You are preaching to the choir dvra. That is why I don't allow my wife to have a key to the gun safe! I had to hide my walther too.

women actually do better in the extremely cold because thier fat is closer to the skin. In winter especially the snow in reference to the mormon pioneers the women would actually haul the cart during this period of cold the other times the man would

I am all for it, if we can make our Taliban buddies put women in their frontline units.

1962, , I carried, dragged and pulled a 187# man 13 miles to a place where we could get a chopper in to pick him up.
He was holding his intestines in place with his hands and trying to keep the leaves out off them.
The defense dept, pentagon have just told you, their priorities rae their jobs, not their troops.
If you are in the military, you have just been told, your life is not important, only political correctness.
Get out now, you owe a country, nothing, that will throw your life away for political correctness.

The job is not just about killing.

I was an Airborne Infantryman in the 82nd Airborne.

We didn't shower for up to 60 days at a time, we roadmarched with 150lbs on our back (that's 150lbs plus weapons and the gear you have to wear), and ran until we puked.

Guess what...that gun (the M240B) weighs about 25lbs PLUS ammo. You have to lug that PLUS your ruck. Nobody is going to do it for you.

Ranger school standards are swimming a pool lap with ALL of your gear (minus ruck).

You pack in what you live off of. Nobody is going to haul your stuff for you when you can't.

In an infantry unit, lowering the standards equals death.

Sorry, but I don't think any of these guys on "the panel" ever served in the infantry.

jerry194283 - thanks for sharing your story and I give you lots of respect for your bravery.

Uhhh...

Israel's army (IDF) is currently and has been more active than ours over the last 3 decades, and they have never NOT allowed women to shoot bad guys. A lot of the crusty arguments here are really ridiculous.

Also, being a Marine doesn't mean you know everything about combat or our armed services. Marines historically speaking have been the least open to change, so Brat... your arguments are merely your opinions, based on circumstantial evidence, at best.

PynkFloydd, agreed. However, if the exact same physical fitness standards that are used to develop and select/reject men are applied to women, then there should be not physical problem. While the average woman has the height, weight but neither strength, courage and appetite for physical risk as the average twelve year-old boy, there may not be any women that qualify. Still, I think that female registration for the Armed Services at age 18 should be mandatory as it is for men.

Surely, there should be no trouble with an all female bomb removal squad.

Vincent -

See, the problem lies in the fact that women already have lowered standards in place for them and special rules. I highly doubt that they'd allow women in the infantry and also make them play by the same set of rules that us guys go by (PT testing, etc.).

The average age of the guys that I served with was 19-21. Heck, a lot of the guys had a hard time maintaining all of the standards!

By the way, are women gonna have a problem with digging their own hole to poop in? Cause there aren't any field toilets in the infantry. ...and we don't stop for pee breaks. You walk and pee. You dehydrated or tired? You don't quit until the medic says you can quit. Frostbite, Hyper/Hypothermia? Pfft. Trenchrot. Ha! Hoah!

PS - I've had the sole of my foot peel off before from trenchrot. The fungus wouldn't fully go away for years either.

If were talking fairness, women should have to file for selective service.

As a currently serving senior leader in the infantry, i say hell yes

If women want to be in combat roles, let them. Right now women take up a much larger percentage of non-combat billets than their overall percentage in the military. What this means is that men have to do more time in combat. It is similar to the problem the Navy had before they put women on ships. It got harder and harder for a man to find a shore billet because they were being filled up with women. This meant that men were being deployed more often, pushing their ops tempo beyond what it should have been. If women want to be in the military then they should be required to fill any role they are capable of, not be limited to non-combat positions.

cjjrwe,

HA! The barracks would be fun with more than just a few visitors.

The military long ago lowered standards to accept women, and some of those clearly endangered troops.

For example, litter carriers worked in pairs (men). When women joined, they changed the standard to four to allow the weaker sex to participate. That means only half as many wounded get carried in a period of time.

That's what PC BS accomplishes.

Ask the Romans if they think women are not warriors:Boudica Queen of the Iceni very nearly ran the Romans out of Britain.

if they are allowed in the military they should have to take the same risk...equal risk for equal pay. If they can handle it like men they will have just as much of a chance to survive as a man would and if they can't handle it...well...there will always be someone to replace the dead.

It's not always about gender equality. It should be up to the unit.
In a combat situation, those fighting need to feel they can rely on their fellow members. If they feel that a particular woman in their unit will have their back and be able to yank the wounded out of the line of fire, so be it.
I'm a feminist. I'm all for being able to choose my own destiny. But there are realities to consider. Combat is life or death. It's not a joke, and it's for damn sure not a place for PC.
I'm not saying women shouldn't have the opportunity to prove they can do it. But they have to PROVE it. On an equal level with any other serviceman. No consessions, no modifications for femininity.
My mother is a marksman. She has won shooting competitions against men. Fine. Well done mom. But that's not combat and she sure as hell can't drag a wounded man around all on her own.
The comments about the more indelicate matters that may offend a lady...Get real. Any woman that feels her purpose in life is to be a warrior is not going to care about poop holes.

Currently women have very different physical standards in every branch of the military. Although I disagree with this entirely, if they are going to serve in combat units they must first meet the same standards.

This has noting to do with a woman being as physically strong and capable as a man. People that have never served in the military do not understand the living conditions that infantry and other combat units have to deal with. I served in the infantry for years in the army and even in training environments we would go to the field for 45 days and not have a shower, and live off what we could pack in our rucks. In afghan a lot of the forward operation bases didn't even have toilets. They had pvc pipe in the ground to urinate in. I know many woman who are just a good of a shot as I am even a couple that are better than me, but that does not mean they should be in the army. Right now the army has a rule that women have to be moved to the rear so they can have a shower every 3 days. Anybody that understands personal hygiene would understand why. Don't let the media and politicians trick you to think that this is just some unfair policy. It protects women from lots of medical issues that they would have if they had to go 45+ days in the desert with 4 pair of underwear and no way to wash themselves.

I think it's good if it's only on a volunteered basis with them having to meet the same requirements as males.

The thing I can't stand is being pushed to live according to feminist viewpoint. I'm a traditionalist and I'm quite happy being a mother and wife. I'll defend my home- with my life but I don't have a desire to be out in the trenches on purpose.

Don't get me wrong- I believe in equal pay for equal work and equal opportunity for those that are qualified to do the job.

just for the record most fighting in the military front is done with guns and bombs. I am a sharp shooter myself and I earned my ribbon. When asked how I was so good by my TI, I replied," I pictured my ex husband right in front of me". Of cource, that was just a fun response, the truth is I have shot guns all my life. I don't miss...ever. I could run faster than most the men and when I was in the AirForce I was also so in shape I could outmanuver most men too. I may not be able to physically overcome a large man but who has to? Aim well and you won't have to. period.

Of course the military will now lower the Men's Standards to what is currently now the Women's Standards. We have been intent on lowering all of our standards for the past 50 years in schools so that the underachieving students can all pass, so it makes sense that the military lower its standards so that everyone can serve equally; which means that ultimatelymission readiness will be compromised. What has this country come to? This generation is not the greatest, it is the lowest achieving generation, but at least they feel good about themselves just the same.

Joy the airforce has no idea about rough living. you get pay for substandard living for being stationed on an army installation. This has nothing to do with how fast you can run or how good you can shoot. What will you do on a base that only has pvc pipe for you to urinate in. They are there i lived on one for a year in afghan. We had no PX to buy more tampoons and we were lucky to even get TP and toothpaste.

So Joy, could you be a sharp shooter after a five mile hike with a 60lb pack on your back? Could you carry a 250lb man out of the line of fire? Are all of you ready to ready for women to be drafted? Nobody should be surprised by this, it is just part of the Liberal Agenda. Wake up America!

PynkFloydd

I was an Airborne Infantryman in the 82nd Airborne.

-Snip-

Sorry, but I don't think any of these guys on "the panel" ever served in the infantry.

Come'on, Ranger School is not the same as allowing females to serve on the front-lines. Hell, in my opinion, if they can make it through hell-week for SEALs, or even the two weeks of hell at Fort Benning, they deserve it just as much as you do. Or are you scared to be shown up by a girl?

If women are allowed to come into combat roles, if there is ever a major war for which they need to bring back the draft for, having a uterus should absolutely no longer exempt you from being called up.

If they ever bring back the draft again, all women of 18 years of age should be called up to the nearest military base where they will be trained and sent to serve and fight in all battle fields just like their male counterparts, no exceptions.

All conscript units should compose 50/50 male, female representation regardless. After all, there is no reason why only men should be made to carry up the burden of fighting and dying for their country.

In all, women too should have the honor and responsibility to fight for their country just as their male counterparts. We have been carrying this burden for way too long, having your body pieces coming home in body bags, mutilated, amputated, burned up to the point disfigurement and with all the mental ghosts that wake you up at night with nightmares.

Its time to bring equality and fairness to its fullest meaning in the military. Therefore, I say bring on the women to the combat roles. But just remember, if there is ever a major war for which they need a draft, no man should be called up until they call up the women too, one for one. Anything else would be unconstitutional and Un-American.

I'm an infantry platoon Sgt 0369 USMC.
When you're defending a FOB or on combat patrol there is no where to make a separated living area bathroom facilities. Typically you @!$%# and piss in the open next to your marines, vanity is out the window.

My young Marines are well trained professions, except when they are in contact of women marines they turn into a bunch of 0311cassinovas. If they were forced to integrate they will still accomplish the mission however at a lower standard. The unit is only as fast as it's slowest man. It will inject protectiveness, sex, jealously, hinder instance response to orders, logistics, and unit cohesion.

The WM's can not physically manage a full combat load (usually well over 100lbs with unit gear). I've seen many WM's try and acknowledge "no way". During one hump we had a WM integrate in our company to "prove" to us she could hack it. After one klick she dropped out and she assumed the fetal position crying, it was a mess. Another male marine had to carry a double pack an additionally spread load his serialized gear to others.

Women menstrual cycles are going to be a smelly bloody mess when you have not, and are not going to shower for weeks, nor might you have time to "reload" the plug.

Like China and Russia I can understand all female units. They will have to have to be tested at the higher male standers in physical fitness. They just don't have the muscle mass to complete this mission. I know few are on the Political Correctness bandwagon and are going to have the story about "this one" female and "it's only right for fairness". As an analogy put a professional male basketball, football, hockey team against the same of a women's team. Even though they are both physically conditioned professionally the males are way superior. Other units are fine for integration but infantry is a beats of it's own.

Joy,

Okay, you can shoot, so what? Can you hump an 80 lb ruck 12 miles in less than 3 hours? Can you carry an unconcious 250 lb person half a click to a clear zone for a MEDVAC?

How would you feel about only using baby-wipes to clean yourself, in front of your male battle-buddy, in a fighting position? How about peeing and crapping in plain sight of your squad? How about changing your clothes in front of the platoon, as you guys don't pack G.P. Mediums in your rucksack?

You were "in the rear with the gear" and probably whined about the living conditions then. Try not having living conditions!

You ever see a woman with a spider around? Protecting my boys flank?! No thanks.

On a more serious note, I know these aren't your average women but anyone who thinks men and woman are not different creatures physically and mentally (not smarter just different) is both ignorant and naive.

Rough living, hahahahahah, I grew up with 4 brothers, have lived in the outdoors and know how to live off the land. As for the female period there are now shots that reduce if not eliminate that little problem as well as it protects from pregnancy. You must live in a very soft environment that is well padded from current information. And as for peeing or taking a crap outside, guess what I did in the great outdoors. There sure wasn't a latrine there either!

No, again, they will have to lower all of the physical standards so that this will be another "successful transition"; successful at hurting readiness and castrating the military.

Please Joy, you were in the Chair-Force. Air Force personnel feel put out if they go on a deployment and they have to take their own towels and soap.

I find your comment highly exaggerated and completely untrue. You dont understand that all women in the military are not like G.I. Jane. Granted there are a few, but there are also the ones who are only in the military to get money for school, or to help their family with extra cash, or because they have no where else to turn. I dont know about you, but when Im starring down the barrel of an Iraqi RPG I DO NOT want a women whose only purpose of being there is because she has to send a paycheck back to her babys daddy back in the States. Granted there are men that are in the same situation as these women. BUT history has proven to us in the past 40+ Centuries that men will protect and guard a fellow man. Especially, a comrade in the midst of battle. There was a reason that Rome, and the Greeks, and Napoleon didnt involve women in their campaigns...because it wasn't their job and it is not their God given talent to run into battle. Don't take this the wrong way for it is only my opinoin, but you send a platoon of all females into a reconaissance mission into heated enemy territory. You'll have a platoon of american flags coming back on an C-17.

If you have a platoon of sixteen, you may be able to carry two women. What if there are four women? How about eight? Depending on the mission, it may not get done. What if another platoon was depending on that mission getting done? This is insane, but now that Gays can serve openly and women can be combat soldiers we can all feel good about ourselves.

Wake up2940, I think you sound like you sit in a chair just to tie your shoes! Wow your mom sure must be proud of her "little" boy! Lets try a field exercise, just you and me? I bet you'd be pissin your pants in less then 15 seconds. Like I said before... I don't miss. EVER.

Were heading down a "slippery slope" people, allow women in combat and if the draft returns next our daughters will be forced into selective service. Quite frankly they will have to kill me first to take my daughter forcibly into a combat situation.

The real issue here is combat reliability and safety, not equal opportunity.

All women in the military can the match the men on precision, alertness, intelligence and thoroughness in skills training. Leadership in combat is a factor that at the present time doesn't seem to be fully resolved with regard to gender, but I have known women who could take the pressure as good as any man, and sometimes more so.

But, there are only a comparative few women who can match the men on speed, strength and endurance; it is these women who might be able to serve in combat, because they can at least match (if not exceed) the men in fighting capability in the event of hand to hand combat. Wake up2840 is right: women who serve in combat must at least match the same physical standards as the men on their PT tests. This is an issue that would be dangerous to ignore.

Two other issues need to be considered with regard to combat: 1) Women have a menstrual cycle that often be debilitating. 2) Secret romances within a squad can sometimes negatively affect combat decisions. One might argue that simple friendships do the same,....perhaps so, but I don't think the negative affect would be as hard to control...just my opinion.

Finally, if a female combatant is taken prisoner, is she going to be more subject to physical abuse than a man? Hard to say......it depends on the ethics of the enemy.

nothere

Come'on, Ranger School is not the same as allowing females to serve on the front-lines. Hell, in my opinion, if they can make it through hell-week for SEALs, or even the two weeks of hell at Fort Benning, they deserve it just as much as you do. Or are you scared to be shown up by a girl?

This is not the same as making through a few weeks! This is making it through a multi-year enlistment in an MOS!

What good is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on someone's training and then having to retrain them because they can't handle it?!?!

Every field exercise was "hell week" for us, we'd have a few days break (and by break, I mean weapons maintenance) and then go out there and do it all over again. Our training exercises would last up to 60 days. This included 1-3 hours of sleep, some light snacking and 10 miles a day with all of your gear (cause momma ain't gonna bring you a spare pair of pants when you rips yours and your ding-a-ling is hanging out your only ones...and who do you think carries your food, ammo, cold weather gear, rain gear and sleeping bag?). During this we'd sprint uphills, through sand and whatever other God-forsaken terrain there was...just to get to our objective! That's when the fun began.

We had block leave once a year, there were no extended breaks. Your "2 week" trial is a joke to anybody who's been an 11B.

If you've ever served in an Army (RA) Infantry unit, then you'd know that most infantry units train to the Ranger standard. In fact, Ranger school is based on typical training you'd find in the infantry.

Do you know what Ranger school is? ...because it sounds you like you have no clue. It's a leadership school for combat MOSes to prepare for the rigors of combat.

I was (and relatively still am) in top shape when it comes to PT. This isn't about being "shown up" because I've known plenty of PT studs that didn't make it through selection. Even I had some days where I reached my limit. It's about everyone having to pull someone's slack when that person goes down because there are no time outs or breaks. I'd LOVE to be shown up by a woman. Although I've known some that can outrun me or outdo me in one area, this is about a sustained duress with no recovery time.

Having served in the military, I know there are plenty of women who are serving or who have served who would be just as capable in a combat situation as many men are. Their gender would not be an issue in standard combat units.

However, there are some other things to consider. As others have pointed out, if women are allowed in combat units, then they should be required to register for selective service just as men are. I doubt many would have a problem with that but there would inevitably be some who would make it an issue.

Also, the odds of a female combat soldier being raped if captured would be extremely high. It is easy to sit back and say "If they're going to be in a combat unit, then they'd better be prepared for that." It would be much harder to actually deal with it, I'm sure. Are we prepared to deal with that? In addition to the issue of potential PTSD, you will also have to add the mental and emotional complexities of the inevitable rape victims.

I firmly believe that women are capable of being effective combat soldiers (with the possible exception of the elite units and even then, there's always exceptions to the rule). I am also extremely glad that I'm not the one who would have to make that decision because of the inevitable consequences that will happen to some of them.

The knowledge of those consequences would be very difficult to bear.

Please Joy, I served 22 years in the military and I know what I'm talking about. The standards for Women are different in the Air Force, and every branch of the military, and most Women can not meet the Men's standard and they would be a liability on the battlefield. You may be an exception, but based on your post I doubt it.

Just remember, if there is a war for which they need the draft back, expect to be called up for combat. We men have been coming home mutilated, amputated, or having our body pieces coming home in body bags for too long. Its time to spread the burden.

So if you they bring back the draft for any war, if you are 18 and female, you will be called up. But please, remember, in combat roles during war time soldiers can and will go without showers for months, no latrines, no anesthetics during surgery. They fight in the swamps, the jungles, the deserts, the tundras, the mountains, the cities for months without showers caring 100 pound equipment and walking for miles and miles a day. As women they will have to go through their menstrual cycles during circumstances such as those.

Plus, imagine what the enemy is going to do to those women if they ever get captured. Getting ganged raped will be the least of their concerns. Do you know for example what the Japanese did to women in Asia during their brutal occupation in WWII. Or armed groups in the Congo are doing to captured women over there?

Think about what N. Korean, Iranian, Russian or Chinese soldiers will do to our women if you get captured by them. Just an example of the sort of things that you can expect to go through. The reality is that Women's bodies are not biologically designed for war. Even if they have the right toughness and the right mindset as I believe many brave women have (trust me, there are though women out there), they are not meant to fight in extended and prolonged military conflict.

In contrast the human male body have been biologically designed for armed conflict, forged by hundred of thousands of years of genetic evolution. War was the first male profession. Even then, you have no idea how many men would have done anything not be called up to go to war. I say get women into submarines, give women command of warships and naval battle groups. Make more women pilots of both rotary and fixed wing air planes including combat planes.

In all these areas, I have faith that women will and are already succeeding. But when it comes to infantry or any kind of ground combat forces, bringing women into such units, is not only an horrible idea it is criminal and those people who will make such a decision will be guilty and directly responsible for the above horrible things that will happen to these poor women in there is ever a major war.

to quote GI jane- Suck my stick. that was hollywood. This is reality. Hollywood is stupid. Demi Moore is hott though. I'd sign up if I knew her and I would share a bunk on the front lines. jk, but seriously, it's a bad idea.

Hey Joy,

I would like to play with you Darlin... HooYaa Baby.. ;)

Go for it Joy!! Listen to these little boys whine!!

the russians found that women can take higher g forces than men put them in fighters jets

Joy57111

I am a sharp shooter myself and I earned my ribbon.

Hahahahahaha!

Expert is the minimum standard in the Infantry, babe.

Sharpshooter means NOGO. Try again.

By the way, qualify for rifle AND grenade because that's the infantry. You ever throw a grenade, dear? Next time you're in the gym, pick up a 5lb weight and see how far you throw that.

Sorry, but the "men" you were keeping up with in the Air Force are a joke. The only real PT standards in the Air Force are with the Pararescue. Were you keeping up with those men? Cause if you weren't then you have no clue what it's like to keep up in the infantry.

For those that haven't heard of the joke that's called the Air Force PT test, let me explain:

The Air Force's PT test measures your body composition and heart rate!!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHA Seriously!

On a sidenote...when we deployed to Haiti during Operation Uphold Democracy...I saw the funniest thing in my life:

One of the Air Force girls had her K-pot on and couldn't figure out why we were all laughing and taking pics. She wore it backwards. Hahaha!

Hey Ap,

Ain't nothin little about this old Texas Boy.. :)

PinkFloyd,

Had two Pararescues as room mates while in Panama City Dive School in 88 and I don't know what they did to them in Lackland but they were impresive. And my Stepdad was a MACV Ranger in 68' (said he was going to kill me for joining the Navy, I went SF just to get ready for him..) :)

Its not about PMSing. I'd like to see 1 female, just 1, graduate Ranger school !! Not going to happen Its one thing for a woman to serve in a mechanized unit where all their gear gets driven around. Its an entirely different thing to load her up with 140 LBs of combat gear, then another 40 LBS of parachute gear, and expect her to stand up, let alone do a forced march to an objective. If you you've seen the Wrestler China you know she is about the fittest, most buffed female around, but during that celebrity fighting show she got her ass handed to her by a very pudgy Joey Budafuco. Im sorry, women are just not strong enough to be in the real elite units. END OF STORY

Wrong rangerjohn, the liberals will lower the standards for women and let the men in the unit carry her gear and her rear; that is called equal.

This nation wars all the time, with all the reasoning for mass murder, blowin like the shifts in the wind blowing. Let's have women make the sacrifice for all the glories too. After all, dying on foreign soil, screaming for your mother to extinguish your agony, should be spread around.

With all the warring, generation after generation, we'll soon run out of poor, disadvantaged American body counts, so let's get the girls in on all the glory, real soon. Why let all the males, experience the joys and wonder lust of mass murder, tortured bodies, and mass murder. Of course, all the new frontiers should be opened to the rich pigs kids too. After all, this is a democracy, right.

Vet4u,

To be honest, I considered the Air Force because they were the first to let you jump straight into special operations. ...unfortunately, they don't guarantee anything so I went Army because I really wanted to jump out of planes.

The standards that the AF recruiter went over for PJ testing was pretty much that 18-21yr old gold standard minimum for every other branch, but mixed with some extras. Definitely no joke though!

Once you get into the combat MOS debate though, it seems that each service has their speciality, but all being pretty tough when it comes to PT. ...although, I will say that Delta's base was inside our's (Fort Bragg) and those guys were machines. You'd see them running around their track with a full ruck at sprinter's pace...full beard and all.

I'm not the best swimmer, but I can hold my own. ...definitely not enough to go to combat dive school though. (The Ranger swim test is about my limit...haha) From what friends have said, dive school is about as physically demanding as you can get.

RangerJohn,

Rangers lead the way! Hoah!

Since when. Explain how having women in combat is the way to go. Are we prepared for the unpleasantries that will come from it. In direct combat areas, the rule of law completely utterly disappears. This means that women will be placed in more danger than every as a result. Remember people have wickedness in their hearts at times and will do things that people will not expect. Are we ready to see women ravished openly in combat while the military cover ups what really transpires in combat. Why are we ruining our military.

Why should we worry about the ramifications? We should just pass the bill without reading or comprehending the ramifications so that we can all feel good about being equal.

By the way, we can not say the word "ravished" anymore; it might insight some mentally unstable person and incite unwanted advances. And we wouldn't want anyone to get their feelings hurt.

PinkFloyd why all the debate over women in the Air Force? They aren't exactly infantry on the front lines (which is what this article is talking about). We have the best military because it is a military of volunteers. True many American women don't measure up to men's standards, but they ain't the ones enlisting! If a woman can meet the qualifications, let 'em fight.

Military (and indeed the world) isn't the good 'ol boys club it used to be, the times they are a changin'...it's not "PC" it's not "BS" it's progress

Yes women should be allowed and encouraged before going directly into a voluntary draft for all American citizens ages 18-40, with all the wars the Zionist 'master race' has planned for America to fight, it'll take all hands on deck to do them. Heil Israel.

Women helped in the creation of the nuclear weapon extraction of Uranium 235 during the WW2 war effort. A great many women would be found to be entirely suited to pilot UAV's from remote satellite stations and rain bombs and mayhem around the world.

With the Zionists running Israels government and their AIPAC lobby having multiple US Lawmakers in their pockets, a drastic increase in the numbers of military enlistees needs to be put in place to have any chance in the shooting war they are pushing America into with Iran, Syria, North Korea, China and Russia at the same time.

At least give America some thin hope of surviving or does Israel truly want the total destruction of America which the Israeli Spies seem to indicate?

Induct women on a mass scale, restore the US Military draft and prepare for those Zionists pushed wars across the Middle East and into the Asian Continent.

The women in combat roles are utilized within their capabilities. I am really not trying to be sexist...but institutional change like this is dangerous. In the armed forces, we have to deal with generalities. The average female is not as strong physically as the average male. This has been proven time and time again.

I have served with many women in combat units, and have no issue with that at all...but to simply throw open the doors is dangerous at best. Once again, people with no military experience is trying to tell the Armed Forces what is best for them. As I said ealier, the women we do have in these units are being utilized within their capabilities. With very few exceptions, they are not asked to everything the typical infantryman does on a daily basis....for a reason.

Our female military members are asked time and time again to serve honorably and they do so. They go into hostile situations and perform just like they were trained to do, same as any Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine.. but to make this kind of change because it is supposedly the politically correct thing to do is irresponsible.

I'm with you Joy! It's funny how many men come up with all these lame excuses for the simple fact that it would make them uncomfortable and they wouldn't be able to act like their all matcho for doing something woman can do anyways. What's this bs about the draft and selective service? When did any woman every say they wouldn't want to do either one? Of course if we're equal we're equal, so why wouldn't we do it all? Men need to quit whining, or we'll say their too weak to be on the front lines. LOL

JK, I suggest you come spend some in my shoes before you make off the cuff comments like that. It has nothing to do with macho. It has to do with being able to trust the person next to me having the ability to keep up and carry their own weight.

Are women equal, without a doubt. They just are better at parenting than most men are. Yes, they serve well and I'd fight beside one any day, but I'd always be protective of them, always be worried about them getting killed, and some kids with no mother. Every firefight, I'd be asking if they made it? When I was in, we had uni-PT, PT both men and women. There's females out there, many, that would run me into the dirt. NO, I know what they can do. They can run as far and shoot as straight, but I want a Mom not an KIA.

Let me add one thing. As far as talking trash and foul language, they can hang with the best. One problem might be sexual harassment? Some ladies just don't like hearing that stuff from anybody. We might find ourselves watching what we say at all times in all places. I'd be OK with that. Some guys just don't figure it should be that way for them?

JOY---------- Tell you what , I was an instructor on the rifle range at the marine base ,at Quantico Va..
To begin with AF standard for shooting small arms, can be bested by the littte sisters of the poor.
You don't miss ever?
Tell you what there sunshine, take your butt to a place, where you have wait for the incoming to stop, to raise you head, get a sight picture and fire a couple of rounds and get back down to avoid incoming.
Let me know how you score after doing that for a week or so, especially if you happen to be carrying a weapon that weighs 15 to 20 pounds.

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether they can do the job or not. If you want a prime example of this then look at GI Jane again. For one, women need to be able to carry their own weight, the P Test and height and weight standards are in start contrast to each other when compared to men vs. women. If you want to allow women in the combat forces then you need to allow them the opportunity to not have a double standard on the physical appearance and/or the physical training aspect of this.

In Germany I carried my Ruck, I was also a Saw gunner and the 60 AG and I also carried to AT4's. Equaling about 145 lbs up Old Baldy in the snow. I was 6'4 220 pounds and I maxed my PT Test and I had difficult times doing it but I rucked up and moved on. This is where the different lays in women in combat arms or not.

Also, if women are in combat arms their exposure to capture is much high than it is now. How many women are going to get captured and raped before we say oooops...this was a bad idea. It will bring down the morale and it will also incite fear into existing female troops...potentially hesitate because they are unsure as to what might happen to them.

This is why I hate liberal administrations...thank GOD there is a republican House to block and of this BS through. Women have a place in the Military...just not the combat arms.

This also doesn't even come close to the hygiene issues that arise in long term deployments. Women cannot use a baby wipe and move on, they need special requirements that men do not which is a cause for potential issues physically for them. I love these people that say we don't want women or gays in the military. Nothing like armchair commanders who haven't served to not understand what looking at a tail after not seeing any for 45 days does to a man. Not saying that men cannot control themselves but women to men in deployment are simply another distraction added onto whatever else is on their minds as well.

This argument is so obsolete; women are already in combat roles - the question is when will it be acknowledged?

Women in combat zones are more of a pain to deal with than their worth. If there are only 90 some females in a unit and the unit ends up sending 30 home due to pregnancy then its hurting both unit cohesion and over all strength of that units ability to perform down range. I'm not saying its entirely their fault, because it takes a male to make them pregnant, but when you create a possibility for that environment to exist then it will happen. For the Artillery, Calvary, and the Infantry while deployed they live in the roughest and hardest conditions their areas have to offer. Some don't get to shower for a month or so at a time. Not to mention if you want anything you have to order it or have it sent to you from someone you can give them a shopping list within your possibly 15 minute phone call per month(depends on where you are times and how many times you can call will vary). On another note, when soldiers are in a firefight the last thing they need to focus on is is their girlfriend/boyfriend ok and forget about everyone else. The Military already has a problem with homosexuals running scared from fire fights because they have more female in them than man, they don't need more problems being decided for them by people whom have no ideal of whats going on and then because people who have never even been around a military installation until it became their job to pretend to care, and now bringing us to the situation we're in now...women wanting to be "equal" when they already are. American "Christians" are the first to ignore their own religion or "bibles" to live the lives they want to live instead of following what is in their 3 ft. of space. And since America pushes its ideals and beliefs on to other countries(yes we do) they follow right in line. Bottom line: Stop trying to control the military if you don't know whats really going on, let them vote amongst themselves instead of not getting a word.

Granted but, can they carry a fellow soldier off the killing fields? Can they physically lift heavy loads? Why must we strive for equality when genetics tells us it just isn't so. Of course there are exceptions to every rule but we must go with the overall. Any decent male in America has been taught to protect woman. It may be a genetic trait as well. If a woman is captured by the enemy she will almost 100% be brutalized and raped. Why must men have to face that additional moral dilema of trying to save a woman from being taken hostage more than he would for a man that may be able to stand the physical rigors of torture and won't be sexually abused. I for one would be more distracted in trying to protect a woman more than a man, just how I was brought up.

Sorry, but women's PMS is not the issue.

"Since promotion to many senior positions in the military is dependent on combat experience, changing the policy is a matter of fairness"

No, change the manner of promotion, don't make it dependent on combat experience, ( I am making this statement applicable to both women and men, they both get passed over for same reason ) not all senior positions require combat experience.

Keep them out of combat units. Somewhere this political correctness BS needs to stop. Are we going to convert the military more then it already is, by implementing a quota system for promotions based on gender and race? Come on. This is BS

Women with a motherly instinct do not join the military, they stay home with their children. They do not see their male military comrades as children to be protected either, but see them as there to protect them. Men should always be ready to protect women in war. Women expect that. Huge conflict results when it doesn't happen.

Then there's the huge under-reported problems of rape, & voyeurism in the field, that are widespread in the military. In combat, it can only get worse.

Then lets make it all equal. Make every woman no matter what her MOS perform to the same standards as men. Lets start with the Army PT test. No double standards for women; either you pass using the same scoring system as men or you don't qualify. Guess what will happen. Most of the females in the Army would be gone within a year because they could not get past the Push Ups and the Run on the test.

A 17-21 year old male recruit is required to do at least 42 push ups to pass that portion of the test while a woman recruit is only required to do 19. If a female did the 42 pushups she would get a 100 % score while the male would have to perform 71 push ups to get 100%.

On the 2 mile run a male has to complete the run in 15:54 to pass with a minimum 60 point score a woman is required to run it in 18:54 to pass. If a male ran it that slow he would only get 19 points in that event. To max a male has to run the 2 miles in 13:00 or less while a woman has to complete it in 15:36.

For a woman that is 32-36 years old the test requires the woman to do a whole 15 push ups to pass which is not even half of the 36 required by the male to pass. As for the 2 mile run, pull out the calender, a woman has almost 22 minutes to finish. A whole 4 minutes behind the males.

Under the current promotion system for enlisted the PT score counts for up to 50 promotion points for a maximum PT score of 300. If women were required to do the same standard as men many of the women would not be promoted due to not having enough promotion points especially in the MOS's where you need almost a max in every area to get promoted.

Being in a combat zone or being in a combat situation is different than being in sustained combat. Most females have never had to perform as a Grunt in a sustained situation, including in the Israeli Army. In fact the Israelis don't allow women in combat units because they found that women being killed in combat has a disheartening effect on the males in the unit.

I would also like to know how anyone thinks the position of a fireman or police officer is comparable to being an infantry soldier? I don't recall ever reading about a fireman having to carry his gear several miles to a fire and then performing his or her duty. Police officers don't carry a minimum 50 lb ruck when they set out to catch bad guys. By the way there are already women in the M.P.s.

As for that so called glass sealing that can only be broken through by serving in combat, tell that to the approx. 57 women that are currently serving as Generals or Admirals in the military.

I have a sister-in-law that is a major in the Air Force, but, I will say this, if women really want equal rights then let them serve in combat units. I know that they can handle it, my sensay was ranked 5th in the world in martial arts, and trust me I don't care how big the man was, she could knock him out without any effort. She is a former student at Bruce Lee's school in LA.

Women have been doing it for years unofficially, so what's the difference?
Make it official. Equality is the same no matter how you look at it!

So I guess now they are going to shave women's heads at basic just like the men? They shave the men's heads so that the equipment functions properly, helmet, gas mask, etc., and also to promote uniformity. No, this won't happen, and the standards will be lowered to accommodate women. This, along with gays serving openly, will ultimately hurt mission readiness and cause problems within the all volunteer force; something that liberals have wanted for many years.

Liberals want the draft back, so that the richest children have to serve as well. They think that will stop or limit wars. Get ready for your eighteen year old daughter to be drafted, and gay marriage to be recognized throughout the country. Now that I think of it, that is pretty good; two birds with one stone. They are really clicking along with that liberal agenda thing.

Ed-NavDoc

Women have been doing it for years unofficially, so what's the difference?

The difference is that someone else may lose their life because a woman can not get a 250lb man out of the line of fire, or maybe we lose an entire platoon; that is the difference.

gmross

I have a sister-in-law that is a major in the Air Force, but, I will say this, if women really want equal rights then let them serve in combat units. I know that they can handle it...

The Chair-Force? Really!? You think she is ready for the front lines? Does she take a bath with a wet wipe in front of 16 other men every day for weeks and months at a time? There is no privacy at the tip of the spear. The brass did say that sexual attraction isn't an issue, since gays can serve openly; maybe it is a mute point. Right!, women will not even be able to carry their own gear and the harsh realities will be too much for all but a very very select few; it isn't like the movies.

Are you ready for your eighteen year old daughter to be drafted?

I get the whole; "can a woman carry a 250lb man off the field?" argument but reality check; there a plenty of 140lb soaking wet men that are in combat units that couldn't pull that off - so why demand that expectation for EVERY woman? Although; there are some that could probably pull it off = hello drag his a%$ or buddy carry.

And the prissy PT test standard comparison is a joke. Being able to run a measly 2-3 miles, do 2 minutes of situps and pushups doesn't compare to the level of exertion you actually do out in the field on a daily basis so that's not even admissible into the argument in my opinion. It is more about stamina and endurance and you can either keep up or you can't. Lets face it; those who meet the minimum PT standards on EITHER side of the gender fence would not be the first choice for covering your six.

CalifGina

You are right you don't want a person doing the minimum on the PT test covering your 6. So then why even think about allowing a woman in a combat unit since the minimum for a male to pass the APFT is also a max score for a woman. In other words her score that would give her 300 points on the APFT would barely give me a pass in each event.

As for the pushups. It isn't like your high school grading. Pushups graded properly are break the plane of the back on the way down and full extension on the way up. Not those half azzed pushups that you see most athletes do.

As for the PT test not being admissible in your opinion well thats your opinion and you are stuck with it but how could you even begin to justify putting a woman in an infantry unit if she can't do exactly what the men are required to do on a daily basis including PT.Do you think that Infantry Units only run 2 miles a day for PT?

You are right about the stamina and endurance part but you left out the fact that you are expected to have that stamina and endurance while carrying your fair share of the weight of the team's and the squad's and the platoon's equipment. Fair share being equal amount divided by number of people available.

The Brits did a study by recruiting women to be infantry soldiers. After all was said and done they found that the best of the females were as good on a daily basis as the lowest group of men in the training. By the end of training almost all of the women and that bottom percentage of men had washed out. I believe there were fewer than 5 women out of a company sized element were left and the Brits decided that it wasn't worth the money to pursue it any further.

It also would not have been smart for the women to try to pursue especially if they wanted a military career because as the bottom performers they would be passed over for promotions and leadership positions and in time forced out.

The Infantry is not for everyone and it definitely isn't for women.

CalifGina

I get the whole; "can a woman carry a 250lb man off the field?" argument but reality check; there a plenty of 140lb soaking wet men that are in combat units that couldn't pull that off - so why demand that expectation for EVERY woman? Although; there are some that could probably pull it off = hello drag his a%$ or buddy carry.

And the prissy PT test standard comparison is a joke. Being able to run a measly 2-3 miles, do 2 minutes of situps and pushups doesn't compare to the level of exertion you actually do out in the field on a daily basis so that's not even admissible into the argument in my opinion. It is more about stamina and endurance and you can either keep up or you can't. Lets face it; those who meet the minimum PT standards on EITHER side of the gender fence would not be the first choice for covering your six.

I'm glad you brought that up...

I enlisted at 17 and was 135lbs (at 5'10"). Guess what? At 140lbs, I could firemen carry 275lb men all day. A 140lb man is NOT the same as a 140lb woman. ...at all!

My APFT scores were maxed for my runs and situps (although I could only do 55 pushups at the time). Yes, PT scores are a great judge of ability (especially since the infantry is mainly a physical job). So is the EIB (Expert Infantry Badge) or any Infantry geared school which requires the 18-21yr old PT standards and a minimum of 42 pushups, 53 situps and 2 miles in 15:54. ...oh, and let's not forget the 12 mile roadmarch with your ruck and gear in under 3 hours (by the way, that's a ruck run...not march in that time).

The closest job in the civilian world (at all) to even remotely compare to the physical labor would be something along the lines of a low-level construction worker or laborer. ...except the infantry is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. ...and no breaks, no sleep plus not getting to eat because there's no time. ...and if you're hurt, "Suck it up and drive on...hoooah?" Afterall, priorities are security, weapons maintenance, personal hygiene and then sleep (in that order).

If women are soooooo capable, why aren't construction sites filled with them as laborers?? Why is it that everytime I drive-by road construction, they're holding the flags telling me to slow down and they're not the ones with the shovel in their hand???

Oh...and did I mention that the infantry's #1 friend is your e-tool? When you're setting up a defensive position you dig in. Nobody digs in for you. If you can't dig in, you fill sandbags. Sandbags don't fill themselves, by the way. ...and when you're done with your own work, you help your buddies. ...because everyone pulls their own weight. When you're done, you empty those sandbags, pack your gear and move on to the next God-forsaken mission they send you on.

Throughout my enlistment, I carried the gun, the M4 with M203 plus an AT4 and I had the radio (which you get to sprint behind a clueless LT with). That's plus ruck, ammo, food, extra clothes, cold weather gear, personal hygiene stuff and whatever else I needed to survive for a few weeks in the middle of nowhere.

When we did NTC, my ruck was so heavy I couldn't pick it up. Nobody was able to lift their ruck. You know how you did it? You rolled your ruck onto it's back, you sat down, put the straps on, then you rolled onto your stomach and did a squat to get up. Now, if a company of men could barely carry their rucks, how could a woman?

Guess what else? There was nobody in my unit that couldn't carry the heaviest soldier.

...that was made sure of. In fact, we did liter carry races in Area J (which has tons of wonderful sand trails). Ever carry a 270lb guy a mile in sand? Mind you I was only 150lbs, so I'm sure you could do it too, dear.

I am gonna call bull@!$%# Pynk, 270lb man? Unliftable rucks? Calling your M4 a gun? I am sorry, either you are over exaggerating or bull@!$%#ting, as you have been called on in this form before.

i think women should be able to serve but only if they can qualify by the same standards as men. Otherwise they should stay as support. The units should be segregated to prevent the problems that come with putting men and women in close quarters for months at a time and subjecting them to horrors.

However I know women can fight, I have a sister....

I can't even carry a 250 pound man off the field without help. Neither could most of my battle buddies. The cr@ppeople come up with to intimidate and disuade blows my mind. True, haven't met many women that can do a fireman carry sprint under fire up a hill in over 100 degree heat while zigzagging and running an I.V. All that on top of sleep deprivation and muscle failure. Hey wait, aren't women allowed to be field medics already?

Anways, interesting chat around the water tatonka.

chadley2cents wrote,

Hey wait, aren't women allowed to be field medics already?

Yeah, I think they are, my sister-in-law was saying that she thought she would be deployed to Afghanistan in the near future, don't know if she'll see much action even if they do this, she's a Lt. Colonel in the Air Force, but she is in the Medical section.

Jack-2681120,

I called "The Gun", The Gun. ...that's what we called the 240 and that's what it was called in the 325. If you've never had to sit down to squat lift your ruck then you were never in the infantry... Frankly I don't care what you think. I have order and certificates from everything I said. (Even one from my SERE rotation.)

chadly2cents,

We did fireman's carries for PT across the fields by our barracks AND Area J at Bragg. (sometimes our 1st Sergeant would find it funny to yell "gas, gas, gas" and throw a CS Grenade too) Our CPT was from Ranger Batt and once in a while we did a full Iron Mike competition/pre Ranger type of deal. We did the pre-Ranger course on Bragg, a litter carry race, 5 mile in sand and boots, obstacle course...the whole deal.

Sorry if your experience differ, but that was my experience. That's how we trained and that's why we considered amongst the best in our time.

Jack-2681120,

In fact, personal message me through here. I'll give you my Facebook with links to over 30 guys I've served with (some now in Special Forces units around the world) that can backup my story. In fact I'll even supply you with all of my orders, pictures of me in uniform WITH that 150lb ruck AND whatever else your little heart desires.

Heck, I'll even send you my stinky boots from NTC.

Boudicca, Cartamandua, the Amazons. We have fought for thousands of years. What we haven't done is write the histories, which allowed our roles to be diminished until men no longer valued our abilities in the field. I would think we would have less problems now that firearms are lighter and death is so distant.

Personally, I think there should be a compact: unless you see your enemy's eyes at sword's length, it is not war, it is slaughter.

Raisedbywolves, is one of these fine women you are refering to the woman that lead the Celts in a war against the Romans? I seem to remember in my history that there was a woman in England that did just this thing.

LOL right on Pink. Don't have to Ranger chop me! Guerilla drills are the best PT ever. Don't need you to provide references and stinky NTC boots, already have a couple of my own.

chadly2cents,

Hahaha! ...sorry, that Jack guy pissed me off. I think most guys who were in (or attached to) an infantry unit usually understand when you explain how or why a field problem sucked...or a deployment. Especially since there's always that crazy Colonel or new LT that want show just how hardcore they are. (or unexpected stuff happens and everyone has to share the load) I loved my job though. The beaurocracy sucked, but the job was awesome. It definitely makes you enjoy the little moments in life.

Really, I pissed you off? I'm sorry to hurt your big tough ego. You are exaggerating, the heaviest your ruck would be is around 80-100lbs, heavy enough for a decently conditioned man to pick up. I have never heard anyone call a weapon with less than a 20mm bore called a gun by anyone in any branch of the service. I am willing to believe you were an infantryman, but stop spouting the over-exaggerations.

I am willing to believe you were an infantryman, but stop spouting the over-exaggerations.

BTW, you are going to have to rephrase that to "Infantry-person". Would be more supportive if you infantry peoples would give up the whole "spurs are un-authorized uniform bling" debate.

Good point Chadly, are spurs authorized? I thought they were for 19-deltas. I could be mistaken, I'm not cav.

Spurs are a Cavalry tradition. Started back in the day to emphasise the difference between a green horse soldier from a seasoned Cavalry soldier. Over time the spur has become a symbol for the U.S. Cavalry much like the Combat Infantry Badge is to the Infantry. There are two types of spurs, silver which is earned by proving basic Cavalry combat skills and gold which can only be earned by serving in a combat zone. Gold spurs can be made from brass munitions seized from the enemy. Spurs are technically considered un-authorized except when serving in a Cavalry Unit. In a nutshell.

Lockwood- liar liar, pants on fire. The mins for men are well below the max for women. In fact, for college age the mins for situps are exactly the same. Bottom line; the minimum man is a POS and far worse than the average scoring female. And on the whole PT #s comparion absurdity, you said it yourself; "Do you think that Infantry Units only run 2 miles a day for PT?" That's my point! We aren't running 2 miles a day at a 4 min pace, duh - not for training (try 6 miles, at least) and not in the field (certainly not on that pace). If you can do that you can be a track star, but it doesn't mean your going to be able to keep up at the end of a 10-mile march = different kind of stamina.

And Pink Floyd- "I enlisted at 17 and was 135lbs (at 5'10"). Guess what? At 140lbs, I could firemen carry 275lb men all day." If that were true - all day??? - You might actually be a superhero.

Jack wrote,

Good point Chadly, are spurs authorized? I thought they were for 19-deltas. I could be mistaken, I'm not cav.

I was a 19 Delta and yes spurs and the old Cav. hats are standard issue for certain situations. they're not meant for the field, or maneuvers.

Jack-2681120,

I posted a picture of my 150lb ruck on my profile. Just click my profile name and you can admire all you want, sweetheart. ;)

My packing list consisted of:

Main ruck (Alice Pack):

• Full modular sleeping bag (Black, Green & Gortex)
• Full NBC gear (stupid rubber boots, suit & mask)
• Full Goretex rain suit.
• Full Goretex cold weather pants/top
• Extra BDUs
• Extra pair of extreme cold weather boots (mandatory)
• Few pairs of socks and personal hygiene stuff
• Woobie and Poncho
• NODS (7b, not 14s)
• Full combat load of ammo
• 2 mortars (everyone carried 2 mortars and they're about 20-30lbs a piece!)
• M203 ammo (which is heavy as @#$@%@)
• AT4 (another 20lbs by itself)
• random junk
• 2 days worth of MREs
• Full 2 Quart Canteen (bladder attached to ruck)
• E-tool
• whatever else I forgot
• Full bear suit

Assault pack (also clipped to ruck):

• 2 SINGARS radio batteries
• cold weather gear like sleep shirts, neck gaitor, extra gloves, etc.
• poggie bait

That's not even counting the stuff I had on or carrying on me!!! (bayonet, canteens, M4 with 203, compass, ammo, etc)

Guess what? You can see all of that gear on my ruck...the Alice pack, the AT4, Assault pack...everything. I don't lie. ...and I don't appreciate my integrity being called into question.

Right there, you have a list and picture to go off of! There's your flippin evidence. ...and YES, it was 150lbs. I stand by that and I can get you verification.

Also, here's an article princess:

(the forum won't let me post the link...but type "infantry full combat load" into Bing and click the Global Security article)

Since you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe a PUBLISHED article that details the typical 120lb+ load of an infantryman.

Guess what? You're wrong! Accept it!

...and I don't know about you, but I couldn't lift my 120lb ruck with my arms and swing it over my shoulders (or the alternate way of lifting it up above your head and letting it slide down your arms onto your shoulders). Everyone in my platoon had to sit down, pull the straps tight, roll over and do a squat. ...and sometimes have your buddy help you up after you're dog tired of stopping AGAIN cause you're captain lost his way.

So again... You're wrong!

Speaking of overexaggeration... You've been in every branch of military? Really?? That's impressive! Have you been every MOS also?

Guess what? In the 1/325 AIR, A Co...we called the M240B "The Gun". Sorry to hurt your feelings. You can cry about it later when you're playing Call of Duty: Black Ops.

chadley2cents,

BTW, you are going to have to rephrase that to "Infantry-person". Would be more supportive if you infantry peoples would give up the whole "spurs are un-authorized uniform bling" debate.

...actually never had a problem with the way you guys dressed. Thought it was pretty cool myself.

We had bloused jump boots and maroon berets. Actually that's the only thing that got on our nerves. Anywhere we got deployed, they'd make us whip out the PCs cause somebody would complain that we shouldn't be allowed to stand out. Blah blah blah. ...and if we were in Class As, it was the jump boots infantry blue cord and beret that was a problem. When they made the beret Army-wide, that really got to us...

On a deployment, (I believe it was) a full-bird Colonel who told my 1st Sargeant that we couldn't wear berets cause somebody complained. ...he stood in formation, ripped off his beret, Ranger tab, master blaster jump wings (with mustard stain), combat patch and CIB. ...went nuts. Said, "@#$@ this...this is why you don't reenlist...FTA!". Boonie caps and PCs the rest of the time. Haha!

I actually do not play Black Ops, due to it sucking. Do NOT call me sweetheart, DADT is still in place, and the load is 120lbs INCLUDING body armor. Also, you should know, that if you are carrying an M240, you more than likely won't have an M-203. I do not doubt your service. No, I have not been in every unit of every branch, but I serve too, so don't give me that bull@!$%# about me being a civilian, therefore ignorant of everything military.

Jack-2681120,

I NEVER said that I carried the 240 during that specific field problem. I said, "in the 1/325 AIR, A Co, we called the M240B The Gun" since you disputed my claim of ever calling any weapon a gun. (and in our unit, we had the M249 SAW machine gun for the squad and the M240B for the platoon...in the heat of the moment calling out 249 and 240 sound the same...so we'd say "SAW" and "The Gun")

If you re-read, you'll see that.

I specifically said that on the field problem in question I carried the M4 with M203.

...yeah, and we had the "Flak Jacket". I don't understand your point as that was pretty standard to have during every field problem since they all ended with a live fire exercise. ...and on deployment we'd have body armor with ceramic plates.

It sounds like you were never infantry. ...and you are coming across as pretty ignorant as you keep refusing to believe solid proof. Again, I'll be happy to provide references from people currently in the military who were right there by my side. You can look them up on the military network and message them direct if you'd like even!

CalifGina,

And Pink Floyd- "I enlisted at 17 and was 135lbs (at 5'10"). Guess what? At 140lbs, I could firemen carry 275lb men all day." If that were true - all day??? - You might actually be a superhero.

It's an expression, dear. I could translate it into a symbolic argument also if you'd like.

I was in good shape. I was 140lbs. I could fireman carry a 275lb man. I could fireman carry a man at any time of the day. Conclusion: I was 140lbs and could fireman carry a 275lb man all day long.

The conclusion looks like this in symbolic form: (O * (F * A))

Alternatively, I could have made the argument: If I was in good shape, I could fireman carry a 275lb man and do it all day long.

That'd look like: I --> (F * A)

Do you want me to work that out through a proof for you to prove my validity?

CalifGina

Maybe you should go back and look at the PT requirements again. The only thing the women have to do that equals the men is the sit up. The other two events are as I stated.

Again there is no sense on wasting the tax payer's money on a very few neverwillbes when all it would do is drag the rest of the unit down.

Women cannot and do not compete with men on a sustained basis. They would not last. Can some women do it of course. Is it worth all the money needed to try to fund this? THAT ANSWER WOULD BE A BIG FAT NO

Well presented !!

Thank you for your service

replytoj001

Nobody is saying unqualified women should be in combat. But we shouldn't exclude all women just because fewer are able to perform physically in a combat situation. (There's plenty of men that aren't physically fit for combat too...that's what training and testing are for!) We need every PERSON who's qualified, capable and willing to fight for our country to serve!!

As for distractions, HTFU man! (Look it up on urban dictionary) If you don't have the focus and professionalism not be distracted by blacks, hispanics, gays, or just people you just don't like, then YOU have no business being in the military, let along being in a combat role!

Brat,

You are allowing some weird anti-women bit to fog your thinking.

Not all men are suited for the same roles in combat, yet we seem to be fine finding roles for all of the willing. There are roles that all willing women can fulfill and their are women that can fulfill all roles!

As for the woman's cycle, welcome to the 21st century this is not a real issue.

Don't allow your latent issues to interfere with rational thinking!

I like it!! Where can I sign my wife up?

"History shows that the presence of women in combat has had a devastating impact on the effectivness of men in battle"-John Luddy 1994.

"For example, it is a common misconception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather that continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in danger, but jeopardized the the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was hit hard whenever men saw women maimed or killed on the field."

"Not all men are suited for the same roles in combat"

And theyre not allowed in combat roles! Find me one out of shape Marine infantrymen, because Ive been surrounded by them and I have yet to see one!

Call me anti-women all you want, whatever makes you feel justified.

I guess next people are gonna start trying to push for fat bodies in the military, and to get rid of PFT and CFT requirements because theyre biased towards obesse people!

USMCbrat:

Might I remind you, women have been police officers and fire fighters for decades. They have had to prove their worth in those professions, as well. Women are just as qualified to shoot a gun, command and be leaders. Women have just as much stamina and the issue of strength is laughable! As far as I know, there is no draft, but the military continues to be a voluntary profession.

Frankly, I believe women can be more logical and the voice of reason, during stressful times. They also can make critical decisions, in a timely matter. I speak from experience, for all my comments. As a nurse, I have been able to function during very tumultuous times, with confidence and accuracy.

Women are not only capable to be among combat soldiers, they will be an asset.

Let`s don`t forget the fact that.Any man thats worth a damn will put his self in jeopardy to protect a woman. And most men will make an emotional bond with any woman he is around long enough. This will also make him act out of ordinary. Or should I say........... GET HIM KILLED TRYING TO SAVE HER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And likewise, any woman worth a damn will never risk her life for any man, not even her husband or father.

Brat,

So infantryman is the only combat role? Wow! Different Military from the one I know! As TTB noted above women serve as Police officers and Firemen all over the USA today and do so with honor, discipline and integrity.

The idea that there are not roles in Combat forces that can be done with absolute proficiency by women is asinine!!!

Is every one of the infantryman in your unit an Expert Marksmen. I would doubt it. Yet I have seen 100s of women score at the expert level. Many of these women would love to be a designated Marksmen and are fully qualified to handle that position.

How about Corpsmen. Test have shown that women tend to out score men in Emergency Medical situations, yet we still will not allow them into combat situations as Corpsmen. Just plain stupid!

USMCBrat,

So what you are saying is that military men are all chauvinistic pigs? What you present shows even more that this is less about the abilities of women and more about the idiocy of men.

If a man is so worried about the safety of a woman that it compromises his ability to do his job, he should not be in combat.

Stop seeing and treating women as weak and needing of protection and you will see their true potential.

There have been some very good reasons why women have not been allowed in certain combat roles in the past, and I wonder if the precise reasons why have been forgotten.

Broadly, women are prohibited from serving in infantry, armor, artillery, and special operations.

In short, the 'cost' to the soldier for serving in those roles is the toll it takes on his (or her) body. They tend to be jobs a soldier doesn't do very long, either. Either you promote out of being a 'grunt', you don't reenlist, or you get hurt.

What do infantry/spec ops, armor, and artillery have in common? It seems everything you work with is HEAVY. If you're a ground pounder or grunt, your 'battle rattle', body armor, weapon, and provisions put a hell of a lot of extra weight on your shoulders, back, and knees. If your job is running a big gun, setting it up involves a lot of hard work by a small handful of soldiers. The ammunition is heavy. The breechblock is very heavy. In armor, everything about a tank is heavy, including the hatch doors. A tank crew, three or four people, have to be able to do things like change a road wheel or a track. Lots of heavy, hard work for even a team of 4.

These jobs are extremely punishing and just about waste a good number of men. I'll venture that maybe 30% are left with ruined knees, bad backs, and other lifetime painful chronic injuries from doing these jobs. The problem is, women fare worse...maybe 80% will be left with permanent injuries as a result. What's fair about that? To do the job, any woman who's not a total amazon (and thus probably not even recognizable as a woman) has to exert herself harder than the fit man does, and gets hurt worse in the end. What's fair about that?

If they can ever get around the weight issue, no problem. Female members of the Air Force get to train in and, if needed, participate in ground combat. The difference is, on an air base, you're on home turf and don't need 100 pounds of gear on you. Just a rifle, some magazines, and a few other things. A helmet and vest, perhaps, especially with grenades. Certainly no rucksack to 'live' out of for two weeks!

Women used to be prohibited from flying in combat aircraft, and for good reason...mostly because the airplanes really weren't that good and the ejector seats were absolutely awful. Now we have excellent aircraft that are ultra reliable and ejector seats that don't beat the pilot to a pulp when used. Women fly fighter jets now. Accidents from engine flame-outs and other stupid failures are rare, and escaping the crashing plane doesn't usually result in lengthy hospitalization or a lifetime in a wheelchair.

For ground combat, I'm afraid the improvements may be some time away still.

Take that Back

You'll have to excuse me for a moment, Im gonna go over there ->, and laugh at the ridiculousness (is that a word? meh who cares) that your comment is.

Ill just break it down piece by piece:

Women as police: Police force=/= military. Police officers are not required to carry hundreds of pounds of gear, and sleep in the field for days, if not weeks, all at the same time preforming their duties.

Women as firefighters: Again fire fighters=/=military, with the exception of the carrying heavy loads (and even then theyre not carrying it as long as someone in the infantry) Also:

There have been occasional charges of some departments lowering standards so that they could hire more women. In 2005, Laura Chick (the LA City Controller) stated in a report that Fire Chief Bamattre rolled back physical requirements and ordered that women were passed even if they failed their tests. <----That is disgusting, and doing so in a military will result in lost lives and lost battles.

"Women have just as much stamina and the issue of strength is laughable!"

Umm Im afraid they dont (strength, stamina), Ive witnessed it myself.

" I speak from experience, for all my comments" OH so youve served in an infantry unit?

"As a nurse" oh....my.....god...../facepalm forgive me but all your credibility on this subject=lost.

TakeThatBack.

USMCbrat:

Might I remind you, women have been police officers and fire fighters for decades. They have had to prove their worth in those professions, as well. Women are just as qualified to shoot a gun, command and be leaders. Women have just as much stamina and the issue of strength is laughable! As far as I know, there is no draft, but the military continues to be a voluntary profession.

Frankly, I believe women can be more logical and the voice of reason, during stressful times. They also can make critical decisions, in a timely matter. I speak from experience, for all my comments. As a nurse, I have been able to function during very tumultuous times, with confidence and accuracy.

Women are not only capable to be among combat soldiers, they will be an asset.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

I was an Airborne Infantryman in the Army. Were you? ...then you have NO clue what infantryman do as daily tasks.

I carried that 25lb gun + 150lb ruck + 30lbs of extra gear across 20 miles. Have you?

I've pooped in a hole and not showered for 60 days. Have you?

I've had the soles of my feet came off from trenchrot. Have you?

I've fractured my ankle on a jump and had to go on that 20 mile roadmarch with my 150lb ruck. Have you?

I've had hyperthermia, heat exhaustion and haven't eaten for days on end. Have you?

All through this, I had to do MY JOB...

Sorry, but your experiences are nothing like an infantryman's.

I am a woman - 40 years old...thank you for your comments. Women don't belong in a "man's world" i.e. police, fire or military - and I'm not talking about the desk jobs. Women are not emotionally or physically equipped to handle combat. Woman cannot meet the same physical standards as men. We see that in the lower standards provided to women in the police academy.

I'm not sure when exactly women felt the need for a penis! We have our own roles that men are not meant to do. Whatever happened to a traditional family unit. Sorry ladies but men are supposed to be the head of the household, provide and protect their families.

I'm so sick of everything needing to equal - it's BS.

I said yes.

I am not anti-woman.

I am anti-combat.

I believe that politicians should be in combat if combat is necessary.

bicfj,

Now there's an idea! I support that 1000%!

Politicians should be in front line combat. ...then they can come back and complain. Every politician should be deployed.

Women in a combat unit would be a distraction to men--interesting comment---obviously that guy has his brains between his legs.

If women want to go into combat--let them. Check you history--there are several instances of women in combat---but they had to disguise themselves as men and were only later discovered to be women.

It doesn't take a lot of strength to pull a trigger---a good eye and steady hands---both on the gun--not one on the gun and one somewhere else!!!!

It's a good point that women are distractions. There are many psyc studies that show men are willing to take bigger risk to protect or save females. Even militaries that have women in combat roles (like Isreal) even say that they know its a distraction and they use it to their advantage. They know that if a man sees a injured woman on the battlefield his first reactions are to try to help that woman. Also they know that men are more hesitant to shoot females. Look at our society and all the cases that have to do with a cop shooting a police officer. One case even comes to mind when a cop shot a woman with a butcher knife and in is trial they asked why didn't he just disarm her. If that was a male that would have never been a question. That shows that even in our society we see females as the weaker sex.

Oh, all you small minded boys.... perhaps we should have units comprised of just females. Send a unit into combat and we will see just what us females can do. Wouldn't it really make you look stupid when those women are just as effective as men. LOL, you guys make me laugh, when a slight tap in your private area can bring you to your knees!

The standards for Men and Women are currently different, so that more Women can serve in most military units. The standards are even different for Women that go to Jump School, etc., etc., I assume they will now lower all the Men's standards for Women and Gay Men so that they can all feel that they are Real Combat Troops. Get ready to register your Daughters for selective service; it is all part of the liberal agenda that has over-taken our country.

I'm an infantry platoon Sgt 0369 USMC.
When you're defending a FOB or on combat patrol there is no where to make a separated living area bathroom facilities. Typically you @!$%# and piss in the open next to your marines, vanity is out the window.

My young Marines are well trained professions, except when they are in contact of women marines they turn into a bunch of 0311cassinovas. If they were forced to integrate they will still accomplish the mission however at a lower standard. The unit is only as fast as it's slowest man. It will inject protectiveness, sex, jealously, hinder instance response to orders, logistics, and unit cohesion.

The WM's can not physically manage a full combat load (usually well over 100lbs with unit gear). I've seen many WM's try and acknowledge "no way". During one hump we had a WM integrate in our company to "prove" to us she could hack it. After one klick she dropped out and she assumed the fetal position crying, it was a mess. Another male marine had to carry a double pack an additionally spread load his serialized gear to others.

Women menstrual cycles are going to be a smelly bloody mess when you have not, and are not going to shower for weeks, nor might you have time to "reload" the plug.

Like China and Russia I can understand all female units. They will have to have to be tested at the higher male standers in physical fitness. They just don't have the muscle mass to complete this mission. I know few are on the Political Correctness bandwagon and are going to have the story about "this one" female and "it's only right for fair". As an analogy put a professional male basketball, football, hockey team against the same of a women's team. Even though they are both physically conditioned professionally the males are way superior. Other units are fine for integration but infantry is a beats of it's own.

GREAT POINT about military society compared to civilian society...GREAT POINT!!!

They lower the physical standards so that women can serve in the Police and Fire Depts as well, so the military shouldn't be any different.

echo6whiskey,

Thanks for your service and dedication.

I was an infantryman in the Army's 82nd Airborne. (we jumped in to train with some of your guys in Lejeune also. PS - I think the devil resides in Lejeune. Everyone came back from there covered in ticks, chiggers and with trenchrot)

I really don't think anybody who hasn't been through the infantry life can understand it.

We did the Robin Sage rotation (for Special Forces training) as OpFor, where they'd stick a platoon of female cooks or so with the SF candidates to train as if they were a foreign infantry/guerilla unit. The women thought it was a joke. ...full-on camping experience for them. We'd spank them every mission. ...we'd hear them miles away from the objective as they'd have to stop and readjust to somebody complaining about how fast their pace was and heavy the gear is (and mind you, they had no rucks). Once they made it to the objective...the assault would take them HOURS (one took all day). It was seriously painful.

I couldn't imagine having to deal with that in a non-training environment!

All this talk about marksmanship and not having to be strong to be a good shot or leader. I never said women couldnt be good shots or good leaders. My concern is when you got a 180lb guy, carrying an extra 85lbs of gear (do the math) who happens to get shot, and has to rely on his squadmate to carry him to safety. Well guess what buddy, youre squadmate just happens to be a 120lb female carrying her own 85lbs of gear, now you expect her to firemans carry, or battle drag your ass back to cover? Sorry, I dont think so.

"They lower the physical standards so that women can serve in the Police and Fire Depts as well, so the military shouldn't be any different."

And sacrifice how many lifes for youre lil PC pipe dream? Seriously! YOU. JUST. DONT. GET. IT! Because you are IGNORANT!

"Women in a combat unit would be a distraction to men--interesting comment---obviously that guy has his brains between his legs."

Youre average male in the military is under 25 years old, so yea with hormones flowin theres alot of sexual pressure going around, Im going to venture youve never heard of 'deployment goggles' either.

Also, chivalry has something to do with it as well, I myself was raised to always open doors for women and to pull chairs out, and carry everything that needed to be carried, even if it was a stranger. But hey, I guess that just makes me a chavunestic pig!

joy57111,

I am 100% against women in combat. But if they meet the physical requirements and are allowed in combat, then I agree that the women should be in their own unit. Number one, if they're so good, then they sure don't need the men to help them. And, number two, the men's safety won't be compromise by the women's presence.

What about the Gay Men, are they going to have their own unit along with the Women? It won't work, it is all or none. All of those eighteen year old girls that will have to register for selective service can thank Nancy, Hillary and President Obama. Now we can all stand up with Rosie O'Donnell and sing in perfect harmony!

I am a female, 67 years old and am more intelligent than most of my male combatants. My problem, I experience difficulty comprehending who the enemy is??? I cannot comprehend, why this nation is soooo into this war and that. Every few years, we go to war, and the enemies change like the weather channel. We hate the world, so of course, we have enemies.

We are the world's dictators and authorieties on whom to hate and whom to kill. Why do we have sooo many enemies, all the time? Our religions speak of love, not hate, peace and not mass murder. In most societies, mass murderers are condoned as "evil".

My problem is not old age; it is insight into a nation that is adrift with bleeding out every new, fresh and unaware generation of poor and disavantaged young kids for the rich pigs' glorified thinking and worldview of entitlement. Let the leaders and presidents' children make the extreme sacrifices, then I will enlist, duhhh.

Amen brat. There is NO female out there that can hang in a real elite combat unit. Like it or not. You could test a million women and not find one who can hang a week in a ranger or USMC mission parameter. All of that "you just have to be able to pull a trigger" stuff is crap. You have to haul a combat load over rough terrain while pulling your share of guard duty just to get in position to take that shot. This is the most ignorant idea ever out of the left. And you people wonder why we on the right think you are trying to destroy the country? YOU ARE !!!!

Skor154:

You cancelled out this comment:

more intelligent than most of my male combatants

When you made this comment

fresh and unaware generation of poor and disavantaged young kids

Mmmm Im not arrogant enought to venture to say that I know more people in the military then you (what with spending my whole life around it) but the vast majority (like 98%) joined out of love for country and a sense of duty.

Also a study showed that the poor are actually the one being less involved in the military, going from 18% of the military coming from low income backgrounds in 1999 to 13.7% in 2005.

Education? 98% of recruits have highschool education (2% GED) compared to 75% of civilians! And many of those recruits go on to use their G.I bill to attend college (or if they wish now hand it on to their dependents.)

So, shoo, we dont need your pitty.

WOW! The "Computer commandos" are out in force tonight.

1) Air Force and not Chair Force please. If you still feel that strongly about your statement, then you haven't been in need of CAS or you are making your service record up. True, the AF does mostly sit in the rear with the gear. Not taking any part of that away. Yes, the AF has the Jolly Greens but they also have Combat Controllers, TACP, and Combat Weathermen... So, PJs aren't the only units to have personnel that have higher fitness standards than the rest of the regular serving force. I could go on and on as to why, but it's neither here not there.

2) And here's to all the "men will protect women" folks. Well yeah, we will, but, there's this one gentleman by the name of Salvatore Guinta who was recently awarded the Medal of Honor. He did so by exposing himself to hostile fire in order to save fellow troops. Can anybody here name those ladies? I'll save ya the trouble. No you can't. It's because he went to try and protect fallen commrades. Reproductive organs were not in question. So in my humble opinion blows that entire argument to hell.

I do agree with many however that fair is fair. Females (as is the proper term in military speak, not women) should indeed have to register with Selective Service as well as meet standards of men.

The unit I served with went to Katrina (EARLY Katrina, day+2) as a hospital unit. We got staged at the Convention Center. We were shot at. Whether you receive a bunch of pop shot rounds, a shelling, or full on frontal assault, you are in combat. Most of the women I was with at the time (minus the Commander who was female and hid in a corner) were cool and collected. We triaged, treated, egressed and streeted all with as much efficiency as possible. Never had a single female start bawling and whining.

Sorry anti-female folks, the ones that I served with were great (mostly, commander thing still makes me want to puke). Wouldn't have any problem doing so with them again.

Being nice to people does not make you a chauvinist. Thinking women are a lesser species is what does. Thinking most/all women need to be protected by some man says it all.

Personally, I think the fitness standards for men and women should be the exact same. A 120lb woman should not be in the airborne or infantry any more than a 120lb man. However, if a woman can meet all the physical requirements (the same as a man), she should be able to be in combat.

I would be willing to be, that many men would still see them as inferior. You can can it chivalry all you want. It is not chivalry to think that a wounded woman is in more distress than a wounded man. It is not chivalry to think a QUALIFIED woman in a combat group needs more looking after than an equivalent man.

These views have nothing to do with chivalry and everything to do with thinking women are just plain inferior.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

I was an Airborne Infantryman in the Army. Were you? ...then you have NO clue what infantryman do as daily tasks.

I carried that 25lb gun + 150lb ruck + 30lbs of extra gear across 20 miles. Have you?

I've pooped in a hole and not showered for 60 days. Have you?

I've had the soles of my feet came off from trenchrot. Have you?

I've fractured my ankle on a jump and had to go on that 20 mile roadmarch with my 150lb ruck. Have you?

I've had hyperthermia, heat exhaustion and haven't eaten for days on end. Have you?

All through this, I had to do MY JOB...

Sorry, but your experiences are nothing like an infantryman's.

@PynkFlydd,

I too am an Infantryman. Have been for 14 years, close to 15, not in my lifetime does it take embelishment to make a point.

I don't remember in any training where we refer to our weapons as "guns" regardless of the make (i.e. M240B, M249, M4/wM203, M225).

On my heaviest jump my ruck only weighed in at 91 lbs w/ equipment and I was the heaviest guy in the company (I was the cherry) on the prep into Marne Focus, GA. I have roadmarched 20 miles 7 times in my career as a bi annual requirement, but the ruck load wasn't no where near a realworld packing list. It was food, water, t-shirts, socks, poncho, poncho liner, wet weather top and bottom = 35lbs (fairly close to the EIB packing list).

I have peed on so many trees it is second nature my own sons are excited to do it, I have pooped in the field as well - thank the lord for baby wipes (and my sons for reminding me they exist!). However, the longest I have ever been in the field at Bragg, Campbell, or Richardson was never more than 30 days and there was always some support unit half through or rotation to the rear for a quick rinse. Even if it was using baby wipes!!

I have suffered from heat exhaustion and hypothermia both here and in theater, I have suffered consussions, sprains, even a split stomach muscle from jumping and never was forced to road march. I was treated and sent back to my unit to do what I could till I healed. I broken ankle would not have gotten you off of the drop zone unless you were swinging a blue chem light and medic driving a FLA came to get you. I'll call you on that because I have shrapnel in mine and I limp everyday. I'll give you my number and the damn P.H. that came with it, so I can play with my kids.

Lastly, most field environments serve hot chow for breakfast and dinner with MRE's for lunch. While combat environments are MRE's cut down for weight.

I also have done the Star mountain rotation with S.F. and the S.E.R.E. school rotation (POW Camp) want to be those guys. It sucked being a part of the camp.

My point is, I don't doubt your service. I just don't think that you have to embelish the facts to make a point. The facts make the points themselves. Thank you for your service. All the Way!

Thinking women are a lesser species is what does.

Your average women has a disadvantage when it comes to lifting heavy gear and strength and stamina. Its not chavunism. Its not hate. ITS BIOLOGICAL FACTS! See thats what I cant stand anymore about civilian society! You go off and state facts, but if they hurt someone feelings your labeled with some kind of 'ism', wich is bs!

Go back and read the asinine reasons the bigots gave for not allowing AA into Combat roles, right up through WWII.

We are now hearing the same BS about Homosexuals and women.

History is filled with women warriors! Time we wake up and allow any one that can qualify the chance to do the job.

As for all of you he-men and you do realize that the US military has had to lower it's standards in boot camp. To many of you modern boys are soft as pussy cats, so we had to drop our standards. Some how all of this, were so tough BS, reads as over compensation to those of us in the know. From what I have seen, having some women kicking the @!$%# out of you tough guys in training might bring our standards back up!

USMCbrat- don't listen to the haters you are correct, I don't think you're a woman hater at all, I think you understand that we just really aren't capable of fulfilling said role and rightfully so... are there the few (very very few) that probably could? yeah probably but for the most part I personally couldn't even think about what would happen if one of y'all were killed because your very instinct to protect would make you not be able to fulfill your mission at 100%

USMCbrat,

Want to know something? You average person is fat, so whats your point? Your average man cannot make it in the infantry either. This is not about average though. Lumping all women together is like lumping all men together. If that were the case, no one would be in the infantry.

Let me ask you this: what do you call denying a qualified woman a combat roll? By qualified, I mean can pass the standards current set for males. Unless of course you do not hink there is one woman on this planet that can even meet that.

I can't believe some of the idiotic replies...

I know quite a few women in the service who could literally kick some MALE seriveman A$$ and have done so!

If they can pass the enlistment requirements, pass Boot Camp, then I see absolutely NO reason in the world to prevent them from serving in combat!

Are there some women who can meet the physical requirements? Yea there are, very (and I can not express that enough) few women can. And even if they meet the physical requirements (As in doing a Male PFT, a Male CFT and being able to go on the marches) you still have the monthly issue, and even if you can take care of that you would still need separate logistics (heads, racks) for them.

And even after all that you still have to worry about how the men are going to act.

SPG

I know the Army has had to lower its standards, but the Marine Corps has not. In fact Marine Corps boot got a lil more challenging when they added a thing called the Crucible.

You keep saying very few women can like there is an abundance of men who can. Just look at what has happened to the army standards for men over the last decade. I am sorry to say, but even in combat units, there are many men who do not belong there. While it is good the marines have not lowered there standards, but lowering of standards in other branches has less to do about women and more to do with the fact they cannot get quality recruits from either of the sexes.

Anyway, pretty much every issue you have mentioned about integration of women is about how men are going to react. They only need seperate heads and racks (as you call them) because how them men (and women to certain extents) will react. Yes I know female anatomy is different from male anatomy. It seems like most men who oppose this integration have one of three reactions to this. Its disgusting, it makes them weak, or its just there to have sex with.

The big obstacle has less to do with finding women and more to do with changing the perspective of men in combat units.

Endo & Jim Davis,

Well Said!

Brat,

Are you still ranting your macho gibberish! Yes we understand, you are frightened about having women out perform you thus some how shatter your manly self image. Get over your self! I am thinking one protest to much!

Entering a combat unit should have nothing to do with Race, Sex or Sexual Orientation it should be all about passing the standards. Anyone who can pass the standards should be welcomed(and would be by any decent soldier) into combat units.

As for separate heads and racks in the field none of that is going to happen and any women going into such units would be willing I am sure. And as I stated above, the BS about all of you needing to rush out and save the dainty females, give it a rest. If you wouldn't put your life on the line for anyone in your unit you are a coward!

Endo

Ive walked around Camp Lejune and 29 palms long enough to tell you that yes, there are plenty of men capable of performing the duty of infantrymen.

They only need seperate heads and racks (as you call them) because how them men

Only? I'm not sure if you understand the full logistics of this. When youre at a COP, or anything of that sort, you may not have the time or the equipment to set up a single head, much less two! Time being the biggest concern of those two! Now we have to spend time and money on making extra heads and sleeping quarters to accommodate women, instead of spending that time and money on training and equipping the men already out in the field?

Lives>Political Correctness.

Spg

Please, dont even flatter yourself by thinking you understand me, because clearly: YOU. DO. NOT! I have no problem with female competition, I PT with women almost every day, whether it be in the gym, or at a unit PT session. Nor am I afraid to be beaten by women, Ill be the first to admit I was the weakest lil thing my first year of high school, I had girls knocking out more push ups, sit ups, then me and out pacing me by miles!

On average, males are stronger than females. The differences in strength are due to females, on average, having less total muscle mass than males. Females also have lower muscle mass in comparison to total body weight. Gross measures of upper body strength suggest an average 40-50% difference between the sexes, compared to a 30% difference in lower body strength. In another similar estimate, females are about 52 percent as strong as males in the upper body, and about 66 percent as strong in the lower. One study of muscle strength in the elbows and knees—in 45 and older males and females—found the strength of females to range from 42 to 63% of male strength. Males are not stronger due to greater strength of individual muscle fibers, but due to more fibers: a greater total muscle mass. The greater muscle mass of males is in turn due to a greater capacity form muscular hypertrophy as a result of men's higher levels of testosterone. Males remain stronger than females, when adjusting for differences in total body weight. This is due to the higher male muscle-mass to body-weight ratio.

Human Skeleton

Males, on average, have denser, stronger bones, tendons, and ligaments.

Go ahead, argue against HUMAN BIOLOGICAL FACTS! It'll be like watching an ant try to move a mountain.

Sorry,

But I have known enough people in combat roles in the army to know that many of those people do not belong. This is not just my feelings, but the feelings of some of their squadmates.

I am also sorry if you think men and women cannot crap in the same hole as a man. That seems to be something more of your problem then a problem of biology (as you call it). In heavy combat situations, you may even get a head, as you say. So how is this an issue? Do you not think women can just pee on the ground like the rest of the men?

I am not argueing against biology, but you sure are grasping at straws to find "biological" reasons why women cannot do something that you think most men are qualified to do (which they are not).

That should be may not even get a head......

This stems far past just combat! What about training and in garrison? The USMC is pretty poor (unlike the Army), you woulnt believe some of the training facilities. Great traning, @!$%#ty living!! For example 1 bathroom with 8 @!$%#ters and 8 pissers and 10 shower heads. No stalls for the shower or @!$%#ters. To accommodate atleast 300 males!!! It doesnt work so well!!! It will be a logistical mess to make one of everything for the oposite sex. When the combat is over the woman dont just leave! thay will go back and live with and train with the men. Its permanent!!

Wake up wrote,

Are you ready for your eighteen year old daughter to be drafted?

I don't have an eighteen year old daughter, she is twenty-nine and since she has done nothing with her life it might be good for her to get drafted. Try reading the rest of my post, I know of at least twelve women that could fight circles around any man and still carry their equipment without any trouble at all.

In the times of the Romans, the Celtic women fought right along side of the men in battles and the Celts are the ones that the Romans FEARED the most. It was the Celts who first invaded the city of Rome and pinned the entire city population in the temple of Jupiter, the Romans had to give them the entire treasury of the temple to get them to leave.

USMCBrat,

As I high school senior with Army ROTC or The Military Academy in my future, I feel you make an excellent point and I hope you contact the Top Brass of both the Army and the Marine Corps. Please make them hear your logic and sound reason! I feel that if women are interjected into this scenario along with the addition of the repeal of DADT, I will no longer want to serve a country that is pushing such a liberal agenda onto our brave men and women in the military. I feel that military service is a privilege and an honor and is NOT a right. Thank you for your time and Semper Fi!

LoyaltyFirstHonorAlways,

@PynkFlydd,

I too am an Infantryman. Have been for 14 years, close to 15, not in my lifetime does it take embelishment to make a point.

I don't remember in any training where we refer to our weapons as "guns" regardless of the make (i.e. M240B, M249, M4/wM203, M225).

On my heaviest jump my ruck only weighed in at 91 lbs w/ equipment and I was the heaviest guy in the company (I was the cherry) on the prep into Marne Focus, GA. I have roadmarched 20 miles 7 times in my career as a bi annual requirement, but the ruck load wasn't no where near a realworld packing list. It was food, water, t-shirts, socks, poncho, poncho liner, wet weather top and bottom = 35lbs (fairly close to the EIB packing list).

I have peed on so many trees it is second nature my own sons are excited to do it, I have pooped in the field as well - thank the lord for baby wipes (and my sons for reminding me they exist!). However, the longest I have ever been in the field at Bragg, Campbell, or Richardson was never more than 30 days and there was always some support unit half through or rotation to the rear for a quick rinse. Even if it was using baby wipes!!

I have suffered from heat exhaustion and hypothermia both here and in theater, I have suffered consussions, sprains, even a split stomach muscle from jumping and never was forced to road march. I was treated and sent back to my unit to do what I could till I healed. I broken ankle would not have gotten you off of the drop zone unless you were swinging a blue chem light and medic driving a FLA came to get you. I'll call you on that because I have shrapnel in mine and I limp everyday. I'll give you my number and the damn P.H. that came with it, so I can play with my kids.

Lastly, most field environments serve hot chow for breakfast and dinner with MRE's for lunch. While combat environments are MRE's cut down for weight.

I also have done the Star mountain rotation with S.F. and the S.E.R.E. school rotation (POW Camp) want to be those guys. It sucked being a part of the camp.

My point is, I don't doubt your service. I just don't think that you have to embelish the facts to make a point. The facts make the points themselves. Thank you for your service. All the Way!

Everyone in my unit referred to the M240B as "The Gun". Everyone. When you said, "The Gun", everyone knew what you were talking about. (1/325) Ex - Ugh, I gotta carry the gun for this one. Dang, I gotta jump the gun.

When we jumped into NTC at Fort Irwin in 1999 (coulda been 98), we weighed our rucks. One of the medics hit 180lbs. Most of us infantry guys' rucks were between 120lbs to 160lbs. Why? Easy... Full combat load PLUS mortars PLUS all of your cold weather gear (including that ridiculous bear suit because it was December-ish...it snows in the desert...who knew?), NBC gear and a few days worth of MREs. ...and I got stuck jumping the (dummy) AT4 also. Dang, that thing sucked to carry around the desert! Our rucks were literally so heavy that you couldn't pick it up with your arms. You had to sit down (best against a rock), put on the shoulder straps and then flip onto your stomach and do a squat or have your buddy help you up. By the way, we were the first infantry unit to defeat the OpFor at Irwin. ;)

...oh, AND at NTC our CO was a moron. We'd walk 5-10 miles a day and he'd change his mind as to where we had to go. That's specifically where we ended up walking about 5-20 miles every day/other day with that 150lbs. (by the way, the real reason we were the first to defeat the OpFor at Irwin was probably because we were the first to come through with Javelins.) The thing that really sucked was seeing the pretty mountains in the distance...and then ending up walking to them. They look a lot closer than they are!

...and: The offensive portion of NTC was a full sprint up that 1.5 mile mountain. The defensive was a dig into rock. Yes, ROCK! AHH! We spent all day and all night digging. The glow of e-tool sparks was kinda a purdy site though. You heard nothing but "Ching...ching....clunk" as someone would break their e-tool. The engineers came out, but they blew their hydraulics on the hard rock and we had to do it all manually.

...and again, we got stuck out in NTC for about 60 days. Why? ...partly because when we flew out there, half of us (me being on the "lucky" half) were on C-130s and the other being on C-141s. To those who don't know the difference, one half have props, the other have jets. Well, we flew out earlier cause the C130s take longer to get to Cali (and missed the storm). The 141s flew out during a storm and halfway through got caught in some lightning and a few planes got hit (taking out an engine or two). One of which was a our 1st Sergeant (and some various command). The plane had to land for repairs and we got stuck shivering in the field without our duffels (it's been a while, I think the offical slang is B-Bag). Anyways...that and our famous "Hands Across the Desert" cleanup picking up tank treads and what not turned that into an extra long deployment. Actually, I still have my boots from that fun adventure and they still smell. If you know how to get permafunk out, please share?

I won't call out the LT at our medic station, but he was a moron. His magic cure was Motrin. Everything earned you Mortin. I had chicken pox (yes, at 18) and the PV2 medic had to convince him that it was a smart idea to quarantine me (which unfortunately was right before NTC and the cherry, me...gave a few SSGs that I didn't want to piss off a gift...ugh). By the way, he told me I was fine and I just needed a Mortin. Ugh. Anyways, I fractured my ankle jumping into Camp Lejeune. The Marines thought it'd be funny to leave stumps and not cut them flat for our small DZ. I carried the radio and there was nobody else that was trained on it so I had to "Suck It Up and Drive On". (our experienced guy went to selection and they booted the dedicated commo guy...so I got stuck with the radio AND running the commo shack) By the way, guess what I got? A Motrin. Fun times!

In my platoon, you were deemed a s**tbag (I believe that's offical slang in some AR field manual) if you went to sick call. God forbid you were on profile. Strangely, a lot of the NCOs were on perma-profile though. That's a whole different debate though. Anyways, as far as I can remember, nobody ditched out of a field problem once they jumped in. The only exception being when my buddy had his femur shatter and poke through his skin and an exercise we called "Foggy Falcon" when they made us do a "dog and pony" show for visiting VIPs. We jumped in a low ceiling and the Air Force was nice enough to direct us 180 degrees off course and have EVERYONE land in the trees. That jump took out a lot of guys. I tell you, there's nothing like not being able to see your hand in front of your face, only to get a boot in your eye the next second. ...and you haven't lived until you feel the surprise up a branch up your backside, only to stop about 20-30 feet above land. Climbing down the reserve works surprisingly well though!

I've done those rotations also (Robin Sage, SERE...both the field part where you chase them and the camp). I actually found those fun... Nothing like talking in a fake Russian accent dressed in a black jumpsuit to have some fun. ...Robin Sage was especially fun cause one of our SSGs was the secret squirrel type. The cadre knew his brother so they let him "interrogate" the SF candidates if we caught them. Fun times...

If it sounds like I'm embellishing, I really am not intentionally. I do share my personal experience to the best of my memory (which has been a while now). ...it'd be like trying to remember your high school memories. I share what I remember. Sometimes rounding to the nearest 10th. ...but it's close to what it what.

Thank you for your continued dedication, by the way! Airborne!

PS - I kinda miss the sound of the morning PT audio over the loudspeakers there.

Dennis T-1276010,

WOW! The "Computer commandos" are out in force tonight.

1) Air Force and not Chair Force please. If you still feel that strongly about your statement, then you haven't been in need of CAS or you are making your service record up. True, the AF does mostly sit in the rear with the gear. Not taking any part of that away. Yes, the AF has the Jolly Greens but they also have Combat Controllers, TACP, and Combat Weathermen... So, PJs aren't the only units to have personnel that have higher fitness standards than the rest of the regular serving force. I could go on and on as to why, but it's neither here not there.

2) And here's to all the "men will protect women" folks. Well yeah, we will, but, there's this one gentleman by the name of Salvatore Guinta who was recently awarded the Medal of Honor. He did so by exposing himself to hostile fire in order to save fellow troops. Can anybody here name those ladies? I'll save ya the trouble. No you can't. It's because he went to try and protect fallen commrades. Reproductive organs were not in question. So in my humble opinion blows that entire argument to hell.

I do agree with many however that fair is fair. Females (as is the proper term in military speak, not women) should indeed have to register with Selective Service as well as meet standards of men.

The unit I served with went to Katrina (EARLY Katrina, day+2) as a hospital unit. We got staged at the Convention Center. We were shot at. Whether you receive a bunch of pop shot rounds, a shelling, or full on frontal assault, you are in combat. Most of the women I was with at the time (minus the Commander who was female and hid in a corner) were cool and collected. We triaged, treated, egressed and streeted all with as much efficiency as possible. Never had a single female start bawling and whining.

I'll admit that I'm not that familiar with the Air Force. ...but aren't Combat Controllers, TACP and Combat Weatherman all under SOCOM? So there's no comparison between the general Air Force and those jobs...

That being said, when I was sent to Haiti (way back when, not recently) the Air Force had a 24 hour kitchen open, 1-2 people to room (with AC), their own phones in their room and American-style plumbing. In contrast, we (the Army) lived in an open shack, er...bay with about 15 other guys bunking together, specific chow hours and our hot water was provided by the sun. That and taking a PT test on a stationary bike is why the Air Force is nicknamed "Chair Force". Not to mention that this was only a specific deployment. Usually we'd roll around in the dirt.

By the way, one of my old friends from my unit was stationed in Vicenza with Guinta. I was in Europe and visited my friend and got to hear a first hand account (not from Guinta, but from my friend) before anybody even knew of his heroics. What you fail to mention is that Guinta (which did an amazing feat by any measure) not only sprinted in while being shot at and saved his fellow soldiers, but he also did a physical carry. The enemy was actually pulling one of our own with them. Guinta prevented that. The terms of how he did that earned him the Medal of Honor. Telling a minute part of the story is unfair to Guinta.

...and yes, anyone who wouldn't cover me is someone who I wouldn't want to serve with. Equally the point being that anyone who couldn't carry me to safety (or vice versa) if the need arose, is someone who I wouldn't want to serve with in my platoon (or company even) ever either.

Mentally, I'm sure either gender is capable of handling the mental stress. I've seen women graduate through SERE amongst Ranger and SF soldiers. The problem is their physical capability. You can't lower the standards of the infantry. That's physically impossible! It's a physical labor job!

The biggest problem that will arise is that the gender restriction will be lifted and then people will cry that it's unfair that females are expected to pass male standards. What will happen? The standards will be lowered. Are you going to tell Private John's mom that Suzy Snowflake wanted to take a shot at the infantry and that's why her son is dead because he was bleeding out while she was waiting for someone else to carry him?

Not to mention, who's going to pay Suzy Snowflake to retrain when she can't cut it in an infantry unit? ...here's the shocker: being in an infantry unit is NOTHING like going through OSUT. So chances that someone can pass basic/AIT and then make it to a unit they can't handle is high.

...and if you think that being in the infantry is just about holding a gun and shooting someone, then you seriously need to spend a few weeks in the life of someone else's boots.

Dude...did you seriously just compare yourself in Katrina to being in combat? I was in Haiti (and they shot at us) and I still would NEVER say I was in combat. Ever.

My friend told me of how they got pinned by RPGs exploding on the other side of their cover and THEN they got hosed with rounds. ...while also getting dumped on by mortars. Dude... Seriously? Katrina was the same as that? Wow. Not to mention that when he got shot, he had to tie his own tourniquet, direct his squad (under fire) AND pick up the M249 next to him to return fire. ...yup, totally like Katrina.

Wow. Just speechless.

Pynkk Floydd,

Who pays to retrain all the men that do not cut it in the infantry? Or, do you not believe that this happens?

You also act like the military (especially the army) hasn't lowered the male standards. This having nothing to do with women and everything to do with the fact they cannot even get quality men.

Dennis-- sorry, but it is the Chair Force. My brother and his best friend both enlisted into the Air Force at the same time, did their tours and both came back and enlisted into the Air Guard while they go to college. They both call it the chair force and openly admit that the Marines and Army Infantry are the real bad asses. (They also give credit to Pararescue as being one of the few elements of the Air Force that aren't a bunch of lazy smart mouths).

Just ask anyone whose in the air force. Unless they're pararescue or a fighter pilot, they'll call it the chair force with a grin.

Stereotypes don't work in the military no doubt your brothers did use that language(we all have fun with each other) but know this i have family in every branch my two brothers one was Army one was Air force and a nephew who was a Marine .

The Air Force brother David was the only one who ever saw combat. He was a load master and was shot down over Nam.

Besides like it or not you need the Chair force to win a war.

Haha, Marines you are sandbaggin AGAIN! Are already the most aggressive fighters on the planet and probably the galaxy. Imagine being able to squeeze that much more productivity from tossing a po po female into a squad. You guys aren't thinking it though enuf. You folks keep making the same old fashioned arguments: "this is why, is cuz I said and that is how it is gonna be". Only, it isn't and you better find a way to get used to it before it happens.

Endo,

Guys not making the minimum standards get sent home. I can't remember the specific Chapter, but they're all different depending on what minimum wasn't reached...

Yes, of course the minimum has been lowered! The problem is how low do they plan to keep lowering them?

The problem I see (and some of my friends that I've talked to) is that it seems that this will become the new bar...for everyone. Now, they did it for Special Forces too and opened the option to enlist 18x AFTER I got out. You might even use that as a specific example. ...but, you know why they did that? Easy. All of these "Call of Duty" teenagers that think they're "Black Ops" ready enlist and brag about it during their wait at MEPS. (Heck, the guys with RIP in their contrasts were usually the first to cry and want to go home in my day.) Anyways, SF is still a peer run school meaning that your cadre might fight alongside you one day so the overall standards haven't lowered...just what's on paper. So, what happens? These future chairborne rangers get tossed into a standard old infantry unit and they fill their enlistment quota for a job that always needs people. That way everyone is happy. ...kinda.

So what's the problem with the infantry and women? Well, if that becomes the bar then why not lower it lower when women can't cut it, but we want to be fair? It already happened in 2004ish when everyone found out that there's such a thing as waivers. OMG waivers! ...everything hated to hear that some kid egged a house at 16 or can't pass the ASVAB or PT test there, but this is ok? So they eliminated waivers, but lowered the physical standards to get "better" candidates. You know, the "perfect" ones that causes everyone to sleep better at night. I don't get it. (By the way, my drill Sergeant was on the "Army or Jail" plan and I would have followed him anywhere.)

Heck, anyone from the 82nd shoulda been blown back when they announced that they're not doing long distance runs in basic anymore! ...even guys from the 173rd! (My friend showed me where they run in Vicenza...I have pics of that, if you'd like to see too. Heck, anyone that thinks I'm BS-ing can message me and I'll supply pics. I really don't care because I have 100% proof of everything I say. ...and my DD214 resides in Chicago's city hall, I'm sure you can get a copy whenever you want personally if you don't trust all of my pics, verbal confirmation from currently enlisted friends, ID card from the VA, personal referrence to the Dr. I currently see AT THE HINES VA, all orders and official certificates. ...anything else I can get you princesses, just let me know. I just took a blood test at the VA, maybe you guys want that for confirmation too?)

So the problem to most guys that have served before the standards came down is not whether or not women can meet the minimum male standard. ...it's predicting how low they're gonna lower the bar.

Anyways, I'm glad that I'm out. So maybe it's not my problem... Just trying to share what I've actually lived through from personal experiences. If that bothers anybody or if that's sound unbelievable then maybe you should try doing what I did. I'll be happy to clear a weekend.

If/when they allow women to serve in the infantry, I really hope they do not lower standards to make the infantry more politically correct. The infantry should never be about politics (while I say it about the military in general, sadly it is more what the military has become).

The goal for the infantry should be about getting the best. It should not matter if they are male or female. At the same time, standards should never be lowered to include a group of people that do not belong. This includes unfit men and women, people that try to join the military because they have no other option, and people that join the military because they think it is the cool thing to do.

While I do not agree with you views about many things, from what I read, it seems like you were capable of doing your job to the highest standards. Unfortunately, I cannot say that about many of the people, whether men or women, in the military today.

Endo,

Thanks!

I think especially for someone who's been in a unit that distinguises itself, it's a sore spot to talk about. For me, we ALWAYS got hit with others complaining about us. We had the maroon berets for being Airborne and a rapid deploy unit (you go on blocks for recalls...sucks). On deployments, non airborne units would complain and we weren't allowed to wear those. ...then enough people complained to where the entire Army got the (Ranger's) black beret. ...then it was the Combat Infantry Badge, which they introduced the Combat Action Badge. Now I hear the big complaint is about the Ranger tab, Infantry blue cord, etc. Mind you that the standards for the others to get those things didn't raise to our level.

The big problem is things like awards. My friend saw a woman with a Bronze Star and asked what she did to get it. She replied, "I shot an insurgent." This was from a truck, mind you...at a distance. ...and they weren't surrounded or anything in a rough firefight. I've got 2 buddies that just got Bronze Stars. One had to pull an unconscious man to safety under fire (while returning fire). The other got shot through the bracial nerve and had to pick up his downed man's SAW and keep pushing through the firefight to send the insurgents running. If an infantryman kills a bad guy, he just gets a pat on the back. No fanfare, no medals (usually).

...but, I definitely agree with you. If they keep the standards high and we get tons of women who can perform to those then keep them coming! I just know what I've seen from the Army and I think they'll lower them before anything.

Substandard soldiers are an Army-wide problem. Heck, I think leadership especially is a rarity (but that's a whole different story and debate...looooong story).

Not in anymore but was in when all the hat conundrums started. Personally, could care less about all that garrison bs. Give me my field cap any day. Awards and citations? Correct me if I am wrong but any soldier can recommend an award for another soldier based on an act that was witnessed first hand. Even Pvt. Joe Snuffy. Noticed when I was in that a lot of senior combat arms soldiers didn't include a lot of awards and patches on their class A's or BDU/DCU's. Not sure why that is. Maybe they just didn't want to show off. Also noticed that some senior pac clerks got awards for shuffeling paper in a combat zone while many field soldiers didn't get recognized nearly enough. Ranger Tab? Hey, if you earned it wear it. Yes even the shave tails that went straight to Airborne and Ranger school right out of officer basic and ROTC. They will eventually earn it beyond training. The guys I looked up to the most were the ones that knew their jobs to the best of their ability, weren't afraid to take on additional duties and were really good at things like CLS. Being able to tell a joke when things seemed like they couldn't get any worse was also a plus. Met some truly extraordinary people in the Army. Was an excellent life experience so here is an Atta Boy to the Military.

Equal rights and reality can be a difficult aspect to discuss. Good point.

replytoj001

male soldiers can be raped ... or fingers cut off ... or boiled alive ... torture is torture ... but the ladies really need to consider this and be prepared for it ...

Come on, Larry, the enemy is going to do what it wants to do with any soldier. If they capture a guy, Arabs will rape him, because that's what they do in their countries. They might even leave the woman alone and throw a hijab on her. Remember that video showing 2 or 3 guys getting beheaded? You don't consider that cruel? Rape is just another way that the enemy uses to show us they are in command.

Larry,

We sexually abused male prisoners of war at Abu Ghraib prison, so what is your point!

Women are in combat right now, given the fluid front lines in Afghanistan. Captured female soldiers have been raped. So have male soldiers. It is a terrible thing. But war is terrible. It is not somehow less terrible for men.

Most women are not strong enough for infantry duty. But the ones that are, should be allowed to do it.

As far as the period thing goes, oh, come on. Women with really bad menstrual symptoms would be disqualified from combat duty; see above, not physically qualified. And otherwise -- well, in the mud, no one can see you bleeding. Yeah, it's gross, but so is sitting in a foxhole.

And although it is off-topic, Chris, I agree with you, men should get paternity leave. Right now, under the FMLA, men can take up to 12 weeks unpaid paternity leave if they work for a company with more than 75 employees -- but most don't.

And you don't think the male captured soldiers end up being violated by the enemy or the non-front line females end up being raped by their own side? Is fear of dealing with the issue and reality of rape really your point?

Current serving women continue working with their rapist on a daily basis... now that is some sick, twisted, sadistic torture we should be protecting them from.

let them go into combat when they are pms-ing they might just be a super soldier. other times no though.

No one has mentioned that we have period blockers now. If you like you can have zero periods these days.

Let them, in put them in all female units, if they are qualified, they will do well, if they aren't we'll know.
They won't though, it will just like with the homosexuals, they don't dare put them in separate units and let them sinkor swim.

Larry wrote "Captured female soldiers will be raped."

Women don't die from rape. Lots of men die from lethal torture methods.

Who cares about rape. My concern is if they can do the job as well as a man can. I don't think you will find a lot that can. I'm sure there are some but not many. They need to make sure they can pass the male PT test if they are going into a combat role.

men can get raped too. it depends on your captures!

I keep seeing people mention a woman on her period. Yes she can fight on her period but how long can she go without changing herself. How many pads can she pack when she has to carry 1500 rounds for a machine gun, her own ammo and the 150 other pounds that infantry soldiers have to carry now. I packed it and lived with it and I did not have room for anything else. I even had to sacrifice things like underwear to take more important items.

bhmike17,

Who cares about rape.

Really? I'd say it would give most people, particularly women, pause. I for one would rather be shot than raped.

Not only that, Brandon, I wonder how many women would have the physical requirements for hand-to-hand combat once the ammo runs out?

And for the few who could fight like that, what if menstrual cramps were to hit right in the middle of a bayonet contest? Or a night march? Or a critical radio transmission?

These arguments are ridiculous. You forgot the old one about "Americans will NEVER accept women coming home in body bags"...or what about the ancient, "the wives of men will never allow it". You neanderthals are stuck in the 1950's...This is inevitable.

And for all of you who say women should have to serve in a draft if one were reinstated..absolutely right! Next absurd argument??

Words like "ridiculous", "neanderthals", and "absurd", or ascriptions like "stuck in the 1950's" are nothing more than negative labels when used by themselves. Can you demonstrate some actual logic behind your position? Or maybe, insults are all that you have.

And talk of the little ladies and their periods isn't??? You guys are stuck in an outdated, outmoded other universe. You don't even know women can control their periods now? You don't know about the thousands of women currently serving and serving well? You don't know about Israel's experience for one, with over 85% of military positiions open to them, including combat and naval?? These arguments about having to stop and help the little ones in combat are more than negative labels.

WHen the army started to introduce blacks onto the battlefield during the civil war they tested the idea out with an all black unit ( albeit with white leadership ) and they found that the blacks were fine soldiers. As Larry says, if this is such a great idea, lets see tham float an all female unit, and let it go on its own. If they can do the job without hiding behind men, like female cops do, then I'd say OK. another thing is, Ive never seen a good female leader, ever. I mean a real, honest to goodness LEADER !! Being a good combat leader isnt about shouting orders, any moron can do that, and never get the respect of those you lead. Im talking about getting down and dirty with your team and doing everything you ask them to do, and be able to do better and faster, THATS leadership, from the front

That's correct AP. Talking about menstrual cycles is not an insult, it's just a factual discussion. The only way the cycle can be controlled is with birth control pills which not all women can take; if they get lost or used up there's no control. Yes, there are huge numbers of women serving well in the military, not in direct combat. The majority of combat roles are still unavailable to Israeli women (check your facts). And yes, stopping to help little ones in combat is more than a negative label, it's a direct intereference with combat, unless you are talking about rescuing little ones from injury during a battle...so what was your point?

This is a very good thread. I've read great views from both sides and I've been looking up the debate on whether females should be allowed in Infantry for a long time. Here's the thing. I am a female who is very interested in the infantry and particularly in being a scout sniper. I am only 14. I know I have no experience and no idea what goes on across the ocean (Iraq, etc.) in a personal knowledge/experience sense. I see pro's and cons to this. I believe that women should have to meet ALL the requirements that the men do, including chopping all their hair off,etc. If they aren't willing to do that, then they need to stop complaining & whining about wanting to be in the Infantry. When I say ALL requirements, I mean ALL! It's not fair to the men if they are in danger b/c they can't be carried to safety etc. and it's not fair if the women decide "OMG, I'm gonna die!" and go hide behind a tree(figuratively of course). They should have to perform all physical and mental requirements to the men's standards and if they can't then, they're just not good enough and that's that. But if they can, they should be allowed in combat. There should be no lowering of standards for women. I would go for it and if I don't make it, I just don't. Yeah, I'd be ticked off for awhile, but only at myself, and personally, I'd be glad that I'm not putting anyone else in danger b/c I'm not capable of handling a specific situation. I joining the military regardless, so it doesn't matter.

Now onto the topic of hygiene. Seriously people. Now you're just making excuses. In today's day and age, war and technology has changed and advanced, pretty rapidly too. Women are now able to control their periods and most won't even get it if they are in such strenuous/stressful and dangerous situations such as infantry. Believe me, I know. I run track and I don't get mine when I do that. And most women don't get it if they are physically active. Let me tell ya, the military is pretty active. And even in times where it's boring, and not much going on, it should be easier to supply pills, or pads, etc. I know it seems like a big deal, but it can be dealt with.

Ok, rape I can understand. But like I've read before, men can get tortured and raped also. It just happens. And women can also be raped by their own side as said before. What happens about that??? Nothing. Well, except when they charge for sexual harassment and start a huge problem. But it's going to happen and has happened. I know you're all going to say, "well, what if it happened to you?" I'm not sure, I just want the chance to serve in the infantry. If I was to be raped, I would deal with it then, I'm being honest in that I would have no idea how to handle it and would feel violated and scared. I'm sure ways to prevent this will be found soon, though. And with "men's natural instinct to help women" I understand. But it's just something that's going to need to be learned to ignore with time. The same goes with America not being able to deal with their daughters coming home in caskets. It all gets easier with time. And it has to start somewhere.

This is a common sense discussion and not a political one, even though it's the government that doesn't allow women in combat. It's not about fairness. It's about women being able to live up to the men's standards. I believe women should be let in IF AND ONLY IF they can meet the Infantry standards. And the standards should NOT be lowered, ever, just to accommodate the women's requirements. If some men can't pass, then the women who can't, can't either. But they should at least be given a chance, and have the feeling of knowing that they tried, even if they don't make it.

Sorry for rambling. I probably forgot some important topics and I'm sorry but it's late and I can't think anymore at the moment. Thanks for reading.

It was good to see common sense interjected into this conversation. No offense to opposing views (especially the gentleman that wanted to enlist his wife).

How does trying to be politicaly correct, outweight combat effiency and lifes?

Brat, it doesn't, this going to get some troops killed.
General Amos seems to be the only General officer left in the military, who has more concern about his troops than his job.
The one thing that we, as marines, could always count on was, our officers would do their best, to take care of us.
It wouldn't always work, but, they would do their best.
Apparently the day when a general officer could be counted on to stand up and protect his troops, from the REMF's, is gone.
Any one who is a currently serving member of the US military, get out, the Obamites will throw you under the bus, in a flash, as long as it's politically correct.

Jerry,

That died when they made an example out of General McChrystal. I'm not sure if you were familiar with him, but he was a superior example of what an officer should be (and headed special operations for a long time). He was tough as nails and spoke his mind and the politicians sent a clear message to the military leaders when they cut his throat.

The politicians in office are completely incompetent (on both sides), so they use these divisive shows to distact people and gain support. The formula is: you get people riled up and they stop looking at how good you are at your job, they just keep debating the issues and vote regardless.

"I have no doubt that a woman can kill and be as viscious in combat as any man."

There is much doubt about the lethal nature of fairer sex unless she has been scorned in love. But there is much concern about physical tasks such as her ability to throw a grenade far enough to avoid killing her unit.

are you serious vincent? What about all the women in baseball? You think women can't throw? hahahahahaha

JOY-------------- Just this one time, why not pretend you are intelligent?
Why is it that you don't see women playing on professional basketball, footbatl and base ball teams..
It is quite simply a case of sheer size and strength. There are no negative connotations in saying that women are not the equal of men in size and strength..
You appear to be one of those people, who, would argue with a sign, you painted yourself.
No one is denigrating a woman when pointing out obvious facts of life.
IE, on average men are larger and stronger than women.
In combat situation you often run into situations where sheer physical strength is the only answer.

If a woman has made the choice to go to war and risk her life for her country, I'm sure she's willing to risk getting this VERY RARE illness.

I don't agree with you. Women of other countries serve in the military and in combat zones just like the men do. I beleive our women should too. By the way I am a woman. Some women are small as I am and do things in a different way but we get the job done.

pygme1 wrote "Women of other countries serve in the military and in combat zones"

I can't name any that use female soldiers to shoot the enemy. Israel recruits and trains women for combat roles but does not dispatch them. That is why nearly all combat zone deaths are male.

Really, dude? Why, then, if this is such a big deal, did Lyudmila Pavlichenko become one of the most celebrated snipers in Soviet history?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko

http://www.russian-mosin-nagant.com/sniper_section.html

And here's a link to a list of celebrated Soviet snipers, many of them female:

http://www.russian-mosin-nagant.com/zaitsev.html

scroll to the bottom of the page to see (GASP!) a whole platoon of WOMEN!!!!

Bottom line, as long as they can perform the job (without sacrificing training standards, as they currently do) then I have no problem with women in combat roles.

Oh please...the ladies can handle their hygene. This has to be the most absurd argument yet.

I am not concerned about the women, my concern is, what they do to the effectiveness of the unit and what they bring to the table.
if an incoming round knocks a tree down on me, I want the people in my unit to be able to lift that tree off of me.
If i catch a frag with my leg and foot, I want who ever is with me to get me to help, carry me drag me pull me, what ever has to be done.
If i have to climb 10 feet into a tree to set up an op, I want someone that can make a stirrup and left me 4 0r 5 feet..
If I am carrying in a 35 lb sniper rifle, I want to have some one that can trade off with me.
if I am carrying 500 rounds of ammo, I want help.
I was part of marine recon unit that rotated in and out of Viet Nam from Okinawa, in the early 60's.
4 man ops were the standard, you might well be out 30 to 45 days, with no friendly troops within 50 miles.
You had to carry everything in and everything out

Our major job was tracking and taking out Charlie's tax collectors.

@carey

This disease is incredibly rare because of the cultural hygene standards we hold to here in the US. It's almost unheard of to go more than 1 day without bathing here, and people that do are looked upon as filthy freaks.

Chris, out of curiosity, do you currently serve in the military?

You had to ask??

Well said.. There will never be women in pro mens sports because they can't win!.. lol.. I think winning on the battlefield is a little more important than a game.. So, why would they be suited to fight for hours, days, weeks, months at a time in a field when not one has EVERY successfully played any pro sport.. The GENES are not the same.. For Gods sakes, it would be like men wanting to be mothers.. Can't do it!.. Doesn't work.. Don't have the plumbing.. women don't have the bodies for war.. But, lets get a few hundred killed to prove it..

Lyudmila Pavlichenko is one of the most celebrated snipers in history, second only to Vassily Zeitsev in Soviet lore. She killed 309 German soldiers-- I'd say that's one hell of a combat record, fellas.

And last I checked, there is a WNBA (not that anyone watches it).

http://www.russian-mosin-nagant.com/zaitsev.html

The link above will direct you to a list of famed snipers from the Soviet resistance of Nazi Germany-- you will note many female snipers made the list.

Additionally, it is rumored that female fighter pilots within our own air force routinely surpass men in training exercises. The supposed reason? Because they have stronger abdominal muscles. (In case you are unaware, jets flying at mach speeds can, and do, pass people out from lack of blood during turns-- the blood spills into your feet. To keep that from happening, you have to contract your abdominals to keep the blood in your upper body. That's why every fighter pilot you've ever seen has ripped abs).

The ability to be in combat, on the front lines has nothing to do with a woman's ability to fire a weapon, or make decisions.

1) Women simply don't have the stamina that men have. It is a fact that men's hearts are larger and pump more blood. Historically, this has given them the ability to maintain their strength, and endure physically taxing chores. This is in part due to something they have in abundance, something that women do not possess much of, testosterone.

2.) The vast majority of men would be distracted by having a woman next to them. Even if that woman has passed all the same physical requirements that the men have, men, mostly, cannot help but notice a woman's presence. Not necessarily because of sex-appeal, either. I hazard to guess that after a couple weeks with no shower, most women are probably not that sexually appealing any longer (who knows, maybe we are). But men are taught early on that women are to be watched out for. Cohesion among the ranks is very important, but I think cohesion among men is different than a bond that would from between men and a woman. They would more than likely, compulsively watch out for her safety, putting their own safety, and the safety of the unit at risk. They wouldn't necessarily do it intentionally, I believe it is bred into most men.

3) As far as rape goes... I realize that there are many ways in which our troops can be harmed. Torture is definitely one of them. Rape could be considered a form of torture, however rape has signficantly greater emotional ramifications than most of the other types of torture. Most women never get over rape, under any circumstances. And women would definitely be targeted as rape victims if and when they are caught by the enemy. Rape is not a sexual crime, it is a crime of power and dominance, so I don't doubt women would be raped. Sure, men may be raped as POWs, but it is not nearly as likely. We have enough troops coming home and dealing with PTSD. I think any woman that comes back after having experienced that would be a for- sure candidate. Do we need more veterans with PTSD?

4) Something else that no one else has mentioned...men have an entirely different way of blowing off steam than women do. Men can appear to be crass or insensitive in an attempt to cope with the tension of a stressful situation. Women, typically can be pretty off-put by this behavior. Men can't be touch-feely in combat. They don't want to chat about what bothered them. This difference in processing stress would definitely affect cohesion among troops. If guys can't be guys, without worrying about offending the girls, they may develop hard-feelings, and eventually have more stress from not being able to express themselves in a normal way. This one may sound silly, but I believe it's valid. Men need to be men.

Even if women pass all the same physical requirements that men have to (which I believe would HAVE to be the first step), there are too many additional reasons that create an unsafe environment for the men, to allow women in combat. The battlefield is not the place to wage war on equal rights.

Ok guys...methinks you're trying to hard to convince yourselves.

Women don't have the stamina?? What a joke...women can't handle stress (women are you listening to this?? Is this hilarious or what...)

It has nothing to do with handling stress, or brain power, or marksmanship. It's not that simple. A woman's presence would compromise the integrity of the unit. Is it really a worthy compromise just so a woman can say she did it? You really need to think about the ramifications from all angles. This is not hilarious. People's lives and missions are at stake, so it's definitely not hilarious. The issue needs to be removed from the realm of equal rights and put in the realm of sanity.

The same argument was made about blacks and Jews. They supposedly would impact 'unit cohesion', would run when the going got tough, wouldn't protect others, and others in the unit supposedly wouldn't protect them. Of course now those arguments sound pretty ridiculous --kind of like many of these.

The pro sports analogy is ridiculous, how many men serving in combat could carry a pro sports career? 1%? Because you serve in combat doesn't mean you are an excellent athlete, it means you passed a standard. If women can pass the same physical standard, what are you so afraid of? Let the ego go.

Black men and jewish men (and men of all colors and religions) should not be banned from any unit. But then, they are all men. They are essentially the same, regardless of race and religion. Of course some are fat, skinny, short and tall among all races, but they are biologically similar. Women are not the same. It is not sexist to say that, it is a biological fact. This is not the same argument as racism. When peoples safety and the success of the unit is at stake, the front lines is not the place to wage war on equal rights for women.

eblunt61, OK, forget pro sports. Include all physical contact sports at all levels. Does Smith College or Vasser have a football, basketball or rugby team that can beat any male college team?? Why are most all Olympic sports separated by gender??? If any society or culture anywhere in the past 50,000 years had been able to field a military force of females that could defeat a male army then there would be one today. Zip, nada, doesn't exist. If women must be INTEGRATED into a male combat force by law then as a gender they were not equal or superior to male Soldiers to begin with. Why not create an entire Brigade of female warriors, train them up together and set them lose in Afghanistan and see how they do? If they cannot do the job as a 100% female combat force then they will only be diluting the capability of a male combat force. I have long heard the BS from feminists that women are equal to and better than men. Put your money where your big mouth is and DEMAND an all female combat unit and DEMAND a one year rotation into the box.

Watchman-- you forget the Amazonians, of Greek lore. Not proven to exist, but hey- an historical (if mythological) all female fighting force that defeated a standing male army.

But, for a more sound example, the "blue painted giants" of Britain strode into battle naked, wielding massive two-handed swords side by side with their women. They were the most feared enemy of the Romans and Britain is one of the few lands where the Roman legion was halted (at Hadrian's Wall).

That being said, modern combat is nothing like the warfare of Ancient Rome. You no longer line up at either end of a big field and charge forward in phalanxes and cavalry. Modern combat is all about endurance and roughing it in the bush for months at a time. If a women can meet the requirements of their male counterparts and they, and their unit, are comfortable with having them squat in the bush with them, then so be it. But, first things first- no more "gender-norming" of the PT tests and other basic requirements. If they want to do the job then they have to prove they're as capable as any other individual within the unit.

WMG, can't believe you even uttered the myth of the Amazon Women Warriors. Well, heck, I guess Achilles was real too.....impervious to wounds except his ankle. With regard to modern Combat. I ask some Marines to comment on the battle of Falluja (sp) and tell us in this modern age of warfare whether or not there was hand to hand killing as they busted from door to door, leaped roof to roof, and clawed out room to room for three weeks of non stop bloodfest.

I can't give birth as it is not in my gender. And Women are not Combat Soldiers. Sure they can shoot a drunk husband in the back while he is sleeping or drown five of her kids in the bathtub. Everybody can murder. Killing a trained armed male warrior coming for your heart is a different matter all together.

Hey Watchman, have you ever been in the wild? I'm asking because in the wild it is the female of any species that does the hunting. I'll be glad to put you in touch with a woman that would be very glad to teach you how to fight, and I know she would want you to be as aggressive as possible in the fight, that way when she does kick your a$$ there will be no doubt as to who the better "man" is.

gmross, Well yes, as a matter of fact I have been in the wild from time to time. 28 years Army Infantry Airborne Ranger. Didn't see any wild women at all. However, I have been to a few malls and Walmarts in the US and I have seen herds of thousands of fat ass women gorging their faces at the food court and riding electric shopping carts around cause they are too fat ass to walk and stuffing their carts with 5 gallon tubs of chocolate chip ice cream and boxes of corn dogs. Per chance is this what you mean by females doing 'the hunting?' And in the wild why should the male lion hunt when the females drag the food back to him? Kind of like bringing him a beer from the fridge. I didn't say females don't have functions.

Watchman I don't want to break the COH here, but you are one @#$%@ up son. You really need to check European history a little more, women have been doing the fighting in history as much as men, dig deeper.

Joan of Arc broke the siege of Orleans in 1429.

Are you in third grade??? Sorry, a bunch of really big mean male French knights and burly male French Soldiers stormed the walls and broke the siege of Orleans in 1429. The French Troops thought Joan was having discussions with God and she was also kind of cute. Good looking women have been provoking men to do wild impossible crazy acts since the dawn of time. Heck, I once drove a motorcycle off a 30 foot river embankment to impress a babe. Now if you are promoting putting a cute 20 year old hard bodied blonde babe in a thong bikini in every US Army infantry squad I am not going to argue with you. At least the male troops will shower more.

Watchman 73, read this.

Boudica (pronounced /ˈbuːdɨkə/; also spelled Boudicca), formerly known as Boadicea /boʊdɨˈsiːə/ and known in Welsh as "Buddug" [ˈbɨ̞ðɨ̞ɡ]^[1] (d. AD 60 or 61) was queen of the Iceni tribe who led an uprising against the occupying forces of the Roman Empire.

Boudica's husband Prasutagus, ruler of the Iceni tribe who had ruled as a nominally independent ally of Rome, left his kingdom jointly to his daughters and the Roman Emperor in his will. However, when he died, his will was ignored. The kingdom was annexed as if conquered, Boudica was flogged and her daughters raped, and Roman financiers called in their loans.

In AD 60 or 61, while the Roman governor, Gaius Suetonius Paulinus, was leading a campaign on the island of Anglesey in north Wales, Boudica led the Iceni people, along with the Trinovantes and others, in revolt. They destroyed Camulodunum (modern Colchester), formerly the capital of the Trinovantes, but now a colonia (a settlement for discharged Roman soldiers) and the site of a temple to the former emperor Claudius, which was built and maintained at local expense. They also routed a Roman legion, the IX Hispana, sent to relieve the settlement.

On hearing the news of the revolt, Suetonius hurried to Londinium (London), the twenty-year-old commercial settlement that was the rebels' next target. Concluding he did not have the numbers to defend it, Suetonius evacuated and abandoned it. It was burnt to the ground, as was Verulamium (St Albans). An estimated 70,000–80,000 people were killed in the three cities (though the figures are suspect).^[2] Suetonius, meanwhile, regrouped his forces in the West Midlands, and despite being heavily outnumbered, defeated the Britons in the Battle of Watling Street

And I have fifteen years of education. Do you have a third grade education, or do you have a third grade mentallity?

This is beginning to be surreal. You actually clawed your way through the annals of antiquity to find some obscure woman who led a tribe in a desperate fight of rebel survival that beat the Romans at a battle 2,000 years ago called, 'Battle of Watling Street?' And over the entire course of human history this is about it?? Or one exceptional Russian female sniper in WWII? And this makes women equal to men in combat? Dear, please. What you have found in your research is evidence of one of those rare but real incidents of a woman who inspired men to fight and win. Where does it say her troops who actually fought at Watling Street were women?? History has quite a few instances of women who served as leaders of tribes or nations whose male warriors have done very well. Margaret Thatcher of England was nobody to mess with. Golda Mier of Israel was tough as nails. But in all cases, when it came time to fight and kill it was the males who did the job. Directed by a female on a horse or from behind a desk of power.....but the males closed with and stuck a sword in another male warrior's chest or shot him in the face. If Pelosi, Hillary Clinton or even Palin were to become President American male warriors will kill on their command too. And it will be males doing the fighting. It is our nature. This specious initiative of promoting women in Combat units will get no traction. Multiple Thousands of old male veterans, who have up to now been silent on the horrors in which they participated and who have stoically endured the nightmares are going to step up on this one. There are so many things in this life which males are less adept than women by nature. Why are you so incensed that 100,000 years of physical, psychological, cultural and social evolution have made us superior killers? And why would you even want to compete in an arena of such horror and shame in which you are so woefully physically, emotionally and spiritually disadvantaged?

Watchman, you still don't get it, these women fought BESIDE their men, they weren't hiding in the hut waiting for the men to return. It wasn't just this one woman who did this every woman in the Celt society knew how to fight and they did fight right next to the men. Even Spartan women fought next to their men and fought off the men in the Spartan culture, if they weren't interested in that man. Even in the Bible it talks of women who fought in wars, one woman even staked a mans head to the ground in one of the stories.

Like I said in an earlier post, I could introduce you to twelve women today that could K**k your a$$ and carry anything that any man in the military can carry, don't judge a book by its cover, you could be very wrong, and in this case you are.

Watchman-- many cultures venerate female warriors. Celts just happen to be the one chosen here. I mentioned Joan of Arc because, by all accounts, she fought alongside the men and was a front-line commander, not the behind-the-desk symbol you seem to suggest that she was. There are numerous historical examples, but if it makes you feel good to act the misogynist, be my guest. Here's a listing from Wikipedia:

The daughter of a Duke, Princess Pingyang raised and commanded her own army in the revolt against the Sui Dynasty. Later, her father would become Emperor Gaozu. Artemisia I of Caria was a tyrant of Halicarnassus allied with Xerxes and commanded five ships of her own in the Battle of Salamis; though her actions in the battle are questioned by some historians, it is said that Xerxes commented after the battle, a Persian loss, that "my men have turned into women and my women into men" in compliment to Artemisia's performance.^[1] The Spartan princess Arachidamia is said to have fought Pyrrhus (of the phrase "pyrrhic victory") with a group of Spartan females under her command, and killed several soldiers before perishing, though little else is known about her.^[2] The Celtic Queen Boudicca with her two daughters "took no prisoners," as they decimated the capital of Roman Britain.^[3]

Women leaders have not only played an important role in cultures where there is a direct analogy to the western concept of a "princess," but have also served their societies in indigenous tribal warfare and rebellion, as well. The Dahomey people, who live in western Africa also established an all female militia, who served as royal bodyguards to the king.^[4] With regard to Native American history, the majority of Native American tribes possessed respected and well established women leaders of their "militia". These female leaders determined the fate of prisoners of war among other tribal decisions. However, the Europeans and early American men refused to deal with Native American women on such matters and so their significance was not understood or appreciated until relatively recently.^[5]

And here's another list. Please note that:

In order to be selected for this list, the woman has had to be someone who fought in battle herself, not just commanding from a distance, and she had to be real – for this reason people like Hua Mulan are not included as there is a lot of doubt about their historical existence.

http://listverse.com/2008/03/17/top-10-badass-female-warriors/

Additionally, your statement that there was "one exceptional Russian female sniper in WWII" is false-- there were whole platoons of trained female snipers and several of them could be considered "exceptional."

I am a male, and I have no qualms with female infantry-- my only concern is that they continue this idiotic gender-norming. As long as they can meet all requirements of training, unmodified for gender, then I see absolutely no reason why they can't fight for us.

Sorry, I was on a ten day fantasy over gmross's 12 burly girlfriends 'beating my ass.' What exactly were we discussing? Oh yea, how you two have spent exhaustive hours looking up the historically rare occurances where a few women have across 5,000 years of history have successfully fought in a few battles OVERWHELMING FOUGHT AND DECIDED BY MALE WARRIORS. Where, outside of mythology is one instance where an Army of females has beat an Army of males?? And please list any of the N. American tribes, or any Central American or S. American Native empires that successfully whipped any of their opponent tribes using Female Warriors. Granted, one did not wish to be captured by male Native Indian warriors and turned over to the women of the tribe for torture. Huron? Creek? Shawnee?, Mohigan? Seminole?Iroquois? Mandan? Cheyenne? Pawnee, Sioux? Nez Pierce? Ute? Blackfoot? Comanche? Apache? One would suppose that since tribe survival depended upon fielding the the best hunters and warriors then the best suitable members of the tribe would indeed be the hunters and the warriors. So which of any of these tribes fielded female warriors? Yet again, zip, nada. Nothing has changed, for a contemporary depiction of current combat and the daily life and psychology of the American combat soldier please read Sebastian Junger's current best seller, 'War.' Just because I may want to have ovaries and give birth does not mean I am entitiled to articfical means to achieve what I want. Science, biology and nature do not support it.

Uh, dude. I found that stuff in less than five minutes on a google search. Imagine if I spent hours.

The point is, why do you care? If they can haul the weight, stay the course and rough it as well as anyone else, then what is the problem?

You're beginning to sound like a misogynist rather than a soldier concerned about battle readiness.

As for native american female warriors, the Apache, for one:

http://www.amazon.com/Apache-Women-Warriors-Southwestern-Studies/dp/0874041546

And:

http://www.amazon.com/Gentler-Female-Native-American-Warrior/dp/B000FH33UC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuKaG9lskzw

That ought to get you started. Again, found in less than five minutes.

And here's another link that randomly popped up about a tribe called the Sarmatians, whose women hunted and battled side-by-side with the men:

http://www.silk-road.com/artl/sarmatian.shtml

And to that end, why are you looking for proof of an all-female army? That's not in any way what anyone has suggested we do with our army... It seems, again, like you are simply acting the misogynist to protect your own petty ego.

When they are on the ropes they desperately toss the 'misogynist' or 'racist' or 'whateverist' label grenade. Since you have now started slanderous name calling....please allow me to retort, numbnuts. The reason 'I care' is simply the reason you gave. Gender norming. Once the Army decides to permit women in Combat Arms the Army absolutely MUST insure the initiative is successful. Natural failure of anything but a miniscule number of Women who MIGHT be able to hump a 120 pound rucksack in 130 degrees will result in screams from feminist and scrutiny from the purse holding Congress. Therefore, the Army WILL dilute training, physical requirements and remove warrior hardening hazards to insure female success in numbers to prove the experiment is successful. The precident is already set. Back in the 80s (look it up) one top performing physically fit female officer was sought out and was permitted to attend Green Beret school. She did pass the basic SF physical test and did well in the academic classroom portion of the course. However, once saddled with that 100 lb rucksack, weapon, ammunition and forced to hump in the swamps and mountains for weeks with little sleep and even less food she flunked the 2nd half of the course which is all outdoors hands on training. Under tremendous pressure the SF school awarded her a Green Beret anyway. And then they quickly passed an army regulation limiting SF School to ONLY combat arms personnel.

Furthermore, the issue of why not an all female combat arms unit is extremely relevant. Reason being is the unspoken assumption by you social liberals is that 'somehow, someway' men, societies and cultures across 5,000 years of history have been artificially suppressing and preventing women from being great warriors. Because as YOU KNOW 'women are totally able to do whatever men do and probably better.' It sticks in your craw that for some reason Women are not being permitted to be combat soldiers. You don't care about biology. Muscle mass means nothing to you. The FACT that men have quicker physical responses than women is dismissed. The FACT that testoserone and aggression are part and parcel of the male gender is discarded. You and your ilk are attempting to force the US Army to dilute standards and artificially inflate female performance in an arena in which they are biologically and emotionally inadequate. Believing themselves trained and ready they will be put into the fray and be summarily killed...... and unfortunately the good male warriors who depended upon the females to perform will die too. Having once stood on that line and knowing the horrible cost paid by the conveniently marginally trained I damn you for this fraud.

First of all, I am not a liberal. Secondly, history has numerous examples of female warriors, as I have shown. Thirdly, if you can find it, my first comment on this message board was that I was on board as long as gender norming was eliminated for those female soldiers who volunteer for combat training. Way to assume and talk a wide hole out of your ass.

I understand that what most likely will happen is that the Army will kowtow to feminist and congressional pressure to show that the program is working by pressing through females who would not be considered qualified (or barely qualified) if they were male. I am against this. My position is and has been, throughout this message board, that if a woman can do the work as currently defined (with no gender norming, in other words) then there should be no barriers set up to arbitrarily exclude them.

And by the way, since you never addressed those points of my argument and merrily went on your way insisting that women have no place in combat, that men are superior, etc. your behavior fits the definition of misogynist.

Belittling phrases such as:

Sorry, I was on a ten day fantasy over gmross's 12 burly girlfriends 'beating my ass.'

And why would you even want to compete in an arena of such horror and shame in which you are so woefully physically, emotionally and spiritually disadvantaged?

The French Troops thought Joan was having discussions with God and she was also kind of cute.

Sure they can shoot a drunk husband in the back while he is sleeping or drown five of her kids in the bathtub. Everybody can murder

However, I have been to a few malls and Walmarts in the US and I have seen herds of thousands of fat ass women gorging their faces at the food court and riding electric shopping carts around cause they are too fat ass to walk and stuffing their carts with 5 gallon tubs of chocolate chip ice cream and boxes of corn dogs. Per chance is this what you mean by females doing 'the hunting?'

Kind of like bringing him a beer from the fridge. I didn't say females don't have functions.

are all instances of blatant misogyny. You don't like the label? Be more careful about what you post.

One: The Army will gender norm for the reasons stated and which you acknowledge as most probable. That is guaranteed so you may as well oppose the social experiment that is guaranteed to undermine the combat capabilities of the Army/Marines and lead to the indefensably avoidable deaths of Soldiers and Marines. If one female cannot be found to play equal in the male national hockey league, if one female cannot be found to play as an equal in the NFL or AFL, if one female cannot be found to play as an equal in ANY professional or Olympic level physical contact sport.....then why do you or anyone think for one minute that a female will add to the capabilities of a squad of terrified, enraged, adrenalin pumped American Combat Soldiers closing with and going at it with rifle, bayonet, knife and rocks in the most brutal contest of killing? Because you simply want to believe a fantasy that seems appealing to you. Well, Mister, that is not good enough.

Two: gmross is rather full of herself and I felt like egging her on with the comments you find so offensive. However, I stand by every comment except the last one about getting a beer, which, OK, I made up. Otherwise, Women are physically, emotionally and spiritually disadvantaged in a combat scenario. Women in a snit do kill quite well when it comes to shooting sleeping boyfriends or in the case of the Florida woman two days ago, shooting her teenagers in the head because they were, 'mouthing off.' But killing because you are pissed off is hardly a qualification. Joan of Arc, from accounts was an attractive French girl...but the French troops did believe she was talking to God so there may have been a conflict of motivations. Walmart? Jesus Christ, go take a look for yourself. It's the march of the hippos in there. gmross' threatending to sic her 12 girlfriends on me to kick my ass? Well, heck, what's not to like about that?

Watchman, do you asume much? It seems to me that the word asume is very important here because you have made an a$$ out of yourselve and u are trying to make one out of me, get it a$$ume. First of all I am 54 and for all of my 54 years I have been a he, not a she, that would be my sisters, second of all I find all of your comments about women insulting and vulgar.

Now pay very close attention, and read this very carefully, it is important and I would like to know that you understand this.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/army.htm

Please go to this site and read it. It will explain to you how women in the Israeli Army helped to win the independence of Israel as a modern nation.

Oh, I reported you as inflamatory. have a nice day.

gmross, glad you came back. Why should I read about Israeli women helping the Israeli army? Everyday where I am at I see American women helping the American Army. You see, on my 2nd career I am still doing 'this job.' I am now too old and slow to hump a 100 pound rucksack and scurry up a hill anymore. I would put young combat soldiers in danger trying to cover for me if I even tried. Truth and facts are what they are. However, I do have immense operational planning skills. Here I am Surrounded by smart capable females in the work of Intelligence, Medical Support, skilled doctors, JAG lawyers, Transportation, Aviation pilots, and managing critical supplies. Couldn't do this work without them. After 34 years of day after day fulltime involvement in this business I am saying with complete accuracy that they just cannot gel in a combat unit with men, close with and shoot another man in the face with anywhere near the ability of men. Larry Byrd was a great white basketball player. He was, however, an average black basketball player. I am white but sorry, we just don't have it. I can demand, whine and bitch all I want but black guys whip our butts in ball, hands down. I have a four year old son. I have washed him, walked around all night holding and singing to him when he cried, changed 3,000 diapers, made formula and fed him and held him when he was scared......but he always defaults and loves his mother more. I did all I could but I would be lying if I nurtured anywhere near the level of his mother. He won't starve or be abused in my care but he thrives in his mother's arms. I look around and simply have to accept what nature has dealt. I can whine, stamp my foot and bitch. I can even demand congressional action but it changes nothing. There is something in 500,000 years of mammal development that makes the female a better nurturer of the tribes' offspring.

You can scour this world from one end to the other and never find a woman who will be anything more than a marginal infantry combat Soldier. You too can demand, whine and bitch about it but it will not change a thing. And as far as reporting me as inflamatory; gee does that ever reveal your whiny tantrum prone character. Heck, I never threatened to sic 12 angry women on you. Which still tickles me to no end. Sport, In truth, I hope I 'offended' you.

They can hold a combat MOS in FA.

You're exactly right. We shouldn't be making decisions based on stereotypes and generalities.

If American's won't tolerate women being killed in combat (despite the fact that American women ARE being killed in Iraq), perhaps that's a good thing because it will mean that we'll go to war only when our interests are truly threatened. However, as with gays in the military, the younger generation sees women in combat as a non-issue.

Thank you for your service.. I do not agree that it only has to do with strength..but that is why we have opinions..

Walk outside, find a 187 # weight, drag it 13 miles, while people are shooting at you.
Come back, tell me about it.

Barry:

"However, as with gays in the military, the younger generation sees women in combat as a non-issue."

Do what?! I'm of the younger generation, as are many of my friends and we have serious concerns about women in combat!

@Barry-NJ

I'm with USMCBrat. I am 17 years old and getting ready to join the military. Although I have no personal experience, I for one, do not agree with allowing women into direct combat. I also have many friends who do not agree with this either. Barry, you are completely wrong on this one!

With your logic of lower pay, if they aren't in combat, wouldn't that include men serving in non-combat roles. Those men are second class soldiers.

The only reason you want women kept out is because you're afraid they might actually prove you wrong. As though women can't handle emotional tolls. What a load. They're not the ones asking to dodge "the hard parts of the job". Not the ones who want in. What a load of whining.

The lower pay I don't agree with because even though jobs aren't specifically for killing we do. We're all trained to kill. And if you joined the military for money anyway....you joined for the wrong reasons and I don't want you anywhere near me. As for giving them the same responsibilities....they couldn't handle them thats why they are restricted to typing jobs, medical feilds, mechanics, drivers, and engineers, and a small few other jobs. If they want the jobs, then the men might as well put on an apron because stupid just struck again.

I don't agree with people getting the same pay as the people actually out at the combat outposts. Day in and day getting rockets and mortars, while conducting patrols and firefights. Those who never leave the FOB, shouldn't be entitled to half of the entitlements as forward Soldiers.

If you are in a combat zone, you get a non-taxable bonus pay, so they do get paid more.

Jack, don't forget the jump bonus.

That is all the time for all Airborne qualified personnel, in all services.

I appreciate your service, but you havent been done that. Youve been somewere and done something, but you havent gone on 14 mile marches with ruck, kicked in doors and closed in with, and destroyed the enemy.

Appreciate your service as well, but read the Marine's post. You get a dismissive pat on the head. Don't make that choice for other women, because until women are allowed in all positions including combat, that'll be the reaction.

Hey AP, put your money where you mouth is. Soldier the hell up, ruck up and rock and roll !! Lets see what ya got G.I. JANE.

Nope AP, will sit on the vine and demand equality, that is what AP, will do.
It seems to me that we have huge number of people willing to make changes that endanger our military, that will never be with in looking distance of the military

"They can't usually see the faces of those they kill so emotions aren't a big part..."

Kinda like how you stay behind a computer (where you can't see anyone who would react to you) to spew sexist garbage that you wouldn't have the balls to say out loud. :)

So men have no emotions and are perfectly okay with killing face-to-face, but women wouldn't be able to handle it.

That's stupid. Some men couldn't stomach killing a mouse let alone a human, and some women would be able to handle killing as well as male soldiers.

I agree with the physical part but not the emotional part. They would get toughened up real quick.

So if you actually believed that, what's the problem?

.

Let's talk hand to hand combat, pulling a trigger is only part of the job, a wee small part.

I have no doubt that there are some women that could do the job, but that number is really low. Would I have wanted a woman in my combat unit? No. This is a matter of strength, not pulling a trigger.

True but I would say they are in more harm living with bums that won't work and beat them than they are in Iraq.. Probably MUCH safer in a foxhole than in some trailer with a loser..

I have no problem with it as long as they can do the job. Women are serving in combat areas but they are not doing the combat. It's not about being killed, it's about being able to do the job just like a man can. If they can do that then I'm fine with it. Let's make it equal, PT everything. I'm sure no one here has a problem with a female going into a combat unit able to pass the PT the is equal.

I posted it as a reply. Are women looking for equality or advantage? Equality means do the 40 pushups I have to do and run in the 17 minutes I have on the APFT to even be considered for promotion. Advantage they keep their lower standards and still get to be promotable into a very physical MOS.

omg, when I was in service women did the same PT as the men, in fact were on the same cource with the men... guess what... the women were as good and some were better than the men.

i am in the service im an infintryman and well there is no women that does the pt we do and can take the brutal mind games they would cry and cause problems they cant carry 100+ pounds for 10+ miles they can not and do not am i sayn no women can no im saying 95% can not. so many good men cant even take being an infintryman let alone special operations! it would be stupid women should be aloud to be in the service but not combat jobs. gays are not girls they are girly but i have a private in my platoon that is gay and well he is a damn good soldier and is strong hes a strong young man just like other men but he dosent act out or make situations awkward.

Joy, you just lost all credibility.

omg, when I was in service women did the same PT as the men, in fact were on the same cource with the men... guess what... the women were as good and some were better than the men.

Male < 30

Run Time = 13:36, Pushups = 33, Sit Ups = 42

Female < 30

Run Time = 16:22, Pushups = 18, Sit Ups = 38

Im sorry but in the infantry its 70 pushups in 2 minutes ( and not the knees on the ground type the females do ) 70 situps in 2 minutes, 12 pullups, and 2 miles in 13 minutes. Or at least it was before political correctness came along.

amazed, you are not living up to your handle. I don't know what kind of PT score you are trying to quote right there but looking at your difference in the sit ups I can tell you have no current knowledge of the PT standards for the military.

As a male at 33 years of age I only have to run my 2 miles in 17:42, 36 push-ups, and 42 sit-ups for 60 points in each event (which is the bare minimum). There is no longer a female scale for sit-ups. That was done away with quite a bit ago. A 30 year old male would have to do more than my standards to attain the same score.

And rangerjohn, I don't know what military you came in, but in my military you can't do push-ups on your knees during a PT test and the Army doesn't do pull-ups for PT tests. That disqualifies you no matter what gender you are.

There's no reason women cannot serve in combat roles in the military. I know many women who are just as capable (sometimes more so) than many males I've come across in the military (any branch).

Zen, when I was in the Army women were allowed to do push-ups from the knees.

I do not think RangerJohn was talking minimums(60), who strives for minimums but the weak. The 100% on Army males is 71 push ups, 78 sit ups, 2 miles in 13 minutes. The 100% for Army females is 42 push ups (19 to get 60), 78 sit ups, and 2 miles in 15:36 minutes.

Rangers

Fort Benning Phase

"The Initial Phase is conducted in two parts; the first part, Ranger Assessment Phase (RAP), is conducted at Camp Rogers in the Harmony Church area of Fort Benning. This phase consists of a Ranger Physical Fitness Test:

- Requiring 49 push-ups,
- 59 sit-ups,
- An individual 5-mile release run event finished in 40 minutes or less,
- Concluding 6 chin-ups.

Other physical requirements and tests:

- Combat water survival test
- Darby Mile Run event
- 5-mile runs
- Terrain runs with the Malvesti obstacle course
- 12-mile foot march
- Night and day land navigation tests

Advanced physical training assures physical and mental endurance and the stamina required for obtaining basic Ranger characteristics; commitment, confidence and physical and mental toughness. Additionally, the student executes demolitions training and airborne refresher training. Airborne Soldiers will exit from a high performance aircraft and conduct tactical assembly area procedures."

To be competitive in any of these physical tests, the future Ranger students must not strive for the minimum standards above, but must maximize their personal physical effort and strive for the following:

- Pushups - 80-100
- Situps - 80-100
- Chin ups - 15-20
- 2 mile run - under 13:00

However, the most important pre-training exercise to do prior to Ranger school is walking fast in your boots with 50 pounds of weight on your back. You will do this everyday you are at Ranger School. Running at least 5 miles, 3-4 times a week and swimming in uniform 2-3 times a week is recommended as well. Pack on 5-10 pounds of body weight prior to going so you have a little to lose when you are consuming fewer calories a day.

The second part of First Phase has obstacle courses and long ruck marches as a major part of the physical fitness requirements. However, the fundamentals of patrolling and small unit tactics are the focus of this part of the Benning Phase. These graded field exercises include ambush and reconnaissance patrols, close quarters combat, airborne operations, and air assault operations. The Ranger student must then demonstrate his expertise through a series of cadre and student-led tactical patrol operations.

Mountain Phase

The second phase, or Mountain phase lasts 20 days and nights and teaches students to operate in small units while sustaining themselves and their subordinates in the adverse conditions of the mountains. The rugged terrain, hunger, and sleep deprivation are the biggest causes of emotional stress that students encounter. Students will eat, sleep and operate in these conditions for 3 weeks, usually eating no more than 1-2 MREs a day (Meals Ready to Eat).

Florida Phase

The third phase, or Florida phase, teaches small boat operations, ship to shore operations, stream-crossing techniques, and skills needed to survive and operate in a jungle and swamp environment. This phase lasts 16 days and nights and tests the patrolling and leadership techniques of every Ranger.

Ranger School is a grueling school due to the long hours of walking with your gear, sleeping in the field and eating 1-2 meals less a day than normal. Many students lose 20-30 pounds in the 56 day school. But the school teaches the Ranger he can overcome insurmountable challenges while under simulated combat conditions. Ranger school has honed the professional skills and techniques necessary to conduct small unit operations. And of course, he can wear the well deserved Ranger Tab on his shoulder.

There are many slackers in the Army who strive for minimums (and alot who don't achieve it). The majority of Soldiers coming in the Army these days reach their units barely able to achieve the minimums.

The max numbers that you're quoting are for 17-21 year olds. I know many females that can out PT the majority of the males in a BN.

I am aware there are many slackers in the Army, I would wager 7 out of 10 coming in the Army these days are barely able to achieve the minimums. Yet these are not the people that are going to go to Ranger school, air borne school, etc. or try for a combat arms field. Most of these people are looking for a way for schooling, training for a job when their enlistment is up. We had them when I was in in the 80's.

Which is stronger the guy that can 60 push ups and weighs 225, or the girl that can do 60 push ups weighing 135? I truly believe there are women out there that are strong, but I do not think it is the same strength that a man possesses. We are born different for reasons.

Having said that, let them do a simple test, simply have one platoon allow women into the ranks in basic and through AIT. Same standards as the men. See if they can accomplish the task......before anyone's life is put into danger for political correctness.

As far as the women up the vine saying she never misses a target, well try that target practice when the target is shooting back at you.

Only about 10% of the entire military actually sees any combat whatsoever. I'll chalk it up to 12% if you include IED incidents that don't require you to shoot back because the bombs are emplaced and they are long gone. So only about 10% of the Army gets to experience shooting at targets that are shooting back. Of that 10% I'd wager that only 5%, maybe 7%, are in a convoy at the time of their engagement and therefor are not placing well aimed fire upon positively identified combatants. They are spraying and praying from their crew served weapons as the convoy continues along its route. I'd rather have a Soldier that fires expert with their weapon next to me regardless of gender as opposed to only a male who only shoots between 27 and 35.

As far as the PT test being a factor of a Soldier's worth: I'm willing to bet you the female who can do those 60 push-ups can move, shoot, and communicate for a longer period of time than the fat body male who can only do 60. The PT test is a measure of your physical fitness which helps determine your stamina and ability to keep moving.

Really, Jeff? I am a woman and I want equality. I don't just want it for myself, I want it for my granddaughter, she deserves to have every chance that her brother has, so long as she can meet the qualifications required. Period.

Bring in you whiner.

Then you would be a useless woman if in WWII & women were drafted. 'And yes, there is real potential', almost looks like a personal threat. Sexual abuse potential is real, racist abuse potential is there, it diminshes so long as intellect progress & ethics progresses.

And there's no potential for sexual abuse now?? What a joke. Plenty of men can't imagine wanting to serve either. So what's your point?

Actually, there is more potential for sexual abuse for men, with gays openly in the military. Well... and for women by lesbians in the military, for that matter. So the military has the potential to evolve into a massive sexual abuse melting pot, but very politically correct. After all you have to be PC to defend your country, don't you?

jrightwing,

Yes because that is where all of the sexual abuse come from in our society, Homosexuals, get real. Heterosexual Males are the primary sexual predators and pedophiles in our society.

Having more women in the ranks to report and stand up for other women will do nothing but drop the level of sexual abuse.

spg64-- you never saw "The General's Daughter" did you?

Why should American military policy be based on what the enemy thinks about women?

Right, I should be based on if they can do the job...as well as a man without in BS where people look the other way because she can't hump a saw 6 to 8 miles on a patrol.