Question of the Day: Why Shouldn’t Women Be On the Front Lines? by Robert Farago | Feb 11, 2012 | 85 comments facebook twitter linkedin email [HTML1] comments Shawn says: February 11, 2012 at 06:32 This may sound sexist but, most of the time men think logically and women think emotionally. Not in all cases. Reply Vincit Veritas says: February 11, 2012 at 10:02 This sentiment, as sexist as it may be, is invalidated or at least made irrelevant by the fact that women are already doing these jobs. Reply Accur81 says: February 11, 2012 at 10:16 Yes. In the movies. Reply irock350 says: February 11, 2012 at 13:51 No, in real life. Snipers, drivers, medics, pilots. Women can do these roles and there are real women that want to do these roles on the front lines. SHould we lower our standards, no, but should we give them ability, yes. FLAME DELETED savaze says: February 11, 2012 at 23:20 Women are already in combat on a regular basis due to the guerrilla warfare we’re dealing with. If anything I think women can deal with the stress of it better than men. I don’t think that they can keep up with the same physical demands put on the combat arms (e.g. humping 100+ lbs of gear and be expected to carry the person next to you). Don’t get me wrong I think women are equal to men, they’re just not the same as men physically, chemically, and emotionally. MadDawg J says: February 11, 2012 at 15:07 I have served with women and just as with their male counter parts there are some great women soldiers and some bad ones. I had no problem with there being women in my unit, and I have the same level of “brotherhood love” for them as anyone else there with us. Anyone who thinks they cannot do it, I will gladly let you get in touch with them and go hand to hand with them and see if you are more of a soldier due to your having a penis. Just let us know who your next of kin is first. The Israeli military has had women in front line combat for years and they are some badass warriors. Historical evidence shows that women in combat works, all the way back to Joan of Ark, and there is no evidence that it doesn’t. If they have the figurative balls to stand at the front, then god bless them, a lot of “men” don’t have enough balls for that. A soldier is a soldier regardless of religion, ethnicity, home state, or sex in my book. Reply Dave says: September 12, 2012 at 15:12 Woman shouldn’t be on the front line for several resons I don’t think they should be getting shot at and if they are kidnaped they are going to get rapped.Even look now you have woman getting pragant on the ships and on the line.Plus if they have kids a kids needs his mother more then a father if one is going to die in a war. Plus it is not far if you are going to have woman and there is a draft you would have to inclaud them in the draft and you try to tell alot of woman they have to go that is wrong. I believe woman want to be to much like men there are jobs that are for men and jobs that are for woman.And getting shot at is not one. Reply Koop says: February 11, 2012 at 07:23 This has been mentioned many, many times, but… Combat equipment is heavy, and grunts go for long walks wearing all that gear. Not all men can handle that kind of physical strain, and men have what, 20 to 40 percent more strength in their upper bodies than women? Only a tiny fraction of women could measure up to the physical demands. Then add the miserable conditions on the frontlines, and the fact that people will be shooting at you, and no allowances will be made by the enemy for your female status. In fact, there are some unique disadvantages if taken by the enemy. No women I know would volunteer that kind of time and effort for such a pitiful “reward.” If any of you girls out there feel up to the challenge, go to your local martial arts dojo and pick a fight with the scrawniest guy there. If you can take him on sucessfully, and can win two other similar fights in the space of a week despite any scratches or bruises incurred, you might be brutal enough for the job. Reply Jason says: February 11, 2012 at 08:31 Why is the incidence of stress fractures in military basic training greater for women than for men? Stress fracture rates among female Army military trainees during basic combat training are more than twice those reported for male (Deuster and Jones, 1997; Jones and Hansen, 1996; MSMR, 1997). This greater incidence appears to be due in part to the initial entry level of fitness of the recruits and specifically the ability of bone to withstand the rapid, large increases in physical loading. The rate of increase in the intensity, frequency, or volume of impact of loading activities in basic training is a risk factor for stress fractures. In addition, increased stride length and variations in specific exercise activities may contribute to the different site distribution of stress fractures in military women compared with military men. When training regimens are equally imposed on men and women, the resultant stress on the less physically fit increases the likelihood of injury. Reply savaze says: February 11, 2012 at 15:59 When the military decides to hold women at the same standard as men, then maybe we’ll talk (look at the APFT Standards: http://www.apft-standards.com/ ). Ultimately I don’t think women on the front-line is the real issue in politics, but a deeper seated one… Reply Joe C. says: February 11, 2012 at 09:10 Man or woman (not “girls”), if they can make the grade, they can go to work. If they don’t, they get to be a POG. Reply Vincit Veritas says: February 11, 2012 at 10:15 I know a few women who have volunteered for service and would gladly have taken combat duty if possible (including one who later went to blackwater, not known for making affirmative action decisions). There are also a few women instructors and students at my local dojo who could easily defend themselves against many of the male students in the class (picking a fight is easy, just sucker-punch the guy). These women are certainly the exception and the not the rule, but it’s a mistake to judge the elite among us by the average around us. It may be true that the most elite male will be superior in most martial skills than the most elite female, but that doesn’t mean the elite female doesn’t have a place in combat. Reply Tom says: February 11, 2012 at 16:51 If any of you girls out there feel up to the challenge, go to your local martial arts dojo and pick a fight with the scrawniest guy there. If you can take him on sucessfully, and can win two other similar fights in the space of a week despite any scratches or bruises incurred, you might be brutal enough for the job. Daughter does this all the time. She has engaged Sheriff Deputies as well. Reply Matt Gregg says: February 11, 2012 at 07:53 I can see no reason why we still restrict women in the military. If they want to fight then let them fight. And why are women exempt from registering with Selective Service? If they want equal rights then they must shoulder equal responsibility. This should have been tied in with suffrage anyways. Reply Shawn says: February 11, 2012 at 08:04 The argument has been made that men are more likely to stop fighting to pull a wounded women from harms way than a man. Also anyone who has made a road trip with a woman on her period knows that progress will be slowed due to latrine breaks. Reply Robert Farago says: February 11, 2012 at 08:33 Wow. Really? Not trolling? Seriously? Reply Vincit Veritas says: February 11, 2012 at 10:10 The argument is being made, by you, and it’s a bad one. It should all come down to skills and qualifications, and the best person should get the job. The mental/emotional arguments are way off since they are based on your (anecdotal) analysis of the general population. Man or woman, nobody at that elite level is represented by the average person. Reply Shawn says: February 11, 2012 at 15:46 Not by me, by people way out of my pay grade. I’ve been deployed with women and been on fly away missions with them, it’s a valid point. Tony C says: February 11, 2012 at 08:39 Am I wrong or don’t other nations have women in harms way ( Israel for example ) ? What is their answer to these questions ? Reply Aharon says: February 11, 2012 at 09:31 No, Israel does not put women into direct combat or draft them. Women combat units or women military units are there for an support emergency backup call as I understand it. Reply Tony C says: February 11, 2012 at 09:47 My bad , thanks for the info. I guess this measure would put the U.S. as the only ones with women on the front lines wouldn’t it. Reply Aharon says: February 11, 2012 at 09:59 Welcome. Israel tried it during the war for independence and it was a disaster. The Jewish men emotionally couldn’t handle putting women in danger, and watching them getting hurt and killed. The men took stupid risks, getting killed themselves, even to retrieve a dead woman’s body for burial. Tarrou says: February 11, 2012 at 09:45 I’ll write up a more complete list later, but this is my wheelhouse, and this is my most basic argument. 1: No women want that job, and even fewer are capable of it. This is about officers plumping for promotion, not about being grunts. The argument is that to reach the highest levels of promotion, officers need experience commanding Infantry or Armor commands. It is not about, has never been about women actually wanting to be infantry. And if there is a deluded soul out there who thinks she can handle it, she can’t. There is absolutely no reason we can’t just let women command Infantry companies/bats, while still banning them from actually being grunts. God knows an officer has never done a hard day’s work since 1945. Reply AK says: February 11, 2012 at 10:08 Spoken exactly like someone who’s never served…. Reply Tarrou says: February 11, 2012 at 10:43 Son, I’ll make you eat those words. Stay tuned. Reply Joe Grine says: February 11, 2012 at 13:05 Tarrou: I think you are right that this issue is really about Political Correctness: Washington intelligensia wanting female officers to get more command time so that they can advance to higher levels in the miltary. I think it would be disaster to allow women to command infantry companies / battalions, and it would be even worse if no women served as enlisted grunts. Those female officers would get no respect from the troops if they have not “been there / done that” on some level. As for your comment that “God knows an officer has never done a hard day’s work since 1945” – well, that’s just ignorant enlisted-man crap. The work may be different (for example, less physical in some cases) but it’s a lot more stressful, a lot more time (life) consuming, and it takes a lot more gray matter. Also, not too many enlisted guys have to deal with a full-bull or a 2-star breathing down their necks. And frankly, officers generally put in a lot more hours than the enlisted guys do. The guys that I knew that were succeeding at that LTC level were eating-sleeping Army 24-7, 365 – they had no life outside the Army. Hell, that was one of the reasons I got out – I had other interests (and I really wanted to own a Porsche 911 some day – hard to do on military salary). These guys were so hardcore they “shit camo turds” as we used to say. As one example, I knew COL Danny McKnight when he was at 25ID. He went on to command 3rd Ranger Bat, and his role as the commander of the “lost convoy” was memorialized in the movie “Blackhawk Down.” Take a look at his resume and tell me he didn’t “put in a hard day’s work” every once in a while: http://www.dannymcknight.com/biography.htm. And I only use him as an example mainly because he has an easy-to-find website and everybody has seen the movie. But frankly, all of the Infantry Battalion Commanders I knew were pretty much like him: hard-working, solid, hardcore men. I knew some that were even marathon runners at age 38-42. Anyway, until you’ve walked that walk, you really don’t know what they hell you are talking about. Reply Aharon says: February 11, 2012 at 09:56 I think women should register for Selective Service, it’s only ‘fair’. I think it is time for womyn to serve in combat. Heck, we should do an affirmative action program, and give them the opportunity to lead the charge while the men hang back and make them lunch. During the past 10+ years, non-combat coed military units that have been notified 30-60 days ahead of time that they will be deploying have frequently had 50+% of the womyn suddenly reporting being pregnant in the weeks after notification. Those units had been counting on those trained members to ship overseas with them and do their jobs. This problem has not been an exception to US units deploying, it has been a major problem. Prior to combat or once in an ongoing combat environment, how difficult will it be for a woman to get out of the fighting and sent home once she decides she wants out? Easy. If she is embedded in a mixed-sex military unit. All a female combat soldier has to do is seduce a male soldier and get pregnant (it’s better for her than losing a leg or getting killed). Then to keep herself from possibly getting a court martial all she needs to do is point the finger at the male solider and claim a false rape allegation. She goes home to America, has her baby and probably gets financial support courtesy the US taxpayer to support her child, and the male soldier possibly goes to prison. I’m all for women combat units yet keep them all female so they can’t use the pregnancy rape excuse to get out of combat and back-stab an American male soldier. Another problem, in mixed sex units, will be that some men in leadership positions that are chivalrous types will order the men under their command to take more risks than the women. Reply Henry Bowman says: February 11, 2012 at 10:02 If we don’t allow women in combat, we are depriving them of their equal right to have their minds and bodies ripped apart during wartime. As it is, medals and promotions are awarded disproportionately to men. What about the women’s equal opportunity to come home in flag-draped coffins or rehabilitate with prosthetic limbs? I’ll protect my wife and daughters, as much as I’m able, from ever having to experience war. Reply Matt Gregg says: February 11, 2012 at 10:12 That’s fine for you but there are plenty of women out there that want to fight. They deserve that right and they should be registering for the draft. Reply Vincit Veritas says: February 11, 2012 at 10:19 Last time I checked we have a volunteer army and not a draft. Though I highly disagree with that position… Reply Accur81 says: February 11, 2012 at 10:21 Really? Reply Henry Bowman says: February 11, 2012 at 10:36 My point is that there used to be a commonly held principle that manhood required service to women. We defend them and protect them from harm. Women are vital to the propogation of the species and, as such, are treated as something precious and put up on a pedastal. The people we are currently fighting do not hold that same view of women. They are seen as lesser than a man, as not worthy of respect or dignity. They use their women as shields in combat. They put a woman in between themselves and danger. That is not how women should be treated. Would any of us ask the fairer sex to protect us during a DGU? But it’s okay to ask them to protect us in war? If yes, then our women have become as disposable as theirs. Reply Aharon says: February 11, 2012 at 10:59 Henry, I don’t find modern American society respectful, considerate, and protective of males or females. While the Taliban treat females (and disposable) males poorly, there are other Muslim societies in other countries where the females are treated with respect and protected. Personally, I find males in America treated as a disposable second-class commodity in war and marriage. Henry Bowman says: February 11, 2012 at 11:42 Agreed. Notice I said “there used to be” and made no mention of Islam itself, just those individuals we are currently fighting. Aharon says: February 11, 2012 at 12:54 Henry, I do notice. Modern society is not what I’d like it to be. I’m choosing to attempt avoiding being taken advantage of as told by society to be a limited role male protector, provider, taxable human ATM, chivalrous white knight, and sympathetic feminist mangina. If womyn want or accept special sex-based privileges, one-sided sex-based laws, affirmative action programs, etc then I have no issue with them going to war. I’m all for American men to choose freedom, liberation, empowerment, and an independent life-affirming “self-actualization” path for themselves. It is ironic that in the very long run, feminism will benefit men more than women. There is still a long road ahead and many obstacles to breach. Within the next 20 years, we will see the artificial womb and life-like female sex robots. Men will be free at last. NCG says: February 11, 2012 at 18:59 “Within the next 20 years, we will see the artificial womb and life-like female sex robots. Men will be free at last.” I hope you’re joking. Aharon says: February 11, 2012 at 21:57 I’m possibly only half-joking. It is kind of funny. Scientists are working on the artificial womb. Japanese engineers are doing wonders with developing life-like female sex robots. A man needs a woman like an eagle needs a shopping cart. Someday men will be free of needing to submit to the will of women. Freedom is in our future. NCG says: February 12, 2012 at 00:44 Sadly, freedom is for me right now. Sigh. AK says: February 11, 2012 at 10:14 A sabot round for an M1 tank weighs 40 pounds. Then breach weighs over a hundred pounds. If she can load the round and close the breach in under the 4 second time limit, then I’ve got no problem with it. But my guess is that most ladies can’t. Reply Aharon says: February 11, 2012 at 10:46 We could put those women trainees on a special diet of muscle building medications, weight lifting, fish heads and rice. Reply Brett says: February 11, 2012 at 11:58 Not a tanker are you? The breach closes automatically. Reply Kevin T says: February 11, 2012 at 10:16 The current change isn’t about changing any of the specific “jobs” open to females, it’s about changing certain “positions” that were previously coded as “male only.” Female officers still cannot be Infantry or Armor officers, and therefore they will not be eligible to command IN/AR companies/battalions. What will be different is that now a female Intelligence officer, for example, can now be the S2 in an Infantry battalion, a position previously restricted to male only. None of the changes will bring any females closer to combat than they currently are when serving as MPs/Attack Helicopter pilots, etc. Reply Accur81 says: February 11, 2012 at 10:37 Gentlemen, Imagine a weight room. Watch the women in the weight room closely (this shouldn’t be hard, it’s often the best part of working out in public). How many of these women are bench pressing more than 225 pounds? Heck, 135 pounds?Roughly one percent, maybe less. How many can do 10 pullups? One to three percent? Women are not as strong as men. If you want to see a 120 pound female beat up a 200 pound man, watch a movie (G.I. Jane, perhaps). You won’t see that in a boxing ring or MMA, nor will you see men fighting women of the same weight. Just because you know, think you know, or may have heard of the toughest woman you know meeting or exceeding the minimal standards of Marine Corps physical fitness entry does not make it feasible or economical for women to serve in active duty infantry combat. Ammunition is heavy. A combat load, weapon, body armor, water, etc. are heavy items. Perhaps I’m not sensitive, maybe even a little intolerant. Bummer. Even the liberals and hippies who are trying to implement “change we can believe in” don’t believe that it is feasible to have women in infantry roles. Reply Aharon says: February 11, 2012 at 10:48 When it comes to marathon races, the women runners are given a head start over the men. Naturally, the women and mangina men thinks it is all fine and a realistic honest measure for determining the winner. Reply RKflorida says: February 11, 2012 at 10:39 My answer to the question is only that, my answer. Because I don’t want them to be. I want to protect them and honor them. It’s the only reason I have. If they insist on being in danger, so be it. We must include their wishes in our respect of them. However, I still want to protect them. Reply Tim says: February 11, 2012 at 10:41 Purely romantic notions on my part – Not only will their be men getting killed to try and prevent women from getting captured/raped/murder out of a sense of obligation, but imagine a significant death count of women. Yes, over 4900 dead in the OIF and OEF operations, but not a significant amount of those were women (yes-I hate saying any deaths are insignificant, but for stats, they simply aren’t). That is over about 9-10 years, that is not a “large” number in an historical context. Here is some perspective of combat deaths: Vietnam: 47,424 – Korea: 33,686 – WWII: 291,557 Throw in all the upper body strength issues, and you are simply putting women at a larger risk in combat roles than men (I am an old fuddy duddy, I didn’t like it when the expanded their roles back in the Nineties). One further reason – imagine the political “football” nightmare when the dead bodies of women or POW’s who were raped, tortured, and mutilated (yes, this can happen to men – blame society for the lower level of sympathy). One final note – has anyone thought about the disparity of men to women IN the military? I am not entirely sure of the exact number, but I am quite certain that women make up no MORE than 25% and it would not surprise me if the number was way lower than that. Just adding women to ships in the Navy complicated things like you could not even imagine (berthing/showering requirements, pregnancies, etc…). No thanks! Reply Mike OFWG says: February 11, 2012 at 10:58 I am truly sorry that women are being injured and killed due to their proximity to violent action in modern warfare. That being said, putting women into combat units is just plan nuts on too many levels to even discuss. The worst reason by far is that it would degrade the overall combat effectiveness of our units, and that’s their reason for existing. And no, I don’t think women have less courage or will to fight, heck, there is nobody I would rather have in the fox hole with me than my wife, and for a lot more reasons than just fighting. Reply ST says: February 11, 2012 at 11:15 I’ll put forth a cogent argument why women shouldn’t be allowed on the front lines; Biology. A group of men in a combat environment must focus on the goal of accomplishing the mission at hand while also ensuring that everyone gets home.Put one decently average looking woman in with 30 men and bad things start happening to the guys’ focus ,real fast.This is not a slam on unit discipline or training,but the last thing anyone needs on the front line is to be distracted by a female out of sheer natural biology when lead is flying and firearms and weapon systems are being operated.In the civilian world its a ‘haha’ failblog post when a guy crashes his car looking at a woman jogging .In the US Military that kind of innattention can get someone killed. This is not misogeny,sexism,or any number of negative labels.It is simple fact.I actually have no problem with women in a combat role in terms of performance or a warrior mindset;but as long as the US military is comprised of 80% males and 20% females the front lines should be men only until the numbers balance.A unit with 50-50 numbers of the opposite sex would go a long way to eliminate the drama and distracting BS that happens with a two girl-twenty guy ratio,but I doubt enough women will ever join in those numbers without a draft. Reply Brett says: February 11, 2012 at 12:08 IF (and it’s a big if) they can pass the APFT with the male standards, perform to the same standards during training (ruck marches, field problems, etc.) and group, zero and qualify with their M4 without coming back for a second day at the range, I don’t have a problem with them serving with me. I just don’t believe that more than a very few women currently serving could accomplish it. P.S. Yes, I have had males that couldn’t meet these standards. They all got sent to support roles, not on missions. Reply ST says: February 11, 2012 at 13:26 There’s a double standard at work in this regard. In the Air Force, a man of any rank who didn’t cut the mustard with PT was put out the gates-even in some cases where medical problems were involved. Women in the Air Force routinely bob and weave around PT testing and when they did have to take it, they didn’t need to work very hard to pass. A 13:00 minute mile and a half may look good for a female on paper, but the M-16/M4 weapon and associated gear doesn’t give a rats about your gender. Sure, there are women who can run laps and carry more than their male counterparts….but the number in the entire D.o.D who can do that aren’t more than ten. For those who still think people against this idea are misogynists stuck in the 1950s, chew on this-unlike America, foreign nations don’t have political correctness regarding treatment of prisoners. Watch footage of the special ops pilots being tortured in Somalia , and picture your favorite TV actress being treated WORSE than that. If the thought of that doesn’t turn your stomach, I don’t know what to tell you. Reply irock350 says: February 11, 2012 at 12:38 Really, no one is going to bring up the fact that women severed on the front lines for the soviets during WWII. Or that a female Russian sniper has twice as many kills as the highest American sniper? ( Lyudmila Pavlichenko had over 300 confirmed kills including 36 German snipers) Obviously women are incapable of serving in any way on the front lines. You know ’cause they have vagina’s which makes them incapable of manly service. Reply Tom says: February 11, 2012 at 20:22 First post on this macho man thread to bring that little topic up. Let us not forget the Russian Women Pilots while we are at it! How about American Women ferry and test Pilots who flew aircraft that men said were too difficult to fly. Reply Ralph says: February 11, 2012 at 13:13 Usually, enemy fighters need to raid a town or village to find someone to rape. Not too worry, bad guys. Uncle Sam will soon be making life easier by offering up some real American women for your dining and dancing pleasure. Reply Aharon says: February 11, 2012 at 22:00 Ralph, you would be the funniest person in the world to be stranded with on a remote island. You could keep a person laughing for hours. Reply Mark says: February 11, 2012 at 14:14 The question is moot. They’re there. From what I’ve personally seen, they belong there. Reply Dyspeptic Gunsmith says: February 11, 2012 at 15:22 We can solve this debate the same way we solved the debate about integrating blacks into the armed forces: create a unit of nothing but women (say of regiment size) and put them into combat. See how they perform with no men in their midst to help them. They have to prove that women and only women can do it. Reply Shawn says: February 11, 2012 at 16:00 I really like this idea. My wife serves with me. She is a better shot than I am on any weapon, she’s a hell of a lot smarter than I am, and can make a uniform look good. The reason I say all that is because when she is deployed her mental state gets completely screwed up just because she rooms with a female she doesn’t like, or is posted with one who gave her the stink eye or something. So she is capable physically but she’s so distracted by emotional things she is not as reliable if SHTF. Just calling it as I’ve seen it Reply Tim says: February 12, 2012 at 01:26 Or perhaps you have ulterior motives. I say nice things about my wife too. Reply Drew says: February 11, 2012 at 16:03 Read this: “Women are not allowed into combat for many reasons, an example is below, while they are being shot at and blown up, so weren’t many in WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, etc….it is the nature of the beast that a mortar, artillery, sniper, IED, etc..will get someone who it is not intended for. As for some info for the question- From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces dated November 15, 1992, it states in part: The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength. An Army study done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer fractures as men. Further, the Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony including: – women’s aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue. – in terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man. After a study was conducted at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, one expert testified that: – using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, the upper quintile (top 20%) of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile (bottom 20%) of men. – only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260. – on the push-up test, only 7% of women can meet a score of 60, while 78% of men exceed it. – adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70% of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only 3% would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge. Also, recent studies indicate women are more at risk to getting PTSD, as documented from Iraq and Afghanistan, women who were never in direct combat but whose camps were shelled were more likely to develop PTSD than there male counter-parts. In short, Women are in the Military Jobs they are in out of politics, not need, not due to merit but politics and quotas. A women can be just as brave as a man but that does me no good when she is hurt more easily, or I have to carry her load because it is to heavy or even worse, she is to weak to drag me back to the Hummer or Helo. Also, Urban Combat is very Physical and having had to have women with us to search female prisoners I can tell you that I have yet to meet a woman in the military who can perform a combat job as well as a man, that is in 18 years of being in a combat branch. Only a few countries have ever let women fight, the former USSR did so because they had no one else left really, the Israelis never did it and it is a common myth that they did. Sorry folks, it is not your “right” to endanger me or my platoon mates for your chance at a job and unlike the corporate world, if people fail in out area of work then people die, not lose money, shares, a bad quarter, etc…people die. Another myth, “Women can take more pain”, that is a falsehood spread a long time ago and was thought by Dr. Spock and he tried to relate it to the fact that women go thru giving birth, not based on anything else but good PR and being in some movie quotes and perpetuated by feminists. As for a lot of the posters, they crack me up-Air Force folks outside of PJs and CCTs have no room to argue, your bases are like hotels in country and your tours hardly count for combat. I salute your service but it does not constitute making you as having expertise on humping into a village and shooting someone. The majority of folks who go over and who are talking from sitting on FOBs the whole time they were in-country, that does not constitute “being in the s***” so to speak, you will also notice that a lot of the folks posting are people who have never been in the military and look at the idea of women in combat as a “concept” and as though it is an idea that should be tried, it should not, COMBAT IS NOT A SOCIAL RIGHT FOR ADVANCEMENT, PEOPLE GET KILLED IF THEY CANNOT PULL THERE WEIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! One final point-the reason you see that so many female officers are ok with women being in combat is that Officers know they have 4-6 years TOPS! of being in a line unit and of those, really, only about 4 years of real forward leadership in combat conditions, other than that they are in TOCs (Tactical Operation Centers) the whole time, so of course they are ok with it. An enlisted person could be in the front the whole time if he/she does not get above the rank of E7, and even then, if they are in certain units they are out in the field till they are E9’s. Female Off.” That’s why they aren’t allowed on the front lines. Reply Joe Grine says: February 11, 2012 at 16:57 BTW, the main reason to keep women out of combat zones is because horny bastards like me would want to F**k them. If you want to keep the “guys’ focused on work, you don’t want to dangle distractions in front of them. just not worth it. Reply Dirk Diggler says: February 11, 2012 at 19:36 or to keep horny guys from the other side from riding trains on our women. Reply xpo172 says: February 11, 2012 at 17:27 It’s not obvious? Reply Frank says: February 11, 2012 at 18:45 The whole promotion idea is bogus. My brother a Major in the Army has served under female generals and so forth. I know the same applies to the Marines. However, if women can meet the exact same physical standers as the men, then yes they should serve in front line units. But, there should be no women’s rules and mens rules as far as strength and conditioning goes, or shooting ability. Reply NCG says: February 11, 2012 at 19:51 If we’re going to continue this insane American empire project (which I am vehemently opposed to), we’re going to need more grist for the mill. The Vietnam fiasco ended the draft, so we’ve got to get the warm bodies somewhere. Gays are an option, but that’s maybe 10% of the population, probably a higher percentage in the Navy – okay, sorry, couldn’t help myself. I have never served, so I won’t presume to know what things are like, but I know that women are already very much in harm’s way. If that’s the case, they should get combat pay, promotions, medals, etc. I would also suggest that strength and stamina are not the only skills valuable in combat. Brains and leadership count for a lot. Many posts here suggest that women are “more emotional” than men, but this is not true, look it up. Women are every bit as rational or likely more so, and often perform better in stressful situations. Men are more likely to freak out and go medieval. Women are generally better at social interaction (important in a small social unit). I’m not advocating for a unit of female SEALS, but let’s get real here. I’d rather the military was drastically downsized to a defensive force, but that ain’t gonna happen. I recommend http://www.amazon.com/Love-Rifle-More-than-You/dp/0393060985 Especially for you, Aharon. Reply Aharon says: February 11, 2012 at 21:49 NCG, Try using logic, facts, examples, and reasoning to respond to my post and not your emotional politically-correct religion. You attack me rather than my ideas, opinions, statements, etc. You do, at times, emotionally behave very much like those you are seeking to defend without military experience or otherwise. Reply NCG says: February 12, 2012 at 00:34 Uhm, how have I attacked you? I recommended a book. I really liked the book, maybe you will, too. It’s written by a woman who served in Iraq, tells the story from her perspective. You can read it or not, and make of it what you will. For the record, I did look at the links to men’s rights sites that you posted, and I took them seriously. They didn’t speak to me, though I think some interesting points were made. I continue to be totally sceptical of the whole idea that somehow men are victims in society. I do find your views on women creepy. Sorry. I am truly making an effort to understand, but I will never agree with you. As for my “emotional politically-correct religion,” that does smack of the personal attack – I assume you’re implying that I’m like a woman, perhaps with a “mangina”. Fine, I’ll own it. I’ve got your mangina right here! I’m getting a lot of that here at TTAG (people making assumptions, never nice assumptions, about me based on my politics). We live in the same town, so we might as well try to disagree agreeably. I’m happy to debate you with “logic, facts, examples, and reasoning.” Meantime, Peace and Respect. Reply Aharon says: February 12, 2012 at 02:01 NCG, ‘Especially for me’? Yeah, I noted the sarcasm following your feel-good reasoning to support your position. Read her book? I only have at least 40+ on my reading list. You find my views creepy? Most modern liberals and progressives find the views of gun owners creepy as they do the gun owners themselves. Most progressives and socialist types are creepy as hell. Funny, I point out facts, stats, and events, etc focusing on how men are being screwed over in society and I focus not on women as a group but on modern womyn misusing modern society’s misandrist laws and men getting screwed over. I find your views naive at best. BTW, keep it in relevance to my criticism of feminist modern womyn. I don’t (again) criticize women as a group though of course it is funny how feminist do the same thing you did. You haven’t been using “logic, facts, examples, and reasoning.” The False Rape Society citing case after case (2,000+) of false allegations didn’t “speak to you?”. NCG says: February 13, 2012 at 00:16 Aharon, there was no sarcasm intended. I’m sure you have many books to read, as do I (but I keep reading paperback mysteries). We all benefit from different points of view. I listen to tons of right wing radio (Lars). I hold many views that I doubt you will ever buy into. That’s okay. As for false rape accusations…yes, it happens. Does that make every rape accusation false? In the military, women are generally discouraged from making rape accusations. It’s a career killer. What percentage of rape accusations in the military are false? Given that any woman who makes the accusation will be basically put on trial, it’s probably not that many. Seriously, Peace and Respect. I’m not looking for a fight with you, but I disagree. I’m going to go start that trigger job on my old 10/22. I own many guns, if that matters. frankgon4 says: February 12, 2012 at 02:18 I saw no vicious attack in your responses and no name calling. You provided your point of view. You did open the door to women being SEAL team members. Once you open the box, it is open. So are for or against women being an active part of SEAL teams? Your statement was not clear on this. Me, call me old fashioned. If a man and woman were in my squad, it would bother me more if the women took a bullet. Can’t explain why. So I guess that makes me more emotional as well. Tom says: February 11, 2012 at 20:06 Having a couple of Daughters, I would say that women are capable of more than a lot of macho males give them credit for. Women have good lower body strength; upper body strength not so much. Youngest Daughter is a Third Degree Blackbelt and gets to play with Deputy Sheriffs in hand to hand combat. Oldest Daughter kicked butt in self defense courses. I am not so sure about women for SEALS or Rangers, but they are more mission capable than most people give them credit for. Russian women snipers were deadly in WWII. Russian women pilots were very capable in WWII. Women Army Airforce ferry pilots mastered B-29 Superfortresses before many men did in WWII. Reply frankgon4 says: February 12, 2012 at 02:26 You need to be sure about how you feel on women being SEALs or Rangers. If you feel women in front line combat is okay, then how why not women as Marines or Rangers. Once you open the box….. Reply Mark Smith says: February 11, 2012 at 20:12 I think women should have an equal opportunity to serve to protect the freedoms they enjoy. Rights without responsibilities tends to lead to spoiled human beings. The physical demands of a soldier may be high, but Joe the Weightlifter doesn’t win the war. It only takes a few pounds of force to squeeze a trigger. The ‘they’re not as physically tough’ argument doesn’t hold water. War hasn’t been won or lost on the basis of physical strength since the gunpowder saw common military use. Citizenship isn’t free, nor should there be any ‘protected class’ that enjoys the benefits that others die for without having to every worry about doing so. Women are citizens and human beings first, and gendered one way or the other second. Any argument about ‘protecting women’ can have the words ‘protecting men’ substituted and make just as much sense, which is ‘none’. I’ve known plenty of women in my time who I would be proud to serve with, and I think they can contribute as much to winning any battle as men can given the chance. There’s far more to being a soldier than being physically tough, that’s probably one of the smallest components. Reply HSR47 says: February 12, 2012 at 02:19 The issue at hand though, is unique to women; It isn’t so much about protecting men or women, as it is about protecting children. The fact of the matter, is that no matter what you do, some portion of women deployed in the military will end up pregnant (or find out that they are) while they are deployed. The idea that it’s all about standards of physical fitness is a smokescreen; the main issue boils down to basic the basic biological function of reproduction — how do you prevent pregnancy in a remote God-forsaken hellhole without resorting to forced sterilization? At that point, the question really becomes “Which is worse?” Reply Mark Smith says: February 12, 2012 at 02:35 No one ever said those serving in the armed forces were the best and brightest. Or that they didn’t like to **** like rabbits. Someone dies, you don’t hear about protecting the children that have no father now very often, do you? That said, it’s hardly as if every woman out there will become pregnant while serving. Treat it like you would treat any other self-inflicted problem that caused a soldier to be unfit for combat. Reply frankgon4 says: February 12, 2012 at 02:23 You have to be able to get to the fight and in good enough condition to carry out the fight. Physical condition does play a part. Carry your food, water, ammo , Weapon, Tools, clothes, and other gear. There is much history in the last 300 years on men dying just from the road marches to get to a fight I can’t agree to lower any standards to let any group into combat. Reply Mark Smith says: February 12, 2012 at 02:30 I have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s rare that anyone dies these days enroute to whatever country of the week we’re fighting in. Some people die from IED’s without seeing a day’s worth of combat pay. Shit happens. Short of that, women are no worse than men when it comes to pulling the trigger or doing the million and one other logistical things that make a real war happen. Sure packs are getting heavier (I often wonder if people need half the shit they carry), but that’s your biggest complaint? Lowering standards? Seriously? Take a few minutes and think of something halfway decent for your next post. Reply John says: February 11, 2012 at 21:28 Suggest you read what Tom Kratman has to say on the subject. The Amazon’s Right Breast by Tom Kratman http://www.baen.com/amazonsrightbreast.asp Reply Aharon says: February 11, 2012 at 22:11 I am a graduate of the Army Airborne School which is the paratrooper training course. Shortly before I attended the program, the trainees where separated into separate male and female training groups. The women were given far less physical training (pt) than the men. The women were given longer and more frequent water breaks. Generally speaking, the Black Caps (trainers) were less harsh on the women and especially in grading them. The week before I began the training program a local news film crew came by and interviewed the women. According to the men who observed the incident, the women trainees told the news crew that they go through the same training the men do. BTW, the reason that the two sexes were separated from training together is that too many women were dropping out and failing the course. A Senator reportedly complained and the Army changed the program to accommodate the women. Reply Aharon says: February 11, 2012 at 22:17 I’ve caught a few mass media reports that women vets of Iraq are seeking post combat mental health care at a rate far higher than the men. It is an interesting grey area. Sometimes, transportation and other non-combat troops (to include women) ended up in fights or at least travel through an area where they can be in combat or hit a mine at any time. I wonder what would happen if they were in direct combat for extended periods of time. Reply Mark Smith says: February 12, 2012 at 02:40 Maybe women are just better at admitting when they’re ****ed up from what they’ve gone through. I know plenty of men that have clear and obvious issues that refuse to see anyone for any of that ‘counseling BS’ because admitting you have something that isn’t a physical wound that’s causing issues is ‘unmanly’. Some people seem to have absolutely no problems at all. I think a lot of it has to do with what sort of person they are before they enter the service. Some people aren’t mentally prepared or cut out for it. Some people think they are and they end up crying basket cases. It’s hard to tell which is which honestly. Reply bontai Joe says: February 12, 2012 at 01:46 Does anyone think the American public will accept female front line troops being captured and sexually tortured? I just don’t see that flying too far, especially if released on video on the Arab TV network. As to upper body strength, most women will not be able to carry gear loads that men carry on patrols so who carries their gear?, they won’t be able to throw grenades as far, They won’t have the same strength in hand to hand combat, so the male troops are going to have the additional burden placed on them to watch over their weaker “sisters in arms”. Yeah, women can shoot as well as men, but they simply lack the physical strength to do ALL the stuff that is required on the front lines. I suppose you all might know a couple of ladies that are 5′-10″ tall weigh 165 pounds of solid muscle and can kick butt, but realistically, that kind of woman is extremely rare. Reply Mark Smith says: February 12, 2012 at 02:42 Yet we’re just fine with male troops being captured, tortured and occasionally decapitated on film. Society is a funny thing, and every now and then, the way things happen to be isn’t the way they should be. If they can aim a mortar and pull a trigger, let ’em on the front lines. Reply bontai Joe says: February 12, 2012 at 13:40 Nope, I’m not fine with male troops being tortured either, just saying what would happen if “Suzie Combat” get’s captured and her torture is shown on Arab TV. Reply John F says: February 12, 2012 at 06:27 It’s important to understand just what “women on the front lines” means. First they’re not opening any of the combat arms military occupational specialties (MOS) to women. So we’re not talking about female infantrymen, tankers, scouts, or artillery forward observors or gun crew. What we’re talking about is allowing female medics, cooks, clerks, intel analysists etc to serve in formally excluded armor and infantry battalions. Guess what? They’re already doing that in a defacto manner. I was a tank battalion XO in Baghdad in 2003-2004. Females couldn’t be assisgned to my battalion, so my medics, cooks and truck drivers were all men. However when the Forward Support Battalion sent me my Evacuation Squad, they had two female medics. When my Engineer Company got a cook from the Engineer Battalion, the cook was female. When the interorgators came down from brigade to interrogate our prisoners, the terp and one of the interogators was female. This is hardly the end of the end of the world, it’s basically just official policy catching up to what we’ve been doing since the war started. Reply Vincent Flegeance says: February 12, 2012 at 14:43 I have not read everything above but let also think about when a women is on here period? How long have you guys been in the field without a bath?? I have worked in the office and I can smell when some women are on their period. I have also smelled some on the BUS in the morning, when they should be their freshest. How far away will the enemy be able to smell them on the front line. Not to mention some women get urinary track infections very easily. What happens when you have to walk through waste deep polluted water (swamp, lake river). Not Mention PMS???! Reply Write a Comment Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email.