Women in combat policy to change
By Barbara Starr
The Defense Department is notifying Congress Thursday it will open up nearly 14,000 jobs to military women that will place them even closer to the front lines of combat.
A senior Pentagon official confirmed details to CNN, but declined to be identified until a formal announcement comes later on Thursday.
Under a 1994 policy, women are restricted from formally serving in small ground units directly involved in combat. The reality of the last ten years of war however has been that many women serve in support positions–such as military police or medics–which place them in harms way. They are not formally assigned to combat units, but rather informally "attached" which means they do not get the crucial credit for combat duty that is needed for promotions to higher grades.
Some of the jobs that will now be open to women include specialties such as tank or artillery mechanic, crew members on missile launcher, and field surgeons in forward deployed brigade combat teams.
However, women will still not be permitted in front line jobs directly involved in combat such as infantry units or counterterrorism sniper teams.
Over the last several years, advocates as well as some senior US military commanders have increasingly called for more ground combat jobs to be open to women.
According to Pentagon statistics more than 140 women have lost their lives in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and more than 860 have been wounded.
The new changes may not go into effect fully until later this year as Congress must have 30 days in continuous session to have a chance to voice objections if there are any.
@natlsecuritycnn on Twitter
Here's my issue: I think women should have the option to be assigned to combat units, and not just informally attached because of the benefits that come with it. Women do great things for this country, and those who have sacrificed their lives or their health shold be honored. No doubt about it. BUT women on the frontlines in infantry units just does not make sense to me. Women are held to lesser physical requirements in testing. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this policy because by nature women are not built like men. That's not a surprise. But if women are the frontlines next to my infantryman husband, and he gots woudned, she better damn well be able to carry his 190 lb body 200 yards to safety. Because of the lesser requirements, I don't have much confidence in her ability to do so. I love our female soldiers and I respect their sacrifices, but sometimes we have to think about the tactical reality.
From the videos I have seen, there are plenty of "kids" in the front-lines that could not take your 200 lb husband off the battlefield alone.
I couldn't agree more, there are a lot of scrawny so-called soldiers who cannot do it by themselves either.
I doubt even a 6' man could carry your injured husband to safety without the help of others, trained in combat. It takes teamwork to accomplish great things. I think your soldier husband will back me up on this. Without teamwork your husband would more than likely be toast.
I just came for the comments.
Many women soldiers are on the front lines already, and have have been for years. It is hypocritical to continue to deny them equal hazard pay & promotion chances.
they are getting combat pay and no taxes already you twit. As long as you are in a combat zone everybpdy gets paid the same
And that is called gender discri...
I think women should be able to fight or be part of any combat group out there if they are good enough for the team. It should not be about gender but about capabilities. If they are not capable then they don’t get the job. Simple as that on the other had if they have the capabilities they should be right up in the front lines with the rest of us. No favoritism IMO.
IF a soldier can perform the job, meeting all requirements that the MOS requires, i.e. physical standards, without regard to gender differences, then by all means, let's let all capable people serve in all jobs. HOWEVER, there should be NO different PT standards or allowances for "monthly visitors" or "moods", etc. to performing the duties assigned as a soldier, period. This standard should be the same for all jobs across the military. I know from experience that women and men can work together to accomplish the same mission, but there are times when people (from genders) misuse or abuse their gender differences. We need to educate people and allow all who meet standards to perform the job. I'm sure we'll take a while though. We only now started letting GLBT to openly serve without fear; with no degradation of unit cohesion or morale. We can only hope that in the future, with a leaner and stronger Army, we will see all qualified soldiers doing the job together.
Open all combat positions to women. Let the female body bags flow. If the feminist leaders want this for their sisters, so be it.
let each "sister" choose for herself.
actually feminist don't belive in war at all or the military. Its those who serve pushing for this thats why its 2012 and we're still debating and bullshiting around
To say the full name and rank of a female who died and refer to the other soldiers who died along with her as simply "male soldiers" is rude and inconsiderate to the highest degree. If they gave their lives dying for their country and you don't even have the common courtesy to say their names, then you obiously have no respect for the men and women who searve in the militray. I think that CNN should appoligize to the families of the soldiers that they disrespected like that.
One of my classmates, an army Sargent explained to me why Women don't serve on the front, he asked that question a while back when he was starting out... out of curiosity.
He said that it was a safety measure designed to protect the mental health of the men on the front... which regardless of policy, will always constitute the majority of the front lines. Battle can be stressful and traumatizing to the individuals in the front line, from the actual battle situation, to watching your friends get blown up, to seeing children on the street laying in pieces. It is engrained in the mind of men to protect women, and it has been shown that seeing a fellow female soldier blown up to bits, raped and/or laying in pieces by the roadside mutilated SERIOUSLY MESSES WITH male soldiers. On top of the trauma, it is riddled with failure of their natural instincts to protect.
So ladies, it is not because you are unequal, it is just the way the male mind is built... built to care about females and protect them.
I've heard this many times from soldiers and from a biological standpoint, cannot disagree.
Sorry to tell you, Whynot11, but that is BS. Healthy soldiers are emotionally affected when any of their colleagues are hurt or killed, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Women's lives are not worth more than men's lives; and hetero soldiers' lives are not worth more than gay soldiers' lives.
I've heard this stupid shit too, time and time, and time again. Sounds like a personal problem. Maybe they are not fit to fight? Mentaly speaking of course. Because I have to tell you I'm not going to cry over anyone more than the next, and I haven't.
I'm pretty sure seeing a male soldier blown to bits or raped would mess up male soldiers too...
Women have died in combat in every single war since 1776.
Many died in WW2 and a lot died in Korea and Vietnam.
The "no women in combat" rule is simply a way to NOT pay them combat pay.
It saves a lot of money for other things, like Wall Street bailouts etc.
It's all in the wording. In flight training we were not supposed to train on Saturday due to costs, so they made us train on Saturday, so we would not have to train on Saturday. No joke, it's true.
Wrong Angel.
Women who go to war get the same combat (actually, "Hazardous Duty") pay as men.
Period.
Combat or hazardous fire pay is not dependent upon your MOS or job. All Soldiers, women and men, get "combat pay" depending upon the geographical location in which they are serving. It has nothing to do with job or gender. Furthermore, I have yet to see or hear of any specific situation in which a man or a woman in the Army at least has been denied promotion or not promoted ahead of peers regardless of combat service. The argument has nothing to do with equal pay or equal advancement. It is solely a philosophical one.
Well shows what you know. I deployed with 40 or so women and everyone was paid the same based on what rank they are. Women do get combat pay if deployed to a combat zone. The main issue is keeping women out of combat units such as infantry, cavalry and artillary. It's a basic male instinct to protect women. Studies have shown a man will protect a woman over a man. The men on our front lines need to be able to choose who to help or protect based soley on triage. Who has a better chance of survival, who has a more tactical precedance. Not based on who the soldier feels more passionate or protective over. I agree there are women that can do the "combat" jobs better than some men, but those men need to be moved out of the front lines and put in support positions. The standards in the military have gotten soft. These standards need to be upheld and strengthened. Leave the hippie liberals out of it and let the dicipline take care of everything. It is a volunteer military. We know what we're getting in to.
Woman are already in combat because there really are no conventional 'front lines' in asymmetrical warfare.......and that's what we've been fighting for the last 10 years.....
This fact means that woman are.....and probably always will (in future wars/conflicts) be in positions of direct conflict with enemy forces.
That should've read; "direct CONTACT with enemy forces".
the problem is that women are held to a lower standard for physical fitness. Think the enemy they fight will be slower and weaker because the women soldiers are allowed to be? Nope.
Fine, then hold us to the same standard. They deny women the same opportunities as men regardless as to how physically fit or capable they are.
There is so few women that could ever reach the same standards that the men infantry train to that to spend millions on building separate barracks and showers for them and paying the 99.9999% that will fail isn't worth the cost.
How many females do you know can drag a 200lb limp body fast enough (if at all) out of a danger zone? Most likely none. I don't know of any. Female infantry and other direct combat soldiers are a liability.
I agree completely. If women meet the standard, then they should be allowed. People are acting like women are asking for affirmative action to get them into combat roles?
I served 23 years in the USAF and I can tell you that the slow deliberate move to put women in combat units will only weaken the fighting spirit/capabilities of our fighting forces. There's a reason why women don't play at the professional level in sports (NFL, NHL, NBA, Boxing, etc) against men, and that's because they will fail miserably. And when you go up against seriously trained military forces (professional) you won't just lose a game where you can try again later, but you will lose your life, the lives of your fellow soldiers and possibly your country’s very existence. If you think women should be in combat then why not assembly a group of around 300 women, train them and send them into combat and see how they do. Any volunteers, I thought not.
If you shoot a fully automatic M-60 at someone, does it matter if you're 6'3 or 5'10? No, it doesn't. Shooting weapons isn't the same as playing football.
that's true, but if you consider the person's ability to pick up the weapon and move it quickly when necessary (something that occurs all the time), or say dragging a wounded friendly off the field, it definitely matters. Pulling a trigger is as easy for a small and big person, but our military personnel are responsible for much more than that.
So, who's gonna carry and set up that M60 that you seem to know so much about?
You don't understand his comment. The physical exertion and stamina required for continual armed combat, let alone hand to hand combat, is enormous. The male physique is more suited to this requirment. Why do you suppose in ancient times men were the warriors with very, very few exceptions?
If a particular woman can't do what she has to than she shouldn't be given the job, just like a man who couldn't do it. But there is no reason for a gender based ban.
A great idea! One battalion of women with PMS and a gun will do wonders for our national security. No one would dare cross them!
i think an all female group of warriors would be formidable. Hell hath no fury...
I heard the USAF is hard. I know a few Female marines that would eat you for breakfast just saying. Your comments are meant to stay in your narrow minded head. There are already females out there doing what males do everyday but they are not getting credit for doing it. Open your eyes and maybe your mind will follow.
You obviously misunderstood. I don't think he cares if they get recognition but keep them out of front line combat units. You can easily tell who has and who has not served in the military on these boards. By the way, USAF has special ops guys right there with the SEALS and forward air controllers that are right along side the infantry units. How do you know he wasn't in one of those units.
Other capable militaries don't have a problem with women serving alongside men. Israel is a good example. The only reason for this attitude is sexism and mysogyny. Hold women to the same standard as men, and accept those who meet it.
They're still not permitted in direct combat lines. This is pure discrimination.
Women should be given every opportunity to die in war as men, or we will never have equality.
If you were wounded on the field and needed someone to drag you away from the gunfight to a medic, would you be so concerned about discrimination? I thought not.
How naive. Would you want a 125 lb. woman trying to save your rear end or a 190 lb. male with the physical training the women will not be able to achieve? Give me the guy so I can live to see my family again. For her sake and mine. I suppose she would have a family also and if she can't drag my 225 lb body with full armament out of there we are both dead.
Do you really think that a woman who has gone through military training is going to be 125 pounds? Are you aware of how foolish you are?
Obviously you have never served in the military. Women will hesitate at the moment of truth and get their fellow squad members killed. It is not their fault as they are proven to have different brains. They have developed nurturing and self-preservation as an innate, ingrained behaviour. This does not jive with the horror and chaos of combat. I would support women in combat that willingly volunteer for it if they were segregated into all female units with female commanders. What I don't support is attempting to blend them into regular all male units and diluting/compromising their effectiveness when it matters.
What are you basing that on? Women are in combat situations all the time and I don't hear about them hesitating at the moment of truth. You're just being sexist. You might as well say that blacks can't serve because they're stupid or gay people can't serve because of whatever homophobic thing people said in defense of DADT.
i guess no one learned from the little jessica lynch thing huh? ran off to get gangbanged by half the squad and caused more problems than she helped with lol. this is stupid.
Pull your head out of the sand. Way to blame the victim for the problem. They don't let you out of the looney bin much, do they...
I still don't understand why it's okay for my brother to die for our country but not me. The last time I checked we all bleed red. My life is not more important then my brother. Besides I've seen some men who can't shoot, can't run, cry when they break a nail and some women, who can shoot, can run and breaking a nail is nothing.
lol what is it about war you want to see so bad? seriously there's some complete morons out threre
And you erin andrews perky breasts are heading up and leading the pack of those morons you are writing about.
@erin – Some are sheep and some are warriors. It is clear what category you fall into.
No one will read this cause its at the bottom. I feel Its pretty simple. The world is changing and we need more boots on the ground. If a woman can do the job let her. Its not hippy, its not me trying to be fair, its not anything. Job needs to get done... and who ever can do it... lets have em do it. We should use all the tools we have to get the mission done. Plain and simple.
The positions being opened up are still generally considered support. Putting women in these positions won't have any measurable effect over the having them in the positions they currently serve in, aside from recognition and promotional opportunities, and I see nothing wrong with that. There are political components to this decision, I'm not denying that, but alot of these comments are rehashed complaints that have been repeated since Desert Storm, when service women were first becoming vocal about wanting combat deployments. This isn't a game change within the military, it's just a natural progression.
Women in military combat roles? Worked well for Jessica Lynch... oh wait, she could perform a basic clearing of her rifle....
Ah yes jessica lynch = all female soldiers. Got it.
Lynch was a unit supply specialist in the Reserves. Her unit was a rear-echelon support unit. At the time of the attack on her unit, the Army was not offering pre-deployment combat refresher skills or tactical convoy training. So with that in mind, what exactly are you trying to say?
There is a simple reason to all of this. Thsi is why we have women sports and why they arent put into the male groups, thats why there is a WNBA that looks and plays like 6th grade boys running layup drills, this is wht women dont plan in the NFL or fights guys in the UFC. BC its not the same its not a match, they will become a hindrance, yes there might be a small select few who could make it, but they are so far and in betwenn it isnt even considered.
At least by the 6th Grade their grasp of the English language and Grammar skills would be better than your 2nd Grade attempts. Spell check and proof reading are good tools. Use them.
If you're so confident that women can't do what they would have to do, then there is no reason to have this gender based ban. Women wouldn't pass the test and wouldn't serve on the front lines. Why are you supporting this sexist ban if you think it's unnecessary?
The only criteria should be the ability to to the job. Bullets, missiles, and their targets don't care in the slightest the sex of the individual who squeezed the trigger.
"However, women will still not be permitted in front line jobs directly involved in combat such as infantry units or counterterrorism sniper teams."
Never mind that women already serve as Military Police, convoy commanders\members, medics or truck drivers and pilots or crew on board aircraft... DoD and the rest of society needs to get with the program and open it all up, let them (women) serve where they are qualified to serve.
As an active duty NCO I disagree with this. Only military personnel understand is that you do NOT get to choose your unit in the military. The majority of women who serve will be unwillingly placed in harms way. I do believe that there are many woman fully capable of fighting..i HAVE seen it. I am all for equal rights, but not when a person is placed in harms way because of a ill conceived notion of fare play for the sexes. The military is not the same as the civilian world, somethings cannot be and should not be the same. Our woman DO at times engage in combat already. Why make it worse, or even manditory? Remember Soldiers do NOT get to choose when or where they go, you just get orders telling you.
Did you read the article? "However, women will still not be permitted in front line jobs directly involved in combat such as infantry units or counterterrorism sniper teams." Women are still not allowed in direct combat roles. More jobs are opening for women but they are crew support roles.
Ed.....you gotta read more than JUST the headlines.
If the use of women combatants was a feasible policy, than the Soviets would have used them in WWII. Since they in fact used women effectively in combat, I guess you get my drift...
Soviets suffered more military deaths (8+ million) than all the axis countries combined ... EFFECTIVE!
How many of those deaths were men? I guess men are ineffective in combat and shouldn't be allowed combat roles! Yay logic!!
This little girl means business.
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2010/08/30/wish-you-were-here/
Females do not belong in combat MOS's. I served in the infantry as an 11C for 3 years and spent a 15 month deployment in Iraq. First of all women are not subjected to the same PT standards as men. There might be a small percentage of women that can compete but the majority can not. Also I can only imagine having a female or females along with us at my PB. It would not have worked at all. There is a commeraderie between male infantry soldiers and a female would not fit into that mix well. Seperate sleeping quarters, seperate latrines and so on. Please stick to the non combat roles and leave us alone!
Or you could grow up.
By that logic, we could argue that men should stay away and let women do the job. If you can't handle being around women, you're the one with the problem.
I respect your opinion this touchy subject but other country like Israel, North Korea, etc. have combatant female soldiers. I believe if they qualify on all matters they should get a chance.
v/r
Mingo
I was a Fleet Marine Force Corpsman for 8 years. I went throught the same training and held myself to the same PT standards as the men. I slogged through everything they did. As long as we were "behind" the combat lines; we served together, but when they were deployed to a forward area, I was left behind. You have never seen such a display of anger from a Marine unit. They were furious that they lost "their" doc because I was female. They did not think of me as female, I was the doc, period. I was replaced by a male reservist that layed carpet for a living and had not performed field work in his life. I was a degreed parmedic when I joined. I had performed under fire in the civilian world. I was transfered to a helo unit that was deployed to provide humaniterian aid and was fired upon. I still managed to do my job! Don't tell me we don't "belong". I lost two marines in my unit that woudl not have died if I had been allowed to go with them and ended up get shot at anyway!!
It works for many other countries, why can't the US Army manage it?
Things have gone down hill sense we let 'em vote. Why not put the nail in nation's coffin and be done with it. Our military has been accomlishing exactly jack all over the world, so unnecessarily placing the physically less competent in combat roles isn't really going to amount to much.
"since", not "sense", you arrogant idiot!
why are they so eager to die?
Another assinine decision. What happens when a female soldier is captured by an enemy? Think they will treat her well? More than likely not in the least. Changing the roles of women again. Political correctness or the disquised destruction of a families nurturer. We are twisting the designed order and teachings within our society to all sorts of unintended forms and then wonder why there are so many troubles and issues complicating our lives.
Everyone faces that. Sex isn't the issue. What's the worse that can happen? They die? They get raped? They get tortured? Every service member going into combat potentially faces that, it's not like being a man exempts you from that reality.
Stop whining. I don't think you need a dick to shoot straight.
Why is it better that the enemy do unspeakable things to a male soldier?
That's the chance I take every time I put on this uniform! No one forced me to join and I have proudly done so for the past 14 years. I've had three chances to get out and do something else, but no I've stepped up to the plate and have done what less then 1% of Americans are willing to do and serve our country.
It is very rare to have a women with as much upper body strength as a man. Most women in their 20s can't do a regular push up(a guy push up), but almost any man in his 20s can. Strength matters in combat, gear is heavy.
Upper body strength matters less than leg strength, and women have plenty of that in spades. I've witnessed many fat, overweight and out of shape men in the military who couldn't hold a candle to some of the more fit women. If a women can meet the standards without those standards being diminished, then let them.
Combat soldiers are not fat, ever. You are just throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. Combat soldiers are in very good shape, and legs is not everything, their is heavy stuff to carry and lift. A women would complain about the hardness eventually, or she wouldn't, but either way, men would have no ability to know if she was near her physical breaking point.
@Andrew- They have no way of knowing when the man next to them is near physical breaking point either.
Andrew – I am a woman in my 30's. At my last fitness assesment I did 46 "guy" push-ups. Every female in the military has to do them. Maybe you should check your facts before making unfounded statements based on an inaccurate generalization.
Show me a female who can ruck 12 miles in 2 hours and 30 minutes with a 45 lb ruck, rifle, helmet, water and necessary gear along with score a 270+( making a concession here) on the Army Physical Fitness Test... Stay in the field with no sanitary considerations, yes even during that time of month, and resist the sexual advances of the men around her because they will happen. Finally she can't accept special treatment or help more so than any other soldier would need.
These are what I would consider MINIMUM standards. I Guarantee that out of 1000 females you get less that 25 who could manage this. Given that these roles are not voluntary combat units simple wouldn't be able to weed out those who don't meet the standards fast enough. I am in the military, I've PT'ed with females, I've worked with them and have no problems with them. However, combat is not an equal rights environment. Move too slow and people die, create divisions in the unit and people could die, require special accommodations and people could die. Let the military fight the fight, we're the experts, not the general public and its inexperienced opinion no matter how noble.
@professionalatarms who said that women should be held to a lower standard? Nobody. Even if it's only the minority of women who can do that, then why should those women not be allowed in combat roles just because a majority can't? That makes no sense.
And where in the article did it say the standards for how much weight you can carry are being lowered? If a woman meets the requirements, there's no justification for keeping her out of the front lines.
Women should be allowed to fight in combat. Men have carried this burden for far too long, and at this point it should be a shared burden. It's not like we have to worry about the survival of our species because we don't have enough people, we obviously do. So let them fight and die like men have for centuries. They work in the same jobs men do, might as well let them fight and die for their country as well.
They work the same jobs that the government mandates, they really don't have equal ability though, or you would see women working more on oil rigs. Some work is too heavy and hard for most females. Women don't even work as laborers on job sites, what the hell makes them think they can be infantry.
I'm not saying they're all going to be qualified, but if there are a few kick ass women out there that can, well why not let them?
The point really is that women in Iraq have seen combat but aren't recognized as having done so. They get all of the crud and non of the benefits of having done so.
There are women who work on rigs and do other manual jobs. Its not the career of choice for most women, but for those that qualify and do those jobs, why shouldn't they be recognized?
Maybe we could just quit killing each other off. Oh right, Malthus again.
That would be the optimal solution, but not the realistic one.
I think it is funny how all the men crawl into their irrational sexist shells to argue against these changes. Militiawomen have proven themselves over the last ten years in spite of being denied equal opportunities for career advancement. Sorry your last bastion for masculinity is now being threatened by equal opportunity employment. Why don't you try defining your manhood for yourself, rather than relying on institutions to do it for you?
I agree compleately that women should be put on the front line. In fact I think they should put only women on the front line and let the guys kick back and laugh at the results. You want equal rights, be careful what you wish for!
Women have already been serving as military police, who are often the VERY FIRST to be fired upon when an incident takes place. You don't have to be kicking in doors to be in danger in an urban war zone. Again, irrational sexism clouds good judgment. No one is arguing that there should be a total takeover. Rather, that the opportunity should be made available. Stop trying to protect your eggshell ego for 5 seconds and think logically for once.
If women could pass all the men's physical tests, I could agree then about women in combat. I can also see if women in combat died, their deaths would be seen as more important than the men's deaths, especially by the likes of CNN and MSNBC. That would degrade the comradery of the unit, and would compromise readiness. It's a very slippery slope. I know most liberals want to pretend men and women are the same, they are not.
So why not let them try the tests, and if they pass they can join, same as a man. The only reason their deaths would seem "more important" now is because they're being babied and not treated the same as the men in the military. If it was unquestioned that women were allowed on the front lines, their deaths would be treated equally to men.
Andrew,
I am a liberal and I completely agree with you. After having served in combat roles over the last 10 years, the bond between those on the frontline is everything. Women are very capable and successful service members without question, but they tend to be a huge distraction/concern on the battlefield. In my opinion there are a slim few that can fit in with the frontline elements and still achieve the success of the mission. I do not intend disrespect to any woman in service or support of service members.
This comment board makes me laugh. There is so much variability person to person (man to man) relative to strength, speed, upper body whatever...blah blah. How about if a person can meet the required physical standards and has the requisite training, then they get to do the job if they want that MOS? The military has historically focused on merit based systems that try to remove race, color, gender, and other factors from consideration – leaving just performance to or above a defined standard. More power to the women that want to take on the challenge of defending the US in combat – it's already happening so why not give them those jobs to make their roles more clear and set them on the same footing as male counterparts that they may outperform and lead in those career fields.
Women cannot complete with the same standards you stupid fuking biitch. The only way a woman will pass is if they lower the standards. We on the front lines do not want a weak, emotional, stupid fuking biitch fighting along side of us and having to depend on them to watch our backs.
There's a Troll here, after all. Nice!
Check your spelling Matt. You stupid fucking man.
Wow Matt, that's a pretty emotional response!
Have to agree with Saun, you seem really emotional. Are you sure you're fit for combat?
wow. please don't breed.
I am so glad to be reading the genuine reactions of our males in the responses on this article. While I am inbetween on this issue I am extremely glad to have an amazing fiance who is not a sexist, disgusting, foul HUMAN.
Women can't compete with men without lowering the standards. I never see women working on oil rigs, working as construction laborers, hard jobs that only some men can do, get a grip you unrealistic feminist.
You never see them on oil rigs? Have you been on an oil rig? There are women who take those jobs.
There are plenty of female construction workers. I had to grow up listening to my dad complain about having to hire women welders. However even he eventually admitted most of them were good. It is hard giving up the boys club.
Four reasons why women should not be in combat:
1. They do not perform the same Physical Fitness Standards, and until they do, we cannot compare them relative to their male peers. And the General who is holding that back is a female general in Training Command...so can't complain there.
2. Lack of hygiene and facilities. Is it right to devote one shower and one head to 1 or 2 or 3 females who want to serve if it is a company of 200 Marines and all they have are two shower stalls and two heads? The ratio is not fair, but mandated by the DoD...equal facilities. And don't say we can just build new facilities...if you do, you are being naive of the logistical situation in a front line unit.
3. Men take injuries and afflictions to females harder than other males...it is a greater morale killer to see a woman hurt than another man because it reminds us of our sisters, mothers, wives or girlfriends...and we feel like we let them down by not protecting them.
4. Most importantly, if a woman is coming up on deployment and does not want to go...get pregnant...and they have a perfectly legal and moral ground to stand on (we cannot punish them for getting out of a deployment like a male soldier/Marine who intentionally breaks their arm to get out of a deployment)...but that effects force deployment and administrative requirements.
If the goal is to make our forces stronger, less hampered with administrative issues, more free to execute missions against an all male enemy...then I find fault in this idea.
great, now Rogerr has introduced logic and reason to this discussion. Actually, thanks.
It is these points that make it very hard for me to not turn against my own values and condemn this as a bad idea. I am a women, and I highly value the freedom I have to do most anything. However, I realize that just because I want to does not mean I should or can.
Why not have the Mothers bring there children, and everybody will be happy,,,,my take women should serve in the forces but never on the frontline .
I never want to serve with someone who talks to people like Matt does.
Lauren – I think you hit on all the points nicely.
My roommate blew all the men out of the water at Basic Training as well as at Officer Candidate School. She can run faster, and for longer, do more sit ups and more pull ups than all of the guys that she was in training with (and for the record she is a straight, girlie-girl) It requires more personal effort for a female to get there but it doesnt mean it's impossible. If a female is able to meet the male PT requirement, why not?
Women have been fighting in combat roles in the Canadian military for years. Get with the times, America.
Yes, exactly why we dont want them in our forces. The weakest country on the planet Canada has women in their combat roles because the men are fuking pusssiees.
We in Canada don't have women in combat, you might have heard that somewhere, but its not true.
Canadians are in Afghanistan dying alongside your soldiers. Show some respect.
And, yes, women do servein full combat roles in Canada. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military
Matt
Come call us pussies and 'the weakest country on the planet' when you start running out of water in the U.S.... you fool!
Yes, the Canadian military is the standard to which all armed forces s/b measured. "smirk"
Israel, Germany, France, etc., all permit women to fight in combat roles. It is backward for the US to believe women can't contribute in combat. Besides, it's not as if the US has done so well in wars without 'em.
The furthest sniper kill was made by a Canadian with an American designed bullet.
As a former Marine infabtryman and combat vet I say NO. In communist countries during Cold War women served in combat roles but all were comrades. Part of Marxist ideal's of tearing down the old society to build up the new society. Thats why Obama and his merry bunch at the WH want to blur gender lines, detroy traditional marraige, force Catholic Church to accept abortion.
Just in case you missed it the first time:
you are an idiot. If you do not beleive they should not be in combat fine. EEvery nation when left with annilhation will use woman and children to defend the homeland. The Russians needed the cannon fodder because of their inferior weapons and tactics at the beginning of the war. Study history, get off of the militia email list and get your facts straight. I disagree to an extent with some folks but at least they present facts, not some aryan nation BS
Do you think women should not be in the military at all? I mean isn't that destroying the family?
Typical Jar Head talk. First, Women are already serving in combat positions all over the military. 2nd. Bush was the first to probe this subject during his first term in office. 3rd. Stop being such a male chauvinistic pig, I've seen what women can do.
Is that how you honor the Marines by criticizing the commander in chief? So much for Semper Fi
I hope this decision is made on the basis of what is militarily best rather than trying to promote equality. If you are in harm's way, you deserve to have the best support possible. Also, POWs are often abused, so it should surprise no one what will happen if a female is captured
This is so stupid. How many men will die trying to protect the women.
Hopefully the same ammt that would have died trying to protect their buddy. You're an idiot and obviously never put on a uniform in defense of your country. Leave the decisions on how to protect the country up to us and just enjoy your freedom and shut up.
Well said, SGT J.
This decision is political. Not based on the requirements of combat.
I haven't read through all the comments but I'll make mine anyway.... This isn't news... Its actually a pretty ridiculous claim that this is a policy change of some sort..... As a Platoon Leader in Baghdad I worked with 'women in combat' on a daily basis. As a Company Commander I have over 30 women in my Military Police Company who would, on a moments notice, roll outside the wire and fight right next to any male counterpart. Women in the Military Police Corps have been shot at, blown up by IEDs, mortared, etc.. for years. Give them credit, they deserve it.
Hooah Sir!
This is so stupid. How many men will dir trying to protect the women.
How many men will die carrying the load in combat for physical weaklings. Lowering standards so women can participate doesn't make troops more combat ready.
It has nothing to do with fitness standards. Women CAN pass all the fitness standards required of men, and frequently do. It has to do with the unique risks women face when they are taken prisoner by the enemy. This has nothing to do with political correctness. Many in the military have wanted these changes for years.
The red herrings about fitness are irrelevant and ridiculous. Do you really think our fitness tests are so hard that most women can't pass? A large number of women are more fit than a large number of men serving on the front lines.
It's funny how nobody at CNN can spare 5 seconds to change the "Publicar" button on this blog template.
As a former Marine infantryman and combat vet I say NO. During WWII the former Soviet Union and other communist had female soldiers. Just what the Democrats want. Blur the distinction between gender, dectroy traditional marraige, tear down the old man so you can produce the "new man.' Thats waht Marx said in his manifesto. But when you have a President who did not serve then you can see why this ultra left administration would see this as no big thing. The average woman is tougher than the men in Obama's administration.
you are an idiot. If you do not beleive they should not be in combat fine. EEvery nation when left with annilhation will use woman and children to defend the homeland. The Russians needed the cannon fodder because of their inferior weapons and tactics at the beginning of the war. Study history, get off of the militia email list and get your facts straight. I disagree to an extent with some folks but at least they present facts, not some aryan nation BS
I didn't catch where the Obama administration is pushing for this change, it noted rather, "the Defense Department". Did you find some piece that said it was Obama pushing for this? Also, the article mentioned this: "However, women will still not be permitted in front line jobs directly involved in combat such as infantry units or counterterrorism sniper teams." This doesn't strike me a change that you're calling for, so I advise you to READ THE F'ing ARTICLE BEFORE YOU WHINE.
Defense Dept. != Obama Administration.
gtfo tool.
Hmmmm... the article mentions that it is a recommendation of senior military commanders so that women, who are already placed in combat situations, can get crucial and well-deserved credit. That appears to contradict your facts that this is an attempt by Obama to destroy America.
LOL! Ok after watching that video I just had to laugh! I mean what the heck kinda PT was that? I served in the Marine Corps from 1997-2005 as a 0341 81mm Mortar man and I sure hope that in 2012 my fellow Devil Dogs are not running in sneakers and working out at some civilian style gym and running that little Pre K style O-Course. That video just shows me that those female Army officers are not ready to be Grunts.
As a female Marine currently forward deployed to Afghanistan, even as females we are not all stuck on large FOBs, I lived on a small PB right in the middle of a crowded bazaar. We've had suicide bombers, VBIEDs, firefights, etc. I am Combat Lifesaver qualified, which means that we went through training in which involved carrying, dragging, and caring for the wounded in a combat situation. I have also participated in numerous mounted and dismounted patrols, just as any male Marine has. Women are just as capable, I've even had the opportunity to be a gunner on a truck. So, to say women cannot perform as males do it outrageous. And before anyone gets the idea that I'm some moto butch female, I'm quite the opposite. I'm petite, 5'3 and 100lbs and I do my job in a combat area just as well as my male counterparts. Women are already being engaged in combat, we just don't get to be in the specific MOS.
CLS ..... so you got an IV and gave an IV, dont make it sound more glorified than what it is. CLS is nothing more than preventing dehydration. Now...back to the kitchen!
As a former Infantry soldier I find it funny that women say they want equal rights. That’s fine but you should be held to the same standards then. PT test should be the same no earrings while in uniform, haircuts the same. If a woman is able to do the things I did then fine until then NO!
No offense.....at 100 lbs can you really carry 80lbs of ruck sack gear and keep up with your infantry peers that are larger stronger men? I'm not doubting your resolve or dedication to duty. I'm just asking a question. In close quarter clearing missions a hand to hand combat situation could result as well. I'm sure you have received extensive combat training and in a sparring contest between people trying to throw blows and practice form you would destroy me. But, do you honestly believe that in a situation here it becomes a glorified wrestling match inside some hut or building you would over power an 170lbs + man? I'm doubtful. This is the same reason that you don't see that same 170lb man playing offensive line in the NFL. There comes a time when resolve is great, but size and physicial prowess matters.
Personally, I'm glad that women like you are willing to lay down your life in the name of our country's military. However, I'm not excited about you being in a direct combat situation. I realize that war is extremely planned and tactical, but there comes a time when it hits the fan and plans don't always work. Things go out the window and improvizing comes into play. Sometimes these on the spot plans don't work and people die.
To be honest, as a strong patriot and the member of a family that has had 4 generations serve in the military I don't wish that on a women. It isn't about being capable. It is about the combat zones we are in. We aren't fighting a war against a relatively civilized enemy like we might see in Europe. We are fighting against an enemy that has on previous occasions captured, tortured, and then drug members of our military through the streets. Has cut off hands and heads and then published televised viewings of the events. This is not a woman's place. As a man, I just can't stand the thought of a women being put in that situation.
So, my objection is slightly about capabilities but is more about the fears described above.
What are you people talking about? FOB- a well dressed man, PB- Peanut Butter, Pog- No clue, VBIEDs- different types of STD, MOS- half name of a UK singer, IV- something that goes in your arm or #4, CLS- clear screen, AFSC- Gesundheit!, MI- easy, Mission Impossible, PT test – I was doing OK with this one until I saw the word test, SFAS- a very special drink for a San Franciscian event in the tenderloin district. I'm probably wrong on some of this anyway good job people. I've always said people are crazy both men and woman so if a gal wants to play GI Jane who am I to say know. It can be a fun job I guess, right up until something evil happens but if that is your calling God bless and good luck.
Yeah, I agree...CLS doesn't mean squat...I took a 5 minute CLS class in Iraq and all we did was give each other IVs...We already went through riggorous training in Infantry school. I'm sure female Marines have mounted and dismounted many male Marines...I mean they can mount male Marines just as good...oops. Grunts are men because we have a long line of reacting on instinct without thinking. Most women take time to think about what's going on and that will get people killed.
I'll repost this since some people are getting wrapped around the physical part:
There are more problems to a mixed unit than just the woman's capability to perform a mission. There are psychological effects as well. Males are genetically driven to be the warrior/protector. So you'll find males in the units taking special care over the female soldiers. Often fighting each other or tearing down unit cohesion because of a female. Some females enjoy the attention from multiple males and encourage the bad behavior. Furthermore, males often make poor decisions when there is a female involved. They may decide to maneuver one group into danger instead of the other one because the favored female is in that group. Many times female soldiers are put into the better jobs or get ratings they don't deserve from senior male raters. Many females deserve their good ratings but many females skate through the system on their looks. This brings the unit moral down. There are a lot of issues that stem from having females in combat and it’s not just their capability to pull a trigger.
Have you served? when did you, what branch and MOS?
Travis is a pog
Yes I have. And having worked with all branches through my military career, I saw it every day, across every MOS, Rate, or AFSC. Take your pick. I can tell you're going into defensive mode and are going to attempt to discredit my assertion. I can assure you that I have personaly witnessed and continue to witness this.
@ Travis – Agreed 100%
@ Youre***dumb – Normally the pogs themselves are the one's who call other people pogs.
temuchin, take your ad hominem out of here, you're just trying to bring up irrelevant issues that divert attention away from a solid argument without providing any real support for an oppositional argument.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but also keep in mind how prevalent rape of female officers is, mainly because they know they can get away with it. If a woman speaks up , she's seen as trying to tear apart her unit, a snitch, and it counts against her when/if getting promoted. Not exactly a fair price to pay for trying to have equality.
As far as men favoring women in their units, maybe they need to do special training so that men don't make stupid decisions like the ones you mentioned.
Sorry Katie,
All the training in the world is going to change what is instinctive. If only I could make you a guy for a couple of years.
Not trying to be offensive, just trying to help you understand that there are characteristics about males and females that either sex could never identify with.
That's because men in the military are sex-deprived, especially deployed units, and would therefore naturally be a hostile environment for women. The type of conditions the psyche undergoes when deployed creates a much different type of thinking than the carefree existence here at home after an extended period of time.
I asked you a question. Some older folks have different views. Depending what your job is you have different views. You are defensive. I just retired as a 18 Z. I was also in MI for 7 years before that 84-91. Females were just fine in MI even in Desert Storm. As far as hurting unit cohesion, I saw that with guys getting into fights over other things. We have females that train and deployed with us (when I was an 18). It was professional. Of course there were issues. But nothing that hurt unit cohesivnes. So I ask again, when did you serve and what did you do?
You know I served as a US Army Infantry Man for 8 yrs in and out of Iraq. At this point im tired of fighting about females capabilitys of being an 11B. If they want to do it fine that lightens my load. However dont mix them in with an all male unit. set up a Brigade completly filled with Female 11B's from Col Down to the lowest private and send the Lambs off to Slaughter and when they have to send the Real Rangers or SF out to bring them back we will put this issue to rest once and for all.
Check out the brunette in the 3rd pic down. She can pull my trigger any time.
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/first-person-sho0ter/
I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned it but among the myriad of reasons why they shouldn't be allowed I think the most important is physical strength. If you are on patrol and are wounded by incoming fire you need to be sure the people around you are strong enough to pick you up/drag you out of harms way to receive care. I have no doubts that they can pull the trigger, or deal with the stress any worse/better than their male counterparts, its the physical ability to protect a wounded comrade that worries me. Due to our genetic differences I just don't think they should be in direct combat units. Convoys/Mil Police/ Patrols in non-heated area as show of force I'm okay with,
There are lots of other physical tasks besides simply dragging people around. Women have strength in different areas, and are often more innovative in the way they accomplish tasks. One study gave men and women the task of lifting 50 pound mail bags from the floor onto the scale on the counter to weigh them. The men would simply lift them up with sheer force. One woman, however, realized she couldn't lift 50 pounds off the floor and lift it onto a counter, so she moved the scale onto the floor. Innovation, still gets the job done.
Sorry Katie,
The front line is a long way from the mailroom. I think you're missing the point.
While I admire the ingenuity and cleverness of the woman in the example, there is simply no getting around certain situations and tasks that simply require raw, brute, force. I've never served in the military and have no intention to, but I can imagine several tasks requiring the pushing, dragging or lifting well over 50 pounds. I'm making a generalization here, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that being unable to perform such tasks puts the woman soldier's comrades at risk. I wholeheartedly welcome the idea of women serving as frontline soldiers, however this, along with the general psychological considerations of having men and women fighting together, makes the entire thing sound like political progress at expense of efficiency, safety and possibly even lives.
That said, I hope to be proven most spectacularly wrong.
Will people get of the PT test kick. Especially the army NCO's and officers. What is the PT test for? It is for a commander to asses the physical readiness of his unit. It is broken into not only gender but age groups. It assesses their fitness level for those parameters. It has zero to do with ability to do a job. That is defined in a DA Pam. Now some do require a certain PT score to get in like 18 series. So everybody get off the PT kick. BTW, I retired an 18Z. PT results did not reflect who would make it through SFAS. A 110 lb female of male that can max the PT test for the youngest age group will most likely not make it through SFAS or be a success as an 11B. Jezzz
An 18Z is a Green Beret (Special Forces Sergeant). SFAS is the selection course you need to pass before continuing on too become a green beret.
"De Oppresso Liiber!"
I have to agree with "David".
It is a tough call, but I can't see a woman being in a physical direct fight with one or more men, and having any reasonable chance on winning and living thru it. I can see women being in control of military machines, like a jet fighter or a tank, but not in hand-to-hand combat. And I don't see this as being a chauvinist.
While I'm for women's rights on certain things, is it really wise to try out a social experiment in such a dangerous environment? Let's not be stupid and pretend there is no difference between men and women. It's not like women can't serve their country in a wide variety of other capacities.
So many people are talking here without any foundation to stand on. First and foremost, Men, on average, have about 55% more upper body strength and 30% more lower body strength. The average 20 year old woman has the same lung capacity as the average 50 year old man. Men also have denser bones, stronger ligaments, thicker skin, and slightly more tolerance for pain. In military studies, women are MUCH more prone to injury, particularly stress fractures, and are also more than twice as likely to be non-deployable as men. Women are also 3 or 4 inches shorter and 30-40 pounds lighter on average than men. A recent study by the Canadian military found that about 1 in every 130 women would be capable of passing Infantry training. All of this information is available online and easy to find.
Now that we've established just how few women could pass training, we need to consider the economics involved. If less than 1% of women can pass Infantry training and 60% of men can, it will be MUCH MUCH more expensive to train women to the same standard as men. For the price of finding and training 1 woman you could train at LEAST 10 men. Then you have to consider the cost of new barracks, facilities, gear etc. for women. A 1200 man all male Infantry BN can't just suddenly accept women...it costs money. I think this is probably the best reason NOT to do this social experiment.
RAPE is RAMPANT in the military.. so say recent ariticles. First get that under control and then figure this out. Generals stop making us a social experiment petri dish.
It's not the "GENERALS",
it's the morons in D.C. trying to blow smoke up the women's butts for their votes.
No moron, it's the generals. You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.
This may be news to you, but especially through these last few conflicts we've served right alongside our brothers. I did two years ago in Afghanistan -and then there are those that make headlines for being extraordinary. Take for instance Monica Brown, silver star recipient. It just needs to be on paper now so commanders don't fry in the event something happens to us. At this point it's really a formality with the exception of a few elite organizations.
This is a tough subject. It's been my experience when taking physical fitness tests, that women are given different standards that are often less demanding then those of the men. In battle, one could assume that you would need your soldiers in peak physical condition. I would argue that women should be able to fight, but they should be able to comply to the EXACT same physical standards that the men do in order to preserve the quality of the platoon or squad or whatever it may be.
David, that's silly. You're perpetuating "radical egalitarianism", a hippie theory from the sixties that everyone's equal – males and females, all the race grooups, all the religions, everyone's equal. Of course, this theory was false at it's inception. If males and females are equal, how is it that females are 53% of the population yet death row is 95% male? Because males and females are not the same...they're different. Then the hippies became democrat politicians and radical egalitarianism emerged as the semi official national policy, enforced by political correctness. Do not observe facts that don't conform with the theory, or you'll be a sexist, or racist, or not supporting equal opportunity.
Women are weaker. An M1A1 tank crew is three people. When a track pin breaks and the track is thrown, ordinary in deep mud, those three guys will labor hours with six foot fifty pound crowbars to realign the track pads and regain mobility. Your espousal of radical egalitarianism just made that tank crew combat ineffective. Your bad idea just took that tank out of the fight.
The Iraqi male and the American female in the building run out of ammo and it's hand-to-hand. Americans have silly adherance to redical egalitarianism. Will the enemy combatant reduce his punch strength by 60% to make sure it's fair?
This is narcissism by leftist females. The title 10 purpose of the Armed Forces is to fight and win our nation's wars, and anything that detracts from that should be discouraged. It's not about career opportunity. That's selfishness. I'm 200 pounds without combat equipment. When we do a foot infil and I'm shot on the objective, who's carrying me one terrain feature away to the medevac PZ? She knows if she's wounded she'll get carried out, but I'm screwed. And when we step off on this mission, I know that, and every other guy knows that, so how do you think that effects morale, esprit, and good order and discipline?
Men fight for the primordial reasons of wanting to be held in high esteem by their peers and participate in group accomplishments. That's why the Ranger rifle squad or Special Forces A Team are so lethal. Separate and distinct from her being weaker, when you put her into that mix you introduce a sexual dynamic that detracts from mission accomplishment. That's like putting a retarded kid on an Olympic hockey team just to make it fair, and give him an opportunity.
You know not what you do, but since someone else will suffer the consequences and you canfeel righteous, you don't care.
I don't think David meant that men and women ARE equal, but that women should be held to higher standards and have ot meet the same standards as men... IF they can. Way to explode over misreading something. Besides, sheer brute force is not the only way to solve a task. Sure maybe men can punch harder, but have you ever seen the women who take self-defense classes? They're trained to be able to beat the crap out of a guy 3 times their size if need be.
"They're trained to be able to beat the crap out of a guy 3 times their size if need be." 3 times? That is a big difference. I remember sparing against higher ranking women. I'm a man of average American height ( 6`2 ). Even a gentle kick was enough to push them back. I held back because I could feel that they would not be able to withstand much force.
Men, women, gays...what does it matter anymore?!? It's not PC to be logical anymore. It's not PC to be concerned with the 'fairer' sex anymore. It's not PC to have honour and chivalry anymore. Concern for the 'weaker' sex...how dare we? Fear that the mothers and sisters will be killed, raped or otherwise brutalized mentally and physically in a theater of war...how positively barbaric of us males. Yup, gotta change the entire world to appease the tiny few percentages of people that want what others have. Disgusting weak animals.
DOH! I forgot the children. Why, there are some 12 year olds larger even than the hormone fed north american women. We could easily adjust the PT requirements here as well. And as for you pathetic morons citing history as justification don't forget that children ALSO historically have been used in warfare. Yeah, women and children on the front line that's the ticket. Heck, i bet grandma could use a rocket launcher on some tanks. Why not get Fido and Fluffy out there too?!? You PC idiots need to crawl under a rock and disappear.
Thanks, Stan. One reasonable voice. We are proud of our achievements that a gay man feel so comfortable today in society to act like a woman’s girlfriend, and the same time fighting for the right to get marry to his buddy, instead of be responsible for a women and make her happy and provide for the family. And with such policies we will get more and more manly women also, who forgot that the first responsibility always was is to create healthy loving strong family and may not be capable to do so. But the strong family is the base for a strong society. What we got now? While fighting for the gay right to marry, look around you, you will see that for many women it’s close to impossible to find a reliable, responsible man to create a family with for life not for next 2-3 years, because they are not feel any responsibilities for women any longer. Women pretty much abandoned. Instead of solid marriages we see more girlfriend/ boyfriend relationship which is easy to terminate when you got bored with it or found someone better. I think some of women turn to another woman for love because of it, and not because of any self-identity issues or hormones imbalance. Who is suffering the most? Most vulnerable – kids. Many of them live in not healthy environment, and grew up confused what is good, what is bad, what is right, what’s wrong and the circle repeats over and over.
Actually Chivalry was an incredibly bigoted system wherein the have were strictly segregated from the have nots. If you were of the noble class you could demand deference from anyone beneath you social station and exact harsh punishment from anyone who failed to provide it. Your notion of protecting the fair sex, is merely bigotry in a choir robe. Chivalry is dead, thank God.
The price of equality is exposure to the bad things as well as the good. Until females have to register with Selective Service or face life long civil and criminal penalties, endure a draft if enacted, serve in front-line combat roles, they do not deserve equal rights. Level the playing field by only sending females to front-line combat roles until such time as an equal number of females have either served or died in those roles as men have over the last two centuries in the U.S.
Right now there are a number of laws that benefit females either by giving them preference or protecting them from negative outcomes. End those unconstitutional laws today. We don't see femalists (AKA feminists) fighting for true equality because they enjoy the benefits of a misandrist nation.
To those whining about the lack of women in combat roles...........war is not a social experiment. Adding women introduces variables that are unnecessary and would require compromise. Bullets don't compromise.
I have no problem with equality. However, I am sure you remember the media and homeland frenzy when that female soldier was captured by insurgents several years ago. The same level of hype would not have occurred with a male soldier. The enemy knows that we are more sympathetic to women being injured and captured and would therefore play on that weakness, going out of their way to capture and rape female soldiers because they know it would strike at the hearts of Americans. Women should be involved in every part of a war, but should not be placed in any position where they could be captured and thereby decrease our capability of fighting due to our cultural sensitivity about women.
I think women that pass basic should be allowed to train with infantry and that women that don't pass be trained in a machine driven job, ex. Tank driver, tank gunner, artillery, gunner, helicopter pilot,etc. Women are pretty damn useful in the field. Just like a man.
I remember doing a litter obstacle course years ago as a medic. Two team member had to pick up a litter with a simulated wounded man on it and carry it over around and under walls wire and other obstacles placed on the course. Something every medic should be able to do, as it was part of the job. At the end of the day about 90% of the male troops were able to pass this test, but only about 10% of the females could pass the test. I was told that the navy had similar problems in crew drills were they have to evacuate wounded from one ship compartment to the next. Women and men need to be able to do the mission. If they can then they should be allowed to do it, if they can not they put others at risk. The standards need to be the same regardless of sex both out of need and for equality. Again if they can do the job let them. If they can't don't!
I think if you at the integration of women like in the Israeli and other European countries' armies, they have successfully done it...If you have a low ratio (experimental) of women/men, then I definitely see problems for BOTH the men and the women in the units...
The reason why women are not allowed combat jobs has nothing to do with their ability to perform the job,its for the male's natural instinct to protect women,its just what guys do. Hard to focus when the girl in your unit reminds you of your mom or sister
Agreed and also men do get lonely in these times and the only woman around could cause some controversy and crime to be committed
Finally. Some clear, simple rationale.
I served in the Marine Corps infantry for a decade. While in Iraq we had a mission with 2 women attached to our unit for exactly the same purpose as this article is stating. They were there to talk to and search women due to the use of female suicide bombers. The added asset was good and it was a benefit to the women in the towns we visited to see women in an important role (something they don't get to do in rural Iraq). I have served with some outstanding women in teh military who fullfill vital roles. Unfortunately I've also served with some terrible women who have used psuedo sexual harassment charges to excuse themselves from performing up to standard. If a woman had the physical and mental capacity to serve in an infantry unit and could prove herself through the rigors of training then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Unfortunately i don't see that happening. However, I do completely agree with what is occuring on the video with select women that are capable being attached to units to serve in a capacity that the men are unable to perform.
I went to a Military College and I saw the same thing. Most females were very strong never complained and did everything with us. Other female hid behind their feminity and when things didn't go their way they used the system to their advantage. The few females gave the majority a bad name.
So by your logic, every single man is capable of serving in a combat role? Come on, we have ALL served with that guy we prefer to be behind a desk somewhere. This policy change isn't saying ALL women should serve in a combat role, just as not ALL men do. Obviously it's on a case by case basis.
Except that in the case of the military there is no such thing as a case by case basis where women could try out for the infantry and if they made then great, but if they don't then no big deal. The military deals in large numbers and will do whatever is necessary to keep thier numbers up even if that means that some bad apples will still make it in. And unfortunately in my experience when it comes to women those few bad apples can cause lots of damage. Which is why the system in the actual article is one which I agree with because it is a case by case basis and not an ending of overall policy.
now im may be just a 16 year old male, but why is this such a big deal? it isn't controversial to anything, just peoples corrupted mind to see the worst outcomes, when in reality the fact is that women are just as capable as men, in fact they should be more capable to deal with combat situations than men. now i plan on joining the martines when i get out of highschool, and women sure SOME may not have the physical prowess as men but thats just a internal chemical component but just because they dont have the ripped thigh's or the six pack doesnt make them less capable, women are better at intelectual evaluation in real time, so when in combat situations they would be quicker at coming up with an idea to flank the enemy or effectivly set up a defensive position. there truly is no difference in men in women, we both are human except that one runs on testosterone, and the other runs on estrogen. the fact that most people cant accept that is astounding, i mean i hope that my generation can learn to look at everyone not as someone who is inferior to them, but as a equal, just with different skill sets and abilities. and as for what mipolitic said the danger for anything happening to men is the same for women, and its thier choice just as it is for men its thier choice, remember those words, and someday those who have the very altered veiw of inequality. and also i slightly take offense to that because when you state that you are basicly insulting the very foundation on wich this glorious country was formed on, equality. i find it so fascinating that our founding fathers created this country with the intention that everyone would be equal, but i guess that idea was extremely ahead of there time because we are still plagued by steriotypes and all kinds of ideas for superiority. look if this makes you fell better humans as a whole are superior, we are the most dominant species on earth and other animals havent fought against our prosperity. And its sad that my point and reason wont get across due to my age, and the whole age is wisdom thing, when its not planning that makes the better thief its about recognizing and corecting the flaws and so we can learn from the mistakes. and trust me as a teenager of the 9/11 generation ive seen plenty of mistakes, within my life and also the political controlers of the country.
Go join a branch and see for yourself. There are good and bad of male/females serving together. Then you will understand.
Yeah, I used to think like you when I was sixteen. It's alright. Stay in school, learn your grammar, and you'll turn out okay in the end.
I don't agree with women in the front lines UNLESS they can perform up to the very same exact standards that the men are expected to perform at... Trust me, going by experience, some women can and do, but a majority simply can not.
Regarding "equality"... yes, as human beings we are all worth the same, but equal in the true sense of the word we are not. People are taller, shorter, stronger, weaker, smarter, dumber..etc.. than others... we're diverse.. which sounds to me that at the end of the day, we really are not all equal...
I know in your generation, things like the 4th place trophy exist, making things seem as if we're all winners just by participating, but the reality is that life is rough... real rough.. and sometimes things that sound great ideologically, are not very practical in application...Nobody is inferior(as a whole) to anyone else, but the fact of the matter is that some people are better suited for certain roles than others.
You sound like an intelligent young person. Please, finish high school, and take your english/grammar classes very seriously before you enroll in the military.
*Oh.. and our founding fathers had slaves....so...y'know...perhaps they didn't think we were all so equal after all...They're not good examples to use as pristine ideological role models.
Since you plan on joining the Marines, your will see there is a double standard when it comes to women. They do not have to carry the same weight in a pack at OCS or TBS. They do not have to perform pull-ups. They do not have to complete the same obstacle courses at OCS or TBS. They do not have to shave their heads in order to take away their identity at boot camp or OCS. Until they have the exact same requirements as male Marines, many will look at them as not equal.
Agreed
Actually, we carry the exact same weight at TBS, run the exact same obstacle and endurance courses, and spend entire weeks in the field with our male counterparts leading basic squad to platoon level infantry attacks. Many women perform equal to or better than our male counterparts who get selected for infantry in these tactical leadership exercises. And really, what does it matter if a women can't do 20 pull ups if she can meet and exceed all requirements during actual simulated combat operations at TBS or basic training?
"And its sad that my point and reason wont get across due to my age, and the whole age is wisdom thing, when its not planning that makes the better thief its about recognizing and corecting the flaws and so we can learn from the mistakes"
Dude, wisdom is gained through experience.... you're on the wrong side of the coin at the moment, where there is a logical solution in your ideal world.
Im an AF pilot, and serve with a lot of women. And though I believe women can be just as capable in the cockpit, a place where it is possible to operate on an even playing field, I have seen my fair share of issues. I've seen plenty of special treatment towards women, because their potential failures open up a whole new can of worms in terms of "equal opportunity". This is bad for good women pilots. This is bad for morale in a unit. It's politics. Would you want to take this poor skill set into combat with you?
Now, translate this into front-line ground combat. When you join the Marines, you'll see the different set of standards. Women can play vital roles in certain combat roles, but not all.
Don't just listen to me, listen to the wisdom of the other vets who are so from experience. Best of luck in your future.
Not only should female soldiers have the right to serve in a combat position, they also should have the obligation to do so. It is demeaning to women to deny them, and it is unfair to the male soldiers, expecting them to bear the burden of increased risk just because they have a penis.
Then they should also be required to register with Selective Services. What's good for the Goose....
This is a tough subject. It's been my experience when taking physical fitness tests, that women are given different standards that are often less demanding then those of the men. In battle, one could assume that you would need your soldiers in peak physical condition. I would argue that women should be able to fight, but they should be able to comply to the EXACT same physical standards that the men do in order to preserve the quality of the platoon or squad or whatever it may be.
Well said David.
To Pat,
Males have assumed the burden of battle since the beginning of time. Just as women have assumed the burden of childbearing. It is what it is.
I don't think that they assumed the risk of child birth......it was kind of thrust upon them (pun intended).
Good one. I figured since Pat was referring to anatomy, then I should use my own anatomic correlate.
There are more problems to a mixed unit than just the woman's capability to perform a mission. There are psychological effects as well. Males are genetically driven to be the warrior/protector. So you'll find males in the units taking special care over the female soldiers. Often fighting each other or tearing down unit cohesion because of a female. Some females enjoy the attention from multiple males and encourage the bad behavior. Furthermore, males often make poor decisions when there is a female involved. They may decide to maneuver one group into danger instead of the other one because the favored female is in that group. Many times female soldiers are put into the better jobs or get ratings they don't deserve from senior male raters. Many females deserve their good ratings but many females skate through the system on their looks. This brings the unit moral down. There are a lot of issues that stem from having females in combat and it’s not just their capability to pull a trigger.
Travis,
Completely agree. I was in the 12th Special Forces (Airborne) from 1990-1994–it became very clear to me that while I could do my job as well as any man there and asked for no special accomodations, because of our culture and biological predisposition, I was more of a distraction than an asset (even in our assimilated warfare training). To boot, when we'd go out together for drinks as a group, the guys were more interested in 'protecting' me than hitting on other women! From my perspective, this is a policy change that will ultimate cost lives, not a fan of it at all.
Curious, what job were you doing as well as a man? You said Special Forces Group. Some folks might be assuming you were doing the same MOS specific tasks as an 18 series. Since you are a femal and not an 18 what were you doing?
This is true.
If men can't control themselves it sounds like a discipline problem. Grow up, suck it up, and do your job and let me do mine! The military spends just as much money training women as they do men. Don't waste it. But, please hold women to the same standards as the men. I am a fleet marine force corpsman. I do not "have" to meet the male standards but I do. I choose to do so, to gain the respect of my marines. I earned their respect. They were furious when they lost me and gained a male corpsman simply because they were deployed to a "combat" area. Of course were were already in a combat area, the whole damn country is combat. BTW the corpsman they replaced me with laid carpet for a living and two marines in my unit died under his care. I had a degree as a paramedic in additon to my military training. Do you think they would have died under my care?
i think for most things women can do just as good as men, however, infantry combat is just not something they are suited to. sure, there are exceptions, but in general it would be very dangerous for everyone involved to try and coddle their egos. its life and death, not something to make everyone feel special and included. you can't joke around about this stuff.
I am all for equality. I recognize not everyone is equal even within the same sex. Israel has women serving in their military. I accept that women in combat on the front lines means more women will be coming home with missing limbs, deaf in their ears, psychological disorders, and other war wounds that will last a lifetime. I also recognize more women will be killed and never make it home to their kids and that when captured by the enemy they will be raped and other horrible things done to them that are typical of war. Do I want equality for women in this way? HELL NO. That is what a man is for. MEN are supposed to be there to protect the women and children so they DO NOT have to go through this BS. I do not want my wife and daughter doing my job. I want them to go through life protected from the evils of war.
totally true, my grandpa was a WW2 veteran. he said he went 3 weeks without taking off his sand filled combat boots on iwojima. he couldn't because he didn't have time. they were shelling his unit night and day. women aren't made for that, its just not right
Deff is right. I've done combat tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan and the time in the field is brutal and physically exhausting. At one point I hadn't had a shower or a change of uniform in close to three weeks. Plus I lost about 20 lbs in those three weeks. Women are not made for this type of environment. The physical requirements are beyond comprehension to most.
I am 100% for women serving in combatant units only if they meet the same standards that men have to meet. As a retired military person, I can tell you that the physical fitness test standards alone are not equal and the women who want to serve in combat units should be required to meet the same standards that men have to meet. Its plain and simple, either meet the same standards or quit complaining.
I agree. You have to carry a lot of weight around in a light infantry company. Especially if you're in a weapons platoon, where you have to carry a mortar component, or anti tank rocket on your back, in addition to the standard gear everyone else carries.
Muchas gracias. ?Como puedo iniciar sesion?
ROGER THAT! I had a female that threatened an EO complaint against me for not letting her man the .50 cal....I told her when she could charge it, then she could man it....never happened
Russian women have been marching and flying on the front lines since World War 2, what's the problem? Scared someone wont be there to cook you dinner, do your laundry, and clean your house while you watch NASCAR? Yee haw
If you can't operate the weapon system what good are you?
you lie
The hardware or the anabolic steroid level of the those Russian women are in question.
I'm no soldier (I wanted to be but am color-blind), but if I was I wonder if I would hesitate to shoot a female enemy soldier. Ever see a Chinese military parade? It's packed with thousands of cute little Asian women. The thought of having to shoot one is almost impossible to imagine. I guess you better get over that real quick in combat or you would be a liability to yourself and your buddies.
I feel the same way you do except, all Asians are built like females so how could you tell the difference?
You can join the army. What are you hiding. In fact, a lot of males in MI are color blind. When people lie, I can't take anything else seriously
I am almost completely color-blind, Junior. Monochrome vison. I can't differentiate red-green, blue-green, or a bunch of other colors. You ever see those tests where they hide a number ina bunch of dots? I saw a chart that had 16 of those testsin different combinations. I couldn't see a single number. Why am I I explaining my self to you? Piss off!
You cannot be color-blind in MI. How are you supposed to read a military map? There are about 5 MOSs in the Army where you can be color blind. None of them are combat arms or intel
You might think differently about whether or not to shoot a female enemy soldier if they were trying to shoot\kill you.
Hey CNN, I know you are the news and everything. but next time try accurately representing each branch of service there, the female captain you interviewed was clearly air force and there were also navy members there too.
Yeah no, all the female USAF females that were not pilots were safety tucked away at FOB Victory. That's three tours to Iraq and one two Afghanistan, and never saw a female airmen leave the wire. let's not compare apples and oranges, esp. since the Navy (Sailors) have lost more people in the GWOT than the USAF. Get off your high horse and realize your battle in in the air.
Garrett. you're the one that needs to get off the high horse. What a ridiculous comment. The front lines in today's conflicts are blurred. Furthermore, who cares where their physical location was when they served, they still served. Your comment really belittles their sacrifices and it's absurd.
um... that Capt was wearing a USAF uniform and in the title under her name it said US Army. I think someone got it wrong at CNN.
I'm guessing that if we lined up every woman in the US Military and filed them through a room with two buttons, yes /no , and told them to hit the one that matched their opinion on serving on the front lines you would find that the numbers would be staggering in terms of NO.
Unfortunately, our society has become one that caters to the minority not the majority. You get a handful of identity challenged heshes barking that they want a gun and ALL the women have to suffer from the fews actions.
Women should not serve in combat period. The whole protecting their country thing is crud. When was the last war we fought to protect our country?
We cant even keep the rapes from happening on overseas installations from our own troops.
Women should serve within the confines of a secure military installation only.
Forgive me for caring, once upon a time thats what men did, they protected women and children.
Well said! I'm a female Army veteran and I couldn't agree more!
False.
Who cares if they would vote no. The price of equality is exposure to the bad things as well as the good. Until females have to register with Selective Service or face life long civil and criminal penalties, endure a draft if enacted, serve in front-line combat roles, they do not deserve equal rights. Right now there are a number of laws that benefit females either by giving them preference or protecting them from negative outcomes. End those unconstitutional laws today.
where the hell do you people come from??
hey T-bone the minority is the majority! god the government cant pass S.O.P.A yet people havent even gained basic knowledge from google yet! lol teen humor is funny ahh im going to be so awsomen one day aghhhhh
Look at the one in the pic/video with the pink shoes on. Since when did shoes need to be camouflaged pink?
If you look real close, those pink shoes are a photo touch-up. How can one foot be coming from the far side of the black equipment, while the rest of the body and the other foot are in front of it?
LOL you're right!
So what about the FET Teams in Afghanistan and the Lioness in Iraq (I dont know what the other branches call theirs, if they even call them anything)? i was part of the first FET Teams in Afghanistan and loved it! By the way, i was attached to a grunt unit. there were 3 females with me. we were right there doing everything the grunts did... even when we were getting shot at! The reporter took a picture of us and people started talking some BS about females in a combat zone. News flash, Afghanistan is a combat zone. we volunteered to do our job and protect our people but i guess that doesn't mean anything. half of the information that they get about villages are from the FET teams going in and talking to the females and getting the information. I know we got a lot in every village i went to. i think that restricting what Females in the military do just because we are females is like telling someone they cant do something because of their race or religion. i think we should have to register for the draft. in a way i think we should be like china and everyone has to serve! i like how most of the post on here are males talking blah blah blah but when it comes down to it, its better to have a female by your side THAT HAS BEEN TRAINED then no one when your on a patrol or what have you. by the way anyone can be a POW. there are things in Afghanistan and Iraq that females do better then males and i would much rather go there with a bunch of grunts then some back of the line bright ones that have no idea that they are doing or what to look for. because of the religion and way of life there, males cannot do anything with females. who do you think has the information. they know more then you think. they gave us exact locations that we gave to the SNCO's in charge. who else was going to get the information? the males find out the troops are coming and leave the villages. the women and children are the only ones there. they are not going to send a group of females out to a grunt unit without giving them some kind of extra training FROM THE GRUNTS! maybe we should put duck tape on our boobs and grab a strap on... maybe that will make people feel a little better!
You made some good points. I especially like your idea in the last line!
all fine and dandy until that female that is counted on to be there day in and day out gets knocked up and has to come home.
Dont have that problem with the men.
And yes, it does happen a lot.
I know because i was the one who had to jump through hoops to find a replacement as fast as possible.
yeah, well i served as a contractor mailnly out of Bagram but i went all over Afghanistan. One thing I noticed was that many of them women were so small that it was comical to see them carrying an M-16 that was nearly dragging on the street. I can only imagine them being requirred to pack a 60 pound pack and keep up. Women are not men. There are exceptions of course but for the most part, women can't keep up. You think so? THEN WHY DO WOMEN HAVE LOWER FITNESS STANDARDS???? Everyone should be required to dress, be fit and cut their hair the same? painted nails and long hair in a bun gives women special treatment that men dont get. Lots of men would love to have long hair that they could tie up. Women want to cherry pick what they want and disgard the rest. Why don't we force women to sign up for the Selective Serivce as i was required to do? because too many women will degrade our fighting capability, that's why!!!!!!!!!!
Cpl, I am currently conducting my doctoral research on the FET program and its future in COIN. I would love to hear about your experience. Private email is bmcnie14(at)gmail.com if you are interested.
Jessica Lynch... trained and by the troop's side. Only according to her own words, "I did not shoot — not a round, nothing. I went down praying to my knees — that's the last thing I remember." Her inability to do her duty may have resulted in some of the 11 deaths that resulted in that fight.
Ignorant! You seem to imply she was a coward. If that's the case, cowardice knows no gender. To base an entire sex on the actions of a single person is just plain dumb, and thats if you even believe she was a coward.
Chinese female soldiers are not assigned to combat unit.
I believe if you were to make the standardized PT test the same across the board, that would give those women the opportunity to be able to do those dangerous jobs. It's important that all members of squad are equally as strong in order to accomplish the mission at hand. If women were able to complete those standards, I really don't see an issue that they couldn't be able to serve in an infantry unit.
Ohh but that's sexist...Feminists wonder why I hate them. If you want true equality then it should be the same test.
that's what the women in service want to....they aren't trying to "get over" on any requirements. I never met a gal in service that felt that they shouldn't have to test like the men for the same job. they actually felt guilty that their tests were easier for the same job. -and realized it wasn't fair. THAT is what hurts the comraderie in a unit-specialized treatment.
Agreed, but that isn't just women. I see the same nonsense from minority and religious groups. They only want “equality” as long as they get preferential treatment. Of course there are exceptions but they are called exceptions for a reason.
Chrissy....Hate to be the bearer of bad news but in the 26 years I have been in the military, only one (1) woman has agreed that they should have the exact same PT standards as men. Most women in the military today still do not want to be held to the exact same standards as men. You are correct that the standards should NOT be lowered so women can pass them as that weakens the force. I have no problem with opening ALL AFSCs, MOSs and jobs to women IF they can meet the same requirements as men and maintain them 100% of the time the same way men are required to. That means if they get knocked up, they have to make a choice, get an abortion at thier expense, take a pay cut until they can meet the required standards or get out. And before you all start pouncing on me, I believe if a male is not meeting the required standards, they shouldn't recieve full pay either. Equal means equal.
I met a female Canadian soldier a few years ago. She was a beautiful brunette of average height and build. You would never know she was a martial arts instructor and a squad machine-gunner. France, Germany, Norway, Denmark Australia, Israel, all these countries allow women to fill an active combat role.
If a Bronze Star w/V Device and multiple Purple Hearts give any creedence to my opinion, then listen.
I have preached for 40+ years, that it is not the women that couldn't handle combat,
it is the MEN that couldn't handle women in combat.
It is by natural instinct and ingrained in the DNA, that the male of the species will try to protect the female.
In time of crisis & combat, a man would likely disregard discipline, orders, training & experience, needlessly endangering himself and others soldiers just to save a woman.
Think I'm wrong ....... who goes in the life boats first ???? It's not children or men !!!
I agree with what you're saying... But since when were Children not allowed on the lifeboats first??? It's always been women AND children.
Your reading skills are trying my patience son.
It's not children & women in the life boats first.
It's women & children,
nitpickin like you're doing, tells me you must be either a liberal or a 3rd grader.
As a Marine with 26+ years i can tell you this. your average woman doesn't can't handle combat physically and those who can can't be considered women. They should be prepared and trained for combat situations, defense. but never sent directly into combat.
Agreed. Thank You.
Wow Gunny... I know I have never seen combat, but I think that woman are just as able an any man. They have never been given the same chance since the beginning of time, and im my opinion, each and ever time they are allowed to be equal, they surprise even the hard core men who are against it. I praise your 26yrs of service, as I served for 9 myself, but I can tell your first hand that women aren't are frail and fragile as they might once have been and will continue to fight for they equality. Also, you know as well as I that those who don't meet the requirements and face the training head on wont get put in a position that will endanger the lives of others. So, for that reason alone, I think anyone who wants to go to the front line should be given they chance to prove themselves worthy.
@ Kassy
> Wow Gunny... I know I have never seen combat, but I think that woman are just as able an any man.
Then you obviously haven’t studied medicine. There is nothing wrong with being a woman, and frankly they are better at some things than men. But the PC nonsense about everyone being equal is just that…nonsense. You don’t even see equality among men let alone adding the physically smaller gender.
Gunny, respectfully disagree with you. If we are going to spend the time and money training these women for combat, send them to combat. As a 26+ year vet myself, I am sick and tired hearing military women complain about being treated as the weaker sex then complain louder when we treat them the same as we do men. Very few women in the military truly want to be held accountable to the same requirements as men even though they are already getting paid the same as men. Time for the military to collect from them. Equal means equal.
women and men are vastly different physically. How many women do you think can make it through SAS, SEAL, SPetznaz, etc regimens? Can a woman run fast, kick a door, subdue a male combatant, etc as a man can? I am for freedom but please do not put these women in situations that will require another change of law. Nature is nature.
I agree most women off the street couldn't hack it. But some can, and want to pursue such a career.
American women are often much larger than many of the foes the US faces abroad anyway. With all the hormones in meat, etc, we have bred larger stock in general than in many parts of the world. i.e. an american woman is often much larger in stture than an asian or persian man.
In the event of a draft, I'd say 95% of women wouldn't be able to fill infantry roles. However, in a volunteer force, the percentage gets more like 30% COULD, since they women in service are generally the more physically and mentally fit for the job. (especially after military conditioning that ALL troops get)
Unfortunately, women are not trained to the same physical standard as males. The requirements ARE different.
The Israeli's seem to have no problem with females in combat units and they seem to be more willing to engage in military adventures than the Americans.
Their choice.. NOT ours.
Israeli Women dont follow the same rules we do in our military.
They are more like assassins than soldiers.
REAL Israeli women are not JEWISH AMERICAN PRINCESSES!!!
It appears that when any ethnicity of human comes to live in America such as blacks or the fair sex say from Israel comes here, they becomes a spoiled lot. Americans are soft and other countries realize that. Israeli women that have lived their lives on kibbutzes are tough but a Jewish American Princess is usually a gold digger type of woman that wants a man that has money hanging out of every bodily orifice to blow on them. I do not respect most Americans today due to their spoiledness in their lives!
of all the world's countries and especially as one whose citizens attend churches the most of any of them, this country has the hardest time realizing that women have duties as women and men have their own set of duties, all of which were more eveident to folks of the past. Women do not belong in combat. Americans have reached to replace what God has given them for their bodies to function with, with its own set of standards. This country presently is what could professionally be termed as suffering from mass INSANITY! It just refuses to learn from its mistakes, of which many more are made today than those made by our eveidently smarter predecessors up to the mid 20th century.
They're not talking about the SEALS or Special Forces. They're just talking about the "regular infantry." Having served in the military for more than 20 years, I hate to tell you but there isn't any job a woman can't do that a man can. I'm not saying every woman can do every job but I'm sure they can drive tanks and Humvees, serve on front line patrols and I'm 100% sure there are a few women out there that would put a few SEALS face down in the mud....and I'm a man.
@Marc
You had me intrigued until your last comment. You obviously don’t know what you are talking about.
They have tested women and they can pass. Sorry to tell you.
The MEN who make these teams are not average either. Don't think of an average woman when making your assumptions.
I also think a lot of women don't go out for such teams in places where they are allowed. This is because they would be the only woman in a small group for various reasons that have nothing to do with ability.
Few MEN go out for those positions. They are a real sacrifice in terms of family and time. It's harder for women to find support for this at home. Women are also taught to doubt themselves. Men are taught to have positive self.
It's complicated. But women can do it. That has been proven in blind testing.
NOTE: Some military's have rigged PT testing to support their restrictions on women. For example they take women off desk duty with no notice and give them a PT test and compare their results to men who are active or men who are being recruited and are prepared for the test.
Women pass the tests even off desk duty but the percentages are lower because they are not prepared. In any case they always ignore the fact that there are women who pass which leads to the fact that it doesn't matter how many women pass but that if a woman passes why not let her do what she wants?
They need to rework the female physical fitness standard for starters.
I am woman, hear me roar...
absolutely agree. the physicaly requirements for each MOS should be consistent first and foremost, no matter who the soldier/airmen/marine/seamen is who is trying out for the job. whether male or female, if you can meet the physical and mental requirements, you should be able to do the job if you want to.
the physical requirements for women shouldn't be minimalized just so that they can "play" too. that used to tick me off about the service when I was in...the fact that it was an "easy ride" for many women to get into the service and stay there in general compared to the men doing the exact same job. the requirements should be based on the job, not the sex of the individual doing it.
Don't you ever wonder about how they test? I mean the different activities required. These tests are OLD and have been used forever and they are tailored for men. Women can excel at them no problem but I also know that there are other tests that they could throw in there and men would fail like crazy and women would do very well.
Plus anyone who has work combat gear know that everyone has their preferences on how to carry their equipment. Maybe they should also allow for more uniqueness and innovation in how we pack. It's all designed for male comfort. WOmen for example have stronger legs. Women might find it more comfortable to carry some equipment differently...men too.
Since the Republicans like war so much, then let their women serve on the front lines! And while you're at it, send Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann as examples. Maybe they could talk their way out if they become POW's or perhaps they could appease the enemy by serving them tea and crackers.
u meant to say serve them tea and strumpets???
what evidence do you have indicating republicans like war anymore than democrats
Since democrats could care less about our national defense, make them serve on the front lines and keep the women out.
All I hear is blah blah republican, blah blah democrat, blah blah. Shut up.
For those of you who say women cannot hack combat, these last 10 years have proven you wrong. MP Ranger is spot on about women in his unit. Women (my wife for one) not only survived light infantry division duty but excelled in it; an example of this is coming in 3rd overall in a 10 mile ruck march with 65 pounds on her back during a Division challenge. JOE SHMO, wonder if you could even lift 65lbs or walk 3 miles. Women have been POWs as far back as WW2 (history baby, got to love it). If you just don't like women to serve, that's another issue and one you need to talk to your famiy members and friends about. Without women serving in the forces, we would have a draft. I heard once (can't confirm) that women either make up the majority of the armed forces or are close to it. I had an assignment as a recruiter and had no issue recruiting women but had to beg and bend over backwards to get any boys (can't call them men) to even talk to me. I have nothing against women serving in combat units but I do have an issue with our young men not stepping up.
I'm very sure she can carry the weight as I did it myself when in the Army. What she has a problem with I guarantee is being deployed and in contact direct contact with the enemy for a couple weeks and there's no shower or proper latrine. There are certain demands that are beyond her control when it comes to hygiene and she knows it. It sucks but it's reality.
Mike, first, thanks for your service. Not only do you go through a lot deployed but so does your family. However, don't be so sure so quickly. She spent two 18 month deployments; not only did she have to deal with the latrine and other issues as you allude to, she had to dodge bullets, RPGs, IEDs, etc along with everyone else. I wish I took a picture of it but I requested a new iPod for her and Apple sent one for free – I sent them hers. She was just turning in when her FOB got shelled (for those who have been shelled, you blank out and just react to your training). On her return from her bunker, she found her iPod with a bullet through it. So, again, don't be so quick to be sure about anything.
Men far outnumber women in military enrollment. Dream on.
I'm waiting for women in service to have cock transplants so they can piss on dead Iranians!!!
Its called the US Army. Not the Male Army or Female Army. Therefore if a woman volunteers for the Army and wants to fight for her country open the door for her to do so. North Korea has no problems having their women on the front line of battle. America needs to get rid of this macho mess!
She had better be able to meet the physical demands then. I was in the Army and we had to make sure to have special facilities available because of certain hygiene demands that males don't have.
I'm all for it, But then they need to be held to the same standards for fitness as Men in the military. Currently they have a completely different standard using the excuse that they aren't built the same as men. I know weak men and very fit women but with different standards all it does is cause issues between men and women serving. All serving All the same standard is what I say.
Not a good example, Murphy. North Korea obviously doesn't give a damn about their people and one would hope that America would be reluctant to mirror anything that North Korea does with their people in the military. (Human wave attacks included.)
you know, at some point you're going to have to acknowledge that being "macho" has helped us survive. look that the WW2 veterans, they are some of the most "macho" men that have ever existed, and they are the reason europe isn't speaking german, and australia isn't speaking japanese. women couldn't have done it in WW2, it was way too brutal
This idea of "hygiene" demands really speaks to male ignorance of the female body. If you're worried about her period, BC can eliminate it as well as eliminate pregnancy.
"Cry Havoc and let slip the (women) of war." Why should the men have all the fun killing and maiming people America considers their enemies??
If they want to fight, let them. At least let it be an option. But they should have to meet the physical standards.
I couldn't agree more Beast..
What "physical standards" are you referring to? The ability to pull a trigger or shove a knife into somebody? How about mental standards, so they don't make "trophies" out of their "kills" or pizz on their dead "enemies"?
I have heard that some women with large clitorises straddle leg over dead Iraquis and piss in their mouths thinking the corpse might jup up and snatch on their clit for a fast organization!!!
The weak kneaded generals have finally completely caved to the left. This poor sick Republic is crumbling.
I beg your pardon. Many women throughout American History have been thrown into combat roles. From the beginning of the Revolutionary War to our current wars, women have fought and served. This has nothing to do with shifting to the left or right, up or down. You politically ignorant moron. Read your American History. Know your American History. Jesus, and you probably call yourself an American. See, you are what is wrong with this country.
just more of CNN's gender bender politics. they love this whacky stuff. women in combat?? yeah right, they can't carry a fallen comrade, kick open a door, out muscle a terrorist, plus they have a period. no way, what a joke
you'll be branded a bigot for telling the truth.
i know, but if i don't say anything these whackos will be putting women in extreme danger
like at isreali look at the amazons all have women fighters some of the best
Think your watching alot of TV. Yes the Israelis have women in their military. They drive tanks and such and might even be performing infantry roles. But your also forgetting that their military is primarily reservist and their forces don't spend long periods of time deployed in the filed.
He's dead on. You need to make sure they have certain hygiene taken care of. When I was in the Army they made sure they were able to get to a real bathroom at least once a week. That's not possible in a real combat situation were you might be in direct contact with the enemy. Guess they could hold a truce flag and call for a hygiene break.
the period issue isn't such a big issue as y'all think it is. for one thing, there are plenty of birth control options now that cut that back to only 1 or 2 a year with no issues. Also, heavy physical activity often causes it to completely stop anyway. So those really out "in the field" having it tough likely won't even have to address that.
Even combat troops spend a lot of time in "hurry up and wait" mode, often just waiting around to go on a mission while in camp. That is the reality. We don't just hike around and get involved in hand to hand combat 24/7.
Chrissy, Lets be realistic here. Even with being able to forgo the period problem there are still certain hygiene requirements beyond just that. When I was in the Army in the field it was very regular to go a week or more without being able to clean myself up...besides the shave and wash face. They made sure the women in the unit once a week were taken to a shower to clean up.
What exactly do you think a period does to women? We're fully capable of doing everything while having a period that we're capable of doing without it.
poor hygiene tends to lead to urinary tract infections and worse.
mike is totally right, my grandpa fought on iwojima in WW2. he used to tell me stories, he said he didn't take off his combat boots for 3 weeks, they just kept getting attacked, no break. if another war like that breaks out, women will not be able to do it safely
women dont belong in combat because they cant hack it, its been proven
Examples of where it's been "proven?"
you have basic physical requirement, like number of pull ups, number of pushups etc. most women can't even do a single pull up, let alone 20 or 30 required. plus, the average man can lift over 300% his own bodyweight, whereas women are considered strong if they can life 100%
remember, most women who join our volunteer force aren't mousy little girls. they tend to be more physically fit than the norm. likewise, we don't normally see wimpy guys going into the service either. both groups are physically conditioned upon entry and throughout their military careers to keep up minimum requirements.
in the event of a draft...that wouldn't apply though, and the wimps would swell the ranks until they are conditioned..
Really? 300% of his own body weight and women can't do a single pull-up? When was the last time you visited a basic training unit? There are more fat boys dropping out looking for their donuts than ever before who can't even do a push-up let alone a pull-up. Run 3 miles? Please, I'd be happy if they could walk a mile.
Defff... Though I do agree that woman don't belong on the front lines, I have to point out that some of the things you are saying are ridiculous... There are ZERO PT tests, expect for MAYBE a SMALL handful of elite teams, that require 20-30... pull-ups.. I know from personal experience that Search and Rescue Swimmer training, one of the more physically grueling training programs, had a minimum requirement of only 12.... And the average guy DEFINITELY CANNOT lift 300% of his body weight... If that were true, the average man at 170lbs should be able to press 510 lbs... Get real bud
i said lift, not press, and last i checked you had to be able to do 50 pushups in a row to be basic infantry in the army
Don't generalize. There were many women that could easily hack it, while many men who really couldn't when I was in service 20 years ago. Just like for special forces, there should be basic physical and mental tests to weed out those who can or can't handle the job. Many other jobs are handled that way across the forces -and those that can't do the job aren't allowed to. Infantry ground units should also be individualized for skillset and ability. It is likely that most women would be unable to meet the physical requirements, but shouldn't be all automatically eliminated. Many men wouldn't make it either without adequate preconditioning.
The "tests" shouldn't have any standards lowered simply to ensure some women can pass either. That was a big beef many had (rightfully) with the airborne unit requirements when they proposed changing them years back.
Ultimately, we want the best troops doing the job, that ideally WANT to do the job they are assigned. Positions should be highly competitive for our military volunteers to ensure that the US has the most elite fighting force on earth.
As a combat veteran with 3 tours in Iraq I can say that women on the battlefield are filling their male combat buddies with more courage and determination.
I served in the War as Spec ops and Military police. In one Unit (MP) I served with 30 % women. Being an MP as stated in the article is a close as a woman can get to front line warfare. As a war time MP a woman really is on the front line. She operates convoy securtiy. VIP protection, EPW camps and infantry F.A.B re-inforcement. I can honestly say that half of the woman in my company were just as good as any man. AND when i served as a Spec Ops Special reaction Team Hostage rescue and Terrorist take down unit, 15 soldiers were men and 1 was woman. I don't know how she made it on at first but after the 12 mile 75 pound ruck run she beat me in. . . yes. . i consider myself a super human. . .she beat me! She was a girly and petite thing but she was as strong as xena warrior princess. She was a sniper. Finishing sniper school I had nothing but the ut most respect for her. Basically I am saying. . . . Some woman are MORE than capable of serving as front line soldiers. I have seen it first hand on the battle field, and in some cases . .. . uh . . not so much. It should be given on a case by case basis. Israel has thier woman on the front line. . . . we should try it out on a case by case basis, this is America! land of equality.
Hoah!
nice story , the concern is not about the ability,the major concern is what happens when a women becomes a P O W
Ask T.E. Lawrence if men don't suffer that indignity as well. Male Prisoners are not immune to rape as a form of torture. As a matter of fact, it might be all the worse for them, given issues of masculinity it brings up.
as a volunteer, she signs up for that possibility, just as all the men do. it happens to both sexes.
Being able to fight in combat is a doubtful gender issue. It's really an individual issue for women just as it is for men (reference Eddie Slovik of World War II).
MP Ranger's post doesn't pass the sniff test. "F.A.B?" "Hoah?"
No one says "Spec Ops" and I call BS on your service in a "hostage rescue and terrorist takedown unit."
I question whether you were ever in the military at all.
HAHAHA Jim it looks like we both see the BS in Rangers post! This guy was either never in the military or he was a super duper POG (Person other than Grunt) I think Ranger wanted to be spec ops but settled for water treatment.
12 miles and 75 lbs what kinda weak unit was this again? HAHA Seriously we carried more and hiked longer in Boot Camp (Paris Island) so either your just lying about your experience or you guys had some really easy training. I was a grunt in the Marine Corps and once I got to the fleet I never once went on a hike shorted than 15 miles and even 15 miles was considered a motivational/fun hike, we generally did 20 mile hikes to the field and than spend a week out doing shoots and mortar raids ect. We carried our M16/M4, body armor, Kevlar, deuce gear with full butt pack, full combat load pack (poncho, extra utilities, extra boots ect) and than a piece of the mortar which their isn't a piece that's lighter than 30lbs and non of those piece fit nice and snug on your pack so maybe a female could be in your spec ops/MP unit but that doesn't sound anything like my experience as a grunt.
Oh and yes you are correct that Israel has women serving in the infantry but their infantry units have a much different mission than that of grunt in the U.S. military. They are primarily protecting the homeland and are not being shipped around the world and forced to do all the things that we do. P.S. I worked with the IDF so I have also seen them first hand in Haifa and the female IDF soldier is basically a border patrol guard witch isn't much different than a female MP in the U.S. military.
I agree with case by case basis. If a woman can pass all the tests, there isn't a logical reason why not.
Women can out do men in most combat situations
, They with children have more reason to follow the protection of the country they live in..
Restricting them in combat roles is foolish.
Again simple gender discrimination.. Stupidity of superior roles of males. Yet understandable of males: more women around, better chances of getting layed... LOL
Talk about stupidity . . . please, I hope to all that's holy your post was a troll. Please, just be a troll.
Please explain how women can outdo men in combat situations. I for one think we dont want women in combat roles. I dont wanna say how I truely feel because it will make me look horribly sexist. But iv seen how women react when asked to match the physical pressure of men. Yeah SOME can do it but for those who cant, it only kills the whole team. Its funny I have a feeling this is only an issue because theyre not allowed to do it. If they were forced to join infantry like some men are I bet wed have another issue on our hands saying how they shouldnt be forced to join ground combat roles because of the strain.
Men who can't cut it hurt the team just as much. The idea is taking on women who can do the job, not those that can't just on a whim.
I'm sorry but the majority of women can not compete with a man physically. I served 3 years in an infantry unit. If women are equal to men physically then why do they have lower standards on the PT tests? If $&@# hits the fan I want to know for sure that the soldier next to me can get me out of harms way if I am injured. I say that we make all of the PT requirements the same for both male and female first off.
Well I served 8 years in the Marine Corps as a grunt and I agree with you 100%! I'm hearing all kinda crap about women being able to take pain better and all this and that well combat isn't like having a child, heck going on a 30 mile hike isn't like having a child, lets see these women deal with bloody feet with blisters and skin falling off while also dealing with chaffing on there hips and inner thigh while walking as fast as they can with there personal weapon, part of a crew served weapon, and 60+ lbs of gear and than spend a week in the field digging dozens of mortar positions, conducting shoots all day and patrols at night ect. Civilians think us grunts just need to know how to pull a trigger they don't understand all the other stuff that goes into it.
Someguy1982, I agree with you, most women cannot compete with a man physically. I also believe that women's pt standards should be exactly the same as the males standards. Can a woman actually live on a Out Post ? Can a woman have skin so thick that distasteful words being said do not bother her ? I work in a male dominated environment. As old as the company is, dating back from the mid 1800's, no other female has been able to do the kind of job that I do. Sure the company tries to hire females, but they always quit with in 2 hours. The job is very physical demanding and dirty- let me tell you ! I'm very feminine and wearing perfume is a must. But my job is a far cry from full blown combat. I do think that the military will continue to try to put test cases of some women in combat just to see the results. However, my son just came back from Afghanistan and had 2 female medics with them everywhere they went, and were more of a problem than they were good. What my son does for the military, my youngest son wouldn't even dare do. I wouldn't want to do what my son does either- for crying out loud-he's crazy ! So, if a female can actually do what my son does physically and mentally and performance wise-with out bursting into tears, let her do it !
no women in a combat , no women in combat, a soldier that became a P O W by the name jessica lynch is reason enough
What's the issue with Jessica Lynch?
Jessica Lynch's own words, to set the record straight, "I did not shoot — not a round, nothing. I went down praying to my knees — that's the last thing I remember."
11 soldiers died in that battle. More might have lived if she had fired some shots at the enemy.
Wow. You ignore all the other women in Afghanistan who have seen combat and fought bravely and focus on one because she fits your argument. Classy.
you play, you pay. no selective service, no combat. of course, that won't happen 'cause the whole point of our social construct is to now assuage the angst, sooth the pathos and protect the right, of women to kill their unborn.
Wow, It's really awesome that they get to train in running shoes rather than Combat Boots. This program doesn't work.
yes, the program is a failure because of the shoes they are wearing........Good call
The Army hasn't conducted most training in boots since the early 80's because it was causing unnecesary injuries. Running in boots is retarded. That doesn't mean we never wear boots in training, such as ruck marches and ranges, but just running around and/or doing PT, the Army determined that it was stupid.
Well in the Marine Corps as of when I got out in 2005 we still ran in boots and utilities. Why do you think thats not a good way to train? Don't you Army dogs wear boots in combat? Or did something change and you started wearing sneakers into combat? If these women want to be grunts (like I was) they better start running in boots! We would run with boots and uts, 782 gear and personal weapon 3 miles and do the endurance course twice several times a week and that isn't even including the 20+ miles we would hike out to the field on a weakly basis.
P.S. the Army is the stupid one if what you say is true about them thinking running in boots is stupid. In combat you have to run in boots but oh lets not train that way because its stupid lol
"HEY HOLD ON!!! STOP SHOOTING AT US!!!! WE NEED TO PUT OUR NIKES ON!!!"
Eowyn of Rohan Quotes:
"The women of this country learned long ago, those without swords can still die upon them. I fear neither death nor pain. "
"(S)He has just as much reason to go to war as you do. Why can (s)he not fight for those (s)he loves?"
That's a really neat romantic fantasy, and I'm sure that in fantasy land it works out quite well.
The rest of us live in the real world.
Women should be required to register for the draft and then be drafted if the need arises. I think the only reason you are not hearing a call for that is because the radical feminists pushing this idea know that most women don't ever want to be put in combat. If they are not subject to the draft then how is that fair? OH WAIT... only lesbo freako feminists want your mom to be sent to the front lines against her will in the event of a war.... wow. We are truely doomed.
I agree that women should also be required to sign up for the draft. And I agree that most women wouldn't want to be in combat. But then, neither would most men.
Allowing women into combat is a form of barbarism. The only way a person could think this a moral, rational, or good idea is if they are totally living in bazaro world... unfortuniatly we do live in bazaro world. Women and men are completely different and women were not created by way of natural selection for combat. At a very basic level which I'm shocked I even have to mention but we have devolved so far I have no other choice... if you put women into combat how is your next generation going to maintain acceptable levels of reproduction?????? What about the children??? Let's not forge the children any captured female troops will have... oh wait maybe the red cross will give them birth control! We are doomed.
Uh, I don't think they're talking about putting ALL women everywhere in combat. Just like they don't require it of all men everywhere. What an odd comment.
War is too risky for anyone – that doesn't mean women should not have an equal opportunity to die in the service of their country on the battlefield of their choosing. Some women serve far riskier roles behind closed doors everyday on different home-fronts. Nurses face disease and needle sticks, other women face worse during their commute to work. If a trained soldier chooses to apply for a potentially dangerous position and is physically capable of completing the desired role, then they should have the same right, whether man, woman or transgender, to protect and serve our nation.
Apparently you have NEVER been in combat. I can't believe you honestly compared commuting to work to rout clearance in Afghanistan. And for the record women are not currently held to the same physical standard as men, check any military physical fitness test, their scores are adjusted for their gender. Secondly, it is engrained in men to protect women, therefore it will and does cause conflict on the field of battle. And please let's not forget what goes on behind the lines, when you absolutely need to have a person on your right and left it's a real pain to lose one to pregnancy. Don't get me wrong, some of the best soldiers are women but please don't think for a second we are all created equal, there are plenty of things that women do better than men proven by countless scientific studies, killing isn't one of them.
We ARE all created equal. Aside from muscles there is really not that many differences between men and women. The truth? Women could just as easily whoop ass as a man. That said if a woman tried to beat me up or kill me, I'll whoop them just the same. Women should NOT be given any more mercy than men.
I agree with you. I spent over 28 years in the Army. I have been in uinits where I was the only female. I know full well that I can perform in a combat situation, been there, done that. However, I also know that we teach our boys to protect their sisters, mothers, etc. It is instinctive and I don't want to see a man killed because he instinctively reached out to protect the female next to him rather than himself. We need to be very careful here about what we are asking for.
SSG Norton said it. One female can distract an entire platoon because of a mans instinct to protect her... And when things get too tough they usually get pregnant and sent home.. Equality is just a concept we live in reality!
The fitness scores exist so that the soldiers can be sure to deal with the weight of the equipment they wear/carry and that they have a baseline level of fitness. The boots, weapons and light armor need to actually be tailored to a woman's size. It would be more appropriate for fighting. A lighter gun is just as deadly at close range, in the hands of a skilled soldier. It has also been proven that women have much more endurance for blunt pain and are able to keep going longer, in general. I'd say that counts for something spectacular in combat, wouldn't you? Their rations also do not need to be as big, as their size is somewhat more slight, and their calorie requirements in that situation is smaller.
Have you ever served in an infantry unit? I wish that things were as simple as you make them sound but take it from me as a male that served as an 81mm mortar man in the U.S. Marine Corps I don't think their are very many women that could do that job. Forget the body armor and the personal weapon, boots and other light gear that you mentioned how will a female be able to carry all of that stuff along with a 40lb mortar tube? I remember doing regimental humps (hikes) with all the POG's (People other than Grunts) and the regimental commander would always put the infantry battalions in the back of the formation so that we wouldn't walk to fast and basically cause all the POG's to drop out, well even with us in the back with our heavy crew served weapons (Mortars, 50 cal machine guns ect) and all the other gear the POG's carry (Pack, 782 gear, body armor ect) you would see a steady stream of female Marines dropping back after the first couple of miles. I don't know where you got this idea that females can deal with pain longer and all that since I have never seen a female hump the amount of weight a male infantry Marine would have to hump and be able to travel the distance we travel on foot and at the speed we travel. Those regimental hikes that the females would drop out of were a cake walk to an infantry Marine, it was like having the day off for us while the POG's viewed it as a challenge. Hey I'm all for things being equal but this is one of those moves that will get people killed and lets not even talk about how these women could be treated by their fellow Marines/Soldiers since grunts can be vicious to their male pears I can't imagine how a women would be treated in some of the situations I have seen in the field.
Reply SSG Norton: I am referring not to a typical commute but to the more dangerous and illegal commute of the sex trade worker – she doesn't have a team to protect her back. Consider that her own problem – she is asking for death and dismemberment as a part of the day's trade of course – but I consider the sex industry an instinctual part of human nature that will exist as a market and we are not protecting. The law of demand dictates supply.
I have not been directly in combat but I have delivered two babies naturally- drugs are bad, um 'kay. Bad for infants and mothers. I am not suggesting that all combat situations should be mixed gender – it does through off the team. I am suggesting that arbitrarily 'protecting" every single trained soldier of whatever gender from certain areas is limiting to the good of the overall mission.
Mati Hari was female and she got up close and personal with Hitler – or I may be confused. Women serve in nasty ways with great fortitude on many fronts. I am not actually for mixed combat divisions but I am for equal opportunity to apply for inclusion in more focused teams. Endurance and common sense and a smaller amount of the donkey load seems like a reasonable request. Are humans only good for physical labor? Adrenalin kicks in and a mother can lift a small vehicle off her child – don't discount the strength and cunning of a woman with a mission to complete – and don't put her in stilettos and ask her to pull equal weight. Why should boots and disabling gear be a mandatory part of completing all missions? Some missions may not require exactly the same tools as other missions.
Chris: Precisely my point. Why would a female soldier carry the same weight equipment as a male? It isn't appropriate, proportionally. How's about you carry the same amount of equipment as a guy 1/3 larger than you on your "humps"? WOuldn't be such a "cakewalk" then, would it? DESIGN, people. The US military needs to work on design. The design of gear and weaponry needs to be retooled, from the group up. This isn't Desert Storm, Vietnam or WWII. It's stupid to keep stuff the way it is now, and berate females for "not being able to hump it", when you could have a pretty radically trained , lighter soldier force standing with you on the battlefield. Ever seriously taken martial arts, dude? (As in, NOT at basic? ) I've seen some pretty bad-ass women who would be pretty amazing, both mentally and physically, in a combat situation. Why the push-back to necessary and inevitable change?
of course, men don't get a choice now do they? that word choice seems to have different meanings to different genders
nice share tumbs up!
you must have been in the slow math class growing up, becuase the "average" male cannot lift 300% his own body weight.
Last time i check EVERY major war we have been in in the last century, except the current wars but bush is a fake republican so yeah, their was a DEM/PROGRESsIVE in the white house. Just saying.
You really need to work on your history. You are absolutely wrong
You are correctYU. Wilson WWI, FDR WWII, Truman Korea, LBJ Vietnam.
Might want to take an ESL course.