Women in combat = bad idea.

Let's see how long before someone uses the "Soviet woman sniper" argument.

I think its rather contingent upon fulfilling an objectve standard. Simply put, put the women through the EXACT SAME TEST as the men (no double standard), and if they pass, more power to them. Its really a question of individual strength/merit. If you can make it, I say, why not?

Men = Hunters
Women = Gathers

Nature's rule, not mine.

Gatherers, I mean....f*&^ing typos!

Ninjas are cool.

I like Loki Von Bismark's position, at least for Combat Arms.

Although I would definately suggest single-sex Basic and AIT. Otherwise discipline tends to break down before it can be properly built up.

*laughs*

I personally think its a bad idea. Yeah, if they can pass all the same tests physically, that makes a good case. Most of them can't though, and I have seen that. Additionally, what of the fraternization issues involved in living literally in a hole together? Or pregnancies? Or having to conceal and pack along in the field "feminine products." Snipers and recon guys literally take dumps in their MRE containers and pack them out. Worrying about female issues in the field just adds one more potentially deadly complication when a guy can do the same thing better with less risk. There is something to be said for it if women can operate in the same way men can in the field, but frankly I never see that ever being able to happen. Maybe a motivated few, but it would be so few that it would not justify the general inclusion of women in ground combat units. This would also be certain to invite "PC creep" into the military as the public and Congress realized that women were not getting promoted as fast due to their handicaps, so to level the playing field, quotas or reduced performance demands for females would be set; both of these are disasterous to morale, particularily in a situation where your life depends on their performance. This is something that has already happened in the military. Take a look at the PRT or PFT for every branch of service- for men and women there are different standards. I was a whole lot keener on the idea of women in combat before I actually joined the military, now I am not so sure it is a good idea. As long as they can perform equally to guys I have no problems with it, but in the area of direct combat I do not see this happening. Additionally, both Russia and Israel tried women in direct combat roles, and then promptly abandoned these efforts after combat experience showed what a terrible idea it was.

Smart women realize we rule the world from the kitchen (and the bedroom!)!

I wouldn't mind killin' a few terrorist myself but the men over there fighting need to be able to concentrate on killing, not protecting the woman next to them.

Hahaha- I will not dispute jonag's comment! It is far more powerful to rule with disdain from afar than to be the poor schmoe running around in the muck with a rifle and a radio. Besides, women are perfectfly qualed to be pilots and kill with the push of a button- why insist on getting dirty while doing it? If you want a good story read about the "Angel of Death"; a female AC-130 pilot in Afghanistan who would taunt male Taliban commanders over their field radios as she demolished their positions one by one.

I had women drill sergents in Basic and trust me there are women out there that can handle combat.

I don't know, there's a few days a month when I won't tangle w/Mrs. Exile. She'd make a formidible soldier during that "special time"

I don't doubt there are a few, but are there enough to justify it? Additionally, your view from any basic training program is going to be skewed. It's like being a freshman on the first day of High School or any other outsider, you really have no idea what the hell is going on, but it is all really confusing and a little frightening. I have been on both sides of that aisle, and the perceptions you draw are dramtically different depending on which side you are on. Recruits put huge amounts of faith in their instructors because they don't know any better. Instructors know better, but usually put up enough bluster to cover the slip-ups to an ignorant recruit. Recruits come out very idealistic, and sometimes are disappointed by what the rest of the military is like.

I pretty much agree with jonag. I'd like nothing more than to get my hands around a dirty terrorist throat and squeeze the life right outta that sucker, but I'm also realistic. As good of shape as I'm in, I'm still smaller than most men and would probably not match up in a fight.

I think there are women out there who would make fine combatants, but there would have to be ONE standard throughout the entire training process, and if you don't make the grade, you're packing out. Buh-bye. None of this 'gender normalization' crap.

A 120lbs pack is a 120lbs pack and doesn't care if you stand or squat to pee. You still gotta hump that thing for 20 miles and be fresh and ready to kick some ass when you get to your destination. Since I'm not someone who could do that, the least I can do is support the ones who can. From my kitchen if need be.

Kathleen Parker had a brilliant article on this a few years back. I think Townhall.com has an archive of it and is worth a read. Not as funny as you, Frank, but still...

skipping the argument about whether women are capable, my concern is that US men are not ready to have women in combat with them for the following reason.

What if, in a combat situation against overwhelming force, the need to surrender arrises. The men can choose to surrender and hope they are tough enough (our guys are) to deal with being a POW.

But now one person in your company is a female. Everyone knows that if you surrender, you are probably sentencing her to regular rape on a grand scale. You can't do that to another soldier so surrender is no longer an option. The company is subsequently wiped out.

It just seems to me that you need the person next to you to be someone you would die for, AND that you would LET die for you. If that person is a woman, her fellow soldiers judgment, and therefore their lives, will be skewed by her presence.

It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with her abilities or courage. If her presence causes soldiers to make different decisions than they would have otherwise then it is a problem.

Maybe some of you with military experience can let me know if I am off bse there.

There may be women out there who can handle the combat aspect, but i personally agree with the arguement vigo mortensen made in GI jane(that movie sucked). Even if women were able to reach the same standard as men in combat related tests, they are still exploitable by the enemy. And the men(like it or not) will be unable to ignore the fact that they are female and act differently in combat situations.

Also, we have already seen what effect women P.O.W.s have on the american media. I think it weakens the national will to see cute little blondes held by the towelheaded ungodly thieves in dirty nightshirts.

Adam

damn... Chris just said that a millian times better than me...

Still true though

Adam

Hmm- now that is an intersting question. I don't really know about that. There might be some difficulties, because like it or not when you have men and women together like that, a little frat almost always occurs. However, that might be a good thing you could say too, cause it would provoke more ferocious fighting on the part of the outnumbered unit. Either way though, everyone is probably going to be totured regardless though, if you are fighting the type of opponent that would do that, it probably doesnt matter if you are male or female because it is going to really suck. A person with better perspective on that would be someone who has done SERE training. That has both genders put in a POW camp situation together. I have never heard anyone say there were any problems, but that is hardly an authoritative statement on my part!

Well, seeing as most of our combat units overseas now are getting women attached to them in theater...

You find out that when your men frisk women in Iraq and Afghanistan, it makes THEIR men want to shoot Americans in the back.

Then, you notice there are some women in the Transportation Co., and you get a few opcon'ed to your rifle company so you can search women ('cause you don't want the men to shoot you, and you don't want the women to be suicide bombers).

So you have women attached to an infantry company...going on patrols...

I'm so sorry, boys, but we HAVE women in combat. Already.

Women as "infantrymen" by trade? Ahhh...who cares. Women of a variety of MOS's able to be attached to manuever units? Probably a good idea, spares the trouble of digging them out of your support units when you get in country.

If a woman can throw my 220lb ex-Marine husband over her shoulder and carry him out of harm's way should the need arise, then she should be allowed to join the combat units. I've yet to meet one of these Amazonian women, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

I figured out 10 years ago that the most helpful thing I could do was to send photos of spouses and kids, bake cookies for deployments and have clean socks and underwear ready for when he got home. I didn't need to pull a trigger to serve a useful purpose.

TZ and jonag both make excellent points. Chris also has good insight, with the potential rape and whatnot.

Some opinions: women can fulfill very important roles in the military, such as doctors, administrators, support pilots (refueling aircraft, etc.), computer/electronic operations, etc. Women being in frontline combat is a bad, bad idea. There are many reasons for this, but a few are:
1)general unequal physical traits compared to men
2)massive potential for rape, sex slavery, etc. if they are captured
3)taking concentration away from fighting (put a woman near a guy doing anything and see if he operates at the same level of concentration)
4)PREGNANCY
5)various health issues, such as menstruation, PMS, hormonal swings, etc.
6)frontline forces are tightly knit units; throwing women into the mix breaks up the bonds between fighters, takes focus off the fight, and slows down the mission (the men WILL act differently, at least to a point, to make sure the women aren't left behind or in serious danger)
7)risk of sexual allegations against fellow soldiers, risk of "fooling around" at camp, etc.
8)in general, men do not act at the same levels or in the same ways when women are present as they do when women are not present. Take a basment full of guys watching a football game; now throw a woman in there, and watch how their actions change

Some of these may be true, others may be totally wrong, but they are all concerns.

Sorry to be off-topic, but I have my own limey now! His name is Scott Bardell and he is a funny limey. He attacked me on my blog and it seems that he is prime for some verbal abuse.

http://scottbardell.blogspot.com/

Sorry, and that is all.

Hmmm.. never really thought of that, but hey, hearts and minds eh? Whatever works best I say. There is a legitimate reason for women to be there in that case, and indeed a real need.
However... this is different than say SF going in-country, or the 82nd doing a landing, or amphibious landings doing purely a movement to contact. In a guerrilla war or "stabilization operations" there is a need for women in combat, in these other cases, don't think so. These are two distinctly different types of operations, demanding two different styles of fighting I think. Well, this type of debate is healthy I think, and exhibits the new type of warfare we need to engage in!

The "bodily functions" argument is nil as women can take an injection and not have periods. My cousin does it and she's a schoolteacher, not a soldier, no wait...
The excrement issue is probably easier for the women anyway, as most have much more poopy diaper experience than yer average male. I’ve never seen a soldier stick his hand in a soiled diaper at a restaurant, fix the problem, and continue eating unabated. Just sayin’s all.

I do see we wimmens as darn strong and proud. My point and the real issue, is know your strengths. I lift and take care of my child who is closing in on half my body weight. His care would be a difficult task for anyone, but (proportionate to my size) Herculean for me. I’m strong; buuutttt….. MOST women are not proportionately as strong as most men. This effects not only their back packing and hoofing; but they also cannot through a hand grenade far enough away from themselves to not inflict the same damage upon their own person (and persons next to them) that they intended for the enemy.

So, I'm for the equal testing for equal jobs. Same type and number of pushups for everyone, none of those sissy pushups and if you cannot deliver a hand grenade to the enemy without the use of a launcher, try out for another part of the team.

I could fill this comment with an extensive list of stuff that most men cannot do but most women can. No biggie, know your strengths and be proud.

I don't believe anyone in the Army's civilian leadership is actually interested in letting women into infantry/armor/field artillery MOSs. What they're trying to do is rescind a portion of the policy that's been rendered obsolete by the changing nature of the threat.

As it stands right now, women are allowed to serve in the headquarters of a Brigade Combat Team (BCT), as well as in the brigade's Support Battalion. In a conventional battle, both of those elements would be located well to the rear. In the type of war we're fighting today, they're located on the same forward operating base as one or more of the maneuver battalions.

Following the letter of the law with regard to the current policy, the women assigned to the headquarters are fine, but the ones assigned to the support battalion are there illegally. Clearly, it's a meaningless distinction, so it needs to be changed.

Another issue that's caused legal problems for commanders over there is the need to have female soldiers on hand to search Iraqi/Afghani women. If you can't have women in units that are colocated with the combat troops, where do you get them from when you need them?

In case anyone's wondering, I'm sitting in Alexandria, LA right now, helping to work out last minute details of deploying one of the brigades that make up that unit the article mentions.

Shouldn't it all be about womens' choices? -kidding. I think that if any person passes the grueling tests the military puts soldiers through, that person should be granted procession to the next rank and position, no matter who they are or where/what that next stage involves. However, there is something to be said for "male heroics." Jonag's got a point with the whole, "guy lookin' out for the woman next to him" bit.

Exile's got a great point too. I guess if, as a *cough*united*cough*society*cough* we could somehow work it for "on the clock" times to fit the various schedules, this just might produce some astronomical results.

I washed out of USMC bootcamp in 1989 due to a coordination problem. My DI's were tough as nails and nything the men could do I'm fairly certain they could do just as well. If a woman can meet the IDENTICAL standards as the men, then yes, she should be allowed in combat. Notice I said IDENTICAL not lowered. I'm in good shape but I couldn't hold my own at mens standards.
If women can "pack the gear" then I'm all for equality, otherwise they/we've got no business in a combat situation.
Barb-wife of a Reagan era Marine.

1. We (women in the military) kill bad guys from the air right now.
2. In a POW situation, who will better be able to handle rape (men or women)? The enemies understands how to take advantage of our male homophobia.
3. Some combat skilss require absolute strength and some require relative strength. Keep it square and let the (very) few women who can handle the task DO it.
4. We love our country, too -- we are the ULTIMATE security moms!

Gawd, Frank, Jonah just ripped off your lasers, AGAIN. This time to to replace the wolves in the new Bush ad with sharks and taking them out with lasers.

Another thing I thought of is: Lyndie England. She came back from Iraq pregnant with a married man's child.
I don't think it helps the morale of the service men's wives, who are bravely holding down the fort back here in the states, to know that their husband is in a foxhole with a woman (especially when he's probably gone quite awhile without "attention").

I like the attitude of the old master from Remo Williams, who said that a woman's job is to stay home and make babies, then gave Kate Mulgrew (playing an Army colonel) a long up and down look and said "you are very thin."

Off topic:

Frank, your new habit of putting some text in a big block within the article has merit (looks all professional, like something Newsweek would do). But it needs refinement. As you are doing it, it makes for a cluttered look on my screen. I recommend getting some further definition by enclosing the text in a block with a border and perhaps a subtle background color (like a pale grey). And don't use quotation marks unless they are in the full text (like Bob said "Ack" before he fell over dead).

Just my random observation.

READ MY BLOG!

jonag, how about the opposite? A woman comes home pregnant to her husband? I mean, I know we women *can* hold out longer, but ...? Just had to show the flip side o' that one is all.

OT

Watch anti-Kerry documentary STOLEN HONOR online for FREE now:

CLICK HERE

Personally, I think that it is a bad idea because of morale and the possibility of torture.

As a former soldier, the possibility of becoming a POW is something that you have to deal with. I'd like to think that I could survive some period of time with personal torture.

However, put a woman in front of me and hurt her -- I don't think I could deal with that. It is the women in my life that I felt I was protecting, my mother, sisters, nieces.

It was nice to have the respect of the men in my life, especially my father. Even with my nephews, it was always my wish that seeing me as a soldier would leave a lasting impression that would push them to serve when they grew up.

I do feel that there is some validity to the comments about pregancy. Having been in the military during a wartime operation, there were so many pregancies that many female soldiers actually did serve in dangerous areas while pregnant. I wouldn't want this issue to cause any of our front line units to be understaffed at a time of war.

Dang! For FREE now? And I paid the $4.99 to watch it a few days ago because I'm not in Sinclair territory. Still, it was definitely worth the $4.99.

Off to watch Celsius 41.11, tonight!

Cheers!

Wasn't it during the first Gulf War that a female pilot was taken POW? Later during interviews, she said that there was nothing done to her that wasn't also done to the male POWs.

So, while being raped is a concern, it should be a concern for all the troops, not just the females.

Also, a woman who weighs 120lbs and does 20 pullups is still not as strong as a man who weighs 200lbs and does 20 pullups. So, the standard is the same, but there is still a difference in the level of strength.

Clarification: Bear in mind I"m not suggesting total integration (Where possible, seperate barracks is probably a good idea), merely that it really depends on the individual female. Certainly, on the AVERAGE basis of pure physical strength/build men and women are not equal, nor am I suggesting a necessarily equal functionality. BUT, IF any given woman can pass or exceed the same trials-physical, psychological, etc-why sell them short? Its probably true that MOST women will indeed have more trouble coping mentally-if for no other reason than a higher degree of emotionalism. But the stereotype, however true, is kind of irrelevant. In the end there is ONLY everyone's individual capabilties, and whether or not they can measure up. Theres no reason to deprive people of a potentially rewarding career-or the military of potential talent-by simply automatically excluding them is all I'm saying. Test first, pass/fail later. If they make it, they make it, if they don't, they don't. Let the field exam by the judge. Simple as that.

BTW-I DESPITE feminism and the "gender is relative/a social construct" crap, please don't predicate this upon some sort of a massive egalitarian push on my part, it isn't (I'm an Ayn Rander, egalitarian I am not). Thanks, just wanted to round that out a bit..okay, a lot:).

typing fast, despite=despise

After 60 plus years, I'm not 100% certain of much but I'm pretty certain that women are mostly for petting and indulging. So I say, if women want to take up popping Muslim nutcase terrorists, well, let's indulge them. Let them pop terrorists to their hearts' content. At least until we run out of terrorists, of which there is presently a surplus.

2. In a POW situation, who will better be able to handle rape (men or women)? The enemies understands how to take advantage of our male homophobia.

What IS an issue, so far as rape is concerned, has been mentioned several times here; the liklihood that female soldiers will be raped by the enemy if captured will make male soldiers perform irrationally and more poorly.

You see, one danger (and there are quite a few, I think) is that male soldiers will become more interested in protecting certain individuals than in achieving their objective.

The battlefield is NOT the place to be playing politically correct games. What the hell is this "women should be allowed to see combat!" AAARRGH!!! The question SHOULD be, "Will this have a positive or negative impact on our effectiveness in battle?" Any politically correct (i.e., dishonest) argument should be ignored.

Here are good articles on problems with women in combat.

http://www.fredoneverything.net/MilMed.shtml
http://www.fredoneverything.net/WomenInCombat.shtml
http://www.fredoneverything.net/MilWomenII.shtml

This ignores the problem of rape by the enemy. My understanding is that either most or all women captured in Iraq have been raped. Women need to be much further away from combat than they currently are.

Rancor - Thanks for the tip on "Stolen Honor". Wow! Also how did you post a live link into the comments? Mine above didn't go...

another good idea is the all-female strike force.

first, get a group of strong, fit, angry women who want to kill. make them a platoon and put them in their own dedicated barracks.

keep them away from all other females, and their monthly cycles will eventually sync up.

deploy them when pms is at its worst for maximum carnage.

if the first experiment is a success, then make a dozen more platoons, all kept separate from each other, and use birth control pills administered beginning on planned start-dates, in order to stagger them, i.e., have 13 platoons on different cycles, so that in any given 2-3 day period, one of them is at max pms.

the men who are unfortunate enough to be attacked by a platoon of angry women special forces chicks all on pms will have an ass kicking like has never been seen before by man.

So I say, if women want to take up popping Muslim nutcase terrorists, well, let's indulge them.

several years ago i read a book on terrorism titled "kill the women first" - a fascinating read, as it described women as being the most zealous when it comes to combat situations. they implied that it was in large part a retalitory sitation (death of a husband or child drove them to the act of revenge), and based on what we have seen with female muslim suicide bombers, i believe this to be true. i personally believe that America is far to civilized to necessitate women in combat, but if anyone killed my babies, i would be right in there, wild eyed and crazy with the rest of them.

"Maybe some women really want to kill for'ners, and, knowing the pleasure of it, it's hard for me to say no..."

Thanks. Now I have that "Red Neck Woman" song, stuck in my noodle!

Gretchen Wilson is my heroine.

Gullyborg, you should book mark this site ->
http://www.hit-country-music-lyrics.com/redneck-woman-lyrics.html

And turn up the volume on your speakers! *wink*

..."But the Woman that God gave him,every fibre of her frame
Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same;
And to serve that single issue,lest the generations fail,
The female of the species must be deadlier than the male."

Mr. Kipling knew: don't-mess-with-Mama

(and Frank, this Mama thinks you're great...and of course you'll treat SarahK well...)

"The question SHOULD be, "Will this have a positive or negative impact on our effectiveness in battle?" Any politically correct (i.e., dishonest) argument should be ignored."

By that logic, there never should have been integration of the races, either. I'm sure there were white men who initially had problems serving with black men.

BA-HA! Gullyborg, your PMS platoon idea is the best I've heard all day!

Spetiam,
My experience in the Middle East is that you see men hand in hand at night with no women on the streets. I was told that men are for recreation and women for procreation. If you think the men I serve with can handle rape by a man better than women can, then I guess you must know better than I do.

You should not deny women the right to serve their country on an equal level with men simply because men will choose to react irrationally to the torture of women as opposed to men.

These arguments (which I have listened to for my entire 16 years in the armed forces) tell me about issues that men have with women being in combat, not issues with the actual ability to women to contribute to the national security of the country.

Don't worry...we'll still defend you, even if you find us unworthy.

By that logic, there never should have been integration of the races, either.

Uh, no.

I'm sure there were white men who initially had problems serving with black men.

Wow. Are you really trying to equate race-hate with a man's desire and willingness to sacrifice himself in order to protect a woman?? <cynicism>I suppose we could suppress every inclination towards chivalry and the honoring of women.</cynicism>

My experience in the Middle East is that you see men hand in hand at night with no women on the streets. I was told that men are for recreation and women for procreation.

Interesting. Do you happen to have any evidence or any non-anonymous testimony to this effect?

If you think the men I serve with can handle rape by a man better than women can, then I guess you must know better than I do.

What a clever little snipe. Do you have any more playground jabs?

Don't worry...we'll still defend you, even if you find us unworthy.

I'm sorry, did I say that I find women unworthy? Maybe you could tell me what else I think. After all, I'm a man, so I must be a chauvinist pig, no? Lets hear it, what else do you know about me?

On second thought, keep your prejudiced man-hate to yourself.

Bad, bad, bad idea. (most) Men are chivalrous by nature, and would be more likely to take unnecessary risks to protect a woman. I think it's simply instinct. What would you do if you saw a guy in a bar take a swing at a girl? I'd want to beat him ugly with a pool cue. Israel experimented with this idea and found that the men were too concerned with the welfare of the women to be effective in combat. More liberal meddling...

there is no way that women should be in combat... But they really shouldnt be able to vote either.

You'll seldom see a *lady* in combat.

Combat and war are the height of masculinity. Any woman that engages in either gives up a valuable measure of femininity. Few people can stand an uber-butch, macho woman.

Any man that goes through a basic training/bootcamp comes out a man. Most women do too. Ick.

Equality means equality--total equality. You can't have partial equality--equality except in the opportunity to pay the ultimate price for the defense of America, freedom, and liberty.

Is there a difference between changing the policy and assigning women to combat arms units that actively seek out and engage the terrorists or keeping the current policy that limits women to assignments in combat support or combat service support unit that terrorists seek out to engage?

I agree with the above comments as well.

The fact is women and men are different.

If a woman could take on a 6'4" guy hand to hand, or in any practical life or death situation, then that would be a topic for discussion. As it is, that 6'4" guy would snap every woman in half on any country on earth from sea to shining sea, if they were to choose to. It's natural selection and allows our species to survive.

Woman's Lib is another phrase for unrealistic motherfuckers. The world is full of them unrealistic motherfuckers. And it always ends badly. Let men do what they do best, and let women do what they do best.

It's complimentary and necessary to the other. Not better or worse. Ying and Yang for you honkey pagans. I, for instance, and not going to be shitting out a kid or remembering what I did 10 years ago on November 5th at 3 pm. Women do. Let'em.

i agree to a degree, as far as warfare is fought in the way it currently is, with massive amounts of groudn troops battling in semi-close quarters, women could be in better places than on the front lines. war has always been a man's arena. men usualy start them, so ment really need to be the ones to finish them. as warfare become more technological, and less about sending battalions of grunts to secure a hill, women will server more of a role in the military. they can do just as well in any area requiring inteligence as any man, probably more so in some respects.

it isn't sexist to assert that women can't perform as well physically as men. its a matter of biology and evolution, it has nothing to do with promoting one sex over the other. women are designed to bring life into this world, men, well, we like to kill things. im probably just restating whats been said already, but i just wanted to put my 2 cents in.

I'm an ex-Army officer. I say, as long as we're fighting asymmetrical, low-intensity conflict, we may as well open combat roles to women. We've already lost 24 women in Iraq, members of support units who weren't trained for combat. Given men's instinct to protect female members of the unit, though, an even better idea would be to put all units through combat and SERE training, so support units aren't so vulnerable. Women can fight, but they're already dying because they haven't been trained. Something needs to change.

When all else fails, read the instructions. Doesn't the Bible say count the men over 20 who are able to go to war? What has thousands of years of evidence shown us? By and large men should be doing the soldiering. Women are damn good spies, though. Play to your strengths boys and girls.

I don't think women should be allowed in combat but if they (meaning whoever it is who makes the decision to do so) want them to fight I think it should be segregated like the black units. Women fighting along side women while men continue to fight with men without having to worry about women.

Gullyborg, great job "fleshing" that idea out! (didn't I suggest something like that?) You handled it well. ...too well... ::scratching head thoughtfully::

America will never tolerate watching its daughters raped and killed and stacked up in body bags. There would be no point in having a military at all -- we could never stand to use it.

And the sexual tension inevitable in mixed groups would be a disaster in combat, for a variety of reasons.

Israel has had tremendous trouble with its coed army, as well. They practicaly have an abortion doctor attached to each unit.

As one former member of a coed unit said: It's a bad idea: The men carry the women all day, the women carry the men all night.

they tried that in the german military a couple years ago and it didnt work. and they tried "building on top of it" too. when the women "soldiers" were around the men were not allowed to do manly things, like belch, fart, etc. (is shooting considered manly in europe?)

And the agent provacateur of the day award goes to Joel for his stunningly clever remarks:

I don't think women should be allowed in combat but if they (meaning whoever it is who makes the decision to do so) want them to fight I think it should be segregated like the black units. Women fighting along side women while men continue to fight with men without having to worry about women. Posted by Joel at October 23, 2004 04:52 PM

Will you get off the "everything I want to attack I equate to racism" meme already? Even if you can't come up with any new material, at least try to avoid being so damn transparent.

I like Walt's attitude.

Let's see ... I work among women officers. The O-5 MP is more fit at 39 than some of the men in combat arms who are currently fighting from a desk -- and by fit I mean both aerobic endurance and muscle strength.

But the one that really comes to mind is the woman, no longer in uniform, who graduated at the top of her sniper class, served and doesn't talk much about what she did.

2000 yards and deadly.

Keep in mind that 5-10 years from now the technology for even a "foot" soldier will change the nature of combat significantly. Even now, netcentric warfare is becoming a reality. It's not your dad's or your granddad's army any more -- but I also doubt we need or want women infantry any time soon, if ever.

I like Spetiam's earlier comment:

"The battlefield is NOT the place to be playing politically correct games. What the hell is this "women should be allowed to see combat!" AAARRGH!!! The question SHOULD be, "Will this have a positive or negative impact on our effectiveness in battle?" Any politically correct (i.e., dishonest) argument should be ignored."

Not sure what I was trying to instigate...note sure that I was "attacking" anything...also not sure how I was equating anything to racism by suggesting that IF females were to involved in combat roles that there should be all female units. Perhaps you could explain that to me Spetiam in your acceptance speech for the Over Analyzer Award you ass.

Joel, please accept my apologies for assuming that you were deliberately trying to give credence to others who make the "chivalry:women::racism:blacks" argument. I apologize also for the caustic nature of my response.

If I have to die in combat because of my gender, I deserve to havemore rights than the person that gets to take my job and live because of hers.

Women get to vote and hold jobs and do whatever they want....so why do MEN have to do all of the heavy lifting? If I had known that being male was going to make me automatic cannon fodder, I'd have chosen to be female so I could stay behind and work and make money and "support the troops" the easy way.

A rifle doesn't give a damn whether its wielder is male or female. THe 5.56mm round has little kick and is very accurate in a woman's hands, just as in a man's hands. I honestly think that women should be allowed to fight, but in special circumstances and conditions.

For recon, spec ops, and offensive combat, all male units can push forward and take positions. For guard duty, prisoner guarding, tank driving, defensive combat and holding positions, all female units can do that job. It won't require them to do anything but shoot well and be good soldiers...which ANY American has a right to be, regardless of gender. The Army's equipment is made to overpower the enemy at a distance, so hand-to-hand fighting isn't a big deal. Female combat soldiers also make sense because women are less hot-headed and also require less food and water AND their packs could be lightened to help them out. Another plus is that women have equal (if not superior) endurance and a greater tolerance for temperature changes than men. All female recon units and combat groups would perform well, just like ALL US Army soldiers would.

As for the POW argument...that's BS. Do you honestly think that it's better for 50 men to be raped, beaten, tortured and killed in captivity rather than risk ONE woman's life to trade? Just what value are you placing on the lives of the male soldiers? "Hey guys, go out and get killed...there's a million of you around, but these women have to be protected because they have vaginas." That's retarded.

Make all female combat units (call 'em Valkyries or Vixens or Viperettes) and let them fight. I think people will be surprised at how viciously a motivated American woman tears into a terrorist like a starving dog into raw meat.

I wrote too much. It's not good for me to write about something when I get all riled up about it.

OK, sake has made me calmer.

I'd like to back up what was said before in that we've got women already at risk in iraq...yet if something happened, they'd be dead because they don't get training for combat. The Army should be like the Marines in that EVERY basic training graduate should have all of the skills needed to kill the enemy when they graduate.

The main arguments against women in combat are their smaller bodies and their reproductive issues. Well guys, us males have bigger brains than women do, so I guess that means that women can't be doctors, lawyers, nurses, and politicians, right? I mean, having a vagina makes a woman SO seriously unstable and makes MEN SO CRAZY AND INSANE AND WILLING TO DIE TO PROTECT HER THAT FOR A WOMAN TO EVEN WALK INTO A POLICE STATION WOULD DESTABILIZE THE ENTIRE STATION AND PUT THE PRECINCT AT SERIOUS RISK.

Besides, according to your 5000-year old logic (let's go all the way, shall we?), anything a woman's menses touches is considered unclean...so a women shouldn't be allowed in churches, either.

It looks like the only place for women, based on what has been said here, IS barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. After all, nothing ruins a person's ability to shoot and defend her family, friends and country like having a vagina....those things must be CURSED!

(That l'il post up there is sarcasm, for those of you who can't read into it.)

Wow, stoob! ouch..I believe women have
been used succesfully by our very own allies in Israel for a number of years,
and quite frankly, they have a bit more
experience with the day to day fighting than we do.Our miliatary is
VOLUNTARY..if you volunteer and can pass the tests a vagina should be no disqualification to combat..p.s. I know a female mp and she is tougher than sh*t..perhaps we should move women into such positions and free up more men??

The average sixteen-year-old boy is already bigger and stronger than I am, so sorry, not every woman belongs in a combat unit. Physical standards should be exactly the same for everyone, spreading any burdens and responsibilites evenly. Fraternization issues already create a very real problem in currently coed situations, although not for everybody:(the Log Cabin Fake Republicans state in their October 12th lawsuit against the DOD and Donald Rumsfeld that "Don't Ask Don't Tell" affects a far greater number of female soldiers than male.)

If women want to be in the military, and are capable of doing equal work to males in that particular position, then why not- but the realities of "the birds and the bees" cannot be dismissed. Segregated units may be the answer. Our animal instincts are the most difficult to overcome, and history is littered with the stories of people brought down by lust.

Do we ever want to get to the point of general conscription of females? You see, that is the next stop on the road. There are "feminist" types who think so. I'd say that generally, reproduction does not interest them, but losing a large portion of the female population on the battlefield could quite complicate a society's future.

I like the "Viperettes" idea (Though I like "Furies" as a name). Just show films of Islamofascists' typical treatment of women (the nastier the better) to stoke the fury to nuclear heat.

Part of our mission to defuse the ME is giving women a leg-up towards equal treatment. Don't you think seeing bad-ass American soldieras would inspire the new generation of girls?

photos for iraqi women being raped by american army.