Previous Post
Next Post

 Marines (courtesy

Women soldiers, guns, combat? Oorah! Or not. Not until 2015 anyway. The Defense Department’s released the U.S. military services’ and U.S. Special Operations Command’s plans for “implementing women into previously closed positions.” There’s a plan for every branch of America’s armed services: ArmyNavy, Air Force (page not found) and Marines. Oh and Special Operations Command. “The successful integration of women into currently closed positions requires the department to be thoughtful and deliberate in determining the next steps.  The department will proceed in a measured and responsible way to open positions to women. Full implementation by the services should occur by Jan. 1, 2016.” Yes, well, there’s some interesting language in them thar plans. The Army doc says  . . .

At any point, if we are no able to meet the guiding principles, we will ask for an exception to policy to close positions, units or occupations for women.

The Navy’s cool with women on submarines. Except the smaller ones (the subs not the women) as the “costs of appropriate berthing and privacy arrangements are prohibitive.” Babes with bullets are are banned (alliteration give me a break) from the positions of SEAL Officer, SEAL LDO, SEAL CWO, SEAL enlisted (SB, SO) (units engaged in Special Operations Forces missions).

The Marines? Ha! “Standards will not be artificially raised or lowered and will be aligned with occupational and operational requirements.” Their doc provides a helpful list of 32 positions closed to the fairer sex, including machine gunner and rifleman. The Big Decision comes in 2015, when the Corps tells Congress whether or not women should (will?) join the infantry.

SOCOM welcomes the change! They’re happy to comply, you know, after they submit a USSOCOM-approved list of occupational specialties and positions open to women (by April 2015). “Concurrently, if required, request an exception to policy.”

In short, the services are on board with the move to integrate women into more danger close jobs within the Armed Services—just not the positions for which women aren’t qualified. Physically. And not the ones where the services can’t provide adequate facilities. Or am I reading this wrong and this is just more lip service in the service?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Next up: The NFL will require at least two members of the offensive line to be wimmens.

  2. With all the stories going around about women in the armed forces being assaulted and raped, you’d think that someone would have gotten the message: girls who can’t defend themselves against the guy in the next barracks have no chance against the Taliban or any other enemy.

    Women in the infantry? Hah. All that does is supply enemy fighters with an endless supply of American women. I’ll bet insurgents all over the world are counting the days. Little US girls will make a refreshing change from their usual quota of quadrupeds.

    • any woman that can pack 130 pounds into COMBAT at elevations above 9000 feet should be free to do so

      • That won’t happen though. What will happen is they will dilute the standards so the females can pass. Here’s a real world example:

        Females can be MOS 77F (Fuel Handler). The military fuel truck in common use is the M978 HEMTT (Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck), which is a 10 ton 8×8 design. The tires are 4 feet high and weigh over 100lbs (I believe it may be as much as 150lbs). It is physically impossible for a female to change one of those tires in field conditions without assistance – but they still allow them into the MOS. Even thought they are incapable of performing a basic task.

        Which is exactly what will happen with the infantry.

        • Yup!
          As a Gulf-war era mech-infantryman, I made the dumb-ass private mistake of suggesting that Transport Support guys had cushy jobs. Nope – they worked harder than the Infantry and Tank Battalions they supported.
          And just like you said,men in these units were tasked with the physically demanding work of changing tires or moving stray 120mm tank rounds after a normal 12 hour day.

        • Most guys can’t, but I don’t know any women who can. And those guys who can’t shouldn’t be crewing that vehicle, either.

          I can tell you from personal observation, if you weigh less than 150lbs you do not have the body mass to break the torque on the lugs. Which is step one in getting the tire off the vehicle.

        • Tom,

          I am a former light infantryman and you made me laugh out loud. Not LOL. Actually laugh. Thank you.

    • Thank you Ralph. I’m a veteran and I’ve been saying for some time that until they can prove they can train females to handle themselves around their coworkers, they have no business in combat. I absolutely don’t blame the women for getting raped, but it certainly doesn’t demonstrate mastery of warrior skills.

      • As a former military combat vet, I say this is a bad idea. First can a woman carry 110 pound battle load. I had to be able to fast rope out of a black hawk in full battle rattle. Second is hygiene. There were times when we would go two weeks without any shower except a sponge type bath. Third, if I get hit can a woman carry me out of the fight being I’m 6’6″ and 245 lbs. Fourth is the overwhelming desire for men to save a woman who can’t be saved. This will turn nasty when a squad leader gets his team killed trying to keep a woman out of harms way.

        • To be fair, I know quite a few male Marines that would have a hard time carrying your 245lb backside plus your full battle rattle out of a firefight. They would try, but 350lbs of Marine in gear is not an easy thing to shift. I weighed 260lbs and almost cleared 400lbs with my combat load.

        • The obvious answer to all your points regarding physical requirements is that they should just accept any women volunteers who can pass all the same physical tests and exams as men. So if person X can “carry 110 pound battle load”, “fast rope out of a Black Hawk in full battle rattle” etc, they should be considered fit for service regardless of their gender.

        • No there is STILL no place for women in Combat Arms units Bde and below. I don’t care what they can/can’t do in garrison or the field.

    • It is highly instructive to read the history of Europe and Islam from about 700 to 1700.

      Muslims carried away thousands upon thousands of European women into their sex slave trade.

      • And an equal number of prepubescent boys from every area they passed thru. When they matured/used up the boys then forced to become Janissaries. Cannon fodder if had been cannon.


    • Actually, the abuse of women in uniform is likely in part due to a percieved us v. them sentiment fostered in most parts of the services.

      Women can fight, and well. It’s been proven overseas and in our own forces. F’rinstance, an all female MP unit was sent (unbeknownst to the senders) into what became he worst firefight in the invasion of Panama, and it was NASTY.

      They did the job, but they received no citation and not one award. Why? Because they weren’t a combat unit.

      If turkey can have a female president, Russia and Isreal female aces and infantry and our services female general officers, we can drop the “ya’ need a d¡ck” bit.

      They probably shouldn’t be deployed against fundamentalist Muslims, however. Or fundamentalist (woman, thou are the source of all evil!) Christians. Neither would respect the laws of war in relation to “lesser beings.”

      • Edit: If some sh¡head whose uniform SHOULD be an orange jumpsuit goes recreational on a guy, it’s typically the guy gets beaten senseless.

        With a gal, it’s rape – and maybe getting beaten senseless.

        There is no adequate defense from traitorous “comrades,” actually enemies, who sneak up from behind, hide in the shadows and engage in their cowardly operations with virtual impunity.

        Maybe the women should go about in pairs, with authorization to employ lethal force. The military would be the better for it.

        • Or maybe they should not be in harm’s way to begin with. There ain’t a lot of Amazon women in the service.

          Putting girls in bad situations and expecting good outcomes is insane.

        • Perhaps, but denying a capable citizen the right to serve?

          That’s no good, either.

          Many militaries have gotten past this. Frankly, predators who get their jollies by attacking their fellow soldiers are no better than the civilian disarmers. They weaken our nation, and they engage in tyrany.

          Women have much to offer. For starters, they eat less, have a better strength to weight ratio and generally make very good officers and noncoms because by and large they stay cool under fire.

          Also, the existing cadre – ironically, partially due to artificial barriers – is the best of the best.

          In the long run, we’ll be better for full integration, although the change will be painful.

          Hopefully the useless dross will get sh¡tcanned along the way.

          They have a right to fight the enemy. They also have a right to expect the enemy not to share their uniform.

          Bad situations? That’s for what they sign up.

          Let’s see how many guys can get beaten up and buggered by their “brothers in arms” without complaining?

        • denying a capable citizen the right to serve?

          I’m not suggesting that they be denied anything that they can actually do. Drone pilots, sure. Analysts, yes. Medical personnel, okay. Ground troops? Don’t make me laugh.

          Go ahead and feed them to the Taliban if you want to please the crackpots in NOW. I think it’s insane, but they’re the ones who are going to be raped.

        • Why do people think its a right to serve in the armed forces?

          A right to serve in a combat MOS?

          Please highlight these elusive “rights” and ill STFU

      • Sources? In my 14 years in the Army I have never heard of an all female MP Company. The only thing I can find is an article about CPT Linda Bray who did lead soldiers in combat in an MP unit. I have seen nothing to suggest that this was an all female unit.

      • Females are physiologically different than males. They are not just “dudes with boobs”.

        Females have less upper body strength than males. They have less carrying capacity.

        The ability to grab a wounded soldier by his body armor and move him out of the line of fire – without getting hit yourself because you can’t move fast carrying the weight – is non-negotiable.

        How many people are we willing to allow to die to prove this is a bad idea?

        • >> Females have less upper body strength than males. They have less carrying capacity.

          Statistically, on average, yes. But why should we preclude females who have more upper body strength than most males from serving? Just make them pass the same exact tests that males do.

        • Yes they should be excluded from Combat Arms. And the Army/USMC. Perhaps they Navy/AF can find something heavy for her to move.

      • CPT Bray did receive the Army Commendation Medal for Valor. She wouldn’t have been eligible for the Combat Infantry Badge because she was not an infantryman. This rule also applies to males who are not infantrymen.

        • Thank you for that.
          Although MP’s have a secondary MOS as infantryman, they are not considered as such consequently no CIB.

      • Russ,

        CPT Bray was the commander of the unit and the unit was in a pitched action with a small PDF garrison, but she was not leading from the front nor was she on scene. She conducted the unit by radio.

        As this was 1989 and the Combat Action Badge had not been established, she was not eligible. Also, she was not on scene and would not have been eligible under today’s standards.

        I am not trying to diminish her service. But she was not kicking in doors. And the MPs are NOT the infantry. I have been both.

      • “Women can fight, and well.”

        Umm, no, they cannot fight well.

        There is far more to it than what you imply. They need to be able to carry a heavy load, walk for miles, then fight for hours on end, and the work still is not done. They then have to clear the area, police gear and retun to base. Anyone who drops out needs an escort and all are at risk.

        Guys who are currently active have been telling me women in units cause serious morale problems. The open sexual relationships add significant tension and lead to rivalries. They add lots of needless drama that just gets in the way.

    • Oh no, no, no. That’s a really unnecessary, racist comment.

      I call you out on this crap.

      • Hmmm… Derogatory and culturally biased, perhaps, but not racist per se.

        Dehumanizing the enemy has a long and glorious history. It’s no different from calling someone a son of a b¡tch, really.

    • Yeah, and I bet that any couple of men in a Taliban unit would do a much better job of resisting rape by majority, too.

    • men are sexually assaulted in the armed forces as well. are you one of those blame the victim types?

      • Your issue is queer on queer? Isn’t that a lifestyle choice and Obama approved (advocated). Or is it genetic this week. Or nurture. I can’t keep up.

        UCMJ still criminalizes sodomy.

        • Leviticus aside, if a guy forces himself on another guy and it gets reported, the sh¡t hits the fan – especially if the victim is not into guys. They treat it appropriately – as. a violent crime against a fellow serviceman.

          If the victim is a woman, the prevailing attitude is boys will be boys and she’s a whiner. Also, her career is probably over.

          That needs to change.

  3. this is aimed at helping the Left for the 2014 elections. that’s all. and people need to point out all of the exceptions the DoD left out there too . . . .

  4. If they can do it, let em. There are tests and physical requirements for a reason, and I see no reason for barring anyone that passes them.

    • I agree completely. They shouldn’t lower the standards or ban women. Just give them the same tests as anyone else. As for they need to work out “privacy” that’s just BS. It’s the millitary not a clothing store.

        • Maybe the girls can all just be issued “double barreled shotguns” to cut down on weight.

          Then they can also use them as clubs to ward off all the frisky male warriors in their unit.

        • +1.
          I’m concerned about Special Ops. Few men can make it through SF Assessment or BUDS without voluntarily quitting.
          Double-speak, triple-standards, and a mountain of mumbo-jumbo regulations will be needed to get women to physically and mentally pass these arduous tests.

        • Ralph,

          The standards have already been lowered by introducing more in the military…

          The door to a meaner, leaner, more effective Army is closing fast.

          These shenanigans are just the breeze to close it shut faster.

    • It may be different now, but when I went through Air Force Basic 25 years ago, the females ran shorter distances and the confidence course had special “female only” obstacles that were both shorter and had cheater boards on them.

      • Nope, no different. That’s why we have all those pear shaped creatures skulking around the ranks.

      • And also keep in mind that in the Army the allowable body fat for a 17-20 yo female is 30%. This is higher than 40+ yo males are allowed.

        • B00bs and part of the hip structure are fatty tissue; they’re still required to be pretty damned lean.

          Pound for pound, they’re stronger, are better at surviving trauma and are more stable under fire.

          Or we could be like the Saudis and forbid ’em to drive.

    • One in 100,000 or 1,000,000, if that. But that is not the problem. The problem is the military will lower the standards until the minimum number of women pass the course. This will degrade our units’ combat capability significantly. Wishing otherwise won’t change the fact that the physically above average woman cannot compete physically with a fit, butbelow average, male. This is nothing but insanity.

      • >> But that is not the problem. The problem is the military will lower the standards until the minimum number of women pass the course.

        Then you should be opposed to that, and not to women serving in general. As it is, you come off as a guy saying “I’m not racist, but the problem with non-white people is …”

  5. Identity politics, gotta love ’em. Although @ralph, not all men can defend themselves against the man sitting next to then in the barracks.

    • The guys that can’t handle themselves either get tougher, suck it up or get processed out. The military isn’t an emotional support group; it’s about delivering overwhelming force against an enemy.

      • Except when the enemy shares ones uniform.

        The differences between a rapist in uniform and Nadal Hassan are fewer than the similarities.

  6. I think RF’s motivations are purely selfish, i.e., increase the population of physically fit women who are trained marks(wo)men.

  7. There’s no reason why the military can’t figure this out. Here are the steps:

    1) Exceptions for physical training testing will be altered for genders every bit as much as a battlefield makes exceptions. In other words, if bullets and bombs affect you the same way they affect everyone else, expect to run as fast and lift as much as everyone else doing the soldiering.

    2) Get over the sleeping arrangements shtick. If military personnel aren’t doing their duty, there’s a consequence for that. It’s the UCMJ. Regardless of who it is. If someone in the military is harassing or assaulting another military person, UCMJ. It’s not really that hard to figure out.

    3) A major problem is that the types in suits trying to win votes are under the impression that the military needs to soften standards and adapt to allow for females in these roles. That’s horseshit. Yes, it’s going to be a very rare woman that can handle these requirements for a given battle-ready role, regardless of branch. But they do exist, and if they’re so inclined, sign on the line, start training, pass that training, and carry the hell on.

    Once upon a time it was thought that including minorities in the same living quarters as white military personnel was too big a hurdle to overcome. Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and Seamen are expected to be disciplined and motivated. If all orders will go out the window because one or a few of them happens to have a vagina, how disciplined are they?

    Set the standards, enforce the standards. If the training is good, it shouldn’t matter if it’s a male, a female or a really smart alien orangutan wearing the uniform.

    • +1 This.

      Keep the standards as they are. If she can hack it, she can fight.

      If not, do something else. Not everyone is suited to infantry.

    • If all orders will go out the window because one or a few of them happens to have a vagina, how disciplined are they?

      Put thousands of healthy young men and women into an environment with no outlet for their, uh, energy, wait about six months and you’ll see. Consensual relations isn’t a matter of discipline. It’s a matter of being human.

      • I think he means orders to fix bayonets and charge, or to understand that no means no.

      • You realize that’s the same argument that islamic fundamentalists make for segregating women from society right? Men are helpless to control themselves when faced with poon?

    • Generally correct.

      However the UCMJ will have to be actually applied, rather than uniformed rapists of both service members and civilians getting a free pass – akin to high school football stars in small Midwestern towns.

      I look forward to this.

    • 1): Your position derailed by your first point. Women are actually BETTER qualified to survive severe wound trauma than men. They have to be able to survive childbirth.

      2) UCMJ. Yeah, they’ve been doing a fantastic job at THAT.

      “If the training is good” Well, THAT’S been exposed as an absurdity.

      • Um… You fail basic human physiology forever. Childbirth is a deliberately survivable process. (Otherwise we would not go far as a species.) Sure the basic pain threshold may be a bit higher, but muscle mass and cultural conditioning count for far more. Having seen men fight on with their face being held together with tape, I am woefully unimpressed by the “pain of childbirth”. We glorify female resistance to pain, but, in reality, I have yet to meet a woman who would wold deliberately keep fighting after suffering major trauma. The mental conditioning is simply not there.

    • Except Colby, that is not how the military thinks. They will lower standards until the minimum number of women pass. Look at the PT standards to see the huge difference.

    • Who long ago moved women to secondary roles.

      The US social engineers still yap about “Women in the IDF” and “USSR WWII”. Didn’t work and experiment abandoned.

  8. How does this help our nation win wars? That is the only question that matters. Would women in the ranks have helped us carry the day at Antietam? What about Tarawa? Would parachuting an 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions behind the beaches of Normandy with 50% of their ranks made up of 18-21 year old girls made the D-Day landing any safer?

    To me the thought of a tank “brewing” up with the crew inside or a burning B-17 falling out of the sky with no one getting out is horrid. The idea of the same thing happening with a crew of young girls is worse. It’s madness.

    • The strange thing being, women were probably MORE suited for those battles because it didn’t require as much physical fitness. the average WW2 soldier carried about 50 pounds of gear, civil war soldiers carried next to no gear, and current soldiers carry almost 100.

      • Erik, current soldiers carry a lot of gear. But for the most part they are vehicle mounted and supported. Choppers, Mraps, APC’s. Most infantry men these days do very little walking in comparison to the soldiers of past wars. The civil war soldiers probably carried about 40 pounds with them. But that was for a campaign that was mostly done on foot.

        Most of the women we have in America today are probably close to the average size of the civil war soldier.

        • They do foot patrols all the time in Afghanistan. The Taliban are in the mountains in areas that have poor trafficability. They’ve spent years fighting mechanized armies (first the Russians, then us) and they know better than to try to fight it out inside main gun range.

        • That’s funny, I seem to remember doing an awful lot of walking. But I’m not a chairborne ranger, so my experience may not be typical.

        • JWM,

          Wrong. Most areas in Afghanistan are inaccesible by vehicles and most be approached on foot. Also, to avoid easy targeting of vehicles by IEDs the most effective TTP has been to dismount and patrol on foot. In the higher elevations, foot patrols and living in outposts is the daily experience.

    • Your last paragraph has always been my primary reason for not supporting women in an infantry capacity. It’s also an issue that is almost never addressed.

      I have met my share of women that were physically capable of performing at the physical level required for infantry MOS’. Plenty of them would whoop the hell out of me.

      The elephant in the room is the fact that men are hardwired to protect women. Introducing women to combat will add a totally new dynamic for men on the battlefield. Violence tends to reduce people to a more instinctive level in the first place and when men are being distracted trying to keep the women from getting the shit shot out of them they’re having a harder time being objective. Failure to be objective is bad enough, but what happens to soldiers who also fail to do what their body and subconscious is telling them they NEED to do?

      Folks think PTSD is an issue now?

      • Point. I think we an adapt (and improvise or overcome?) but that’s an issue.

        However, it works for cops and the militaries of other nations.

        Hell, many sects of Judaism believe that God either will not or cannot hear women, that women praying is wasted time. Yet still they do well in the IDF, one of the toughest services the world has ever known.

        We can do this. We are that good.

        • You overcome a problem… If it was all no big thing, you wouldn’t have to “overcome.” You’re not only wrong, but you agreed with me unintentionally.

          And what exactly can we do? Take out an irregular force before a war takes a decade? Politicians making decisions for the military has nearly made us combat ineffective as is. It’s nonsensical to add more challenges to the situation.

        • It does not “work” for militaries of the world or cops for that matter.

          1.) No other military is deployed to combat like the US Military, say for the Israelis, who have limited women to auxiliary roles.

          2.) Any police officer can tell you a story about a female cop. Ive heard them all.

          To say that “it works” when those few militaries that do it do not see frequent deployments to combat zones is asinine.

          We dont need or want women in the infantry or SOF.

        • The problem I speak of overcoming is entrenched bias, not an inherent problem with female fighters.

      • Matt, We older guys were taught from a young age to protect women and treat them as the weaker sex. But hang around a modern American high school as I do, job required not lurking, and see the younger generation. It’s hard to tell the boys from the girls. I don’t think this generation has an “instinctive” drive to protect the fairer sex in them.

      • Uh I did a lot of dismount patrols and building sweeps down the lovely streets of Baghdad. You want bone wrenching agony try 16 to 24 hours straight on fire missions in body armor in 120 degree heat on 2 liters of water a day. There’s those that talk and those that have been there and paid our degree of hard knocks in blood, sweat and tears. WHERE MY SCOUTS AT!

      • So it’s a soldier’s immaturity that makes it a problem? Racial integration was no picnic in the army either.

    • gloomhoud, to me it is not madness, it is war. Civillians die in war, do i want them to, no. I think it would be madness for 18-21 year old Men AND Women falling out of the sky with no one getting out. Yet still, if they joined they know the consequences. i KNOW there are FEW woman whom can actually pass the tests and i think those ones should be allowed because they will conduct themselves appropiatley but adjusting all military starndards is absolutely bull. they need to woMAN up and get out there and prove themselves if they want it.

      just make it like starship troopers i say. +

    • Would parachuting an 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions behind the beaches of Normandy with 50% of their ranks made up of 18-21 year old girls made the D-Day landing any safer?

      Anything to distract the enemy . . . .

  9. Say hope it doesn’t come. Having women in close proximity as men in combat is not a good idea. Lowering standards for training so that women can join is very bad too. All the Obama PC crap going on in the service is making it impossible for women to be in combat w/o being offended and Obama court marshaling the officers in charge. Either tell women to suck it up and only have a very few pass infantry school and ignore mens issues or tell them to go away.

  10. I thought the whole point was to win, why would you discard aces to add tens to your hand?

  11. I, as a taxpayer, pay taxes and expect results when those taxes are spent in furtherance of public policy.

    What is putting women into combat roles going to do? Increase combat effectiveness? Nope. Cost more money? Yup. Cost more in VA benefits down the road? Huge yup.

    This is yet another boondoggle on the public dime.

    • Interesting approach to the argument, I approve.

      I’m all for equality right up until it makes bad business sense.

      • In the current and future financial situation for the US, it is the only argument that matters any more.

        We’re broke. Too many people don’t want to admit it. Adding women to the military won’t increase their effectiveness. Men are the unquestioned best on earth at killing people and breaking stuff. Have been forever. Adding women will do nothing but increase costs across the board.

        If you live in a major urban area in the US, look at Detroit. That’s your future if we don’t get spending under control, ASAP.

      • >> I’m all for equality right up until it makes bad business sense.

        So what you’re saying is that you would ban African-Americans from your establishment if they made a minority of your customers, and most of the rest of those customers were racist and didn’t want to shop in the same place with “negroes”? Like, say, somewhere in Alabama in 1950s?

        • Way to compare apples to oranges…

          First off, I was using the term “business sense” in reference to the Department of Defense which operates within (ideally) a set budget. Everything from ammunition to toilet paper to personnel has a cost attached. Using DG’s statement: “What is putting women into combat roles going to do? Increase combat effectiveness? Nope. Cost more money? Yup. Cost more in VA benefits down the road? Huge yup.”

          Integrating women into the infantry will cost a horrendous amount of money to begin with. When I was in basic training, our barracks had one set of toilets and showers. The cost of retrofitting/building new barracks for the women alone would be outrageous. That doesn’t say anything about casualty and injury rates of other soldiers performing their natural roles as males protecting females in dangerous environments.

          Like I said elsewhere in the comments section; men are hardwired to protect women. If they’re busy fussing over females around them in combat they are less able to focus on an objective, reducing their combat-efficiency, increasing their associated cost.

          Your hypothetical involves a free-market situation which, when left to its own devices, solves itself. And no, I wouldn’t institute a policy in my own establishment banning “negroes,” thanks for asking though. For some reason you felt it was necessary to suggest I was racist. I’ll go ahead and suggest you get bent.

    • Dyspeptic, you brought up a point that I addressed to my commanding officer and senators before I left active duty.

      Everybody likes to bring up the Soviet Union’s employment of women or the israelis.

      The trouble with this equivalency is that both countries found out it was a bad idea (physical limitations included), and stopped doing it, and it makes no sense for the US to do this because we are not desperate for manpower.

      Here’s something politicians in Rome…oooopsss, I mean, DC, dont seem to get:

      If a law doesnt work and does not increase the effectiveness of something, or limit a bad thing, then why waste the money to pass it???

      Quite frankly, this equal opportunity bull manure is going to get someone killed. Im glad im not still in, thats all i can say.

  12. It is politically-correct, leftist, feminism-driven madness, pure and simple. There is a reason why God gave men testicles and testosterone, and women estrogen and a uterus. There is also a reason why men have fought the wars for all of recorded history. Men are by nature, for a variety of physical and psychological reasons more suited to it, and introducing women into that situation destabilizes things immensely. Women’s emotions tend to be closer to the surface, therefore they tend to be less decisive, and to make decisions based on the pull of their emotions rather than cold logic derived from the facts of the situation. Men, furthermore, tend to pander to them, because unless you castrate a man, he’s always going to see any female past puberty and under 45 or so as a potential mate, and that dynamic would be very deleterious to a fighting unit. “Band of brothers” is a phrase which describes reality. “Band of sisters” is an absurdity.

  13. Prove yourself and I’ve got zero issues. I’m a vet and I know several women who can outperform me in several areas physically. There are of course exceptions, I’ve never known a woman who can perform more pushups than I can or who can carry the same weight as I can with a Rucksack.

    I’m sure these women are out there in the world, and if they join the service and meet all the physical standards for men in the closed positions then I’m all for integration. I do believe that Basic Training should in all events become fully gender segregated, which it currently is not.

    I just don’t see any of this stuff happening though. Congress is just going to shout down the military on the issue of women in combat units just like they did on getting rid of “don’t ask, don’t tell” standards will be lowered to comply with this quickly and we’ll be weaker for it.

  14. Another PC cravat destined to further hamstring our troops and s. f. capabilities. Next you’ll have some of our best male operators mustered out for “inappropriate” behavior in front of these GI Janes. Total bullshit.

  15. All the arguments I hear against women in the combat arms are nearly identical arguments to not mixing races in the army when it was still a segregated world. Guess what, the military will adapt. It’s what they do.

    An eye opening moment for me came at a family reunion many years ago. A family member had been at Pearl harbor when it was bombed, he had been 1 0f 3 there. He served with courage through some of the toughest battles the navy fought. He had 14 years in, including china gunboat duty when he left the navy and entered the civilian world.

    I asked him why? He was only a few years shy of retirement and he had given so much of his life and dedication to his country. His answer, and remember this was a man I had a great deal of respect for, was to use the N word and berate the intergration of the military. He wasn’t going to live and work with black men.

    Now we come to women in the combat arms. The ucmj and the military will adapt. Some throwbacks will not and it will be their loss.

    • JWM,

      Are you aware of the biological differences and social differences between race and gender? You do realize those are different words for a reason?

      Have you noticed that the Olympics still has held onto to this notion that male and female athletes are different (except in curling)?

      That you are related to a bigot is not germane to this conversation. The US military has lower physical standards for females. It does not have lower physical standards for different races. The lowered physical standards have never been contested. I have diligently searched for any news article or report that NOW has protested having lowered physical standards for women in the US military. The point I hope you can acknowledge is that past transgressions based on bigoted views of race should not effect this decision.

      • Sid. History is full of women in combat. Even in the days when firearms were unheard of. Women being weaker and needing protection is a Victorian Era construct that doesn’t bear up to historical scrutiny.

        Yes, there’s a difference between race and gender. But the uphill struggle of a person of color to be accepted as an equal and to have their rights in full is very much relevent to the struggle of women to have their rights in full.

        As a veteran I know full well that there are many people, regardless of race or gender that can’t make it in the military. It seems foolish to me to automatically discount a source of willing volunteers based simply on race or gender.

        Not all women who wish to serve in combat arms will be up to the job. But a lot of men aren’t either. But I have seen women beat a man in one on one fights. I’ve also seen women give birth.

        If it was up to men to have babies the species would have ended with Adam.

        • Holy crap. Where to start:

          Women being weaker and needing protection is a Victorian Era construct that doesn’t bear up to historical scrutiny.

          Women are weaker. Period. Full Stop.
          That is a fact, not a construct. War is NOT an Ivy League Crit-Lit Deconstruction exercise of Emily Bronte. It’s cold, hard, physical and mental stress in life/death/killing situations.

          If this goes forward, a soldier will DIE when their female comrade can’t load a 5th 120mm round.

          … the struggle of women to have their rights in full.
          Serving in the combat arms is not a right. There are physical requirements that ~90% of women willing to try will fail. When that happens, the quota-harpies of the left will destroy the standards.

          As a veteran…
          It seems foolish to me to automatically discount a source of willing volunteers based simply on race or gender.

          As a veteran, I’d appreciate you not insinuating that describing physical gender differences is equivalent to racism.
          Do so cheapens racism (which is vile), and makes you look (a bit) racist.

        • Hate, you completely ignored the part where I said that not all women are suited for combat arms. As not all men are. Comparing a womans struggle for equality to a person of colors struggle for equality makes me a racist, how?

          For much of human history women have had to pull their weight and then some. Or are modern women inferior, in your opinion, to the women that had to settle new lands. Or the women already on those lands that lived a tribal existence. Neither group had power machinery and they faced the same dangers and privations of the menfolk with the added bonus of childbirth without modern medicine.

          I’m in the 2a fight for one basic reason. It’s a fight for rights. All of our rights. We compare the 2a battle to the civil rights movement and it’s true. Rights aren’t just for men or white folks.

        • Comparing a womans struggle for equality to a person of colors struggle for equality makes me a racist, how?

          This is NOT a struggle for equality. It is a struggle for special treatment. Therefore, you cheapen the vileness of racism. Therefore, you are a (bit of a) racist.

        • Well hate, that’s your opinion. And you know what they say about opinions. Everyone’s got one. Moving on now.

        • Why do people think fighting in combat is a right?

          Why do people think the military is there to provide career opportunities?

          Why do people think were so desperate that we need women in combat MOS’s?

          Why dont people understand the physiological differences between men and women?

          Why do people think race and gender are mutually exclusive?

    • I know that the military will adapt, maybe even prosper. In the Civil War times, women used to travel behind the troops. Now they travel with the troops. It’s a major convenience.

    • “All the arguments I hear against women in the combat arms are nearly identical arguments to not mixing races in the army when it was still a segregated world.”

      Thats absurd.

      African Americans, Asians, Native-Americans, etc that were previously segregated have roughly equivalent stamina, muscle strength, and bone density as caucasian males.

      Females do not.

      Why do people think race and sex are equal variables?

    • Except a black man is not physically less capable than a white man. There are plenty of men who can give me a run for my money in physical ability. The women who can do so, are olympic level athletes.

      Pretending that 1 and 2 are equal does not make it so. No matter how much PC cool-aid you drink.

      When 10% of the female population can carry a 100lb combat load for weeks on end and carry my 260lb backside with at least 50lbs of battle rattle to a med-evac vehicle, I may be convinced. Until then, a female infantryman is a freak of nature, not an operational reality.

      • notice how he hasn’t said “we should let unfit men into the army” either. So you just make them pass the same tests. You can shout and holler all you want that someone let a girl into the tree house, but if she can perform, let her, if not, then don’t. It’s as simple as making sure the policy is well implemented.

        As someone who actually holds a degree in genetics, I’m tired of people talking out of their asses on what they THINK they know about human biology.

        • “You can shout and holler all you want that someone let a girl into the tree house, but if she can perform, let her, if not, then don’t.”

          You social engineers make think this is a game but it isn’t. Some us have witnessed the terrible consequences of the kinder, gentler army that has been castrated by political correctness, “fairness”, and feminism.

          You see, this is how it is: in a treehouse, nobodys life is at stake. The nation’s existence is not at stake. In the military? both are at stake.

          “It’s as simple as making sure the policy is well implemented.”

          Which is a problem since policies are already being violated across the board.

          You hold a degree in genetics?

          Then you must know there are blatant physiological differences between the two.

          Hell, wikipedia has even a decent article about the differences between men and women in regards to muscle strength, bone density, etc, etc.

          The problem is that apologists and social engineers think they can shape and bend reality like some sort of new age necromancer, scientific fact be damned.

        • And a degree in genetics qualifies you to comment on physical fitness and athletic medicine, how? There is a reason why the PFT standards are markedly lower for females. They simply can’t keep up with real physical training. There are always exceptions, but the idea that the average female Marine is qualified to have an 0311 MOS is a bad joke if not outright delusional.

    • jwm You may be a vet of something or other.

      I was exclusively an Infantry Officer. Your opinons, and that of others here, on what is required as a combat arms troop are just silly nonsense. Perhaps reading “The Soldier’s Load and the Mobility of a Nation” would help with the armchair warrior’s education. But I doubt it. Perhaps really have to hup a ruck and live in the dirt for a few weeks to get the point.

      I find I just don’t care what the non combat arms vet thinks about this issue. Any more than what the antigun wacko may think about magazine capacity. It is too important for dilitants and gadflies. The downside is too big.

      We used to say “Bet your bar Lt” well it’s time to see if any of the senior officers are warriors or political pansies. “Bet your Stars Gen” I know/worked for a couple guys now in the Lt/Mjr Gen pay grade. They were warriors and Company/Field Grade. Perhaps all are neutered in order to get that 1st star. I saddly think such may be the case. Its time for a few to stand up and be counted on this issue. I’m out but it’s still my Army and the actions to this crew of morons is destroying the best force in history and it is going to bite us ALL in the butt.

  16. If you think women aren’t in combat now, you should probably follow our recent conflicts a little more closely. They just can’t qualify for certain MOS’ because of their gender. This is dumb. Set the standards for the MOS’, who ever can meet them should be able to qualify for them. To suggest that someone shouldn’t be allowed to pursuit these positions because of their gender is just dumb. Equality of opportunity folks, its not rocket science

    • Wrong, they can’t qualify because of their “sex”. Sex is biological. Gender has to do with language and social roles.

    • The “set the standards and whoever can meet them should be able to qualify them” never works. Politics, claims of sexual discrimination, etc…always comes into play. That is why the military, police, fire departments, etc…always lower the standards for women. Women also are at a severe hygiene disadvantage. How does it work when the soldiers have to check each other’s private parts for ticks? Or go without bathing for a month? Women are susceptible to all sorts of nasty conditions that aren’t an issue for men in the field.

      • To suggest this has been poorly done in the past, goes without saying, but you can’t exclude women from combat positions just because. These positions are important for anyone that wants to make a career of the military and their exclusions from combat positions are completely BS. Woman are exposed to combat in their current positions. Plus, other countries are able to pull it off. Now I’m no expert on womens hygene, but they have successfuly lived in the wild for almost all of human history so I’m sure th

        • (I should never write these things on my ipad – continued) they could pull off modern combat. I think someone wisely said that infantry isn’t for everyone and that is certainly true, but if a woman can qualify, I think it would be wrong to exclude her based soley on her gender

        • 1.) no country has been able to “pull it off”. No other country is involved in the global chessboard like the American military. None.

          2.) The military is a institution designed to fight wars and repel foreign invasions, not cater to careerists and give equal opportunity. Anybody that thinks this needs a mindset check.

          3.) Women arent banned “just because”. They are banned because a gal cannot reload the 40-50 lb 120mm shells in a M1 abrams as fast as a man, nor load a 155mm HE in a howitzer as fast. Or patrol with 100-150 plus pounds of gear like a man. I could go on and on.

        • >> no country has been able to “pull it off”.

          Go tell that to 2 million Soviet women who served and died for their country in WW2.

        • “Go tell that to 2 million Soviet women who served and died for their country in WW2.”

          yeah, when the Soviet Union was first invaded and was in the cusp of mobilizing their eastern reserves to reinforce the west.

          It was a act of desperation that did nothing to increase the effectiveness of the Soviet Army, and was only a stopgap to put bodies behind rifles.

          Those female partisans and auxiliary troops also did not march westward and burn Berlin. The feminists leave that inconvenient part of history out of their agenda.

          Also, you do realize how insidious Soviet propaganda was. No doubt there were a few gals that did good things for their country, and even earned the Order of Lenin, but were they blown out of proportion for propaganda? yes of course.

        • >> It was a act of desperation that did nothing to increase the effectiveness of the Soviet Army, and was only a stopgap to put bodies behind rifles.

          Do you know the total count of kills racked up by Soviet female snipers in WW2?

          >> Those female partisans and auxiliary troops also did not march westward and burn Berlin.

          There were undoubtedly partisans and auxiliary troops that were female, but most conscripted females fought on the front lines alongside men. And yes, they did march westward and burn Berlin. My ex-wive’s grandmother was one of them, and she has plenty of stories to tell.

          >> Also, you do realize how insidious Soviet propaganda was. No doubt there were a few gals that did good things for their country, and even earned the Order of Lenin, but were they blown out of proportion for propaganda? yes of course.

          The simple way we Russians know it’s not just propaganda is because we still celebrate the Soviet V-Day (May 9) prominently every year, and part of that celebration involves getting as many living veterans of that war as possible to come to schools and other places and to tell their stories to children so that they remember. So I’ve seen a lot of faces of people who fought in that war, and many of them were women – probably about 1 in 5.

        • “Do you know the total count of kills racked up by Soviet female snipers in WW2?”

          Im aware of the stories about Lyudmila Pavlichenko. No doubt she was a good hand with a Mosin. The Soviet propaganda machine has no credibility however.

          “There were undoubtedly partisans and auxiliary troops that were female, but most conscripted females fought on the front lines alongside men. ”

          Most females did not fight in the front lines. Very, very few did and a even smaller number even served in tanks (one which was a tank commander)

          Certainly not a majority in the infantry. As field doctors and physicians, yes. As snipers, yes (albeit few in number). In AAA? yes (although not heavy artillery or mortars). As aviators? definitely (a role they were well suited for).

          Infantry and shock troops? definitely not. There is a reason for this.

          Im not underplaying the role of women in the Soviet Army. Im saying that it is not a equivalent to the situation that faces the United States today.

          There was Soviet propaganda during World War II just like there was American propaganda.

          No doubt a lot of gals fought in that war. It was a necessity for national survival against a insidious enemy that was winning during the early phases.

          The United States faces no such invader and has no reason to reduce the effectiveness of individual infantry units or SOF.

          thats my 2 cents. rant over.

        • Soviet female snipers don’t count. That is a job requiring skill, not raw physical capability. Show me an all-female infantry unit that marches ten or fifteen miles, then goes up against one of the elite German infantry units, and you’ll more have a viable example. The average woman cannot go and march with 130 lbs of gear. That is why we have separate standards for male and female police, firefighters, high school, collegiate, professional, and Olympic sports, and the current military.

    • “If you think women aren’t in combat now, you should probably follow our recent conflicts a little more closely”

      There is a difference between patrolling with a light infantry unit and patrolling with a SECFOR unit inside of a armored vehicle. Huge difference.

      The females attached to SOF and US Marine units was blown way out of proportion to the media, who ate it up thinking it was the best thing since canned tomatoes.

      The reality on the ground was much, much different. God, i wish I could give TTAG a story that would make the vets on here rip their hair out. LOL.

      • Dead is dead, captured is captured. The women currently serving in the military are in combat, they just can’t get the combat MOS’. I’m sure that you have stories of this done wrong. The question is, could we do it right and we can. Hold everyone accountable to the same standards. Provide equality of opportunity.

  17. The best option would be to bring all of our troops home. Reduce the Army to a training cadre and replace it with a Swiss style militia. Keep the Navy and 2 divisions of Marines to deal with evacuating Americans from trouble spots. Use the Air Force to protect our borders. Put America first and leave the rest of the world the hell alone.

    • And revert to Clipper ships, Zepplins and turn off your electonics. If we collapse socially or economically and you may get it.

  18. Went through the first rotation of MPs at Ft. Gordon that included females. Went to our anti-discrimination sensitivity training session. Tried to sleep, as I knew nothing would be solved or changed. A 6′ Amazon stood up and proclaimed, “We can do anything you can do, and better!” And maybe she could. Big, strong, tough blonde. Bigger than most of the male troops, no lie.

    I was marching the troops back to the barracks. Maybe a couple three miles. Suddenly I heard a strident voice from the formation shouting, “Slow this formation dooown! You’ve got women in here!” Yep, Ms. Amazon.

    Oh, and the WAC who was going on to Airborne school, doing knee pushups for punishment. Recovering and yelling, “Airborne!”

    And that was my experience my whole tour. Treat us equally, until it becomes inconvenient.

    Had a solo guard detail on about 160 acres of scavenged M60s. Boring, security guard stuff for an eight hour shift. Not hard or strenuous. But universally loathed. The women, “We can’t do this! We’re not trained for it!” Went through the same training I had, lady. Don’t remember that block on tank guarding myself. But if I can, you can.

    Same thing in the PD. Buddy’s 6′ blonde Amazon wife broke the gender barrier at the local Sheriff’s department. ‘Nother, big, athletic, tough woman. Thought she might actually be good at it. Till her first act as a newly minted deputy was to begin to agitate and threaten to be put on the day shift serving warrants and running errands instead of chasing felons on mids with all the other new hires, because she was a woman.

    Total equal opportunity or special treatment. Pick one.

    I’m all for women doing anything of which they are capable. Love strong women. But they ain’t shown me much in law enforcement, which ain’t combat.

    • Ya know, there probably ARE a few hard core chicks who would be fine infantrymen. With static standards, they’d make up 1% of the force.
      But given the culture of double and triple standards, that 1% would get swamped when 10 times as many start screaming for their ‘rights’ and ‘entitlements’.

      I was marching the troops back to the barracks. Maybe a couple three miles. Suddenly I heard a strident voice from the formation shouting, “Slow this formation dooown! You’ve got women in here!” Yep, Ms. Amazon.

      Nothing beats humping a pack to develop & reveal physical and mental strength. I wonder: Have there been studies that show the percentages of men/women who, after X-weeks of hard physical training, can hump a Y-lbs pack Z-miles?

    • “Oh, and the WAC who was going on to Airborne school, doing knee pushups for punishment. Recovering and yelling, “Airborne!””

      That makes me sick to my stomach.

      what a disgrace.

  19. The problem with this is that they probably will not force the women to adhere to the same standards as the men because they will then fail all of the women. This is what happened with the NY Fire Department. The women sued when they failed the course and the judge forced the Fire Department to create a separate set of standards.

    Women can’t do everything men can. There is not a minor size and strength difference between men and women, there’s a large one. Yes, there are a very few women who could probably meet the standard, but the vast majority will fail it. If they reduce the standards then they will ruin the schools such as Ranger School.

    In the 18-24 year-old age range for the Army PFT (Physical Fitness Test), maxing the female portion of the PT test is the MINIMUM for men that age to pass. For the Marine Corps PFT, men do pullups. Women do not do pullups at all, instead they do a flexed-arm hang.

  20. Not only am I vehemently opposed to women in all combat MOS’s, emphasizing special operations and light infantry, but Im also a proponent of further restricting the jobs available overall to female soldiers.

    In my near two decades in the active duty Army, I have seen nothing but bad things come from the politically correct, social experiment agenda of opening more doors for women in the military. Standards are lowered (yes, get over it, its a well established fact), unit indiscipline and malfeasance increases, and sexual assaults rise.

    I have NOT encountered any gal, even body building crossfitters that can outrun me in gym shorts and tennis shoes, that can ruck march as far as myself or my squad could or with the quantity of weight. End of story. And I have seen thousands of female soldiers, sailors, marines, and.

    Everybody likes to talk about the black swans (Lyudmila Mykhailivna Pavlichenko), blow them out of proportion, exaggerate what they did, and think that somehow all females have the same capability. They dont. It is a matter of evolution and the limits of bone and muscle density.

    There is no reason to field women in combat MOS’s. No increase in effectiveness, no decrease in overall cost (Dyspeptic is preaching what ive been crying about for nearly two decades), no man power shortages that would warrant a need for women to be integrated into the infantry.

    The only end result I see is a lot of young men AND women getting needlessly killed and egregiously wounded…all because washington wants to play social experimenter and politically correct puppet master. If you think were we had a problem winning wars before, you just wait.

    • If a woman wants to serve, matches all the physical requirements (on par with males), and passes all the tests, who are you to tell her she still can’t serve just because she doesn’t have a dick?

      You sound exactly like a gun grabber here. Women don’t need a “reason to serve”. Their desire and their ability to do so is all the reason they need.

      • 1.) The difference between the 2nd amendment and serving in the military is that one is a right and the other is a privilege. It is a privilege to serve in the armed forces. it was a f^cking privilege to go Airborne. However, neither one are rights. What part of that dont you understand?

        2.) If a woman is a rare specimen and meets those requirements (I have never seen one and ive encountered thousands of gals in the military), there are literally tens of thousands of men that meet those same requirements. These men will have more dense skeletal structures, even higher physical stamina and strength, and faster run times. Who do you think im going to pick?

        3.) You can whine and cry all you want, but people refuse to admit that women are inferior to some roles just like men are inferior to some roles.

        This feminist, new age, “fairness” society we live in has brainwashed us to think that everyone is the same. Well, sorry cupcake, they arent. Some are stronger. Some are smarter. Some have weaker musculoskeletal structures. That is the way nature created us.

        I have seen the standards for women lowered to accomodate diversity in the military. So have others. This shit has to stop yesterday.

      • That may work in a perfect world, but in reality what happens is most women fail to meet the standards, a few cry sexual discrimination, and so either separate set of standards is created or the entire set of standards is reduced. This is what happened with the NY Fire Department and with Army Airborne School (where most women are unable to do the “required” one pullup (actually a chinup) to pass—but they push them through anyway because otherwise most women would still fail Airborne School).

        As for this bit about the Soviet female snipers, a few things:

        1) The Soviet Union was also sending children out to fight because they were running so low on people

        2) Females can make fine snipers when all they have to do is go out and lie in wait and shoot. The average infantry soldier today has a combat load of 130 lbs. Most women who are not overweight do not even weigh that much.

        Show me an all-female infantry platoon that parachuted in, marched fifteen miles, then went head-to-head with one of the elite German infantry units and kicked their butts (as some of the American units did), and one will have a more viable example of female soldiers.

  21. As for the argument that women being weaker is some old Victorian construct, then tell me, what would you think of a man who, upon hearing a criminal break into the home, sent his wife to deal with the situation while he hid with the kids in the closet? If some guy is talking smack in a bar and you slap him hard and knock him off the chair, well that’s one thing. But if it’s a woman, you think that is going to go over well for you? When’s the last time anyone heard of a man who gets beaten up by his abusive girlfriend (and I don’t mean the cases where the man lets the woman do it, I mean where he is unable to defend himself)?

    There is a large size and strength differential between men and women. I am skinny right now, 5’10 and 144 lbs. But yet, that would be borderline Amazon for a woman, if you have a 5;10 tall woman who weights 144 lbs. And I am the strongest woman I know, and one of the tallest. But I am nothing special as a man. And that is why police, fire, high school, college, professional, and Olympic-level sports, and the current military, has to have separate physical standards for women.

    If it would work where there’d be no politics, where if women wanted to try for the SEALs or Rangers and if they could meet the standards, then they could do it, well fine, but in reality, that isn’t how it will work.

    • You hit the nail on the head.

      For every elusive white unicorn amazon that can truly do the job and meet all the requirements, there are literally tens and thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of men that can do the job too and meet the same requirements, plus tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) that can do backflips over the requirement bar set by the amazon.

      To me, there is no incentive whatsoever to include women, who on average, will not meet the bar set by that same amazon. Maybe if 90% of your males 18-21 were killed by the Nazis and you needed bodies behind Mosin Nagants such as was the case of the Soviet Union. We are not in those circumstances.

      It is reckless and stupid.

      • There’s no incentive whatsoever to exclude women who fit the standards. You can all wax poetic here about how women are “innately weaker” and all that, but if a particular woman can kick your average Marine’s ass, and wants to serve, denying her that solely on the grounds of her gender is sexism plain and simple, and there’s no reasonable excuse for that.

        • In a perfect world, no, but in the real world, there is a reasonable excuse, which is that those few women who could “kick the average Marine’s ass” are very few in number, and the reality that will happen is what happens everywhere else this is tried, where the standards are reduced because the vast majority of women can’t meet them, and you end up either ruining the force or school overall, OR you end up with women trying to serve who are not qualified, which can then get themselves, and their comrades killed.

        • Or you end up with not reducing the standard.

          My point is that you guys should stick to your guns on that, instead of saying that “any women in the service are a disaster” etc. Then you won’t come off sounding like a bunch of racists from 60s do today.

        • “There’s no incentive whatsoever to exclude women who fit the standards.”

          yes there are

          1.) Increased VA costs associated with increased injury rates (women do not have the musculoskeletal density men have)

          2.) Accommodations for females will be most costly and time consuming

          3.) there are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of able bodied males that are bigger, faster, stronger, more aggressive, and have sufficient bone density to withstand the rigors of a infantryman’s payload and combat patrols.

          There is nothing “racist” or “sexist” about it. That is the reality of evolution. Talk to mother nature about why this is the case.

          Combat is not about equal opportunity or fighting fair.

          Sometimes I wonder if any among the feminist band wagon have any neurons rubbing together.

          “Then you won’t come off sounding like a bunch of racists from 60s do today.”

          Racism and sexism in our common society (which violates civil rights) versus the limitations of women in the combat environment are two completely different animals. Stop trying to equate the two. They have nothing in common.

          Can you please start applying common sense to your position?

  22. Those poor guys in combat arms are going to get lots of false rape allegations made so their female unit members can get out of combat arms when they get bored or scared.

  23. How can any man support sending women into combat? Any who do are merely “males” and not men. And anyone who asks what is the difference stands as the perfect example of those who are pushing this monstrous agenda. Women in combat should be unthinkable. Truly a sign of cultural decay.

  24. What point is RF trying to make? Are you advocating for women in combat or do you think women should not be allowed to fill certain jobs? More importantly, what the hell does someone who has never worn the uniform know?

    My two cents… Nope… No way… Why change something if it’s not broken? I’m not talking about the military’s way of handling sexual assaults. I’m talking about how the American military is a dominating force on the battlefield; at least until the politicians come in and start limiting what they can do with restrictive ROE’s. I love how people love to point out the IDF as a success story for women in combat. There is a huge cultural difference in Israel. When you are a tiny nation surrounded on all sides by people that want to take “their” land back and wipe you off the face of the earth; than you need everyone carrying a gun.

    If Congress and the American people make this a mandatory requirement than I feel at a minimum this should happen. All women should be required to sign up for the draft. Women should be held to the exact same physical standards as men; no gender-norming, no special treatment, no second chances. You make the cut or you don’t.

    FLAME DELETED. Please ping [email protected] to discuss.

    • And free speech is stamped out once again. Don’t like the answers you get or your critics? Just label them as a “flame” and delete. Way to encourage open discussion and debate.

      Stand up for your rights, voice your opinion, but don’t disagree with RF.

  25. Then answer me this question.

    Who will be replacing the male soldiers in the future?

    From what I see people out here in the “real world” aren’t having babies!
    If they do I see a disproportion of them girls. To me people would rather raise
    girls than boys. So this country is becoming more and more matriarchal.
    Who will eventually try out for the Ranger or SF tab?

Comments are closed.