14:30 14:20
Failure <45 <46 <16 >15:30 >14:30 >14:20

MALES: AGE 20 TO 24 YEARS

PERFORMANCE POINTS CURL PUSH 1.5-MILE SWIM
CATEGORY UPS UPS RUN 500-YD 450-M

"Maximum" 100 105 87 8:30 6:30 6:20
Outstanding 90 98 81 9:15 7:30 7:20
Excellent 75 87 71 10:30 8:45 8:35
Good 60 58 47 12:00 11:30 11:20
Satisfactory 45 46 37 13:30 13:00 12:50
Failure <45 <46 <37 >13:30 >13:00 >12:50

As you can see the only standard where men and women are held equal are curl ups. I've lived this so get off your soap box of a belief that the physical standards are the same for men and women in the military even the most out of shape men.

Stop all this bul@!$%# about war anyway,you see were all this warmongering brought us as a nation, we are completely broke and China is going to own us and soon we have to learn their language, Get your heads together,this will happen if we don't put millions of our people back to work.

Can you really tell me a woman that weighs about 140 is going to be able to haul my wounded husband who weighs 300#??? WTH are they thinking?

If she passes the same physical requirements as her male counterparts, why would you trust her less than them? Not all MEN who are in combat could do that either.

Will men instinctively cover / protect women more on the front lines than other men?

Then the MEN who do that are not combat ready.

This is the question NO ONE has been able to answer...

Why do we allow ALL men to try know some will FAIL, and not allow ANY women to try knowing some will pass?

If that 140 lb woman passes all the physical and mental requirements to be in that position, then yes she would have already proven her worth and would most likely not have a problem hauling your wounded husband to safety.

The requirements for that position aren't changing, the women still have to pass muster.

This is an issue that female firefighters have been dealing with for years. Multiple men in the fire department my mother served in over 25 years ago had wondered the same thing then blackballed her, basically removed her from the fire department. I worked as a firefighter and you would be amazed what a 5'4'' 130 pound female can do in certain situations, when you think one of your partners is going to burn up.

There are female smokejumpers, look up what that job entails. These people may not be getting shot at but these are rigorous physical jobs. I don't think if someone can't pass the physical requirements, male or female, they should be there but if they can it should be their choice.

AMEN 100% AGREE WITH kJOSEE

Your 300lb husband wouldn't be in combat he is too big; therefore the 140lb woman wouldn't be dragging him anywhere. There are standards that military members are required to uphold and thoses in combat positions are held to even a higher standard. The combat positions that they are talking about require them to be physically and mentally fit not the aveage Joe is going to volunteer for these positions anyways. This is all hiped up, before you go commenting on anything I suggest you do some research on how the miltary works; I am an Iraq Vet woman that has seen things and was in direct fire several times; we are currently in direct fire in Afghan too. I don't believe the "bra burners" are the ones who are fighting for equallity for woman in the military.......I am sure if you asked the ones who have lost a limb, or the families who have lost a daughter, sister, or mom that this ban was never effective anyways.

your husband needs to lose weight

If your husband weighs 300+ pounds he is on the fat boy program and was not allowed to deploy.

You are right on the money. And the comment made that a man who instinctively protects a woman from harm is not "battle ready" is a foolish and ridiculous statement. It is hard-wired into men to protect women, and has been since the dawn of time. Putting women on the front lines will endanger our troops.

There are other battle situations where women can be useful. I've yet to see a woman able to carry a 300 lb. man. As a lifeguard trainer, I can train women to pull a 300 lb. man off the bottom of a pool, but the buoyancy of the water helps. That same woman can pull him up from the bottom of a 12 ft. deep pool, but cannot pull him out of the pool.

Panetta and the Obama administration are caving into the ridiculousness of radical feminism. My second cousin was the first colonel in the Marine Corps in the 1980's. She broke down many barriers and I am proud of her for her accomplishments. She does not feel women should be on the front lines either.

Putting women on the front lines of battle is foolishness, especially if they are in Afghanistan or other countries that do not value women other than for having children or sexual pleasure. These women prisoners will be raped, tortured and have other horrendous things done to them because of the culture of our enemies.

Women have made great strides in the military. They don't need to prove anything about equality by demanding to be on the front lines in combat. Doing so will endanger our military and make us weak.

The issue isn't what I would be "amazed" a 140 lb woman can do in special circumstances. It is what she can do in every situation that can be counted upon in times of extreme stress. Pay them the same, treat them the same, make them sign up for selective service the same, no exceptions, no excuses.

nicely put lifeguard mom

Kjosee is making an argument that is about 20 years behind the times. Women are ALREADY serving in combat, they are just not getting the recognition, pay raises & promotions that recognize the work they are already doing.

Look at Rachel Maddow's first segment last night, and see a remarkable young woman who was denied promotions into intelligence jobs for no reason other than that she's female - she speaks Arabic & Farsi, and graduated at the top of her Marine class.

I am a pacifist Quaker and would prefer that there were no wars at all. But women who are called/choose to serve their country should be allowed to, if qualified, and the qualifications are really tough.

I guess I could have said all this in 2 words: Tammy Duckworth!

kjosee,

there are maximum weight limits in the military-air force, army, marine can be a maximum 250lbs if they are 80" tall. Navy- you can be upto 271 lbs if you're 86" which is over 7 ft!

How is it that none of these numpties seems to get it that women are already right in the middle the combat equation. Since 2011 female marines have been embedded in combat patrols because male marines cannot speak to afgan women.

A huge percentage of attacks are on vehicle transports, where women are service in significant numbers.

As for the squeamish men being seen in delicate situations....ask the nurse what she has seen, and how many times a day she sees it.

The real point, which is the ignored elephant in the room, is that women, while frequently facing the same combat situations as their male counterparts, did not get the fast track promotions associated with those 'officially' in combat, and did not get combat pay.

@Lifeguard Mom: Are you also trying to make the case that women should not be lifeguards? Because the objections you list are exactly the same. And the women in non-combat positions are far more likely to be taken prisoner because they are not in a team of highly trained, heavily armed people. If the Taliban wants prisoners, they would attack a convoy, if they wanted to get killed, they would attack a Marine patrol.

lifeguard mom, it's ok for men to be tortured and beheaded but dear god don't let the women be tortured and raped? that's basically what I got from what you said and it makes very little sense, especially the part about how this will make us weak. how does having more frontline soldiers at our disposal make us less strong?

They will not have to pass the same tests. They will lighten the tests so as to get them to pass. Or it will not be fair.

KC_NC - I guess I could have said all this in 2 words: Tammy Duckworth!

Seriously, that's the kind of combat pilot I want to land me safely even after she gets both her legs blown off.

And while I hold no special preference for vets in Congress, that's the kind of human being I want representing me.

@ Ray......you have stated it all very succinctly. Can't add anything to it.

For those of you concerned about the selective service? Let's burn that bridge when we come to it. There is not draft currently and I don't see there ever being a draft as long as we have enough poor to join the military. Until the poor in this country have better ways of improving their station other than joining the military there will be no need for a draft. I know I joined to make a better life for myself.

Sure people of means join up, but not as many as from poor beginnings. So stop throwing the draft out there in an attempt to scare people.

By the way, everyone in Israel serves two years in the military and yes, many of the women are in elite or combat units. Dr. Ruth was a sharp shooter in fact. Look it up! Correct me if I am wrong, but they would face the same issues as an American woman if the were captured. I hate that, it makes it sound like you are okay with men being tortured, or yes even raped, but oh no, never a woman. Men feel pain too!

@skrekk. Boo yah!

@Ray

How is it that none of these numpties seems to get it that women are already right in the middle the combat equation. Since 2011 female marines have been embedded in combat patrols because male marines cannot speak to afgan women.

Engaging in combat isn't the same as being directed to it. That's a highly special situation, but doesn't always garuntee that there will be small arms fire. That's also not considering how many female soldiers can bleed out over their male battle buddies not wanting to "touch" them inappropriately. I'm also curious about these promotions? It sounds like an officer thing to me.

@TheBite

The issue isn't what I would be "amazed" a 140 lb woman can do in special circumstances.

If stress played a role in performance, the military would be full of PT studs.

@wolf

If your husband weighs 300+ pounds he is on the fat boy program and was not allowed to deploy

He might be over six feet with a solid build, that's before you consider IBA, Kevler, amunition. Even if he's not 300+, 230 is still a lot of weight for your average female to try and move around, especially while taking fire at the same time.

@Sarah

If she passes the same physical requirements as her male counterparts, why would you trust her less than them? Not all MEN who are in combat could do that either.

Women aren't even required to have the same physical fitness standards as males, so that's laughable.

Why do we allow ALL men to try know some will FAIL, and not allow ANY women to try knowing

some will pass?

That's true in a training environment, if you fail in combat somebody's not coming back.

Having served as a grunt in Mechanized, Light Infantry and a little Air Assault in between women should not be in the Infantry. Not being a pig I will explain why Women generally tend to resolve conflict by talking and dealing with there emotions and use violence as a last resort on patrol you need to be turned on all the time its easier for a man to use violence as a means of solving a problem's its in a our nature. Second Women do not produce the levels of Testerone the same as Men do fact! generally they do not have the raw brute power as men have in regards to upper body strength and have seen some struggle to charge some crew served weapons!Third some missions can last multiple days what if you are on an OP.

and the female soldier's need to shower or it's that time of the month and if they can't shower some may go into toxic shock because of there hygiene needs. Infantry Soldier's know A Hot shower is a god send and you may go days without one even if you are on a COP or Patrol Base, in this case you just your WHORE BATH in which you get the hot spots. Fourth the culture over there doesn't and most places overseas still see women as second class citizens this could have issue's when dealing partnered forces and dealing with locals. Fifth

Humping a M240BRAVO or M249 with full load out tripods, extra ammo, food,water, spare barrels,radio batteries,tow/javelin missiles ,mortar rounds,CLUs special equipment etc etc. Will even kick the most in fit soldier in the ass from time to time!! Weather, Terrain ETC!. There would to be too many hurt feelings people in the Infantry and Combat Arms use dirty language now and then sometimes it is necessary being polite does not cut it from time to time. And last being an Infantry Team Leader is one of the Hardest Jobs in the Army it's going to make it harder than what is already it's tough already. And last I'm pretty somebody has been to PLDC or WLC ETC and seen some non combat MOS bitch and moan about doing SOLDIER TASKS! The common reply IM not INFANTRY! Trust me the forced road marches NEVER LIE and People's show there TRUE Color's.

The same group of Gun nuts who think that AR15's should be in the hands of untrained civilians now think that Women should not be in Combat.

We are hearing about all the bad things that women in combat could be exposed to but I guess the the nuts who are yelling about this have completely forgotten that the Russians in WWII had Women in combat. In facts I believe that the TOP SNIPER in the Rusian Army was a Woman. The Israli army hs women in combat units in facts I have seen several pictures of complete Tank units of ALL Females.

The United States has had women in combat units for several years all we did now was make it an official government policy. Each combat unit will still have it's special physical requirements but if a Female passes the test she will be qualified to perform that function.

I saw some post here where a soldier was concerned about taking shower with a female. Someone needs to tell him that many Europeon countries don't have seperate showers for men and women. The saunas in most Europeon Hotels are unisex.

The solder who posted that concern needs abroader sex education..

Lori-W

Only partially true. By military guidelines, those height/weight are based on BMI levels because most COs understand the governments idea of BMI is a bunch of horse crap. Exceptions are allowed and are VERY common. My friend's husband is 6'6 290(roughly) and has about an 8% body fat. Currently serving frontlines overseas. Solder I work with who is 6'2 or 6'3 is about 264lbs (lean and ripped) at his weigh in last week. He's prepping to deploy in roughly 3 months. I'm 5'9 220lbs and the army says I'm "too fat" to fight according to their guidelines, yet being built like a running back, doubt I'm out of shape.

Let me ask this, can or how does a 140 pound man lift a 300 pound man and carry him to "safety"? Back in my prime, when I was a young, able-bodied (and nothing to be ashamed of), 18 to 20 something, 6 foot female, believe me when I tell you, I could pick up a full-grown man, sling him over my shoulder and fireman carry him as far as he needed to be. I could and I did. The little 5' 4" guy couldn't even move me off the ground. He tried, he really tried. He could drag me. It was all in a rescue camp I attended.

We can argue male strength against female strength all day long. No doubt, most men have more upper body strength than women. However, women have far more lower body strength, and they can use it to their best advantage, as well. That's basic physiology. It's figuring out how to use the best of everyone to achieve our goals. Pitting one against another is not the answer; using each to their best ability is the solution.

So men soldiers can't deal with distractions? WTF? If women are distractions - which I wholeheartedly agree they are - everywhere - I think - DEAL WITH IT. If they want to fight - let them fight. Don't make a freakin big deal out of it.

Having said that I don't particularly like the whole idea of women participating in wars (front of backlines). But I wouldn't oppose them if they want to do just that.

http://wolfen2811.newsvine.com/">wolfen281-2526219

If your husband weighs 300+ pounds he is on the fat boy program and was not allowed to deploy.

I wouldn't jump to conclusions too quickly. It depends on his bone structure and how tall and muscular he is. A 6'2" bodybuilder can easily weigh over 220 lbs. If he's muscular and 6'6" he may be a bit overweight but I wouldn't call him "fat boy", at least certainly not in his face lol. Take Mario Williams for example, (#57- Outside Linebacker, Houston Texans), he is 6'6" 295 lbs, does he look fat to you? Mario Williams Picture .

http://zapper45701.newsvine.com/">zapper45701

Let me ask this, can or how does a 140 pound man lift a 300 pound man and carry him to "safety"? Back in my prime, when I was a young, able-bodied (and nothing to be ashamed of), 18 to 20 something, 6 foot female, believe me when I tell you, I could pick up a full-grown man, sling him over my shoulder and fireman carry him as far as he needed to be. I could and I did. The little 5' 4" guy couldn't even move me off the ground. He tried, he really tried. He could drag me. It was all in a rescue camp I attended.

We can argue male strength against female strength all day long. No doubt, most men have more upper body strength than women. However, women have far more lower body strength, and they can use it to their best advantage, as well. That's basic physiology. It's figuring out how to use the best of everyone to achieve our goals. Pitting one against another is not the answer; using each to their best ability is the solution.

I believe you because as a 5'5" 120 lbs woman I was able to carry a 5'11 170 lbs man on my back easily (fast walking, and back and forth the full length of a gym, and I wasn't even tired). You are an exceptional woman tho at 6', and you are probably able to carry a much heavier man easily.

Anna--Believe it or not, I'm the runt in the family. My daughter is taller than me, and my granddaughter is 6-3. We have never been called "petite." We are formidable women. This bandying back and forth about qualification and strength is a fruitless venture. Everyone has their own "gifts." Some are more physical than others.

And good for you, I'm glad to hear you are quite able as well.

There was a comedian a while back that talked about his mother. It went something like, 'my mom was so strong and powerful that she cooked a Thanksgiving dinner for twenty, cut down a Christmas tree and decorated it, plowed the field, picked, washed and canned 140 jars of green beans, rewired the house, saved the free world and overthrew terrorism. Then, after lunch . . . .'

zapper45701

Anna--Believe it or not, I'm the runt in the family. My daughter is taller than me, and my granddaughter is 6-3. We have never been called "petite." We are formidable women. This bandying back and forth about qualification and strength is a fruitless venture. Everyone has their own "gifts." Some are more physical than others.

And good for you, I'm glad to hear you are quite able as well.

Thanks zapper. And this was without any training whatsoever, I was just starting judo at the time, and I was not muscular at all. So I can imagine that you (and the other women in your family) can probably carry a 300 lbs man on your back, or at least close to that.

There was a comedian a while back that talked about his mother. It went something like, 'my mom was so strong and powerful that she cooked a Thanksgiving dinner for twenty, cut down a Christmas tree and decorated it, plowed the field, picked, washed and canned 140 jars of green beans, rewired the house, saved the free world and overthrew terrorism. Then, after lunch . . . .'

hahaha

Have a good one zapper :)

Women on frontlines 'distracting,' say critics

So were blacks in the early years of our union. So were homosexuals until the repeal of don't ask don't tell. It apparently doesn't take much to distract some people when you're not exactly like them.

You're asking a lot, Jrae. :) Many people think warfare just got started 50 years ago. The truth is that women have always been on the front lines throughout history. They have killed, been killed, been tortured, raped, etc. just like men have. And they did so without the recognition that men have gotten.

Women had combat roles in WWI, WWII and various conflicts throughout the world. Queen Boudica, Joan of Arc, the amazons, etc. are but a few examples from history.

The Israeli have an infantry battalion - the Caracal - of which 70% are women. Russia had plenty of women in combat roles during WWII. They had snipers, gunners, etc. One of the most famous snipers was Lyudmila Pavlichenko who has total confirmed kill record of 309, including enemy snipers.

The first female combat pilot in the world was a Turkish woman. Mary Queen of Scots accompanied troops and, according to some accounts, she did fight and kill the enemy.

Bottom line: women in the U.S. military already work in combat situations. Warfare has changed and it's not like a Hollywood movie. These women can now be recognized for their roles in combat.

I dare anyone who thinks they are less worthy to go and say that in person to any woman who has served and/or tell it to Tammy Duckworth, who lost her legs and injured an arm from combat action. Oh, she's a congresswoman, by the way.

That doesn't count. Just ask John McCain, dillhole and AZ senator. I'm from the South, so I'd be happy to provide AZ with tips on how to secede. It'd do our country good.

I just watched a program about a Coast Guard rescue helo group. Two big rescue choppers in gale force winds, 30 foot seas, picking up the crew of a disabled sailing yacht. Incredibly difficult conditions - the crews said they had never attempted any rescue in such conditions.

All aboard were rescued - 7 in total I believe. The chopper pilots/copilots? All 4 were women. They didn't mention this until the end of the program, and when they did, neither I or my wife were at all surprised. Proud? Yes. Impressed? Absolutely - irrespective of gender.

Rationalize it as you will. Equal is equal.

Yeah, but what gender was the rescue swimmer?

What draft, Bryan?

Football?

I believe he means Selective Service, and if I am not mistaken my age was the first. 1978.

In case you didn't know, didn't do it, or are just to young to know, there is a draft you have to register for as a male when you turn 18.

That's not a draft, James_Tetrick. That's selective service. It's a precursor to the draft. It's not the draft.

From the US Government website:

"System is responsible for supplying U.S. armed forces with people in the event of a national emergency."

I said register for the draft.

If you make it a requirement that ALL women at 18 years of age MUST register for the Selective Services, lots of these women will be changing their tune. But, if men must do it the women should also, it's only fair! And just for the record, I am prior service, US Army. In 1977 when I went to basic training, we were the first rotation of females to be trained using male pushups and training. We were required to do fewer of the sit ups, push ups, a slower run and also shorter road marches with all our gear to go to bivouac. If the women are required to do the EXACT same training as the men it could work, but they must be able to keep up completely with the unit. I feel that only a very few women would be able to completely compete on the same level as the men for front line service.

there is no draft, Bryan. There is a selective service registration that will be used if there every is a draft. You register with the selective service. there is no draft/

Monkey, KG you're nitpicking. Registering for Selective Service is, essentially registering for a draft, as... that's the only purpose selective service serves: a system to mobilize (draft) eligible men for military service. Registering for Selective Service is, in essence, registering for a draft to come.

And if you want to get as technical, monkey, it's not even a precursor. "The Draft" or in general "a" draft as there are multiple reasons it could be invoked, is the mobilization process, part of the Selective Service System. Or if you want to get really technical, nitpicking your words, the draft is a tool of the Selective Service, so how can an organization be a precursor to a tool defined in its regulatory legislation?

Only tools and trolls attack terminology knowing what a poster means rather than adding value to a discussion.

KG it might sound like a cushy 'selective service registation' if you never had to sign up for it.

"It's best to keep things to way God intended" Funny, that's the same reasoning people used to justify racial segregation.

Except your religiuos beliefs (or anyone else's for that matter) don't create our laws. If you don't want to do this (as with gay marriage), don't. No one is forcing anyone. But if they want to, and can meet the same standards, why not?

Some of the most decorated units in World War Two were minority units that were deemed not good enough to fight alongside their white counterparts. The Tuskegee Airmen, the Navajo codetalkers, just to name a few.

If the airmen and codetalkers had their own units, who is to say that a unit comprised of only women couldn't be created. Women are already fighting in combat, just not assigned to combat duty. Women would sign up for the draft, if that meant they could serve.

NavyChief24: before anybody crucifies me for this,....

You're the reason why I strongly pushed my daughters to not even think about a career in the Navy. Navy's loss.

And by the way, who are you to read the mind of God?

because they ALREADY have LOWER standards to pass then men. Women in the millitary have alower standard of physical fitness then men. True. Anyone in the millitary already knows this little gem of information.

how can you look at combat from a biblical perspective? There isnt anything biblical or holy about any nations war or combat strategies. LMFAO. Well at least that what i remember from when i was made to go to church many years a ago

james, anyone without their head up their hindquarters knows it too. the standard for serving in combat would most likely be the same one the men have to reach while leaving non combat roles standards the same. try a little critical thinking.

Well the bible is pretty clear about what God wants in terms of military tactics - the slaughter and genocide of noncombatants, especially women and children.

I'm actually glad we're not using the bible as a code of conduct for our military.

HATR - are you implying that a woman in the Army would have to meet/pass the same APFT test standards as a man to be eligible for an infrantry MOS? Or, are you just assuming this would be the case?

I've been out for a few years now and I know things have changed since I got out. Is there a different PT test for different MOSs? I thought there were standards for Males (by age) and Females (by age) that were different.

I was gonna argue until I saw that your wife agrees with your position. That's the clincher, that what's-her- name that I never met agrees with your dumb asss.

I'll just go and vote against both my daughters' best interests now that I know your wife agrees with you.

How much strange did you hit and not tell your wife about while in service? Don't worry, the guys that had her won't disclose that to you either.

Why on God's Green earth was comment 7.1 collapsed by the community?

"100% AGREE AND IM A WOMAN"

You censors need to "let free speech" happen. Or are you against the constitution? Where was any violation of this board community violated MSNBC WITH that comment????????????????????????????????????????

s&w- this board is a popular vote board and that's why.

bookem- i'm implying they should have a second test for those women who wish to serve in combat roles that is equal to the men's version. since it's a new role they could add new requirements to serve in it. for any non combat roles the requirements could stay the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States#End_of_conscription

There is NO Draft.

Phoenix - There is no active draft. All men in the US are still required to register for Selective Service (draft) when they turn 18.

Come to think of it, men should stay out of it too.

true to your name troll!

Bryan-that is because the "she-joe" is CARRYING the "HE-JOE" at the time he has her gear

Bryan-2698455: So glad you're easily amused.

Now, go back to Gears of War. Your mom will be home soon.

I remember the footage of white people heckling black students integrating our schools. You have not aged since that footage. Perhaps if you had wasted those years becoming educated at all, you would not have had the time to spend attending to your youthful good looks (and smart crew cut!).

This

Wood: According to John McCain!!!!!

Well what can you expect from a senile old bitter man! He still wants to win in VietNam.

woodbutcher, NOT to take anything away from pilot Duckworth. However, think of this in civilian terms, which activity takes greater physical conditioning & fitness, flying a plane having loaded your 100# bag into the backseat, OR hiking yourself up pike's peak with a 100# backpack. Forty years ago I could & did do the later, now I can only do the former. Ah, the rewards of age.

I would have been far more impressed, and less suspicious, that this is for political & PC reasons, than for military effectiveness & readiness. IF the brass had merely done something like just allowing all to try, rather than have a press briefing.

Ahh, the stupidity continues. Still, my favourite quote is from Newt Gingrich.

• If combat means living in a ditch, females have biological problems staying in a ditch for thirty days because they get infections and they don't have upper body strength. I mean, some do, but they're relatively rare. On the other hand, men are basically little piglets, you drop them in the ditch, they roll around in it, doesn't matter, you know. These things are very real. On the other hand, if combat means being on an Aegis-class cruiser managing the computer controls for twelve ships and their rockets, a female may be again dramatically better than a male who gets very, very frustrated sitting in a chair all the time because males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes.

Address, "Renewing American Civilization," Reinhardt College (7 January 1995)

Same tune, different orchestra. God help us.

being a woman thats captured, just ones one more thing that can be done to them,

It can be done to men too, I don't know in what fantasy world you live in but what can be done to women who are captured has been done to men who are captured and it has been done since recorded history.

kevin, missing the point, INFANTRY, where they still teach hand-to-hand combat for a reason. Sometimes, for whatever reason, you are NOT going to be using 'modern weapons'. Neither the Army or Marines can afford or tolerate having Infantrymen that can only do part of their difficult job. They are the generalists and do everything in their job class.

With all other things being equal, the stronger of two fighting will win. Unless you intent to draft female olympic stars, 99 % of the time, a fight between and man & woman, will see the woman dead. This does no good for her squad, platoon, company...nation.

You should WANT our nation's defenders to be the MOST effective bad-asses in the world. It keeps foreign fools from pissing on our leg.

Men can and will be raped as well as women in combat situations. It's foolish and naive to believe otherwise.

MANY countries have women fighting in their Military. Israel for example.

It's the 21st Century. Pray, please do join us in the future from your perch in the 18th Century.

why stop at age? what about the cripples or blind or retarded that want to join the military? shouldnt they be allowed to fight for their country just as women can now? hell while we are at it why not enlist children? surely a child can be trained to pull a trigger or a throw a grenade just as well as a woman.

Uncle: "why stop at age? what about the cripples or blind or retarded that want to join the military? shouldn't they be allowed to fight for their country just as women can now?..."

Are you characterizing all women as cripples, blind and/or retarded? Somehow I think you may be the one who's "crippled, blind and retarded" all rolled into one miserable human being.

They already are. What's your point?

Since they've been shot at for years, how's about they collect the combat pay men in combat receive. Did you read the article, Mr Greene? More importantly, were you able to comprehend its meaning?

It has created many problems. They are handled at a company/battalion level. You will never hear of the issues. They are only whispered and rumored about by the lower enlisted. I don't want to say you are naive, but do you think every crime is reported on the nightly news. You only hear about it when there is video, or someone champions the cause.

Oh, well, I always believe anonymous internet reports of whispers and rumors.

Bite, where do you get your "facts"? The tooth fairy?

He hears "whispers and rumors."

Herron - do you know for a "fact" that it hasn't caused any problems or do you only know that it hasn't caused any problems that you know about?

Herron, Bite is completely right. My husband and son are both active service military and the doing away with DADT has changed things greatly within the ranks. They just don't want to let the PC minded public to know about it.

I agree with most of your post, but wonder why you single out gays and lesbians? Are they more prone to "funny business" as you described? Do you know that gays have been in the military as long as there has been a military? If soldiers are supposed to be professional, highly trained, etc and we are paying them to do a job, they should ALL be concentrating on their job, not any "funny business."

"We dont even know how to let men be men anymore and we wonder why they all wanna be gay..."

I suspect you are just a very ugly woman. The men you meet don't want to tell you that to your face, and so tell you they're gay instead. This makes much more sense than the drivel you posted here.

You are very ignorant. Gays don't want to be Gay they just are. You don't want to be ignorant you just are. Men and women are created equal even if you say they demeaned men. That is why there is so much spousal abuse because some men feel as you do. Mens egos are what keeps them from treating their partners as equals. When women do a full time job and go home to clean their houses and mow the lawn and raise (for the mostpart) their children, they don't deserve to be treated like housekeepers, cooks and sex partners while the husband gets to sit down, read, watch TV. Give them a break. Surely you know women are better at life than men.

Thanks for demonstrating the intellectual firepower behind the opposition to this change.

Eagle: you are a man posing as a very stupid illiterate woman. Go away!

jack: Thanks for the focus. Cryptic, and crushing.

Eagle Among Chickens, you are not a woman, but you are a liar.

Actually the women in the IDF dont fight. They never operate in expeditionary capacities or on raids.

The article did say (unless it changed) was that sometimes they don't shower for a month and then all line up naked to get sprayed down. I would consider that distracting. Plus, if they don't shower for a month and hygiene is bad, what do these women do whant they have to go change their feminine products every hour.

I don't think women belong on the front lines.

If you want to be in the military, you can't be prissy. If you find a naked human body distracting, you need a psychologist.

>If you want to be in the military, you can't be prissy. If you find a naked human body distracting, you need a psychologist.

Maybe not distracting on the front line but, in the rest times and the times off the battle field. This is not going to sound good but, when men go with out any type of sex for months or years at a time, it could cause problems and I could see sexual things being passed to women that is unwelcome. This could cause a major distraction. Never mind the lawsuits from women.

I do support it but, like said, I could see the possabliblity of being a distraction.

If a woman enters, she needs to do EVERYTHING a man can do, no lower limits. If they can not handle it, they should not be able to enter. If you were shot on the battle field and you needed help, the only person with you could only lift no more than 75 pounds. Personally, I would worry for my life.

As long as the woman can do EVERYTHING that her fellow man can do (within current guidlines) then I fully support it. With that warning as it not being a distraction off the battle field.

If women should do everything men do in the military they should rape the MEN!!!!!

Women in combat areas take the pill which suppressed their menses, go on Depo Provera or have the implant. Why is this so difficult a concept for so many to comprehend? They don't have menstrual cycles.

Same old keeping women pregnant and in the kitchen.

Cameron....What decade are you living in? There has not been a requirement to register for selective service in the US since 1973......40 years ago.

Wrong. Almost every male aged 18 is required to register for selective service. www.sss.gov/must.htm

Darrell, not true at all. EVERY male at 18 is required to register for selective service. There is currently no draft, but they still have to sign up just in case.