Why Women Should Not Be Allowed In Combat
March 21st, 2005 | Published in Culture, Politics | 136 Comments
Update 1/13/09: I’m amazed people are still finding and commenting on this. So for the record, I’d like to say I now disagree with this post. While I agree that some women are weaker than men and it has certain disadvantages, I believe women should be given the equal right to be in combat and defend their country, as long as they can pass the same standards as men.
* * *
[The following has been adapted from Robert Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, pp. 218-223]
The two main arguments feminists advance for women to be allowed in combat are:
- Putting women in combat is crucial to women’s self-esteem and to men’s respect for women. (That has never been true in the past and it is impossible to see why it should be true now.)
- Combat roles are important to military advancement.
There are also significant arguments against putting women in combat as well—arguments that are far weightier than the above ones. However, in our culture the rights of women are increasingly put above the importance of human life (this can be seen most horribly in abortion). Therefore, feminists may shake off these arguments with their illogic and emotional fury by stating that their right to be in combat outweighs the damage they do to military readiness and fighting strength. However, the arguments must still be put forth:
- The inevitable result is that training standards are lowered, and then the facts are then ferociously denied. This has already resulted in one pilot death (Navy Lieutenant Kara Hultgreen) [I am sure more have resulted, as this book written in 1995]. Also, David Horowitz offers specifics:
- “Gender norming” is now the rule—women are measured against other women, rather than against men who outperform them.
- Even though West Point officially says there have been no negative effects from the admission of women, the sworn courtroom testimony of a West Point official says that women cannot perform nearly as well as men and that the men’s training program has, for that reason, been downgraded. For example, men are no longer required to run carrying heavy weapons because women are unable to do that.
- Even if a man is willing to lead women in combat, even the thought that it might not be suitable is sufficient to end your career. This happened with Lt. Commander Kenneth Carkhuff who was recommended for early promotion due to his “unlimited potential … destined for command and beyond,” but after a private conversation with his superior officer that his religious views made him doubtful about putting women in combat, though those views also required him to lead women into combat if ordered to by his superiors, he was discharged.
- Due to such threats as the above, career officers do not speak about the performance of women in combat positions, because to do so puts them at great risk of discharge—especially if they mention anything regarding women not performing as well as the men. This is an extremely dangerous policy and will result in the loss of lives and possibly wars.
- In physical fitness tests, very few women could do even one pull-up, so the Air Force Academy gave credit for the amount of time they could hang on the bar. Female cadets averaged almost four times as many visits to the medical clinic as male cadets. At West Point, the female cadets’ injury rate in field training was fourteen times that of men, and 61 percent of women failed the complete physical test, compared to 4.8 percent of men. During Army basic training, women broke down in tears, particularly on the rifle range.
- The pregnancy problem. Navy ships have had to be recalled from missions because of the pregnancy of female sailors. A male and a female sailor on the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, both married to others, videotaped themselves having sex in a remote part of the ship. There had been thirty-eight pregnancies since the crew went aboard the Eisenhower, fourteen of them after the ship was deployed. Only someone who has never been with troops could not anticipate this result or fail to realize that it will be a major problem forever. The troops in question are very young, at an age when their hormones are, to put it mildly, fiercely insistent.
- Effects on morale can be particularly adverse. The presence of women among male troops weakens combat readiness. All-male units in the field experience bonding that enhances unit cohesion and effectiveness. When women are introduced, men stop relating to each other and begin trying to attract the women. Men can quickly become on less-than-friendly terms with a mini-war over a woman. Nor can morale be improved when accusations of harassment are always a threat. An accusation of sexual harassment by the woman, even if unproven, would severally damage the man’s service career, and both the man and the woman are acutely aware of the fact.
- The Israelis, Soviets, and Germans, when in desperate need of front-line troops, placed women in combat, but later barred them. Male troops forgot their tactical objectives in order to protect the women from harm of capture, knowing what the enemy would do to the female prisoners of war. This made combat units less effective and exposed the men to even greater risks.
Our military seems quite aware of such dangers, but, because of the feminists, it would be politically dangerous to respond as the Israelis did by taking women out of harm’s way. Instead, the American solution is to try to stifle the natural reactions of men. The Air Force, for example, established a mock prisoner of war camp to desensitize male recruits so they won’t react like men when women prisoners scream under torture. There is a considerable anomaly here. The military is training men to be more sensitive to women in order to prevent sexual harassment and also training men to be insensitive to women being raped and sodomized or screaming under torture. It is impossible to believe the both efforts can succeed simultaneously.
Therefore, it is clear that mindless feminist ideology is inflicting enormous damage on the readiness and fighting capability of the armed forces of the United States. Every other career is open to women. There is no reason why access to combat roles, for which they are not suited, has to be open as well. But political intimidation by radical feminists is so powerful that there seems little prospect that the continuing feminization of the U.S. military can be reversed. At least not until some engagements are lost, or won at unacceptably high costs, and women and the men who tried to protect them being coming back in great numbers in body bags.
March 24th, 2005 at 7:55 am (#)
Politcal pressure by radical feminists? You mean, women can vote now? (Kidding!) I think that the threat to American security by feminism is highly overestimated: better to worry about our troops facing American-made weaponry at the hands of former allies, or the threat to morale by corner-cutting military contractors, higher-paid “private security forces” (cough*mercenaries*cough) in their midst, hyperextended deployments, diminished medical care for the wounded, backdoor drafts of IRR troops, lowering of physical/medical/academic standards to meet recruitment goals…
Honestly, you point your finger at men more often than women for exacerbating the problem, and most of your issues seem to be the caused by an extreme gender imbalance rather than anything inherent to women — but the hammer falls on women as a group nonetheless. I have a question: would it be acceptable to you if there were all-female divisions in the military, rather than mixing them? And if the female troops proved more effective in combat, would you advocate for banning men from combat positions? I ask, because it seems that you are projecting “natural roles” upon different genders, and in doing so, forgiving men for the having the same indiscretions you curse women for displaying.
March 24th, 2005 at 11:33 am (#)
I would not want an all-female division. Females do not prove more effective in combat–but, of course, if the evidence was different then some of Bork’s arguments would be incorrect.
Personally, however, I would argue based on the biblical view of men and women, and that the men should be protecting the family and the women should be talking care of the children/family while the man is away.
March 24th, 2005 at 8:00 pm (#)
When mixed together, both men and women “prove” ineffective in combat. Men have been proven alone, while women haven’t — there is no “proof” until there is a “test.” I suspect they would operate in a radically different way — but who’s to say who would be more effective at fighting others and keeping fellow soldiers alive?
Since your post wasn’t just channeling Bork, but rather stating your own opinion, it seems our arguments are two ships passing in the night… I think we need very little “biblical view” in the way the American military is run.
April 12th, 2005 at 10:28 pm (#)
“Personally, however, I would argue based on the biblical view of men and women, and that the men should be protecting the family and the women should be talking care of the children/family while the man is away.”
Seperation of Church and State applies to the military as well. So take your personal views and mute them. Not all agree with the “biblical view”, because if im correct, that for christians, not the land.
All i can see is a inferiority complex, i mean common, men do not nessisarily perform better than women, and to say as such, is just unbased and biased. Since there has been more men in the military over its life span, and the natural biased of some of its officers and head officials, its no wonder the statistics stand as they should. So instead of making such a ‘to do’ out of women in the military, maybe you should go on this logic: “If she can cut it, she is in” just like we do with the boys. Hey, im sure women can figure out how to fire a gun, probably alot better than you can make a point. So in simation, Women SHOULD NOT be treated differently, nor should anyone. Give each the same chance, regardless of race/sex/religion. If you keep that kind of additude about women, YOU might be at home cleaning, for a lack of a caring woman to be nice and do it for you.
April 28th, 2005 at 11:14 am (#)
“i mean common, men do not nessisarily perform better than women, and to say as such, is just unbased and biased. ”
No it’s not. Look at any physical tests of both men and women. On average, the man will significantly outperform the women.
May 3rd, 2005 at 11:09 am (#)
“On average, the man will significantly outperform the women.”
the key word is average. the military should allow the few women (and there will always be a few who preform overagverage, just as some men will preform underaverage) who can meet the standards have the opportunity to protect the country if they wish.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:36 pm (#)
Women must be allowed to serve in military combat!!! We have equal rights to men. This article should not say some of the things it does. Women can be just as good as men. WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SERVE IN MILITARY COMBAT!!!
February 6th, 2006 at 3:00 pm (#)
I think it is quite clear that MOST women cannot perform as well as men. Did you even read the article most women could not even do one pullup… In some ways I agree with Lauren in that if a woman can meet the same standards that the men are required to meet (without the standards being lowered) then she should be allowed to defend her country if she chooses. Furthermore if a division of women can outpreform a division of men then yes men should not be allowed in the military. However i think we can all agree that physically the majority of women just cannot compete with the men and as such it would be highly unlikely that a division of women could in fact outpreform a divison of men. Ultimately since male divisions are more effective than female divisions, male divisions are more effective without female members, and female members are less effective than male members I see no reason why females should be allowed in the military. If an able bodied male was a disruption to the division and causes more harm than good he would be let go in a similiar fassion though not necessarily her fault a female who can meet the male standards unfortunantely does more harm than good and thus should not be allowed.
February 7th, 2006 at 12:14 pm (#)
I think if we want to go into combat, we should. We have every right to go. We know the risks of fighting in combat. Some get raped or violated. They know that it is a possibility. We are in the military to fight for our country. We will take every risk to make that happen. God bless every woman in the military!!!
March 4th, 2006 at 2:18 am (#)
Hey Rian nicole. 65,000 stand-up commedians out of a job, and here you a feminst is trying be one. The military is not a right ,but a privilige to serv. the military is not obligated to give you a job.
The good lord created man the way he did, and the woman they way he did. There is no changing about it. Women are not suited for combat. other countiries have attempted it, and found they had to abort from it because they saw they were losing the stinkin war. bottom line. History just repeats it self with this issue.
March 4th, 2006 at 11:59 pm (#)
I am getting ready to do a speech about this so i have read many different aspects. I think that women should be allowed in combat in the want to be and are able to do everything that is required. I read on this site that most women could not even do a pull up but on another site i have been to said that 75% of 41 women were able to do everything that a man cold do
March 5th, 2006 at 9:53 pm (#)
I am writing a paper on this subject and have found this thread very helpful. Thanks to all that have contributed! Personally, I think that the military is working well the way that it is set up now. In that women are allowed, just not in special forces, direct combat, ect. I am not a traditionalist by anyone’s standards, but in this case I believe there is no question. As John Walsh said, serving in the military is not a right but a privelage, as are most professions. I do think however that a few select all-women squads should be tested, because, contrary to what I have read here, in Israel I have heard that thier “special forces” are all women platoons due to the debatable fact the women in general are better at multi-tasking and therefore make better fighter pilots as has been shown here in America. As far as the relevance to this topic is concerned, I’m not exactly sure…
April 15th, 2006 at 10:15 pm (#)
Im doing a speech on this and i would like to also say thankyou for putting your opinions i go to highschool and we test every person in the gym class on physical fitness and i have not seen one girl not able to do at least on pulll up. that fact is clearly untrue. I believe that there should be a test and if women can pass they should be able to be in it. obveously the women that tryed to be in and couldnt do a pull up werent trained and werent prepared im a 16 year old girl that doesnt work out and weighs 130 i can do 8 pull ups when told its all a matter of drive and they should be looking for those women who have that drive not shunning them all out and not giving any a chance.
April 23rd, 2006 at 11:03 pm (#)
I’m doing a required project for my highschool. If i do not pass i will not graduate. I chose “women in combat” for my topic. I am in the delayed entry program for the United States Mairne Corps. I will serve my country and do so proudly, and along the sides of my fellow Marines… including women. Women can handle it, if they want it. I believe that if the standards are raised in boot camp to what the men have to endure that women are more than welcome to give it a shot in my book. As far as crying on the gun range or not doing a pull-up, train until you can handle it. And if you can’t then you’re out, just as the men do if they can’t take it.Thank you. Semper Fidelis.
April 25th, 2006 at 6:20 pm (#)
You can take an ordinary man and make a soldier of him, but you have to have an extraordinary woman to be a soldier
its obvious that school girls can do 10 pushups. but can a 130lb woman or even a 160lb woman carry a 245lb man a mile? oh yeah…by the way she has to defend both of them at the same time..people get hurt…you have to carry fellow troops long distances. most women cant. that simple, its not about who has what “RIGHTS” its about who can meet the physical standards. most women cant and its sad to say that most men cant nowadays but hey guess what? men train hard and long for the chance to go to the military….you think we should fill his spot with a woman who thinks she has the “RIGHT” to go?
April 27th, 2006 at 8:30 pm (#)
“its about who can meet the physical standards. most women cant and its sad to say that most men cant nowadays but hey guess what? men train hard and long for the chance to go to the military….you think we should fill his spot with a woman who thinks she has the “RIGHT†to go?”
She DOES have the right to go, and who says that the military is so full that they will just replace an able-bodied man with a woman? Why couldn’t they take both? I’m not saying that the military should just let in any silly girl because she thinks it will be fun, no. I think that if a woman can meet all of the same standards as a man then she should be allowed to fight. So if women want to fight in combat then they’ll just have to work harder and earn it. “Most” can’t, but what about the ones who can? Why turn down someone who is willing and able to fight and risk their life for our country?
Anyway, in these times of war, combat consists of mainly strategizing, bombing, and shooting- and it doesn’t take incredible strength to fire a gun. Skill, yes, and a level head, but these things can be learned. And yeah, people get hurt, but a woman will be able to handle it if she is physically trained to, right? If they can make it through the same training, then the same rights should apply. And who cares about the ones who can’t- because they won’t make it, will they?
Let’s give the ones who can a chance.
May 19th, 2006 at 6:02 pm (#)
i do believe that women should be allowed in combat. We live in america and anyone in this country should be allowed to do whatever they set their minds to. If i wanted to fight in combat and serve my country i should be able to. Why should the women stay home and take care of the children and men get to go out and be the hero. The equal rights amendment to the constituion stated that everyone has equal rights including gender has not yet been passed and i think we should improve this and strong able women should be allowed in combat!!!
June 3rd, 2006 at 6:10 pm (#)
To me, women are their own person with their own opinions. Who are other to say that they can’t join the combat. Women arn’t stupid. They know what thay are getting themselves into. If they want to join the combat then they should be able to whether one agrees with it or not.
June 26th, 2006 at 11:54 am (#)
I just got in a ”debate” with my friend about this issue. I wish I would have read this prior to the instance…
“Most” women may not be able to keep up, but for the ones WHO CAN, why should be deny them the right!???
As for the men being worried about protecting the women with extra care… that’s on the man’s will power. DON’T blame women for that.
June 26th, 2006 at 2:43 pm (#)
i agree with lauren there are a few women who can meet the standards and those women should be allowed to protect their country if they so desire. David also has point as far as the men protecting the women, thats on the mans willpower. oh and by the way not all women are emotional basket cases, and some of us acually enjoy shootting. About the pull-up thing if you cant do it than train till you can and if its to hard than out you go, just like the men who cant. i think that some men dont want women in combat because they are afraid that they just might shown up by a women.
June 26th, 2006 at 9:37 pm (#)
I think women should be allowed in combat; however, I am a big fan of seperated both sexes in combat and special forces. I think mixing both sexes might cause too much weakness. If we seperate both sexes, we might achieve something better and more effective?
July 19th, 2006 at 9:39 am (#)
Agreed.A single sex combat team will likely be more effective than a co-ed. Reasons being stated by Bork, the sexual attraction thing, mainly. However, even if the women underperform the men in terms of physical strength as the main reason,there are ways to counter this. Perhaps lighter weapons or equipment? Besides,it seems to me that bork is basing his views on the ‘natural’ roles of me and women.If the women can withstand the training, and coose to join the army, why not? They can be utilised in battle, and depending on the other sex all the time is rather inferior to us women, i feel. I mean, would you want to rely on others all the time knowing u can’t serve the nation and let others do so? So give women a chance in combat) ‘Skill, yes, and a level head, but these things can be learned. And yeah, people get hurt, but a woman will be able to handle it if she is physically trained to, right? If they can make it through the same training, then the same rights should apply. ‘So yeah, it ultimately depends on the women. ROAR!!
November 1st, 2006 at 12:59 pm (#)
There seems to be a common reoccurance of this argument that most women do not perform as well as men in physical tests.
I would like to ask you a question: Why do you believe these differences occur?
Think about this: There ARE women out there that become just as physically capable as men, correct?
This means that the biological tools women need to perform physically are there. So, why do most women choose not to use these tools?
The answer is simple: Sexist and biased gender roles, which are created by this type of view that ‘women are weaker.’
This fact that most women are outperformed physically by men is perpetuated by this sexist mindset you are advocating. Right now, there is a social mindset that women should not become physically strong, and that is the very reason why most women are outperformed, NOT because of a biological difference.
Allowing women in combat will begin to break down these gender roles in society, making it more common for women to be physically capable, therefore adding skill to our military.
November 7th, 2006 at 9:49 pm (#)
Ok, here we go… I’m a female in the Army and i outperform most guys. I almost max the APFT (Army Physical Fitness Test) on guy’s scale. I run 1300 min 2 miles, i do 59 pushups in two min, and 99sit ups in two min… I can also do about 5 pull ups. I’m currently training to get better/stronger. I attended Airborne school and i earned my wings being one of the few females that actually made it though the training. I can run with 30, 40, 50lb of equipment longer and faster than many guys in my battalion.
However, i do not think women should be allowed to serve in combat. IT will create unwanted pressures among the males and might lead to unwanted sexual relationships. Also, men and women communicate differently and in mostly male team it would create communication gaps/misunderstandings… etc. IT does not take away from women’s rights, nor does it take away our liberties. Those women that are fighting for this right, are they they ones who will go to combat? Are they the ones that can hack the same intensity men can? What about natural physical differences between men and women? Just because men do it doesn’t mean women should want to do it as well….
November 15th, 2006 at 2:42 pm (#)
Women shoud be allowed to be in combat they have a better state of mind and figuer ot thing out things faster than men!
November 30th, 2006 at 4:25 pm (#)
I am 13 and I do swim team. I am in alot better shape than alot of women that try to join the army. I think it is quite sad that most women can only do 1 pull up. I don’t think the bar should be lowered for women. We can be tough! If women want to join the army then they should pass the men’s standards and not wimp out because “they are pysically weaker.” I don’t see why women should not be allowed to be in military combat positions if they can pass the physicall test. We have the right to serve our country!
November 30th, 2006 at 10:14 pm (#)
My friend and I are doing a debate on “Women should not be allowed to fight in combat.” I am also going against my boyfriend, which is really hard. We have a few good reasons as to why they shouldn’t 1:Sexual Harassment 2: Women are easily persuaded 3: Men or naturally more strong and physically fight. Please does anyone have any other good reasons?
December 6th, 2006 at 10:19 pm (#)
my friend and i are also doing a debate on why “women should not be in combat” and we think that another good reason why women should not be allowed in combat is that the military lowered the standers on the qualifications and preformence level that women had to meet in order to join, it is not logical to say that if we don’t let women in, that it is not equal rights, because the standerdes are not eqal. and who said someone has the right to fight in combat? even men don’t make the cut. fighting in combat is a priveledge to protect our country. (key word for all you feminist is “priveledge” not “right”)Also, i dont know this for a fact, but don’t you think that if there was a small squat team sent in agianst the ememy of only 5 people, and four of them were women, that if the 20 other men they were giong up against would have a far greater advantage than if it were five men? not to say that five men agaist 20 would win, but it would not be as easy a victory. lets say that they capture the one man with the four other women, and five men atack each women. lets also say the take them away and rape and beat them on camera to show to the one man held hostage. if i were a man i would be more prone to give up information if it were women they were hurting, rather than men. just think about it. and feel free to respond.
January 16th, 2007 at 1:53 am (#)
Now while this is sligtly off topic.
If men and women are created equal and women can produce the same physical qualities as men. Then why not have mixed olympics?
Why have mens and womens, these ppl would be the elite of the elite in the physical sense.
So why are they not mixed?
Do women produce the same times for the 100M sprint, swimming, weight lifting as men?
My point is that we make exceptions so that its fair for women to compete whether it be the olymics or training for the mititary.
Can this really be denied?
With regard to a mans willpower in his need to protect women. It is also society who puts this pressure on a man.
Peace
January 31st, 2007 at 9:18 pm (#)
Women should be able to fight for their country if they want. If a women can meet the physical standards, then why shouldnt they be able to honor their country and stand beside the men that are trying to do so as well. Men aren’t born with a 6 pack and big biceps. They have to work for their strenght. Women are able to do the same. Yes, many women wouldnt meet the physical standards, but that is because its not something they want to do. Not every women wants to run out and fight, but the ones that do should have the opportunity. This is not an all men country. There are women and men. So women and men should have the same options.
February 2nd, 2007 at 3:31 pm (#)
As long as women are able to make the physical standards that are required, then they should be allowed to be in the military. Women are just as capable as men.
February 19th, 2007 at 11:56 am (#)
I don’t know a whole lot about war and womens rights to being in war. But from what I’ve been reading and what’s been said I personally think that a women’s place is where her heart and God guides her. If it is in the military then God guide her and may St. Michael protect her. I have been thinking about joining the military, but I know that in the future I wnat to have kids and who am I to prevent life from happening who is any one to prevent that? I am not a feminist, but I do believe that women have right to do what their heart desires them to do in a postive way. Don’t let that be misleading there are some things women can not do, but I think that the fact of the matter is that men under estimate the strenght of a women. Yes God made men to be stronger then women so they can protect the females, but the world today and socity have changed that now men are not polite or considerate to a women now a days it’s hard to find a decent man who will actually treat a women the way she was meant to be treated. I think that is part of the reason why women think that they can do just as much as men because, not to blame it all on the men, We have all forgot what it is to true love as a friend and as a person God created, we’ve thrown common curtsey out the window and have started treating people like crap. I do have say some women think they can do it all, they so by thinking they can be in combat with the others they think their invinceable. A woman was created to keep the man company, to be fertile and multiply. As said in the First book of the BiBle Genius. so I am not joining the military to do just that to keep the man company and take care of our children while still fulfilling my other dreams. Sorry if this goes on a tangin.
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:48 pm (#)
The military is privilege
What about situations in which there is a “Draft” is the military a privilege then?
I don’t want to take part in this debate because I’ll start typing and won’t stop, but I had to comment on that military privilege commment. And I am patriotic.
March 20th, 2007 at 7:04 pm (#)
All of these femenists need to just shut up. If women can do anything men can do (and I’m not pushing Men over women I’m just trying to prove a point) why don’t we have mixed professional sports teams or olympic sporting events? Why are men competing against men and women against women? I mean even college sports are separated. This talk of women in combat is so dumb. Women should be allowed in the military but not combat for PROVEN reasons.
March 25th, 2007 at 11:39 pm (#)
There is a difference between a feminist and a self-confident female. I am a female in the military, I am physically fit and do outperform 90% of the men in my squadron. I AM treated differently, I HAVE heard every lame pick-up line there is, I AM more intelligent, and quicker on my feet than most and yet I am incapable of performing the same tasks as these boneheads? I think NOT–I can carry a 230lb man over a mile. Am I still incapable….oh did I mention I do look like a female and I work with other females who are capable of the same and still maintain their sexuality ( Not manly women)? No, I am not the average female, but I am looked at like a belowar female just based on gender and it is bulls*it! There are men out there overweight, sexual predators, overall worthless men that get the jobs over me. WHY? Because I am fragile woman? Say that to my face and see who wins. It is ok to make assumptions but don’t put down the people who are actually out there protecting your freedom. Your freedom to say women shouldn’t be in combat, think about that. Get to know someone in the position you are so against and I bet you will think differently
March 26th, 2007 at 8:27 pm (#)
Wow, Ladies. Not doing much to help your own cause here. Several of your arguments seem to be along the lines of ‘We have the right to fight, so let us in!’ Try having a at least a vague or general idea of what you’re talking about here. Here goes me trying to solve at least one of the issues raised by Bork. THE STRENGTH ISSUE:
Ah yes, the strength issue. It seems to get dredges up every time someone brings up the women in combat line. It happens to be one of the few valid points I think can be made against women in combat. Men are stronger than women. So says the world, so it must be true. But if I may quote from the following link:
“The strongest men are stronger than the strongest women, and the weakest women are always weaker than the weakest men, but in between are legions of men and women who are strength equals.” This would explain the separation of the Olympics, the ’strongest’ men and women. I personally have younger twin siblings, a boy and a girl, and from personal experience (this is the lament of a mercilessly tortured older sibling) , I can assure you that they are strength equals. If anything, Katie is stronger. Also, studies do indicate that, if trained correctly, women can shorten or close their physical gap with men. According to stats, weight training can increase your strength by 72% during the first four weeks, regardless of age or gender. Also, current technologies are gender neutral. So women carry lighter guns. As far as I’m concerned, If you get hit in the head with a bullet, your probably still gonna die. However, until war fare moves completely into the realm of virtual reality, or until geneticists create super-humans, I agree that physical strength is still important in combat. However, when is the last time you heard of a soldier having to do pull-ups in the front lines? Also, the thing about the lady pilot, Navy Lieutenant Kara Hultgreen. This is taken directly from Robert Bork’s texts, yet it is no in here. Hultgreen believed that there should only be one standard, and was forced into combat by political pressures, and her death is not one to be used against women in combat, as she herself did not want to enter into combat unless she passed the same standards as the males. I would go on more, but I am already taking up too much space. Hopefully, this has cleared up, at least partially, at least one issue on women in combat. My personal view is that yes, women should be allowed in combat, but they would have to pass the same standards as men. (Of course, this is only one of the many points that have to be resolved.)
May 18th, 2007 at 10:30 am (#)
” legions of men and women who are strength equals”? That’s ridiculous! On the the n.y. city police dept. physical, men have to bench press 92% of their body weight. Women have to bench press only 53% of their body weight. Can we have some honesty please? The difference in strength is huge. Put political correctness to sleep. If any of you fems out there want to put this to a test, let mew know. We can go to any high school, pick males and females at random and see how they compare physically. All bets taken! Please dare.
July 27th, 2007 at 1:42 pm (#)
Why can’t we just have it so that men can’t join the military if women are so distracting? Makes no sense, right? Well, it seems here that it’s the men that can’t control themselves. The women shouldn’t be banned just because the men in the military can’t handle working or being around women on the job. I can understand if the women aren’t in enough physical shape for a position, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to join that certain spot. The standards are made by men, so how do we know that the women won’t do an excellent job on the battle field or the ship just because they couldn’t do enough pull ups? It’s actually really rediculous to ban women. How dare you say there are plenty of more jobs out there for women? Every job should be able to hire a female or a male. Feminists go out of their way and sometimes act out of line (from your point of view) because they are so outraged at the ignorance still going around. They have had it, and personally so have I. I have no intention to join any forces, but I know women who do and these bounderies have to be taken care of. I hope you understand where I’m coming from and that there needs to be equal rights for every job.
August 13th, 2007 at 8:10 pm (#)
The majority of the responses of Bork’s argument seem to be by folks who have NEVER had any kind of military experience. I am an Army ROTC Cadet attending Capital University. I’m gonna make this straight to the point! There are many responses here saying things like “Women Can Be Equal!!!” Well listen to me as a man who has experience in a REAL military environment. I do not disagree with the fact that women have the potential to be as strong or stronger then men. However, I have never seen a woman in the Army who demonstrate that the have the ability to handle or exceed the amount of physical activity that a man can. Not a spec of evidence that a woman can do the same things period! The reason: physiology. If God or mother nature wanted women and men to be the same then we would all have TESTOSTERONE, and none of us would have ESTROGEN. There are also psychological differences between the sexes that allow men to cope better in extreme environments, the kind of environments where people are cut to ribbons in blink of an eye. I’m a psychology Major so I do have some credentials in this aspect of the dispute, but thats a different topic. Its just nature, deal with it. Men and women should use the advantages to the max. thats why we are different to dive life’s workload so that men do what they do best, just as do women. Woman have advantages that men don’t, mostly psychologically and intellectually.
November 20th, 2007 at 12:55 pm (#)
I strictly believe women shouldn’t be allowed in the military, if they’re not up to the same qualifications as men then they should stay the hell out.
It’s like art… if your not up to the specifications then don’t do it, and even some guys are out of shape in the service, they need to get out too… anyway ladies are great otherwise… lazy guys piss me off.
November 20th, 2007 at 12:59 pm (#)
one more thing… i do a military boot camp, and i smoked both women and men in the service… im 16 ok, my physical abilities were much higher on weights, cardio, and strength training… not one of them even came close to competing.
December 16th, 2007 at 5:28 pm (#)
The feminists claim combat service is a “right.” Nonsense.
A battlefield is not a boardroom, a courtroom or an operating room. WOMEN DO NOT HAVE A “RIGHT” TO SERVE. Military service for volunteers is a privilege; for draftees, it is a duty. No one has a “right” to serve, a civilian idea equivalent to having the “right” to be a doctor or lawyer that has no place in the military, whose principal purpose is to kill the enemy and destroy his capacity to fight.
I was married to a Marine that had women in his squadron. The only thing those women did was make the squadron weaker and cause problems aboard ship. My husband’s unit was assigned to an Air Craft Carrier and he was an ordnanceman. The women in the Ordnance shop could not lift the bombs they had to load on the F/A-18s. They did not learn or know the things they needed to, to succesfully load ordnance on the aircraft without the help of the men – how is that advantageous to ANY military unit.
Women can be in the military, BUT THEY HAVE NO PLACE IN COMBAT ZONES.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:21 pm (#)
i am also like many doin a project on this topic… im doin mine for my term paper in english class… i think that women should do what they want… women might be smaller and have some strength disadvantages but women are just as capable as men to do anything they put there minds to…
women should be allowed to do anything they want in the military…in america we are suppose to have equal rights no matter the race sex or anything else that might make us different…so why can men do things in the military that women are not allowed to do? doesnt seem right to me… but my opinion…
but if i do think that women have every right to do whatever men do… thats why we live in america and have the rights we do… and thats why women want to be in the military to keep america how we are now…
December 21st, 2007 at 5:15 pm (#)
Here’s one last thing about the strength issue…
In general, men ARE stronger than women. I’m sorry ladies, but it’s the truth and you know it. Out on the front lines, we’re talking about life and death situations, and all of your “I got the right to fight” just ain’t gonna fly. I’m all for equal rights between men and women, seeing as I am a female, and I plan on going into the military some day. But sorry, I just don’t give a damn about our so-called “right to fight” if it endangers my life, and more importantly, the lives of my fellow soldiers. If I can’t hold up my own end out in the field, than I am a risk to the entire group. Ladies, remember that it’s not just YOUR life that your gambling with out there, but your squad members as well. Are you prepared to risk other peoples lives for the sake of your egos? How many of you actually plan on entering the military? How many of you are trying to allow women on the front lines so you yourself can actually go out there and fight on them? Ladies, if you’re just trying to right some “sexist injustice” that you feel has happened, and haven’t actually looked into the reasons of WHY things are the way they are, and you don’t actually plan on going out to fight on those front lines that you’re do adamant about being restricted from, than you have no place saying a word. If you’re the incredible hulkette, and can pass the strength requirements for men, if you aren’t a liability to your fellow soldiers, if you CAN hold your end up, then I have no problem with you being on the front lines. But don’t go crying foul play just ’cause boys and girls are built different. This isn’t some chauvanist rule, it’s there to keep our soldiers alive, and I know everybody wants as many of our boys as is possible to come home safe. There are enough dangers out there already without making it so they can’t rely on a fellow soldier to do what needs to be done. Of course, I’m only 14. I’ve never actually seen military combat. I’ve never lived in a war zone, or seen what’s needed to survive out there. I’ve posted comments here before, and then went out and did more research, changed my mind a bit, and this is what I’ve come up with. If any of you disagree with what I’ve said, and can prove me wrong, than I’ll change my mind. But I just don’t think commando Barbie’s gonna be able to do the job right. So, ladies, if you can pass the strength requirements needed for men, and do the job right and just as well, than go for it. If not, than stay out and shut up.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:12 am (#)
I’m doing this topic as a research project as many people might be doing. I honestly think that women should be allowed in combat situations only if they can handle the situation and that they meet the physical requirement that have to be met. I’m a 17 year old high school student and I plan on joining the army and I’m going to be a linguist and I also want to be able to fight in combat situations. I think that I’ll be able to handle the situation and the physical standards. I also agree that this isn’t a right, this is a privilege that can be taken away, but if women can meet the physical requirements, they should be allowed. I read that men also abandon their mission in combat to protect women that might get captured, I think that men need to mind their own business and stick to the mission. But my moto is: THOSE WHO BREAK THE RULES ARE CALLED TRASH, BUT THOSE THAT ABANDON THEIR FRIENDS ARE EVEN WORSE THAN TRASH. I know that what I just put in the sentence before that last one goes against my moto, but they need to stay out of a womans business. I also think that even if some women can out perform men, that women shouldn’t have to do less because they can’t do a pull-up, they should train until they can do that pull-up. I train every day and I’m getting close to my goal of 5 pull-ups, man they are evil. I personally am a master at blades, I can throw them and always hit the mark. I think that women should train themselves before thinking of entering the military in any branch, because there will always be a great need in the physical strength of women and men together. I agree on the separation of men and women in squads, this’ll keep men not worrying about the women and keep to their mission or what ever they have to do. Us women that want to be in combat also know what we’re getting ourselves in and we’ll always take that risk if we need to. But those that can’t handle the situation need to not join in the first place.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:16 pm (#)
I personally think that if a women is able and willing, she should be allowed in combat. However, females should be forced to meet the same requirements as men or shouldn’t be allowed into the military at all. It is true that most men ARE stronger than women, both physically and emotionally, but there are those few cases where women can meet the standards. So, all I have to say is: If you’re tough and comitted, go for it. If not, don’t waste America’s time.
Thank you. God bless America and the USMC
February 10th, 2008 at 6:28 pm (#)
Someone show me how the inclusion of women in combat or combat related roles has improved our military effectiveness and I will re-think my position that it has not. Do we all agree that military effectiveness is the most important issue?
February 17th, 2008 at 3:21 pm (#)
How sad that we’re even discussing these issues. No decent person should ever want to see a woman die in combat. No one should ever want to see children losing their mothers this way. End of story, the rest is intellectual BS. Woman propagate life, that makes them more precious-that’s why women were first given the life boats on the Titanic. This is why men protecting women makes sense, not the other way around. Wow, chivalry really is dead. Where are the real men on this blog making the chivalry argument? Who gives a crap about all this strength training debate?
February 23rd, 2008 at 6:40 pm (#)
Francesca, the reason why us men don’t use the chivalry tactic is because there’s nothing that ticks off a feminist more than the idea that men are supposed to protect women (and that takes away from the current issue). I agree with you, I open doors/pull out chairs/carry things for women, but the reason most men do not is the result of the feminist outcry. That being said, what so many of you fail to realize is that we are talking about matters of life and death, not something that should be discussed casually with salary/job opportunities. I’ve heard many times that women should be allowed to fight if they want to… well not if it risks the lives of many other soilders. Your beliefs on men and women do not merit putting our troops’ lives at risk. I’ve also heard, if women pass the same standards as men they should be allowed to fight… this is ignoring much of the information in this article. Did you all miss the part about the risks of women in combat outside the physical strength issue? Bottom line is that men will react differently if women are in combat with them. Many of you say that this is the men’s fault, and you’re right, but does that make it any less true? We live in an imperfect world, and no matter what men SHOULD do, they WILL act in a way that jeopordizes the troops. Like I said, this is a matter of life and death we’re talking about, and you have to be a realist in this regard, whether it’s the men’s fault or not… that’s what’s going to happen. That’s why they’re denied the right if they meet the same qualifications. What many of the feminist posts I’ve read seem to not understand is that women ARE allowed in the military, they are not banned or excluded from this as a career option. There’s just one thing they aren’t allowed in, and studies done by people much smarter than you or I deteremined this as the safest method. Another thing no one seemed to comment on was the pregnancy issue… a VERY compelling argument in my opion. You can’t just pick and choose the issues you want to address so it makes your case sound better.
I want to personally thank each and every man and woman in the military who is defending my right to voice my opinion. God bless every single one of you.
February 23rd, 2008 at 6:49 pm (#)
I would also like to add that I don’t see an good argument against an all-female division. An all-female division would negate many of the reasons why women aren’t allowed in combat, and there is a good argument out there please let me know. Of course this would have to be tested to see if it was effective before I would support the idea, but in theory it seems to melike it would work just fine.
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:59 am (#)
Women should be barred from military combat units because women lack the strength and endurance needed for combat duty.
March 2nd, 2008 at 8:55 pm (#)
First, let me say that I am in the military and do have experience with female soldiers. In my experiences, training is significantly degraded by the presence of female soldiers because of the strength issue. The current battlefield is not full of robots and satellites. Instead, it is the infantryman kicking in a door to search a building that is the norm. Strength plays a huge issue still on the battlefield. Weapon systems are HEAVY. Lighter weapons for females are less effective weapons. Soldiers routinely have to carry loads of up to 75 lbs for days, not including the 23 lbs of body armor.
Women require medical attention in training up to 6 times as often as men. Women have less dense bones and are more susceptible to chemical/poison attacks (rate of death is higher). All of this points to women not being physically able (in general) to deal with the stresses of combat operations.
Many posters have said that “if some women are able to pass, then we should let them fight.” This is incorrect. The military runs on being uniform, especially in combat operations. Units pack their gear in all the same way, eat the same food, and dress the same way. Differences become very apparent in this environment. Female soldiers (especially in groups of 95% male soldiers) are …. different. They stand out. They are not part of the group because they are different. Right or wrong, it is the truth. Since they are different, they are not treated like just another part in the big military machine. Rather they are a special piece that must be preserved and protected, rather than expended when the time comes.
I do not think that a all female division will ever be attempted due to the costs of such a unnecessary test. And all female squads are just unnecessary due to plenty all male squads. Support positions for women, yes. Away from the front lines and closer to the admin offices are the best place for the female soldier who wants to serve, and not put her brothers and sisters in harms way.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:07 am (#)
I’m a veteran and I have had experience with female soldiers. Women actively seeking out and destroying the enemy (that is real combat)is not a good idea. The women who argue for it need to join the military and spend a good 4-6 months in a combat zone. I think they’d have an entirely different view if they did. I don’t give a damn about strength or mental ability to cope with pain, loss, stress, guilt, or atrocity. If you’re a mentally and physically strong woman who can meet the standards, you should be proud of yourself, but does that mean you should be in combat? NO. I’m tired of women who spout out rhetoric like a broken record player, but refuse to examine the facts that really matter. Since ancient times women have been kept out of combat because they are valued, not because they are inferior. Women are our mothers and our life givers. Most male animals will protect their females, because they know without them their species will not survive. In this same way the human male wants to defend and protect his life givers. Is this a woman’s fault? HELL NO! But that doesn’t make it any less true. Show a group of men footage of a woman being physically abused and I guarantee you most of them will be very angered by it. Now imagine those men are soldiers in a life or death combat situation and they’ve just witnessed a fellow female soldier killed or wounded in action. What do you think happens? Do you think that benefits anyone? Oh and by the way, I don’t know if any of you know this, but our enemies DON’T surrender to female soldiers. It hardens their resolve and makes them fight to the death, which only leads to more killing. Stop with all the intellectual bull butter and look at the reality of it! There are plenty of positions open to women in the military, but direct combat should not be one of them.
May 3rd, 2008 at 7:23 pm (#)
Still, the effectiveness of the female divisions in the Tamil Tigers should suggest that in certain roles women are just as effective in military combat. They may not be able to carry a wounded man for miles upon miles but the tasked they have been assigned to are executed professionally and with the sort of mental steel you would expect of any other fighting force.
I think that relying on history as so many here have done in their arguments suggests only that introducing women into male positions and roles on the battlefield doesn’t work. Allow for a little innovation and look around at where women have been effective in struggles. From Algeria to Asia and South America, women can be fighters with steely grit.
May 25th, 2008 at 11:19 am (#)
If women want to, sure they can. They have the right to go if they want to. But they have to be aware of all the risks. Rape, violation. Mabey some studies are holding the goverment back by throwing in a female division. I guess some people find it… unethical.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:37 am (#)
all this women in combat is messed up! if women want to go in combat let them but i agree with alot of people women need to train themselves before going into combat. they will need to be fit and ready for almost anyting in war.it seems as though men think we aren’t as strong and fit as them! i dont thnk that men need to be so judgemental about how women are in combat, they deserve the right to go if they want…
August 1st, 2008 at 12:18 pm (#)
You know our country is full of femenist ideology when they are pressuing our military to get our women killed in combat for the glory of women in power. We should be a Nation that goes to war to protect our women and children. What good is it for a man to go to war, what is he fighting for, the latest Ipod or HDTV?
September 17th, 2008 at 1:16 pm (#)
women can protect themselves if they are taught, just like men. yes, they do stand a risk of rape, but that is for the woman to concider. if she signs with that in mind, then it is no longer an issue. men need to get their priorities straight if he neglects his duty to fight or flirt with a female solider. men should worry about the women just as much as they should worry about their men. if the women couldn’t handle it, they wouldn’t be there.
i am a women (tada!!!!) and personally, i am sick and tired of all the men telling me i couldn’t do what i do. i am here now, so suck it up and know that this is the 21 century. everything is changing.
September 28th, 2008 at 4:40 pm (#)
First off, I think that it is completely stupid to keep women out of combat areas just because some men can’t “control” themselves around her, or because they aren’t responsible enough to make the right decision during a battle situation. You aren’t supposed to let things like emotional aspects get in the way of doing your job, and if you can’t adhere to that, then you shouldn’t be in the military. Women should not have to suffer for the lack of self-control, so to speak, of a man.
Second, though it is MOSTLY true that women cannot be as wise in choosing their decisions during high-pressure times and may not be physically up to the challenge, this is not to say that EVERY SINGLE WOMAN IN THE WORLD is not. It is extremely stereotypical. there are many men who are not “military material”, and there are some women who have hand-to-hand skills in combat, and excellent marksmanship. Strength is not an issue, a bullet flies out of a gun with the same speed regardless of the gender! What the army should do is accept any woman, and they be required to pass a man’s physical fitness test. If a man cannot be trusted with a woman, then the woman should not suffer for it by being banned from certain positions.
October 3rd, 2008 at 2:44 pm (#)
I believe that women and men should be treated equally i allso believe that if a women wants to stand up for there country and be a hero too. then its her right to do so. so people trying to say we cant go into the miltary because they think well get hurt, men can get hurt the same way there facing the same battles everyday.
October 20th, 2008 at 2:38 pm (#)
Well hi everyone reading this, and thank you to all those you serving in the military ect…. I believe there is only one answer for this question. Why should there be all these wars going on any way our country was made to have peace and for people to respect one and other wither you are a female a male or what ever! Im currently debating on this question in my history class and i have decided that women should have the equal opportunity,right,privilege as men do to go into combat. Although the so called standards are low for women and so called most women can not achieve the standards why should they be turned down? All in all women are just proving the fact that we are just trying to protect our country and we feel that men should not have all the responsibility to do so. Just think what would happen if only men could join …. what would happen if half the men in the world died in war, not only would the population decrease without men you can not produce children for our future. By the way I’m only 15 and i think my opinion is one of the strongest on here tell me what you think send me and email: purple_outback_dog@yahoo.com
Thank you,
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:07 pm (#)
I think that some of these arguments are good, and others are crap. First of all, to all these girls who keep popping in here, do you want to join the army? Do you really want the right to fight, get spattered in the blood of your friends, your own blood, the blood of your enemies? DO you really want the oppourtunity to get shot at and almost killed, do you really think that you can physically compete with a man, and then carry him if he gets hit? DO you really want the right to get raped by your enemies? Didnt think so. The truth is that everyone of the girls who makes an argument here, pulls it out of a pile of crap. Its funny how Feminists are so quick to point out with pride how women have contributed and how women should vote, and how women should be women, and be different from men, but then they turn around and shout that their should be no difference. Women should be the same as men, women should be allowed to join the army, women should can do everything a man can. Truth is, no they cant, I’d like to see a girl fertilize an egg with a sperm cell. If women can do everything a guy can, well go to it, we men will just sit back and let the women handle everything. We’ll see how the world works then. Just an Amazon society. Women can’t compete with men on any basis. And to whoever it was who made the comment that women have the tools to be just as physically capable as men, thats crap. Women have a smaller muscle mass, a lighter bone structure, and less dense bone structures. They arent able to handle as much physical strain as men. Women are shorter, weaker, thinner, and not as capable of physical labor as men. However, women can do amazing things that men can’t. Women know how to love, nurture, and raise children. Who does a child run to when he/she falls and cuts their knee? In most cases the mother. Women are biological mothers, home-builders, and care-takers. They excel at these things because that is how they were made. They are biologically made for these tasks, men are made to be physical, warful, efficient and logical. That is why the bond of marriage between men and women is so important. A partnership balances out the biological differences. NOw this hits upon a different argument all together. But the point is, and this relates to women in the military, that feminists are unable to recognize the physical, and biolocial differences between a man and a woman. Do not become blinded to the differences of humanity during your search for equality. Do you really want everyone to be the same? Just imagine it. It can’t possible happen. Everyone needs to recognize the differences between men and women. LOok beside you in the workplace, does that person looks just like you? Can they do the same things as you just as well? NO their are differences.
Brief touch upon a point that i saw in someones response, ah yes, it was this – “Seperation of Church and State applies to the military as well.” by Chad Ellis. must be an aethiest is my guess. Well, Chad look it up, their is no legal stature of seperation of church and state. Seperation of Church and State is an IDEA brought uo by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a local Baptist church. The idea is to prevent a theocracy, not to deny the 1st Ammendment to anyone who mentions religion in relation to government. By demanding that he does not make a religious statement you are attempting to deny him the right of speech which allows you to say what you said, and you are denying him his freedom of religion. So as far as that goes you can officially recant your statement as it is not based on fact, merely an ideological misconception. Also, I agree with the statement made that you told him not to say. My understanding of the Bible shows me that women are supposed to be caretakers, not warriors. They are not forced into this position but it is natural for them. However in some exemplary cases God specifically chose women to lead his people, ie. Deborah who was a Judge of the ISraelites.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:10 pm (#)
I apologize for the grammatical errors made in that response. It was written in a hurry.
December 9th, 2008 at 6:13 pm (#)
i firmly believe that women should be in combat. Women under times of extreme stress and panic have shown great tenacity and heroism. I doubt any would contest women best fit for birthing children and raising them. If you look at it from that perspective they go through more pressure each than a soldier would during 20 years of service. Putting women in combat will always be an argument that exhaust both sides but there will be a day when all people see that women could hold their own and stand ready to defend our nation just as easily as the next man.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:47 am (#)
First of all let me say that I have’nt read all of the responses. There are too many of them. However, I want to point out that most of the female responses are sadly indicative of the current mindset of our nation. The vast majority of the reponses that I have read are made from the viewpoint of “me”. What’s fair to me, my rights, my opportunities . . . and so on. We must remember that the only purpose of the military is to protect our freedom. It is not supposed to be a social laboratory. The subject discussed should not be “What is fair to women” but “What is in the best interest of the security of our nation”. It is down right redicules that we are not considering the natural basic reality and human nature of mankind. It is a fact that in the basic make up of a man he is the protector and provider. Is this fair in our overly PC culture today? Maybe not, but that doesn’t change the fact. If two men are fighting side by side the human nature of a man will draw strength and confidence from the comradeship of the other. Conversely, a man and a woman in the same scenario will generally result in the human nature of the man drawing him to be protective of the woman and be distracted from his resposibities therefore placing the lives of both of them at greater risk. Now understand that while I believe that this basic makeup is dominant it is not always so. But we have to ask ourselves this question: If the prvious statement is correct, how many lives in jeopardy are we willing to except in order for a few women to have the opportunity to experiance combat?
December 10th, 2008 at 8:33 pm (#)
there are so many fucking idiots posting on here, it’s unbelievable. and are ANY of you over 20 years of age? why are people arguing with 14, 15, and 16 year-olds? it’s ridiculous.
a couple of things. #57, “robert garcia,” our country is not just fighting for “women and children” – WE ARE FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM. seriously, don’t do me any favors.
there is so much bias and so much stereotyping going on it’s disgusting. “men want to protect their women” and “women are nurturers”… ever hear of a man murdering a woman? ever hear of a woman abusing or killing her own children? are these not exceptions?
don’t fucking tell me who I am or what I’m “supposed” to do. I’ll do as I damn well please, thank you very much, and anyone else with half a brain and any sense of individuality will too.
also, to #62, you stated asked if women wish to be spattered in the blood of their friends, enemies, etc. probably not. but do men? this isn’t about who wants to or doesn’t want to. it’s about “can” and can’t.”
also, if a woman wants to fertilize an egg by herself she can go to a fertility clinic. she doesn’t need you to fuck her to get pregnant, she just needs your sperm. and either way, in sex it takes two to tango.
January 6th, 2009 at 10:43 pm (#)
To number 61:
There will never be peace in this world. I mean, even animals fight. However, I do wish for peace. But that doesn’t mean I am going to go blabbing off about it like a little child.
Also, we aren’t so much as fighting as protecting our country. Remember the attacks on 9/11? They would continue to happen if our brave soldiers.
In a way, you might want to rethink about this “war”: is it bad, or are the enemies trying to kill us bad?
January 9th, 2009 at 12:55 pm (#)
In response to response number 66. I find it without any benefit to this argument anything you have said. It appears through your language and statements to me that you have not bothered to present any facts, merely lambaste the factual statements made by others. Your entire response is not in line with the rational debate and thought discussion here, therefore I kindly request that you explicitly state some facts besides random insults and statements such as “don’t fucking tell me who I am or what I’m “supposed” to do. I’ll do as I damn well please, thank you very much, and anyone else with half a brain and any sense of individuality will too.” I have no idea who you are or whether your a male or female, but I have a guess, anyway, I digress in my thoughts…
“also, to #62, you stated asked if women wish to be spattered in the blood of their friends, enemies, etc. probably not. but do men? this isn’t about who wants to or doesn’t want to. it’s about “can” and can’t.”” Truly a statement torn from its context in your response. However I wil give you the benefit of stating that perhaps this statement was unclear. This statement was based on the concept of women having a greater contact with their emotions. I apologize if you find this untrue but I wish to emphasize the lifestyle, roles, and activities of men and women as we age. It is very consistent, if not entirely consistent, that men grow up with a mentality to push past emotions, i.e. not crying when your hurt, dealing with problems on your own, playing rough sports (girls can to, I will concede, but it is RARE). Men grow and develop their sense of logic, endurance, and emotional control as a form of “Survival of the fittest.” women, myself not being one, I can’t truly say how you feel or develop, however, from my observations, it seems evident and common to me that women tend to develop and grow in a very different manner. Women become more in touch with their emotions, their sense of belonging in a group (men do to some extent but are more able to exist as a lone individual), and they are not pushed into contact competitive sports or other contests of strength and injury that force them to push past pain and self injury.
Needless to say, noone wants to be spattered in blood, however, the whole statement was meant to reflect on this past paragraph and the idea that men are in better control of their emotions in situations of injury or physical stress. Thats all.
January 12th, 2009 at 6:21 pm (#)
Rights,rights, rights! Geez, I am a woman myself. I once thought, hey! Women are equal! We should be allowed in combat! BUT, think of the circumstances. When a woman is captured, that gives the enemy an advantage. Especially if she is young or a mother. The majority will react far more strongly, as if proven in a few cases. It is true that some women can do what a man can. Really, thats great! But look at all the positions open to women. Why fight so strongly for just one little position of combat? We are far better abled in intelligence and other operations. The majority of women today really are NOT suited for combat. We were simply built differently. It’s not a matter of equal rights or sexual discrimination. It’s facts. Honestly, the womens rights group? Get over it and go work on the Wage Gap we have. That’s a REAL problem to deal with. That actually INCLUDES sexual discrimination. Women in combat? It’s a no go for me. We can do everything else, it won’t kill us to not be in combat. You girls can go get yourselves and others killed in other creative ways. But just drp the combat thing.
January 12th, 2009 at 7:34 pm (#)
This shouldn’t even be debatable. Any sane, reasonable male or female will tell you that men are stronger than women.
All the other points you guys have made are valid, reasonable, and highly relevant too. But to me the argument is over once it becomes clear having women in combat roles puts the entire unit in unnecessary danger.
But I just wanted to point out the following to the ladies on here who seem to believe it is their “right” to serve in combat with men. Aside from all the excellent points to the contrary already mentioned, it isn’t a right.
Our Constitution charges the federal government with the responsibility to defend the United States. It is well established in constitutional law that the government CAN discriminate on the basis of sex if important governmental interests that are furthered by substantially related means are at stake. see (Craig v. Boren). Further the Court ruled in Mississippi University for women v. Hogan that “exceedingly persuasive justification” can legitimize discrimination on the basis of sex.
I’d say, and I believe the Court would agree, that the national security interests of the United States outweigh women being denied their “right” to serve in combat. Which is why nobody has filed a successful suit against the DoD for this policy.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:31 pm (#)
I entirely agree with 69 and 70. 69 you make an excellent point!
January 13th, 2009 at 1:00 pm (#)
wow, bork, im ashamed for you lol, might as well just right this and ask why? we just made a huge streak of points, and btw, i found this while researching through google, probably why most people have found this still
January 13th, 2009 at 1:01 pm (#)
sorry, not bork, read the wrong thing, joshua
January 13th, 2009 at 1:09 pm (#)
one more thing for the sake of saying it before i go and probably do more web surfing, it isnt about rights, rights are dictated from the Constitution and are from the philosophy of the rights to life, liberty and property. Therefore, women dont have the right to serve in the military, and neither do men, its a government occupation, and a career with a specific and violent task. No rights about it.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:25 pm (#)
With so many facts infront of you, really girls, how much more do you need? We’re girls, we can’t have EVERYTHING. Look at all the things we have now. How greedy must you women be? We can have babies, there have been many great women heroes and leaders. We’re best known as the intelligent ones. Leave the men to what they are best suited for! War, heavy things, leading in combat. Now, really please just drop this matter.
January 14th, 2009 at 5:03 pm (#)
honestly if you think about it women have harder jobs then men they have to take care of their kids they have jobs and they clean the house and most of the women cook too. While men have jobs sometimes take care of the kids and barely do no housework and people think we SHOULDNT be in the miliatry!! Women do more then men do and probally the only reason most men are stronger ect is cuz they have all that free time to work out excersie ect..
January 15th, 2009 at 2:04 am (#)
Chantal,
Seriously? First of all, you’re forgetting to take into account that men do most of the outdoor work. I don’t know where you live, but here in Michigan the men do the outdoor work. Cleaning the gutters in the fall (from leaves) and the winter (from ice and snow), we mow the lawn, we do the landscaping, we shovel the snow, we mine our coal, we fish our oceans, we cut our lumber, etc. And we don’t complain about it. We just do it.
Also don’t forget that women for the most part are the ones that are anal about the house being clean, hence why they do more of the housework. I understand the argument that men don’t want to and don’t do housework. The reason is simple…men don’t mind living in somewhat messy houses (hence the term “bachelor pad”).
That aside, your assertion that men are only stronger because we have “more free time to work out” is flat out wrong and displays a complete ignorance of human physiology. Men are stronger because of testosterone, which builds lean muscle. Any average man is stronger than the average female. Not because women are inferior, but because of our hormones.
I do not deny that women are valuable and necessary to society. Hell, even more so than men. Women are the reason civilization even exists. Without women, men would not even bother to build houses, cities, or nations. The old American West is a great example of this, it was the frontier until women arrived and civilized the west.
Women are more valuable to society than men, which is the reason why we don’t want our women in combat. If a society was to lose half its women, the population would never recover (see Ireland). But a society that loses half its males can recover in a generation. The fact is one man can impregnate 50 women in as many days. One woman cannot have 50 children as easily a man can. Thus, women are much more valuable than men.
This isn’t sexist. It is a fact. Men, despite whatever you want to believe, value women highly. And rightly so. Women make the world what it is, you are responsible for civilization. You are the reason why humans exist today. Without your life giving bodies, your nurturing abilities, and your compassion, mankind would be in sad shape. We need women. But for different reasons than we need men. I don’t see why it is wrong to acknowledge this. That isn’t to say we aren’t equal, we are. But we have different strengths and must use them to continue to progress as a nation and as a world.
January 15th, 2009 at 3:08 am (#)
Also, I don’t understand feminists sometimes. They argue for women to be respected they need to have the “right” to do everything men can do. They say that is the only way men will respect women, thus the only way women will be seen as equals. While wholly disregarding biological factors that make that impossible.
And by doing that, they necessarily must sacrifice the virtues that make women as a whole valuable in ways men can never be as a whole.
For the Fellas:
It’d be like a football team great as airing it out trying to run it when they aren’t built to do it, while the other team is awesome at stopping the run. Why play into their strengths? Don’t try to be something you’re not.
January 19th, 2009 at 6:35 pm (#)
personally, i would like to give a firm handshake, and high five, to jack, and janelle, i think we officially kicked this discussion’s ass. take that feminist liberals.
January 19th, 2009 at 6:41 pm (#)
hahaha, sorry, im a right-wing conservative, a little past where ur putting me in the political spectrum lol unless u take me for biased or a nazi, then im totally not, i hear others ideas and consider them. i just disagree
January 20th, 2009 at 8:15 pm (#)
This whole argument of biological differences is not an argument at all. These are an assortment of claims being made to further advance the socially constructed roles that we try to fit men and women into.
First of all: for those who claim men are naturally stronger than women, lets take a step back and think about the larger context which surrounds any facts or statistics you can spout out. As children, boys are encouraged to be rough, play outside, climb on things, eat as much as they can to be strong men when they grow up. They are encouraged to wrestle and get into fights. Girls, on the other hand are given dolls and tea sets, taught to be calm and not get dirty. As they get older, they are taught to control what they eat to maintain a pretty figure. And with all of that, you expect a girl to be as strong as a boy? That isn’t about natural abilities, that is about conditioning.
Second: Women who do not fit into these preconceived social roles, and do like to play rough and were allowed to play rough can be just as strong as men. Think of women’s rugby teams. Those are some fierce ladies who could hold their own with a man. They love their strength and develop it. That doesn’t make them less feminine, less of a woman, or any other such nonsense. Strength is beautiful.
Third: for those who claim women are more nurturing than men, thereby cannot kill a person in combat let’s once again take a step back. Sure, if you take a woman, put a gun in her hand and tell her to kill someone she will probably hesitate. However, the same reaction would happen with many men. The Army exists to TRAIN you. You do not walk in a killing machine. You are broken down and built back up to become a soldier. When a woman has the same training as a male soldier, the outcome would be the same. This isn’t some biological or neurological difference.
I have read countless articles detailing the reasons why women should not be in the armed forces, from menstruation, to pregnancy, to disrupting comroderie between men in the unit, to women are not strong enough, to women need to be protected because of our life-giving powers. Each of these claims is invalid in at least one way. The inaccuracies of the past need to be cleared out to make way for the truth. So what if a woman can be a mother? A man can be a father. Both parties have an equal chance to screw it up. A woman is not naturally predisposed to be “anal” about the house being clean–she has been taught that she must clean or she is a failure. I personally am a really messy person but that makes me no less of a woman than my friend who is a neat freak. Let’s stop looking at qualities and unquestioningly gendering them. I want to be valued for my skills as a person, not for my “natural” talents as a woman. Haven’t we moved out of the 50’s? I can open my own jars and clean out my own rain gutters, thank you very much, Mr. Jack.
February 7th, 2009 at 2:49 pm (#)
Women and men… this has been a topic forever. Wheather your talking about rights or anything. Women should be able to fight in combat. Not all women are as srong as most men, but there is that small number that are, and i belive if they want to fight they should!
February 10th, 2009 at 11:20 pm (#)
I am a Marine Corps Combat Veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I served in the 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion during the invasion. In my four years in the military, I saw and experienced the breakdown in a unit when women were in it.
I participated in a MEU (marine expeditionary unit) work-up (a work-up is where the MEU gets trained and tested to do certain tasks before going on deployment). I was put into a group of Marines and we were told to be the OP4 (opposition forces[to break it down Barney style we were the "Bad Guys"]) against the MEU. There were about 15 to 20 Marines in this little ad-hoc unit, and it was made up of several different MOS’s (military occupational specialties) i.e. cooks, supply clerks, Infantry, admin, etc. There were 5 females in our unit, and within days, our structure and discipline went right out the window. It was really the men’s fault, because they let their “emotions”(or dicks) get in their way of thinking(although the females were also jockeying for attention as well). I was one of three guys that were in an infantry unit prior to doing this training op, and after what we saw, there is no way that we would go into combat with a female in my unit.
Granted, it was a training op, and our make shift platoon commander was a Staff Sergeant from administration, who really had no clue on how to run a combat unit. But, as the article stated “Effects on morale can be particularly adverse,” the presence of women among male troops weakens combat readiness. All-male units, in the field, experience bonding that enhances unit cohesion and effectiveness. When women are introduced, men stop relating to each other and begin trying to attract the women. Men can quickly become on less-than-friendly terms with a mini-war over a woman.” During the training op, there were several altercations that broke out between a few of the males who were trying to get with a certain female.
Two of the females had sexual relations with two of the males, and one of those couples had sexual relations several times. One of the females who flirted with the Staff Sergeant got out of duties several times. I really can’t remember, but I don’t think that she served one hour of fire watch (guard duty, but during the night) the whole time we were out there. I had never seen anything like it before, and when I look back on it, it could have been a great sociology experiment. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that all of this happened……in a week and a half.
I do agree that there are women out there who are fully capable of serving in an infantry unit. They have throughout history. Look at Queen Bouddica or Joan of Arc. There are numerous accounts of women fighting in wars. But in today’s society (American society) it is just not possible. I am all for notion of making an all female fighting unit. I think that it would be great, but to integrate them into the male units would be a disaster waiting to happen.
The training op set aside, I have seen the horrors of war first hand and its not pretty. It is physically and mentally exhausting, parts of it traumatizing, other parts were a blast (it’s kinda crazy but, yeah I had fun in Iraq.). So if a female wants to go through that then all the power to them, but there has to be some changes made to their training regimen to prepare them for what they will encounter in a combat situation. The physical fitness standards need to accommodate the physical strain that they will experience. I could go on forever with this but if they did create an all female infantry unit I am sure that they would institutionalize their training.
So GI Jane pick up your rifle, put your boots on, and lets go to war. But because I think with my dick when your around, you have to fight with your fellow female marines. Sorry about that.
February 11th, 2009 at 8:39 pm (#)
yeah drummer 401 why to tspeak your mind
U rock dued!!
February 12th, 2009 at 10:07 am (#)
I am doing my senior project on womens exclusion from combat units. this was very useful, thank you!
:D GO BRONCOS!
February 25th, 2009 at 8:20 pm (#)
They absolutely should. I would definitely consider infantry forces. As citizens, we have a responsibility to our country, how is it fair that I am not allowed to carry out one of those responsibilities, if I really want to?
March 1st, 2009 at 1:49 am (#)
I am a combat veteran of OIF 2 and spent one year of my life in Iraq. I am currently a police officer and have been since 2001. This post will be short, sweet and to the point. Women should not be in combat period. It is not that women cant handle it. Its not that men can’t handle it. Its that men and women can not handle it together. Remember high school (for those who are not still there) it is the same thing. Take out the fact that MOST women are weaker than men which is true.(sorry to the feminist get over it) The situation presents a danger to the life of both sexes. Currently I am employed in a male dominated field and I do my job very well and can hang with the best of them. The difference in being a police officer and being in combat (besides the increased danger of combat) is I go home at the end of shift. I have a life outside of work. In combat you do not. You are there 24/7 it becomes your life. The drama in high school is nothing compared to the drama of a co-ed unit in a combat zone. Many careers and lives have been destroyed due to adultry, false alligations of sexual harrassment, actual sexual harassment, prostitution of women in a combat zone etc. So my advise ladies is not just to put on your aprons and get in te kitchen. Many women do “mens jobs” well but do not comment with the “I have the right” bullshit. Do not preach about something you could not possiably have any concept of what-so-ever.
March 1st, 2009 at 1:50 am (#)
Sorry for typos its late and I am tired!
March 4th, 2009 at 1:30 pm (#)
Ok so im on this because im also doing a school project, well essay. For all of you who believe women are stronger sry its kinda hard to believe. My fiance is in rugby, and im a hippie that doesn’t believe in violence. I can still wrestle her to the ground without even trying.
I also have a friend who is in the army and he had to carry his buddy who got shot in the side a mile and a half. My girl friend cant even pick me up for more than 30 sec’s
I think women can join the army because their knowledge and caring nature gives comfort to all the men. But, NO women should NOT be combatants!!! Their caring personalties cannot take another persons life even if they have to.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:48 pm (#)
hey, wow people are still posting here, nice, lol. 81 i would definetly like to here how all of those reasons independently are invalid, however, have u tried putting em all together? combine each of those and they form a strong strcuture of basic differences between men and women that make it evident that men are more suited, naturally, biologically, physically and mentally for the armed forces.
March 26th, 2009 at 10:58 am (#)
what i think that women should be able to fight in the military like yes men have provin they are the stronger sex but look at loads of women out their like their pretty tough big women so dont put tehm through a pity test give them the same test as men if they pass good luck to them and im 13-14 years old doing this for a project and i think some of these comments were pretty sexist
March 26th, 2009 at 12:06 pm (#)
I think woman should totally be in combat. I am 14 and currently in a program in my school called the J.R.O.T.C program. And I am loving it. I soon want to join the military myself as you can tell, and I don’t just want to be an aid. What I want is to be in combat. To prove to myself and family that I am capable of doing anything.
March 27th, 2009 at 10:51 am (#)
The main issue of this op.ed. is that men outperform women physically. As if military personnel were all grunts that pick up heavy loads all day without using their biggest weapon; their brains.
This is the year 2009, not the year 1909. The military as it stands, is far from “pick this up and shoot that gun while running with 100lbs of gear”.
Aside from that, a soldier is prepared physically to perform tasks that may have vague instructions on the combat field. I doubt any amount of physicality will allow you to strong arm your way through most modern day circumstances.
Not only that, the possibility of having inter-squad relationships might reinforce the protection instinct. You are more apt to protect a mate than protect a friend. It’s just the way of things. This has been elaborated on in countless books, as well as history itself, but I see people are still thinking in terms of “self superiority” then real world experience.
And if physicality were an issue, why would we let men of small stature in?
March 30th, 2009 at 10:36 am (#)
Women in combat is a never-ending debate most people belive women can’t be in combat because they are weaker then men but there is often more reasons then just brute strength, but an example of brute strength is only 7% of women can meet a pushup score set at 60 while 78% of men did. Women from age 20 to 30 have the same aerobic capacity as a fifty year old man. Many women are smart if not smarter then men but combat is not the place for them. Many women have claimed to be as tough as men and only to have a failed one woman broke a one hundred and fifty two year record of being the first female to go in the citadel and she collapsed from heat exhaustion not making the cut for the school. FAILURE
April 15th, 2009 at 12:44 pm (#)
I personally have served beside several women; they are great to have for advice and are well skilled at doing their jobs and I trust them to fight beside me in base defense but in the field however, when I am wounded and I want someone to come get me, I want it to be a PJ who is a hardcore physically imposing man. I want to know without a doubt he can drag me a mile or more, I want to know that if he has to climb something to get to me he can. Women like to argue that they are just as strong as men, and I have seen some tough women, but when it comes down to the wire, are all women stronger? No. Do I want to take the risk of having a women being the one to drag me? No. Do I want to know we are making lighter weapons because women can’t carry the same ones? No. If as a women you can drag me a 210 pound man a mile in the desert sand I say “Hooah!” to you joining the military. The military is not a right, you have to work for it, if you want to see yourself dressed in the uniform then pass an equal standard PT test. Women should be allowed in the military, but combat is something that I would rather not see them in not until everyone who joins can pass that PT test and I know without a doubt that the women next to me can drag me a mile in the sand, Until that day comes keep training.
April 21st, 2009 at 7:41 pm (#)
I think that women should be in combat. With the proper training, we are just as strong as men. I did some research, and does anyone know if this website is even a reputable source? If the person who wrote this made up statistics or if there are facts behind them? I say look at the cold, hard evidence, from training, strength levels, everything. I believe that then and only then, will you find the truth.
April 23rd, 2009 at 9:17 am (#)
I am reserching this topic for a speech at my school. I would like to put in my own comment as well. First off, YES i am 15 and YES i am a freshman but i am a GIRL who acts way older. second, i plan to be apart of the Air Force either after high school or after college. i have been in an argument with a boy at my school for some time. the topic is “Who is more superior men or women?” it has been going on sence i picked the topic “Should women be allowed to serve combat in the military?” i am pro on this topic. However, I do agree on some of the con points. Like I have read above there are several men how say it takes testosterone to fight like a man. I find that statement completely false. When i fight i don’t take the pussy move and go for the crotch. I throw a hard punch and they go down. So yes a woman can fight like a man. Another comment was that women are not as emotional strong as men. That also is false in my eyes. First off, i have been shot before after the pain went away i started to laugh about it. Every time i get hurt i laugh and find it funny as hell. In conclusion, those of you who say women are inferior, sorry about my terrible spelling i’m in a hurry, to men well thats your opinion. As for me i agree to allow women to serve in the military.
May 7th, 2009 at 12:39 pm (#)
Women in the military would just be crucial. I disagree that women should be the military. Why? Because military combact aint a place females. Back then in the 1960’s women didn’t fight, men fought. It should be that way and it still should be..
May 13th, 2009 at 6:47 pm (#)
I AM a fenimist liberal, but I agree wholeheartedly with the opinion that women should not be permitted in combat or other hazardous duties. I take offense to the remarks made earlier, as if all feminist liberals shared the same opinion about this.
May 22nd, 2009 at 3:36 pm (#)
I am reserching this topic for an english paper, but want to say that i agree that women should not be in combat. i am in JROTC, and want to be Army infantry. in jrotc, the fitness standard for males, is 42 push-ups, 52 situps in a minute, for females, it is only 19 and 52, and most of them can’t do that including the ones joining the military. also, the battle feild is no place for a woman. i DO NOT mean they should stay home, but just not be on the front lines. i am all for equal opportunities, but the military, is different from being a doctor or lawyer. it takes alot of physical strength, and determination. i dont mean that not all women could make it, i know quite a few, but many have the determination, not the strength. also, there are alot of jobs in the military women are more suited for than us guys, because they dont get frusturated al easily as men. but then again it is only comment from a 15 year old.
May 31st, 2009 at 9:04 pm (#)
Women should be allowed on the battlefield and here’s why:
How can it be fair that women are allowed to hold high positions as Colonels or Generals with the ability to command men and send them to fight and die for all Americans rights when our society deems it necessary to keep women from being allowed to do the same? How can we continue this hypocrisy? How can we say that our daughters are more important than our sons? Men have been dying for the United States of America for centuries. Should men continue to fight and die (not to mention being maimed for life) only to someday come back home to compete with a woman for the same job? And then to hear women like Lis Wiehl talk about how women are still being treated as second class citizens? Give me a break!
What benefit does the male, who would die in battle, stand to gain from a society where half of the population (who ironically is exempted from death in battle) doesn’t feel the need to honor, in some major way, this “gift of death”? Instead, this “half of the population” would prefer to complain that they “rightly deserve” the same rights as the one who would gladly die for them? Whoever thinks situation is fair or moral – please stand up!
Are males thought so little of today that we, as a society, have no problem sacrificing them like lambs to be slaughtered while we show our daughters they are more worthy to live? This is a serious immoral duality that our supposedly politically correct society should change – NOW!
If women are to have completely equal rights then I say they should be allowed to die on the battlefield just as their grandfathers, fathers and brothers have done – and continue to do! Then and only then will women be deserving of equal rights! Until that day begins, society will continue to show that men are less worthy of living than women.
I will even go so far as to say that just as affirmative action was created to help minorities, the same principles should be used in filling the ranks of our armed forces. If the correct percentage of women do not voluntarily join the armed forces based on the percentage of population, they should be conscripted until the amounts are equal to the male military counterpart. If this fair play is not acceptable to society then male veterans should be given rights above the women they have served. We can start by giving preference to a male veteran, when returning home and applying for a job, over a female civilian!
Since we think we’re a fair society I say let’s prove it and be completely fair!!
May 31st, 2009 at 9:26 pm (#)
What’s really sad about some of the comments here from some of you men – your statements show that you’re willing to do the fighting and dieing for your country (where half of the citizens are women) and you fool yourself into believing this is “correct and superior male mentality” thinking that women will respect you for this. Most men today remain naive and unaware that the women they are willing to die for ARE NOT willing to die for them! Not only are most not willing to die for your rights but many will gladly show you (by their actions) they owe YOU nothing for your ultimate sacrifice.
Now don’t you think it’s about time you wake up (MEN) and stop drinking from the cup of “early 20th century male stupidity”?
September 10th, 2009 at 11:08 am (#)
Maybe you guys should ask the opinion of front line infantry men.
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/field-mess/49168-should-women-allowed-combat-roles.html
If you want to lower standards and the efficiency of the armed forces go ahead.
September 19th, 2009 at 8:03 pm (#)
people get killed because woman are not strong enough and that is why they are still not aloud in our great countries great special forces. Woman are for home not for combat and should not be aloud in and hopefully soon won’t be
October 27th, 2009 at 7:18 pm (#)
I have just read part of this so maybe i need to read on before this is published but i would like to argue #4
when i was 11 i could do 9 chin-ups true i can no longer do that but if i was determined in let me say a month i could be doing 12 chin-ups every 2 hours, Marines are required (last time i checked) to do four before mess hall which is about 2-3(?) times a day. if a woman is determined she can do what ever she wants.
posted by a young lady who supports equal liberty et rights for ALL people, with out sexism, racism etc.
October 29th, 2009 at 3:22 pm (#)
do u have a works cited for this?
November 19th, 2009 at 12:25 am (#)
It’s sad…
Feminism is destroying our family and this nation.
This country should no longer be UNITED but rather should be split in 2: the west for the feminists and all those RADICAL liberals who I believe are Anti-Americans and the east for the conservatives and moderate conservatives.
Don’t you guys see that we have a bigger war happening at home than abroad?
I HATE feminists!!!!
Let’s all divorce those bastards and leave them alone. That’s all they’d deserve if it weren’t for Jesus claim that marriage is for life!
No wonder Paul recommends to avoid getting married in the first place!
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr….
November 19th, 2009 at 12:34 am (#)
102. Dan
Dan,
It’s all in the big book pal.
As men, we are asked to love our wives like Jesus has loved the church (Jesus gave His life for us); it was never asked of women to love their husband sacrificially but rather to be submissive to us.
The problem is NOT just the feminist women. There are a lot of guys nowadays that haven’t had a chance to work, not even once physically as we are built for as men. They are, in a sort, some kind of wimps who just go with the flow, just in case they would be disliked by a bunch of females at work.
Yes, women should stay at home (with a few exceptions). If they don’t feel like staying at home, they should marry some tom boy and live their feminist lesbianism in Alaska where our normal kids would be forbidden to visit.
November 19th, 2009 at 6:33 pm (#)
There it is Dan,
You hit the bullseye. Bottom line. What we have today is a total freak show, that sends a chill down my spine. It kills me when I read or hear how great women in combat is. All because of the late 1960s.
Thank John
November 19th, 2009 at 6:34 pm (#)
I stand corrected, I meant Pete.
John Walsh
November 30th, 2009 at 1:56 pm (#)
Women should not be alowed in the military.
They are incompitent and severy handicaped when demonstrating the physical demands.
Same in Paramedicine. Women are a hndicap. I refuse to pair with a woman partner. She can’t keep up CPR, she can’t lift the heavier patients etc.
Even in school, the only reason women could do the chair stair lift tests is because they were paired with men..
Keep women out of the military.
Keep women out of the air force.
Keep women out of CEO posistions.
Keep feminism out of America.
You were made to reproduce, not to rule :)
It’s biology, deal with it…..
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:14 am (#)
Many time combat veteran here, still active duty.
Heres the plain simple truth. Women should be able to be in combat units AS LONG as they meet the same requirements as their male counterparts. The horrible truth is that they are not held to the same standard. Even the generic physical testing requirements (push-ups, sit-ups, run time)for females are lessened. This is the norm and easily found in documentation. They military preaches complete equality, but it is not so. Bottom line is I would go to combat with any woman that meets the same requirements that I and everyone else must meet. If you cant carry or drag a 200-250lb comrad out of harms way please dont try to sit in a convoy with me……woman or man.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:28 am (#)
AMEN!
Women ARE inferior to men (in general) when you look at things from a physical point of view. There have been studies to show that women can preform under much less stress than men (no I don’t have a link or source or whatever…if you care enough..find it) and combat is, in my opinion, THE SINGLE MOST STRESSFUL AND INTENSE thing one can go through.
We have the greatest army on this earth in America, and there is there really a reason to ruin it with all this feminist bullshit? The women who walk around in their fancy little suites or whatever and go from place to place looking for something sexist to sue or bitch about simply because they are 1. Lesbians or 2.On a 5+ year dry-spell, need to shut up about this…well…it was nothing until they oppened thier big mouths.
Women COULD create all female units of the armed forces if they were able to uphold the same standards as men, but the truth is that just doesn’t happen. Geneticaly women are the weaker sex in alot of ways, and simply because a few CAN beat some men doesn’t mean all women can it simply means they are “super-women”. There is a reason in the Olypics that they have Girl teams and Men teams, it’s becasue women are physicaly less powerful. If the point of an army is to have more strenghth in weapons and soldiers then shouldn’t we only allow the best of the best in ours?
Even if a women can compete equaly with enlisted men, she would undoubtedly be a huge distraction!Women can have all the jobs men can, that don’t require PHYSICAL stranghth. They can doctor and lawyer all they want, but no ARMY…and i’d say no police or firefighters (not firemen anymore huh?) but thats just how the world is becoming….
December 7th, 2009 at 2:53 am (#)
Cmon ladies; give it up, we know you dont want to be considered less of a human beign but draw the line somewhere.The moral issue of this is the largest point.I dont care if u cant lift a bullet but when the enemy is threatining to rape you its probobly the most horrific moral disaster among the troop. on that note the mini wars for women are very true in groups.
Get real
Maybe an all women troop, i would be for that, but no mixing AT ALL
December 14th, 2009 at 9:51 pm (#)
Oh contrare, my dear friends, my ex boyfriend whom I still converse with as friends is undergoing training at AIT as we speak (or type) and since I am writing a speech on this, I got some facts on women in the military and I do believe it may knock you right between the eyes. In JOSH’S post he states in his 4th reason that “few women could do ONE pull-up”. Well, I for one am an average physically fit woman of 18 that definately is capable of doing more than a few pull-ups. If you’d actually enjoy me video-taping myself to prove it, email me – ill do it jst for kicks and giggles-
I go to an apostolic church and definately have morals. Though I do not wear skirts, like they choose to, they believe it is modest, though I believe it is not your salvation [ticket to heaven] so i forgo all that nonsense.
[KJV] There were women in the bible that God led to killing leaders in the military- JAEL look it up.
ANYWAY, my friend Thomas Steele – gave me some statistics of women in the military as of now- he told me there were many women outdoing him in the mile and two mile- getting 4:50 and 11:33 two mile- performing 21 pull-ups easy- WHICH BTW pullups are not included in PT tests, they dont do pull-ups- they only use pull-ups to workout- There is an 86% PASSING RATE OF WOMEN AND A 56% PASSING RATE for men for PT scores, He claimed watching men drop during pushups and women pushing on- Nael, performing 72 pushups, 106 situps all in 2 minutes. He says women are treated no differently than men either in there- which means they are yelled at and pushed to their physical limit- SO BOYS the question is not WHO IS THE STRONGER SEX, but WHO CAN GET THE JOB DONE BEST?
Wouldn’t you say now?
[PS. After graduation I myself am joining the reserves]
HOPE YOU LIKE THEM APPLES, please get your facts straight too JOSH, those were HORRIBLE statistics~
Chao
December 14th, 2009 at 9:59 pm (#)
PS- i do agree extreme feminists have destroyed homes.
Many women I know today enjoy staying at home with their families & being submissive, I believe men in homes are the head of household, and I would love my husband and never try to out-man him or make him somehow feel inferior- But the idea tht all women must conform to one way of living and being stay at home moms?
Wow, way to restrict someones rights and ambitions.
December 19th, 2009 at 1:26 am (#)
Many people have responded to this article saying it is a woman’s right to fight in the military. Many others have responded saying that to serve is not a “right” but a priveledge. This is of course, very true. And so I ask, why should women not be as “priveledged” as men? Why aren’t they good enough? If a woman can perform at the same (or better) level than a man, then why are they not “priveledged” enough to actively defend their country on the front line?
I’ve asked many questions, hopefully someone can answer them for me? Thanks
December 19th, 2009 at 1:34 am (#)
Sorry I just remembered another point
“You were made to reproduce, not to rule :)”
- Paramedicalman
Women were made to reproduce, that is something we have over men but that’s not the only thing we CAN do!
I am no feminist but that point simply outraged me. I am a Christian and the Lord did make women for that purpose but with many other purposes in mind too. This Paramedicalman even goes so far as to say that women should be kept out of CEO positions. Women may be somewhat weaker physically but many of the tests that people keep referring to have also proved that intellectually and mentally, women are often better capable than men.
I’m sorry to have gotten so carried away but Paramedicalman you need to open your eyes! This is not the 15th century for goodness sake!! This is the modern world, come join it!!
December 19th, 2009 at 2:32 am (#)
Ruby, first of all, I’m also Christian, and Eve also made to give Adam company :P
Now, back to topic.
It has been proven, by both live tests as well as chemical tests, that females are far more capable than males when forced under extreme psychological pressure. They are also -generally- better at organizing than most males, I’ve even seen that in day-to-day life.
Females have also been recognized for keeping to their task in hand, whilst many males would get distracted from performing tasks, so women are only one of the many distractions for men in battle.
I would like to end my comment, by stating that most women can beat most males at multitasking, and even looking out for certain objects, or just anything out of the ordinary. Due to years of being forced to be ’stay-at-home-wifes’, they notice kids doing things easily, they have fast reactions when noticing something thats not normal, and other jobs an mother would normally perform.
So if you put these ’skills’, into a warlike scenario, think about what they could achieve above many men.
Also, please look at the following link
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&gid=205405074274
It is a Facebook group about women on the front lines. It has some interesting arguments on it.
December 24th, 2009 at 3:44 pm (#)
Well a little about me, I was attached to a Marine unit sent to Iwo Jima during World War II. The physical standards of the military back then were MUCH higher than they are today. So persoanlly, I doubt most people men and women of today would be able to go through the training I went through. But since the combat has changed since I was in along with technology i would say thats ok since the gear you carry today is a lighter weight than ours was and battles are fought much differently than ours. This debate has been around for many years now. It’s not a question of putting women in frontline combat… its the amount of heart that individuals have to want to go. The drive, determination and sheer willpower of individuals that wins wars. Strategy helps along with technology but boil it down, if the troops aren’t up for it no amount of strategy and technology can help you. So if a woman wants to fight let them, but being a war veteran myself and knowing what happened then, I’m not convinced that a woman would have been able to do the jobs that we did then, at least the women of my era. So my answer is to let women form their own combat units and prove themselves. If successful, merge some units together and give it a try. If the success rate drops with the mixed units, give the ladies their own units and leave it at that.
January 6th, 2010 at 11:48 am (#)
I think women have all the rights to joint the
Armed Forces if that what they want,but if they
are raising their kids, that should come first
I feel that the government should have some
restrictions regarding this. The life of your kids
should always be first
January 15th, 2010 at 7:14 pm (#)
I am a 14th year old women who wants to be in the army. I actually have been training football with men and I can do the same stuff as they can.
I think that women should be allowed in combat if they want to. Actually women can be a lot more useful in the army than people think we are. We are intelligent and even strong enough to help in the army. Actually I know women who are in the army (not the U.S. army) and they are very capable of doing everything they are required.
I actually have shotguns in my house, and my dad and I go to practice and believe me those guns are heavy, but i still can carry them. I believe that if I train enough to reach the standarized score I will if im up to it.
In my case i will never be able to join the army because a few months ago they found a chronic sleep disorder called Narcolepsy which enables me to join the army.
In the case in which they said that men loose concentration trying to save women in combat well dont loose concentration and believe me women are capableof defending themselves and if not it was their choice to join the army and when we join we know the odds or the consequences and we accept them.
January 31st, 2010 at 12:13 am (#)
now lets hear from an actual infantryman..4 years in the line 101at airborne..2 year in a lrsu unit..airassault..airborne and a bunch of other schools..laides..god bless ya…i know of no women i have met military or not who could be a light infantryman..period..u aint been there u cant comment..its all speculation…its a miserable..gut wrenching,, physical job …its brutal and filthy..always too hot or cold..raw shoulders blisters inside of blister..i started basic training w/ 260 young men..we graduated..160..or so…we bathe together ,,shit together…and some of us died together..both the airborne school and airassault school have dropped there standards so women can graduate…our combat load 116-150lbs depending on the situation..hump 10 klicks the then dig in almost every also a myth that the average gi is 6 foot 200lbs more like 5 10 170lbs ..u dont build muscle mass in the infantry…i could go on and on nature is nature biology is biology..any question u go to the source…huaaaa…
January 31st, 2010 at 12:15 am (#)
some typos there but u get the jist
February 1st, 2010 at 2:02 pm (#)
Women, should not be allowed in the army, period. They are not designed for it. Women talk about equal rights non-sense. Women want all the rights of men without the responsibilities. And anyone dissenting this fallacy in common sense is silenced, along with the usual tirade, of girls can do it too, bullshit. Women are equal to men, etc. Women are equal as human beings but not in function. This is a big fallacy in the feminist mindset, which keeps reinforcing the notion that women have to equal in men in function too, and that they are not equal to men unless they ape men in all functions. And it is pointless arguing with women because they will not understand under the current feminist mindset. While women are keen on adopting male functions female nurturing functions are getting neglected.
February 3rd, 2010 at 5:50 pm (#)
All you naysayers are pussified manginas or stupid women who need to GET BACK IN THE KITCHEN!
February 9th, 2010 at 12:52 am (#)
This is not fair at all. I am a girl and I’ve dreamed of being in Combat after BCT, but women are not allowed! I think if women want to take the risk, they can. I would be one of those women getting out there. I think they should try it (again) .
February 9th, 2010 at 12:57 am (#)
Nick and blah : That’s a horrible thing to say, I think. And I’m sure most women would agree with me. We do belong in the Army, and women don’t spend their lives in the kitchen. Even if you’re exaggerating, I hate being referred to as like that. We’re not maids and I don’t think it’s fair. Life ain’t fair, whatever! Women SHOULD be allowed in the army and women ARE allowed in the army, so deal with it. Everyone is equal, men should have no greater power over women. I can beat alott of boys at my school (that are older than me)in arm wrestling, weight lifting, baseball(softball)and probably run faster than many. Girls should not be underestimated, we have power too. So shut up.
Thankss.
February 16th, 2010 at 4:47 pm (#)
im a gurl and i was thinking about goin in hthe army wen i get old enough and i think that women shouild be able to go into combat if they wont to. i no theres that risk of getting shot and killed but that could happen if your over there anyway. i mean you have a risk of getting shot as the boys in combat! so i dnt see why they wouldnt let us be in combat. oh and dnt women also have to do the some combat training as the boys have to do??? ok buh bye!! :))
February 17th, 2010 at 1:00 am (#)
I believe women should be allowed to fight in direct combat and special forces, as long as they pass all the same physical tests as the men, without lowering the standards. i am currently writing a paper on this, and i found the same results as earlier mentioned “75% of 41 women were able to do everything that a man cold do.” i also think if women were allowed that it would save many young men who don’t want to be drafted into the war. sure there is possibility of women getting raped if they are captured and become POWs but there is the same possibility in the streets of New York or Boston. and anyone who talks about that unit cohesion bulls*** is dumb. i have read that mixed units are very cohesive and are some of the most productive units out there. If women were properly trained the have great potential, and if they can meet or beat the standards and are clearly better than the men going for the same spot then they should be accepted. Don’t just say oh well she is not a man so she cant do well in the infantry, or whatever the case may be. the military should realize that and take the people who are best for the job no matter what gender they are.
February 17th, 2010 at 8:50 pm (#)
I believe women should not be apart of combat, but should be allowed to be in combat support MOS’s. I am a former Marine Grunt and I hightly doubt that women can do what we grunts can do. I weighed 108 pounds entering the Marine Corps and hiked 20 miles with a pack on my back that weighed 80 pounds. I would love to see a woman try that and not break while doing it. I did two tours in Iraq and the gear alone weighed 70 pounds patrolling in 130 degrees of heat all the while fighting. If a woman can do all that, which there maybe VERY FEW if not NONE, then by all means. It’s not just the trainning that they have to pass. Trainning can only go so far and is very different from real-life situations. I know first hand. Gender does play a very large role in combat. I’m not trying to be sexist, women should be kept in combat support jobs. If they want to be in combat then they should choose jobs that directly support the infantry, i.e. motor transport, Radio Operator, or maybe even artillary. I know for a fact that women cannot be a Basic Infantrymen, Machine gunner, Sniper, Recon, or Mortarmen. Each MOS carries a great deal of weight and takes a lot of discipline. I want to see a woman be in the field for three weeks with no shower, and carry all the weight and still be combat effective. Face it women in general cannot do that.
February 26th, 2010 at 7:25 pm (#)
I saw a post from Meghan on Jan. 19, 2006 that says “We have equal rights to men… WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SERVE IN MILITARY COMBAT!!!” I almost threw up, because the whole point to this debate is really, “can women perform to the same standards as men?” Someone else wrote that women who meet the standards should be allowed, which I would say is true, just like a man who doesn’t meet the standards should not be allowed. When people bring rights into a life-or-death situation as combat, it makes me so pissed. I would not want somebody (man or woman) who can’t perform to be next to me in combat; their right to be there, at that point, would mean absolutely nothing to me. And the whole part about lowering standards, when has that ever helped the advancement of anything, and my nation’s military is one entity that I would not want to stop advancing.
With all that said, “combat” these days isn’t the same combat as 90 years ago, in the trenches. Most missions don’t require you to run up on your enemy and possibly fight hand-to-hand, which is a result of out advancing military (smart bombs, longer reaching missiles, umanned aircraft and robots). However, that doesn’t mean standards are any less important, and every “person” should be required to pass the same high standards.
February 26th, 2010 at 8:08 pm (#)
I think it is completely rediculous when women (or anyone) try to justify women being allowed in combat by using comparisons such as sports, multi-tasking (wtf, dec 19, 2009 post), running faster than men (which will be good I guess when you screw something up in combat), heart/perseverance (which is only good if ability matches). And this business about lowering the standards; hey, I was good at legos when I was ten, maybe I should be an architect, but maybe they should lower the standards a little bit, so I can pass architecture school (or engineering). Once that’s done, would you want me to build the bridge you drive over to work every day? And please do not make reference to a specific point in my post when you yell at me about something I wrote; the whole point of this article is that overall, women aren’t as combat effective, not because they can’t do a pull up, or PMS every month.
February 26th, 2010 at 9:32 pm (#)
I am in the military. I serve in the United States Army. I can do my job better than most men in the military. I just spent a year overseas. In my job in the Army I do not go on missions. But my best friends did. One was just about five feet and was a gunner for our commander. She wore her gear and her weapon was the size of her, but she did her job. It is not about your physical strength. It is about heart and your ability to put yourself out there. I worked over twenty hour days for most of the year. I word very hard to meet the army standard. I am physically fit enough that if my fellow soldier went down next to me I could carry him or her to a safe place. Your mind is focused on the mission and your fellow soldiers life. When the rockets come in you are accounting for everyone, and everything. You are ready to fight. Scared as hell, yeah. I have not met anyone in my army career that is not scared. Man or women. I know when you see that casket go by as you salute a fallen comrade,and later see what happened to the vehicle. You will cry. It does not matter if you know them or not. You still get your stuff and continue mission. Everyone is stressed over there. My personal opinion is don’t say anything until you have served with a women by your side fighting with you or even a medic trying to save your life. A communications person making sure you can talk to the unit if something happens, and that one that sits in the gunner set ready to fire to help save your life.
I don’t care what gender, race, or what sexual preference you have. If you are a good soldier I will fight with you and for you. I know everyone has their own opinions, but think a little harder when you put them out to the public. I spent a year in Iraq so you could feel that I don’t belong in the military.
February 27th, 2010 at 9:22 pm (#)
Anna has a very good point.
February 28th, 2010 at 9:43 pm (#)
Well anna, what was your job over in Iraq. It depends on the job you where doing that would tell if you could do your job better then most men.