Agreed, but as a combat arms vet the only reason I saw/see with women serving in combat roles is the physical conditioning part. Women and men have two different scales of physical fitness in the military. Only if the female can pass the same tests and quals males should the policy move forward. Yes, 60 points is passing, but every combat unit put people on extra PT if they fell under 70 in any event. The fact remains its peoples lives that come first, not political correctness.

Barry, not to discredit your post but I have seen men crying in uniform because they could not cut it too. That's an invalid argument.

the differents is we don't want children to have they mom die or go crazy after combat.

What matters is if they are physically able to perform to the qualitative standard. Having recently completed a 22 year active-duty career, I can tell you that current standards ARE different for men and women. I don't like it, and I can cite many cases where lack of strength has been problematic, but covered up because others have taken up the slack.

With that being said, I don't mind women trying out for physically demanding jobs, BUT I want standards to be even for both genders and I don't want political correctness to make those exceptions just for the sake of trumpeting the first woman into a particular combat role.

IF standards are the same, and testing administered fairly, I think we'll see only a very, very, very, few real women in physically demanding combat roles.

Perhaps when Republicans sit around thinking of their next country to invade, they will consider that fact that women are going to die in greater numbers right along side their male counterparts and be taken prisoner by the enemy who will undoubtedly do horrendous things to them. Also, should Congress ever consider imposing the draft again, they might be hesitant to do so knowing that all young women would be affected equally as our young men have been for centuries.

this may be against the GENEVA CONVENTION ON WARFARE, A WOMEN WITH PMS and a automatic weapon, the enemy does not stand a chance.

Ive NEVER seen a women beat a man in our Karate dojo in a contact match. We don't even allow it period

It may be alright in the fantasy world of movies but in reality NOT GOING TO HAPPEN

Berry Shellhouse,

Men having been losing it during battle for years. So why are you saying its not ok for women to lose it like men do? Could it be because your sense of a woman's capabilities are warped to heck and back? Yes I think that's it. Biases on the battlefield, such as you are displaying with your comments, are dangerous. Get with it or get out of the way and let the big boys and girls fight.

If you don't allow it, then it was never possible to have been seen, so you said absolutely nothing, right?

Cameron...I absolutely agree with you. Barry Shellhouse... I don't know about the women in your world but there are plenty of women out there who can kick ass for their country. Did you know that native Americans used to turn prisoners over to the women for torture because the women were more cruel? Don't worry about women in combat. They've essentially already been there and they are and will be ready come 2015. I'm more worried about the male soldiers and their antiquated ideas about the weakness of women. The women I know who are pleased by this decision have more than enough courage and endurance to make America proud.

I want to know are women now going to have to register for the draft when they turn 18 JUST LIKE MEN HAVE TO or is that another double standard

Also are Obama's daughters going to enlist in the military and register for the draft?

Well OBAMA ARE THEY?

Here come Xena !!!!!

You Go Girl.

The second to last paragraph says it all. If a soldier is willing, qualified, and capable to stop a terrorist, save lives, or protect the country, what difference does it make what their gender or sexual orientation is?

The answer to this is simple. It matters a lot. It is less noticeable in today's society because if anything we're overpopulated, however, in terms of straight biology and survival women are more valuable than men. The single clearest example of this is, if your society has one male of breeding age and ten females, you can have ten children at a time. If you have ten males and one female, you have a real problem.

Of course you can make the argument that the society with 10 males will just take over the society with 10 females and procreate that way. Never-the-less, sending females into combat or any risky situation when plenty of males are available is a bad idea. Females should only be used in combat as an absolute last resort. Biologically speaking they are too valuable to send to their deaths. This is further exacerbated when you consider men can procreate from puberty until they are either impotent or dead. Women have a much narrower window. Soldiers are almost exclusively in the window. So you are now risking women in their prime breeding age (Any societies most valuable asset) in combat. You might as well had the terrorists the keys to Fort Knox. It is on that level of stupidity.

THis. of course, is all BS... it's physiology... women are just BUILT DIFFERENTLY...

Sorry, but if a woman cannot make at least the MINIMUM REQUIREMENT of their male conterpart they have no place in the unit. If a male cannot preform at the bare minimum, they are not allowed in the military.

Also, does this mean that women in combat units will be required to have the same grooming standards as their male conterparts? If not, then they (again) should not be allowed in that unit.

Think of the horror a parent or spouse would go through if their daughter or wife ever became a POW. Men have it tough, but come on. We are in the 21st. century with a Xena warrior princess mentality... people watch to much television and movies where women are more than they really are..yes, they can hold their own, but why make them targets ?

I do sincerely hope they require all young women to register for the draft when they become 18.

Poor Barry.

If a bullet passes through your skull, you'll probably be really happy that it was emotional and won't have as much chance of killing you, you know if it was fired by a woman. LOL!

You are so funny.

Barry Shellhouse

"It matters cause women are much weaker and emotional and can't handel the stress of killing terrorists - oh sorry, I mean enemies. I would never want to be in a gun battel with woman soldiers on my side. They would stop when it become too intense and leave soldiers alone out there. No thanks!"

I CANNOT believe you are stupid enough to go on the record with a post such as this, misspelling, sexist logic, general lack of clear point of view. You have to be one of the most clueless posters EVER.

andyoo

"the differents is we don't want children to have they mom die or go crazy after combat."

Oops, I stand corrected.

saxon

"this may be against the GENEVA CONVENTION ON WARFARE, A WOMEN WITH PMS and a automatic weapon, the enemy does not stand a chance."

Just forget I said anything.

It's time to pass the ERA. Just as he Civil Rights Amendment gave equality based on race, the Equal Rights amendment would have given equality based on SEX. Time to treat ALL men and women as equals! None of this "selective" equal rights. That's as bad as 3/5ths of a person!

The answer to this is simple. It matters a lot. It is less noticeable in today's society because if anything we're overpopulated, however, in terms of straight biology and survival women are more valuable than men. The single clearest example of this is, if your society has one male of breeding age and ten females, you can have ten children at a time. If you have ten males and one female, you have a real problem.

You pretty much answered yourself in the third sentence. In today's society, we live in an overpopulated world. The rest of your statement, while true, doesn't apply today, hasn't applied for almost a century, and isn't likely to apply anytime over the next century.

"I don't think gender is a factor at all," says retired Navy rear admiral Jamie Barnett, who is now at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. "

Since when is a Navy admiral an expert on women in combat from other branches? Please your biggest battle is which brand of coffee you put in your mug, as you recline in your chair, overlooking the view of the ocean. This is just more B.S to give women a special pass. If they want to even the playing field, make females have to pass the male PT test standards. If I hear one more idiot mention PMS...Your average 18 year old female will not have PMS, so please shut up. Also,

But an elite female athlete can outperform the average male soldier easily in many ways,"

How many elite female athletes join the military? The problem is this all works out in theory until it gets put into practice.

It matters cause women are much weaker and emotional and can't handel the stress of killing terrorists - oh sorry, I mean enemies. I would never want to be in a gun battel with woman soldiers on my side. They would stop when it become too intense and leave soldiers alone out there. No thanks!

Wow. Just....wow. I was going to post "Why are we even having this discussion? Aren't we over it already?" But your post very clearly explained it to me.

Witch king— Did Mitt Romney's 5 grown boys enlist when he voted to go to war? No! and all 5 were eligible to go. So quit it that nonsense. Mutt Robme said his boys would do their country a better service helping him run for President. It really did help didn't it Mitt.? HA!

Did The Bush daughters go? Did anyone in office have a child that went?!

Gotta disagree with ya cameron. I have a sister right now that has more balls, heart and composure than most men I've ever met in my entire life! Not just saying that either, Im dead serious. Now she may be the exception, I will admit, but they are out there. Just for the record though I dont like the idea either, but not for the same reason!

kick your butt

Yes, We Can.

Who will carry Bubba when he gets wounded? Bubba's bigger sister?

Hello folks, it's a sad day that women will be lowering themselves to being cold calculated murderers like many young men have been forced to do. There is no honor in killing men, women and children for the Oil, Banking and Corporate cartels. If you think this is some kind of victory for women, it's not! It's a sad sad day!

Would you send a group of men into combat that research has shown who are more than twice as likely to develop PTSD than others????

If not then why would you put women into combat roles? The military/VA finds that PTSD rates among women are more than double those than men.

Women are more likely to develop PTSD if they:

• Have a past mental health problem (e.g., depression or anxiety)
• Experienced a very severe or life-threatening trauma
• Were sexually assaulted
• Were injured during the event
• Had a severe reaction at the time of the event
• Experienced other stressful events afterwards
• Do not have good social support

Here go folks - Yup Women in combat. We have created a wave of "victims" once the s&it hits the fan.... Guess What? Yupper - Law Suits "after the fact" saying how did the Army. Marines, etc "allowed" me to do this when I obviously was not qualified... Oh and how the Liberals will pounce when its not their Kenyan-in-chief knucklehead not going to War.

The Liberal Mantra - Boys will be Girls and Girls will be Boys... I saw a straight guy in skinny jeans, Al Qaida scarf, and tight sweater - our eyes met and I gave him this look of YOUR NOT GAY and I laughed and I laughed and I laughed - Yes he heard me and only hung his head in SHAME! This confused idiot pulled off his Al Qaida scarf off at the next block, tucked in his shirt and I swear I almost saw a man. Almost. Quest to turn the WANA-BE Hipster, LWNJ's! into the men and women they were told that were not!

More than two-thirds of American adults are overweight or obese, and experts agree that both poor diet and a lack of exercise is to blame. The military needs men and women alike who are in the best possible shape, argues Barnett.

We should view fitness as a patriotic duty. If Americans became fit, our health care costs would become manageable.

I'm lookin' at you, Chris Christie.

Barry Shellhouse

It matters cause women are much weaker and emotional and can't handel the stress of killing terrorists - oh sorry, I mean enemies. I would never want to be in a gun battel with woman soldiers on my side. They would stop when it become too intense and leave soldiers alone out there. No thanks!

Barry, what a treat it must be to serve with you. You can honestly say if you had a male partner who wasn't qualified that you'd rather work with him, as opposed to a female who was able to do the job better? Why do you think we'd hesitate to fire on the enemy - you think we'd allow the soldiers next to us into any danger by hiding or something? You've got a whole lot to learn about women. We have just as much pride in fighting for our country as you do.

When I was in boot camp - during the first Gulf war, the AF had different physical requirements for men and women. That is not fair. Many women graduated who shouldn't have because they couldn't get through the physical part of it well enough, as well as some of the men. When I did my push-ups, I did NOT do them on my knees, even though I was told to. I stood up to my drill Sgt and said if I was going overseas then I should be able to do what the men do. She left me alone and I was the only one able to these push-ups this way. Sad. When I ran the mile, only 5 men beat me. When I did the obstacle course, only a handful of men beat me. I went to train as Security Police and received the Top Gun award for being the best shooter out of 50 men and 3 other women in my flight using 3 different weapons. Don't tell me I didn't deserve my job... because I beat the majority of the men I was with. Men who couldn't shoot a target dead on yet bragged about how good of a hunter they were. You wouldn't believe the amount of bets I won by taking these men on. Matter of fact, all of the women qualified and left a handful of men to keep trying until they finally qualified. You want a man like that next to you? He'd probably shoot you instead of the enemy!

All us women want is a CHANCE to try. That's all! If we physically can't do the job, we don't get the job, same as the men. Very simple, but the rules need to apply to both genders. I worked along side many men who didn't belong in security either, but they did. My biggest compliment was when one of the guys who didn't like working with women, at the end of training told me he'd fight with me in any situation. He got it.

As for the stress you think we can't handle - explain to me the difference between that and all the MEN coming home with PTSD? It's all the same, and I'm not saying we wouldn't get that either, but in the heat of the moment, in a war, we would do our job just like you would, that is if you had the balls to do so with a woman standing next to you, which it sounds like you don't have.

Times are a changing my friend. Better get used to it. I've been out nearly 20 yrs and my now 14 yr old plans on joining the Marines because it's the hardest. As a parent I'm crying inside, but as a woman who fought for her country as well, I get it and applaud her for it. She's going the hard way by joining the Marines, as an officer too, and I hope one day maybe she'll meet up with you and you can watch her kick your butt!

Just a P.S. for all these others making comments about women serving combat - AGAIN - All we want is the chance to do the job, just as the men have it. If they don't allow men because they can't pass the physical part of it, test the women the SAME. They pass, they're allowed to serve. They fail, they do another job, just like the men. Why is this such a big deal to you guys? Afraid of being shown up by a woman doing a better job than you?

As a member of the military for over eight-teen years, I can not disagree more with this new policy. Obviously there are some women who can compete at the same level physically and mentally as men. That's not the problem, neither is the idea of women not being as capable during their "time of the month."

The problem is that for the vast majority of women to pass the physical qualifications, the standards will be lowered, lowering our overall capability. I saw this first hand when women were allowed in other non-combat roles that were previously only held by men due the physical rigors.

Another problem is that men will be men (i.e act like immature morons.) Unfortunately, this means sexual assaults will go up, along with unwanted pregnancies, and sexual harassment. I don't agree with this behavior in any way, but history shows that it will happen.

The last problem is that men are ingrained to protect the women around them. Making it more likely they will do something stupid to protect the woman on the front lines next to them, where they may let the man take care of himself. Not saying its right, just saying that's how it works.

End result, a less capable fighting force. Gotta love political correctness.

If captured, a troop is subject to distressing conditions. Although anal rape is becoming increasingly common in Middle East areas, anal rape of male troops is exponentially less likely than routine sexual predation upon any female troop that might be captured. I doubt if many female front line combat troops would choose combat if capture were a possibility. Nurses in the Phillipines under the Japanese were not well treated and suffered gang rape on practically a daily basis.

Is it not a problem that women have smaller brains?

DisabledVet68:

First off, thanks for your service.

Secondly, please ignore Barry.

All that having been said I think all you need to do is to pull a trigger and throw a grenade 25 meters. Hand to hand? Does that ever even happen in today's combat world?

I would have no problem being stationed with women in combat.

Women can be brutal fighters. Just try to come after a mother's baby sometime Barry. She'll rip yer a$$ in half lengthwise.

The thought of women soldiers slaughtering Islamists and the Taliban is the sweetest irony.

Sweet, sweet irony, slathered in bacon.

Does the media even bother to fact check anything anymore. To score 100 on the Marine
Fitness test:

For a male you must complete the following: 20 Pull-Ups, 100 Crunches within 2 minutes
and run three miles within 18 minutes.

For a female you must complete the following: A 70 second arm hang, 100 Crunches within 2
minutes and run three miles within 21 minutes.

Hardly seems like “the Marines doesn’t give females a break at all when it comes to minimum physical fitness”. I see this with everything anymore, the facts don't support the point I'm trying to make so I’ll just make up facts that do?

To all you Veterans and current servicemembers:

You say you don't want women becaues they WILL lower the physical standards.

MOST WOMEN THINK THEY SHOULd NOT LOWER THEM

There needs to be ONE STANDARD for both men and women. Maybe they need to look over the standards to make sure some aren't useless or of little use (I have no idea).

But it's a physical job. it needs one standard

you all dont' trust your leaders not to be stupid. Why would they lower the quality of the fighting force by lowering standards? It has been left up to each service to decide how they will implement having women and SOME will not have to have women if they show that it will not work...they just have to have a reason.

We are all supposed to have a chance in our country. It is WRONG to have a law the excludes women ONLY because of their gender. But they need to be able to perform up to the level of many men.

I do in fact know women who are as strong as men. I've only known two of them. Neither were particularly fit. One in fact was fat since childhood. For some reason they were strong as men...could lift furniture like men (my friends helped me move one time). It must have been a genetic gift for them.

Women should be able to try if they make the grade.

So, Men and women in uniform and veterans--write to the leaders of your (former) service and say that women and men should have the same physical standard.

Need to also remind eveyrone of this:

Many other Western countries do allow Women in the service fully. Israel comes to mind. So it can be done. I am sure they are looking at how other countries do it successfully so they can learn from their successes and failures and do this right

Women have been fighting for years to be more like men. Men are Men and Women are NOT Men and never will be. Why do women think they need to prove themselves? Why can't women just enjoy their intended design as nurturers, wives and mothers? Women are the glue that keeps the family together. Motherhood is so important, honorable and was entrusted to the woman, not the man, because God designed the woman that way. With moms going AWOL, families are falling to pieces. Children need love and guidance. Children need a mom.

'She'll kick your butt': Experts say women fit to fight

Just one question.

How many of these "women soldiers" were raped last year?

If they can not defend themselves, how can they defend others?

And if you believe the problem is bigger than the military is reporting, as does the MSM, then how much bigger is the problem going to be when they are fully deployed?

Don't get me wrong, I am all for giving women the opportunity. But based on my experience, not very many women can qualify. And if we are going down this Primrose Path, how is it going to affect the general population of women? If we have a Draft, are we going to draft women too? or are they still going to get to 'volunteer'?

I always use this argument. {Many women(people) can qualify to be Engineers(occupation), but how many of them WANT to be Engineers(occupation)?} when a discussion comes up about how much women earn vs men, etc.

But in this case we need also to look at if we draft women too, do we still give them special privileges? Because this is exactly what it is. We all know men and women are not equal. This is why they have been given the special privilege of being exempt from the draft(when there is one). So if we are to make men and women equal, does that mean we lower standards so women serve the front line at the expense of the men?

Our military knows there are a few females that can do just as good as some males on the front lines...but this doesn't mean all females who enter the military will be in combat on the front lines..be very few no doubt!

Females were always in a combat zone for decades..just not suppose to be involved in front line battles..take that Lynch girl..she got lost in a combat zone with her unit...became a battle.

Barry Shellhouse, you are a world class idiot, and your statements prove it.

Women are the chidlbearers of mankind, meaning that they are, by nature, proportionately stronger and more mentally fit than you will ever be.

You moron. Of course, you will never understand what I just said, so just call me a name and disregard this.

Once again the Non Factual Emotive Opinions on Newsvine's "Get Smarter Here", as:

Only 1% of US Citizens are currently Serving the US Military, while 92% of US Citizens NEVER Served in the US Military.

For a very long time I have Served with women as Combatants during Special Warfare Operations. And NO these women are NOT "average", as they normally have "Hobbies", "Recreation" of Marathons, Triathele Events, Mountain Climbing (and or spelunking), Base Jumping (after climbing a mountain), etc.. These women do not come thru normal channels (BUD/S, MARSOC, STT, Q Course, etc.) and I still suspect the Intelligence Community's "Farm" more than likely trained by the CIA's SAD/SOG, like the CIA's "Little Ms. 100%" as stated by the Director of the CIA "She's a Killer". And yes, they do meet or exceed the Physical Tests (including the Special Warfare Tests). Previously, these women warriors as Combatants known as "Amazons", now known as "Lionesses" (male lion sits around licking his nuts, while the female lions (lionesses) hunt and kill.

So you know my position on this matter as a longtime advocate of the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment).

This is not to say that I am wearing shutters, blinders, nor being "politically correct" as also the Physical Tests for all must be the same for men and women regardless of Branch of US Military Service; just like the Physical Tests must NOT be conducted in "running shoes"; but, wearing combat boots (what you will be wearing in combat).

And ALL Women US Citizens must agree that Equal Rights means Equal Civic Duties and Responsibilities as the Selective Service (aka Draft) for Women. Also the US Military must NEVER be used as a Social Experiment, especially the immature (majority young having raging hormones) US Military Conventional Warfare Forces.

For all you female fighter doubters out there, read the bible. You'll find more than one story of a woman using trickery (sleeping with the enemy) or sheer power(dropping a stone on someone head) to kill a bad guy, and with God's blessings. Run Hillary Run 2016.

This won't be a popular opinion, but women raise children. I have no doubt that women can become ruthless and cruel and kill bad guys. But what happens to the kids when a women like this raises them? The people I've known who had cruel and ruthless mothers were cruel people themselves. I dunno, maybe I'm worried about nothing. But being a caring mother is an important role in society too. It's bad enough that we have two parents working now. What will this do to future generations?

It's not the physical aspect, it's the mental........

How many female mass murderers can you list? How many male?

Kipling figured it out about 100 years ago ... A man ahead of his time!

The Female of the Species

WHEN the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside.
But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When Nag the basking cobra hears the careless foot of man,
He will sometimes wriggle sideways and avoid it if he can.
But his mate makes no such motion where she camps beside the trail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws.
'Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man's timid heart is bursting with the things he must not say,
For the Woman that God gave him isn't his to give away;
But when hunter meets with husbands, each confirms the other's tale—
The female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man, a bear in most relations—worm and savage otherwise,—
Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise.
Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact
To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.

Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low,
To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe.
Mirth obscene diverts his anger—Doubt and Pity oft perplex
Him in dealing with an issue—to the scandal of The Sex!

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

She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast
May not deal in doubt or pity—must not swerve for fact or jest.
These be purely male diversions—not in these her honour dwells—
She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.

She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate.
And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim
Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.

She is wedded to convictions—in default of grosser ties;
Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies!—
He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild,
Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.

Unprovoked and awful charges—even so the she-bear fights,
Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisons—even so the cobra bites,
Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw
And the victim writhes in anguish—like the Jesuit with the squaw!

So it comes that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer
With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her
Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands
To some God of Abstract Justice—which no woman understands.

And Man knows it! Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him
Must command but may not govern—shall enthral but not enslave him.
And She knows, because She warns him, and Her instincts never fail,
That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male.

Re "Did anyone in office have a child that went?!" - Joe Biden's son, Beau:

Biden joined the military in 2003 as a member of the Delaware Army National Guard and was recently promoted to the rank of Major in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps as part of the 261st Signal Brigade in Smyrna, Delaware.

Biden's unit was activated to deploy to Iraq on October 3, 2008, and sent to Fort Bliss, Texas, for pre-deployment training, the day after his father participated in the 2008 presidential campaign's only vice presidential debate. His father is on the record as saying, "I don't want him going. But I tell you what, I don't want my grandson or my granddaughters going back in 15 years, and so how we leave makes a big difference."

Biden traveled to Washington, D.C., from Iraq in January 2009 for the presidential inauguration and his father's swearing-in as Vice President, then returned to Iraq. Biden received a visit at Camp Victory from his father on July 4, 2009. Biden returned from Iraq in September 2009, his yearlong deployment complete.

As long as they understand that "fit to fight" also means "fit to die" send them to the front lines...My first 30 days in the US Army included hours of war footage watching men die for our freedom... If they are willing to die to defend our country they are in..

Obama Ignores Deadly Risks to Women in Combat
By Arnold
Ahlert

It didn't take long for the Obama administration to advance a pernicious
piece of its promised radical agenda. Two days after the president laid out his
far-left vision during the inauguration, senior defense officials announced that
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta will lift the military's ban on women serving
in combat. The move overturns a 1994 provision that prohibited them from being
assigned to ground combat units. Panetta has given the various service branches
until 2016 to come up with exemptions, and/or make any arguments about what
roles should still reman closed to women. Thus, another bit of gender radicalism
has been shoved down the nation's throat through executive fiat - and this one
is sure to have deadly consequences.

It is precisely those deadly consequences - especially for servicewomen -
that are irrelevant to feminists and their enablers, who have long pushed the
idea that men and women are essentially interchangeable. Nothing could be
further from the truth, and combat is where those differences could produce
deadly results. Ground combat is arguably the most physically grueling activity
in which one can be engaged, and despite what the feminists would like Americans
to believe about equality, science says otherwise: men have almost twice the
upper-body strength as women.

This is a critically relevant consideration. According to a 2009 article in
National Defense Magazine, a soldier on a three-day mission in Afghanistan
carries approximately 130 pounds of gear, and efforts to lighten that load have
not succeeded. This is primarily due to the reality that the essentials of food,
water, and ammunition cannot be replaced with lighter items. Other equipment,
such as sensors, tripods, cold weather clothing, boots, sleeping bags,
flashlights, and protective eyewear, have all been made lighter. But the fact
remains that the average soldier is expected to carry enormous amounts of
weight, simply to better ensure his chances for survival. Furthermore, a soldier
must carry that weight even during periods of intense fighting. The overwhelming
majority of women are not capable of meeting such standards.

What is the Pentagon likely to do? In New York City, when most female
applicants to the Fire Department were unable to meet the strength requirements,
feminists filed a successful lawsuit, altering the standards so that a number of
otherwise unqualified women could pass the test. Thus it is likely the Pentagon
will pursue a similar strategy of "gender-norming" for the entire service that
is already part of the Army Physical Fitness Test. That test requires
proficiency in push-ups, sit-ups and a two-mile run. For sit-ups both genders
have the same requirements. For push-ups and the run, the grading scale for
women is easier.

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, illuminates
the folly of pursuing such double standards. "Revised 'warrior training'
programs sound impressive, but gender-normed standards emasculate the concept by
assuring 'success' for average female trainees," she wrote in 2005, when the
Army began a surreptitious program of putting women in smaller, direct
ground-combat units. Donnelly then added the critically proper perspective to
the mix. "Soldiers know that there is no gender-norming on the battlefield," she
explains.

There is also nothing that will eliminate the natural differences between men
and women that play out in a number of other ways. Few things are more important
for enduring the rigors of combat than morale and combat unit cohesion. It is
ludicrous to believe that mixed units will be immune to the potentially
de-stabilizing effects of sexual attraction. And as night follows day, sexual
attraction leads to pregnancy. In 2009, Major General Anthony Cucolo, running
military operations in Northern Iraq, was forced to deal with the serious
downside of that reality. As a result, he initiated a policy under which troops
who got pregnant–and the men who got them pregnant–faced a court martial and
possible jail time. Cucolo issued the directive because he was losing too many
women with critical skills. "I've got a mission to do, I'm given a finite number
of soldiers with which to do it and I need every one of them," he contended.

Yet consensual sex is only part of the problem. A military report released in
January 2012 revealed a stunning 64 percent increase in violent sex crimes
within the U.S. Army since 2006. The most frequent sex crimes for 2011 included
"rape, sexual assault, and forcible sodomy." The report further noted that while
only 14 percent of the Army is comprised of women, they represent 95 percent of
all sex crime victims.

It stretches the bounds of credulity to believe that sexual tension,
regardless of the legitimate or illegitimate motivation behind it, would be
lessened under front line, life-threatening combat conditions. Nor is it
inconceivable to think that close personal relationships of a sexual nature
would make some soldiers take the kind of unnecessary risks to save a lover that
might not only endanger themselves, but their entire unit.

There is another reality that feminists and their enablers fail to
acknowledge. As it currently stands, there is little appetite demonstrated by
women themselves for serving in combat units. Army Research Institute (ARI)
surveys taken from 1993-2001 revealed that the majority of military women were
strongly opposed to combat assignments–so much so that the ARI dropped the
question from its survey the following year. Less than a month ago, a Huffington
Post article regarding interviews with "a dozen female soldiers and Marines"
revealed that they had "little interest in the toughest fighting jobs,"
contending "they'd be unable to do them." When the Marines asked women to go
through their infantry training course last year, only two women volunteered.
Both of them failed to get through it. No one volunteered for the next one. Army
Sgt. Cherry Sweat, who did a tour in Iraq installing communications equipment,
reveals a sentiment that most military women apparently share. "The job I want
to do in the military does not include combat arms," she said. "I enjoy
supporting the soldiers. The choice to join combat arms should be a personal
decision, not a required one," she added.

Lory Manning of Women's Research and Education Institute thinks women's
interest in assuming combat roles will be higher than anticipated. "If you asked
someone in 1985 about going to sea, she would have been thinking: 'Girls don't
do that and so I don't want to do that,'" Manning contended. "But when push came
to shove, they did it, they loved it." That is a ridiculous comparison. Going to
sea is hardly the same as front-line combat. Moreover, when "push comes to
shove," it is highly doubtful that there is more than a microscopic number of
soldiers who "love" being in the mortal danger that combat engenders.

Unfortunately, such realities are no match for those who champion diversity.
Putting women in combat units "reflects the reality of 21st century military
operations," said Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin
(D-MI), in announcing his support for the program. No doubt he and others see it
as the next logical step following last year's announcement, opening 14,000
combat-related positions to female soldiers. At that time, the Pentagon still
insisted on keeping women out of direct combat roles, even as they noted they
were committed to lifting such barriers eventually. At the time, they claimed
that making such sweeping changes would be difficult in time of war. Another
factor was the lifting of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy allowing gays to
serve openly. Allowing women to serve on the front lines at the same time was
considered one big social change too many.

No longer. The new policy expands the number of military jobs available to
women from last year's 14,000 to more than 230,000 positions. Part of the
impetus for the change may have been two lawsuits filed last year challenging
the combat ban, but according to a senior military official familiar with the
discussions by the Joint Chiefs, the ultimate conclusion was that this is the
time to "maximize women's service in the military."

Writing for the Washington Post three days ago, Elaine Donnelly reiterated
her position that putting women in combat is a terrible idea, presciently noting
that "even the if the results of the Marines' research do not support
unrealistic theories of feminists who consider land combat to be just another
career opportunity, administration officials might press their egalitarian
agenda anyway." She further noted that the "Pentagon-endorsed Military
Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC) has called for an end to women's land
combat exemptions, based on a new definition of 'diversity.'"

That egalitarian agenda, like so many other progressive agendas, may produce
an unintended consequence. The 1981 Rostker v. Goldberg Supreme Court case
exempted women from being part of the nation's Selective Service System. America
no longer drafts civilians into the military, but as Donnelly notes, the
elimination of such combat exemptions will involve civilian women registering
with Selective Service. She then makes a recommendation, not only anathema to
the Obama administration, but one that only three days later was ultimately
ignored. "Congress, which represents the American people, should not be shut out
of this decision-making process," she wrote. If the draft is re-instated, one
wonders how the American public will take to having their daughters every bit as
vulnerable as their sons to forcible conscription. A rising tide of Islamist
terror in the Middle East and now in Africa could provide the answer.

Once again, elections have consequences. Barack Obama has made it clear that
part of his progressive agenda includes forcing gender radicalism down America's
throat, absent any input from Congress. Once, the United States military was all
about projecting lethal power around the globe to protect America's interests.
Now, it is all about promoting diversity, inclusion and equality of outcome,
irrespective of military readiness and cohesion. For progressives, who have
elevated political correctness above all else–national security included–such
radical egalitarianism is cause for celebration. For Donnelly and countless
other Americans, it is anything but. "No one's injured son should have to die on
the streets of a future Fallujah because the only soldier near enough to carry
him to safety was a five-foot-two 110-pound woman," she contends.

Great idea, imagine the deadly power of a thousand women with high power weapons and PMS. Get the hell out of their way lol.

@Barry Shellhouse

Really not too much here other than the standards to judge both sexes combat ready. Many other nations have had women fight for years. I would have an issue in any occupation that standards were lowered for anyone, where someone else's life could be put at risk. There are women who could make the standard, but no lessoning of requirements should be tolerated by any branch. If women or bureaucrats allowed that to become policy, it will be a disservice not only to women but a disgrace to the military. Everyone realizes if these women are capable they know the risk. They signed up and were not forced to fight. Women have the right to die in combat just like any man. On a personal note, I have to state with conviction I would rather huddle in a fox hole with a woman any day. It might have crushed my post, but I have known many a women I would fight with in combat, who were not whiners.

This is total BS. Fit to fight? Who? Some Muslim woman? Well ladies, have fun when you get captured as you are brutally raped over and over again. Just ask Jessica Lynch.

There is no way I would want some woman in my patrol. Everyone would be watching out for her like a little sister and jeopardize the lives of everyone else.

I am 6'2" 280 lbs. and muscular, and if I am serving next to a woman, I want her to be able to drag me or briefly pick me up to save my life. Think about it, how many stories have you heard of a soldier putting his life on the line to save another, countless. It takes not just determination, but also strength. I respect women that have a will to serve their country, but I do not respect a woman thinking they have the same capabilties physically as a man, they are completely delussional and in need of mental humility. Such goes the saying,"Check yourself before you wreck yourself."

What the women going to do when they are on their period? Instead of an ammo belt they can have a Tampon Belt. What Experts say this is a good idea? An Expert Rear Admiral? Yeah right. Women wont even be able to carry their own gear. They shoul stay back at camp and make dinner for the real soldiers. They could rub the mens feet when they come back from patrol.

1.55 is a good post. Long post, but a very good article about the subject.

when they can play football in the NFL, then I will concede and say they are ready for combat, until that day- no freakn way

As the saying goes, "be careful what you wish for". I hope that women realize that by "winning" the right to fight along side of the men, they may be opening a can of worms for all females. If the draft should be reinstated and, if we keep starting wars like we do, that may become a necessity sooner rather than later, it may no longer be only the 18-year old males who will be at risk.

RobGC - I agree with you that a woman would have great difficulty, if she could do it at all but, at 6'2" and a muscular 280 lbs., you may be hard-pressed to find a man who could lift or drag you out of harms way.

Also, if they were captured, they are much easier to rape than men soldiers. Sorry, but it's true.

They have more to worry about from there own comrades than the enemy raping them About 20% of the women sent to Combat areas are sexually assaulted by our own male troops.

If men and women are equal, why do they compete separately in the Olympics?

If an army of men fought an army of women, which one would win, and which one would you want defending your country?

So I guess they should start signing up for the Draft or Selective Service just like men if they are so equal?

The concept of 'equality' seems to elude many of us. No end to the 'yeah, but's'. Check some of the comments. One guy wants to keep 'chicks' out of the military so they can serve 'other purposes'. What a guy. I heard that discrimination is a crime in this country, unless you can think of another mindless 'yeah, but'.

I have no problem with women being in combat but not integrated with men. There is no way in hell that the most elite female athlete can pick up a wounded 210 lb man and carry him on her shoulders for 50 yards to safety under fire in full combat gear. If they are going to let them fight then they need to be in their own units. This same female would probably be able to pick up a wounded 135 female and carry her on her shoulders for 50 yards to safety under fire in full combat gear.

If the left wants to allow women to be killed in front line combat that's fine with me but I'd like to see one rule in place. Women need to volunteer for combat duty. So all you Radical Left Wing Liberal/Progressive Wack Job females line up and sign up. Seeing as we have all of this enthusiasm for women in combat I'm sure we'll have 10 brigades of combat ready women in no time.

"Kick your butt" yeah, yeah then why do we have two different qualifications test? One for women and one for men. The men have to meet a standard, the women make their own standard and then qualify. Or maybe the article is talking about two different butts.

• My son in law is a Major currently stationed at Fort Hood. He's been deploy to Iraq twice and Afghanistan at least twice. He says lesbians make the best soldiers. He tells me they don't whine, don't bitch, do what they are ordered with no questions asked and get the job done right and on time.

"Kick your butt"? Give me a break....who ever heard of the "Battered husband" syndrome? Very damn seldom, and it is usually some woman beating on a guy that won't hit her back. My wife got mad at me over something about 25 years ago and was standing there hitting me in the chest and she got enraged because I thought it was funny and started laughing. Even a tough woman will be killed by just an ordinary man in a true live or die situation. We should not be putting women, male soldiers that depend on them, or our country in this situation just to be politically correct.

This seems to be happening more for political reasons than for military ones. But what's new? We now run EVERYTHING for political reasons instead of common sense. 20 kids are gunned down in a school by a psychopath and I've heard very little actual constructive debate on HOW TO MAKE SCHOOLS SAFER. Instead, the left makes an immediate and instant leap of inference to gun control, because you "never want to let a good crisis go to waste." We can't even talk honestly about the other factors (violet movies, video games, etc) because they give too much money to Obama and are left-leaning groups. So we continue on without any intellectual honesty. Same is true with the women in combat issue. At some point it will cost lives, but it's worth it if some politician can use it to say he/she supports women more than anyone else.

I am 6'2" 280 lbs. and muscular, and if I am serving next to a woman, I want her to be able to drag me or briefly pick me up to save my life.

Well now ... I have to first wonder at YOUR fitness for duty. The MAX at the OLDEST category for a man is 214 pounds at your height. The max for someone 6'6 is 250. That must be a LOT of "muscle" you're carrying around to get that much of an exemption from the chart! (cough, cough).

I highly doubt you're going to be serving next to many men (you know, those average dudes meeting or close to the height and weight standard) that can haul you around either.

Even a tough woman will be killed by just an ordinary man in a true live or die situation.

Any man would die the same if they were shot by a women or buy the man.

I am 6'2" 280 lbs. and muscular, and if I am serving next to a woman, I want her to be able to drag me or briefly pick me up to save my life.

And will the guy who is 150lb 5'9" drag you out? I know a woman who is a Profecinal kick boxer and I have seen her knock men out on the street that were messing with her one kick and they are out.

I know a woman who is a Profecinal kick boxer and I have seen her knock men out on the street that were messing with her one kick and they are out.

Did she then pick him up, sling him over her shoulder, and go jogging off into the sunset? What's a Profecinal kick boxer? Never heard of that style of fighting?

What's a Profecinal kick boxer? Never heard of that style of fighting?

Excuse me professional is that better for your low comprehension? Forgive me if I don't proof read ever thing I'm not unemployed like you and have to leave for work soon.

Did she then pick him up, sling him over her shoulder, and go jogging off into the sunset?

I don't know many soldiers that can do that to some one that is 210 in full combat gear do you?

Auto 101,

I don't know many soldiers that can do that to some one that is 210 in full combat gear do you?

I don't think you know too many soldiers.

I would rather the Taliban NOT surrender to our women soldiers, and fight on to their inevitable meeting with their 'god'!

And I do in fact wish it was slathered in bacon. I think we should have pigs on airplanes and spray pig's blood over towns that harbor terrorists.

Gotta get through somehow!

Auto 101

know a woman who is a Profecinal kick boxer and I have seen her knock men out on the street that were messing with her one kick and they are out.

Auto, you are about as full of $hit as a Christmas turkey. You don't know any professional female kick boxer that goes around knocking men out on the street, if you did she would be in jail anyway.

Also, as for the guy that is 280 lb and is 6'2", that guy is full of it too, he would be on the fat boy program not out fighting bad guys, they will kick you out for being that over weight. When I got out of the military the weight max limit for me was 184lb and I was 5'8", and I didn't come anywhere close to the max, people 6'2" would be more, but not by as much as you think. That was 1976 and it may have changed now, but probably not by much.

don't know any professional female kick boxer that goes around knocking men out on the street if you did she would be in jail anyway.

There is a difference of doing it to some one and doing it to every one it was two guys who were trying to feel her up. but you must think that is against the law and that she should have been forced into an ally and raped.

I don't think you know too many soldiers.

I do know many. They would not pick some one unconscious off the ground unless they had help they would drag him until they had the help and could get the gear off. They have come out with new armor that is very nice at that. You just pull one cord and the hole thing comes a part.

Most of the posters here don't seem to understand what frontline (including hand-to-hand) combat is. For those who haven't experienced it personally, you can view documentaries such as "Restrepo", "Band of Brothers", etc. to get a taste. You should also familiarize yourself with PTSD and its effect on people's lives, the high rate of suicide in combat military personnel, the psychological effects in women who have been brutally raped, etc.. Any female who wants to go into frontline combat should be fully aware of all of this. There should also be a study of the effects on frontline soldiers survival, ability to accomplish assigned missions, morale, etc.. There should also be a referendum of all the females in the country to see if they are in favor of being registered for the Draft to be taken into the military to fill frontline combat roles. Then, a Company of females who are already in the military and want frontline duty (and fulfill the physical requirements) should be formed and tested out in a frontline position e.g. a fort in a location like the Korengal Valley. A decision on whether to have females in frontline combat should not be made until the results of these things are known. The current decision has all the earmarks of a payback promised for political support in the last election.

1/4 of the time women have this problem. During that time they dont make decisions based on sound logic. The problem is not as much physical as it is psychological. Anyone thats ever lived with a woman knows what Im saying. We are not about to let political correctness to ruin this country or our lives. Women in combat AINT GONNA HAPPEN, Women in the draft AINT GONNA HAPPEN.

I'll make this easy. I was trained by the military. I studied martial arts for years. I met some of the toughest women in this country and there wasnt a single one that I couldnt kill if my life depended on it. Sending women into combat is like sending Bambi onto a shooting range.

Take a man of average size, take a woman of above average size, put both in a ring and convince each of them that its a death match. How long do you think it would take for that guy to put that female on her back? Ive asked a lot of people this question, women, men, vets and the answer is 20. Thats twenty seconds. Now put her into a match with a seasoned cuban, north korean, Russian or Chinese. These women would become high value targets. They would be captured and passed around like a two dollar whore. Is that what you want for American women? Men go to war because we have to. We do it so our people dont suffer. That includes women.

I think the point is that if women want to, and if they're capable, what right do we have to forbid them from even trying?

Buffy the Vampire Slayer ... is coming !!!!!!!

We will have more heroines...

Good luck.

Nah,

you`ll just have more dead chicks in body bags...

"We will make more heroines..."

What a stupid statement... you'll make more dead soldier is all that will happen.

Shame on you, and all those that think like you piggy... you've no idea what it takes to fight and/or keep a nation free...

There will simply be more female wounded warriors with grave injuries and missing limbs. Go for it. Sad thing is we put our soldiers on the front line but don't let them do their job. War or conflict sucks. People get hurt..., people die...

There is something wrong with a country that sends it's mother's off to war. Equal rights ends where the sole purpose is equal rights alone and for no other reason. It is as if the policial correctness in the military has gone so far that we will never get the strength to fight again. I served for 23 years and the last 3 were with women aboard ship. The major problems we had were complaints that sex was going on in the work spaces, berthing and any other place men and women can find. I am not discounting dentists chairs. When a female gets pregnant do you think it is good for her to be around chemicals, gasoline, hydraulic fluids, things that go bang and sleeping in small racks? Hell no. They leave for home and what does that do? Leaves a hole where that person used to work for the whole crew to make up for. Other problems, complaints about perfume, complaints about who was selling sex, complaints about officer/enlisted affairs. Rapes. Jelousy. Not to say anything about the whole myriad of problems coupled with separate berthing problems, head and shower facilities, false accusations and other issues that hinder the success of the mission. Good luck military, I can only say I am glad to have left when I did. Ridiculous.

Military. How stupid.

As a combat vet, we should be asking not the brass but the grunts and the ones with a CIB not an REMF or an admiral that last fight was on tail hook. If they have to pass exactly the same fitness test as men then so be it. But knowing our brass that all want to be PC will probably have one fitness test for men and one for women. But when they start to come home in body bags at the same rate male soldiers, think of that will advance their careers. Especially after they were raped and mutilated by the terrorists and other enemies of the state.

I wonder who these "Experts' are who say that women should be in the Infantry. A bunch of basecamp commandos I would bet. I was an Infantry rifleman in Vietnam 68-69 and I can tell you without a doubt that this is a terrible idea. The Generals now expressing their belief that this will work are very scared about their careers and will not cross this administration and tell the truth. The bottom line is that Infantry combat is the ablility to endure fatigue and hardship.

And you don't think women can endure hardship and fatigue? lol, lets see you carry a baby for nine months and let it come out of your man part. this i gotta see. lol

george pauljohn

Having a baby is not the same thing as being a marine.

What the women going to do when they are on their period? Instead of an ammo belt they can have a Tampon Belt. What Experts say this is a good idea? An Expert Rear Admiral? Yeah right. Women wont even be able to carry their own gear. They should stay back at camp and make dinner for the real soldiers. They could rub the mens feet when they come back from patrol.

obamahas: You've proven your acuity more than sufficiently in earlier posts - then you launch your first sentence. "Tampon Belt"? Cook dinner and rub their feet? You were born in the wrong epoch. You haven't figured out that your attitude in general is in direct opposition to the purpose of founding this nation.

For those who think women can't "cut it" emotionally ... I might point out that the survival rate for women in Nazi concentration camps was higher than for men. Scholars point to several factors ... higher body fat percentage (can survive longer without food) and higher pain tolerance ... are two of them.

Ali Babba

There is something wrong with a country that sends it's mother's off to war. Equal rights ends where the sole purpose is equal rights alone and for no other reason. It is as if the political correctness in the military has gone so far that we will never get the strength to fight again. I served for 23 years and the last 3 were with women aboard ship. The major problems we had were complaints that sex was going on in the work spaces, berthing and any other place men and women can find. I am not discounting dentists chairs. When a female gets pregnant do you think it is good for her to be around chemicals, gasoline, hydraulic fluids, things that go bang and sleeping in small racks? Hell no. They leave for home and what does that do? Leaves a hole where that person used to work for the whole crew to make up for. Other problems, complaints about perfume, complaints about who was selling sex, complaints about officer/enlisted affairs. Rapes. Jealousy. Not to say anything about the whole myriad of problems coupled with separate berthing problems, head and shower facilities, false accusations and other issues that hinder the success of the mission. Good luck military, I can only say I am glad to have left when I did. Ridiculous.

#2.7

well said.

et. al.

And I think the point they are missing is, "How MANY can/will qualify for combat?" a 1/10%? 1%? 10%?

Yes there are women out there who are capable, more capable than some men. But we have to play by the numbers. How much accommodation is necessary for those few? Do we make abortion mandatory? As Ali Babba points out above, female soldiers get pregnant. Do we make them abort so they don't "Leave a Hole in the crew"?

And we have to discriminate at some point, case in point, my eye sight was 20/25, which excluded me from pilot's school, even though I already had a civilian license. Do we change the rules to allow blind men to fly? Or cripples?

Many Republican males are obese and unfit to be in combat. A physically-fit woman could outdo most of these slobs, Democrat or Republican. So, I am in favor of this new thing. Lard-belly men from the South need to do 100 push ups and see how they manage it, before they shoot off their pie holes.

I am not a women who would have been capable of serving in combat, but in my life have I met women who will meet the challenges required... duh, yes. I have also met many men that also would not have been capable of serving in combat. Now as these individuals rise in the ranks, I would rather have the smartest, most capable person protecting me and our country, not the smartest, most capable male ...

And Charleyfarley - someday I know before I leave this world (probably less than 20 years), some woman will be pitching in the MLB. I know, my husband was shock at those words too, but when you want to win, the best is what you use.

Why make it so restrictive? Let's do away with the LPGA and just let everyone compete on the same level. Same with tennis. Why is there a separate tennis for women? How about basketball? Soccer?

Although I really have no problem with women in combat, woman your arguements are really not valid. Tennis and MLB are not even close to the physical requirements of some combat situations.

Lets have women compete in all sports with the men. No seperation anymore and no preferrential treatment. Women want to be equal then lets have it across the baord and require all of them to register for the selective service. I am sure there are some women that are capable but not most of them. But let us open it to all, male, female and neither one. Just like Pat from SNL.

Yeah, sure. After all ... that rationale worked so well during WWII with the black and Native American units that we STILL have segregated units, right? I mean, we can't have racially integrated units since the races are so different, right? Look at the Tuskegee Airmen who protected bomber pilots with SUBSTANDARD planes BETTER than the white boys.

I'm a predominantly Caucasian woman (I have some Native American genetic heritage). I personally would not go into the military, much less combat ... but for those women who CHOOSE the military and WANT to go into combat - why the HE!! should we keep them from getting paid and recognized for duties they are ALREADY DOING? It doesn't matter what a woman does in theater, she will NOT get the recognition for being IN COMBAT that a man will for doing the SAME JOB.

Women DO NOT fight on the front lines. Sure, they are in some support capacity, and do fight, but not in one on one engagements.

And, as for you racist comments, who cares? If you're not proud to be an American, then I've nothing for you... just go away Cat (buncha numbers)...

Sadden, as the daughter of a CAREER AF officer, I am EXTREMELY proud to be an American. But if you can't understand why I posted what I did, maybe YOU'RE the one who should "just go away".

Good idea. That would simplify things. All female ships and departments. Great except an all woman command probably wouldn't be able to answer the call or set out to sea because too many of the crew would be pregnant. It is already happening that way.

Im going to have to disagree with your racially charged comments in that the entire US army air corp had inferior planes to the Germans and Japanese until the mid 1940s and the tuskegee airmen's combat record while admirable is not significantly better then many other fighter squadrons during the war. As for women serving in the front lines why not infantry is just cannon fodder anyway only pilots, artillery, and heavy armor matter in the end.

If pregnancy is a big deal, then they should mandate any woman going overseas to a war or situation like that to immediately go on the pill. This can be taken in succession so we don't even get our periods for how ever long we wish - we just keep taking them instead of the weekly placebo. Easy as pie, and it's been medically known that it does not do any harm to a woman not to have a period for an extended period of time. I understand the frustration of women getting preggers on a Navy ship while out at sea and would be ashamed had that happened to me, but there are ways around it. If a woman wants to serve in those jobs requiring less grooming, it can be done and I betcha most of the women would choose this path if it meant being able to try for the job they want, not one the military wants them in.

If you want equalityCat-1200657, then lets have all women have to resister for the selective service. if they get pregant, they still have to serve. Their kid can be raised by nannies paid for by the brass.

You know there was this argument over tennis many, many years ago and it was a shocker then, too. People couldn't wrap their heads around a women beating a man at anything physical. You should go read up on that subject.

Ive NEVER seen a women beat a man in our Karate dojo in a contact match. We don't even allow it

Yeah, I remember that match... an over weight, old guy playing a much younger, more fit, female... yeah, equal match...

Sadden,

Not only was the man over weight and old but he didn't even take it seriously. He was out promoting the match trying to sell tickets while she was busy training to beat him. I don't doubt that he tried to win once the match started, but it was even less equal than you think.

Sadden,

Of course you'll never see it if it isn't allowed in the dojo, can't see it if it doesn't happen.

Ya the guy also happened to be 26 years older than king at the time i think it would be better described as a old geriatric athlete vs in their prime athlete

"Ive NEVER seen a women beat a man in our Karate dojo in a contact match. We don't even allow it"

I suppose that's why you've never seen it, genius.

woman-488866

as I recall Bobby Riggs was almost 60's while Billie Jean King was in physical prime. had it been BJK against the male champion of the time, it would have not even been close.

You need to read up on some of these countries we are fighting in, women are not the only ones ganged raped.

Gene, women already understand the risks of getting captured, tortured and raped when they are sent over seas. Yet you still see women who are willing to risk it to serve their country just like the men go knowing that they could easily be tortured, raped and even have their essentials removed if the enemy desires to do that to a human being. All soldiers, men and women, know the risks of their gender. That isn't stopping those that make the cut from going over.

Gene

HER choice...NOT yours!

Where was that point made??

Who cares what happens when SHE is captured? It's the same for males... making a distintion between the two has no merit.

Now... KNOWING females cannot pyhsically compete on the same level as thier male conterpart... that's the issue. If ANY female can adhear to the same physical AND grooming standards as their male conterpart, then I say "go for it"... they've made the grade. But, as it is now, females are given substandard requirements to their male conterparts, which would jeapordise combat effectivness.

How could that not?

Hey State of Awareness: Male POWs are treated badly enough, but female troops will be subject to routine and daily gang rape and sexual depredation as a matter of course.

alan:

The fundamental fallacy of your post is your assumption that you know what "everyone" else will do.

If we add burka's and beatings to some of the posts here, we could be just like the Islamics some of us so vehemently claim to hate.

gene: Interesting......everyone misses the point but you. What a world you live in.

Anyone remember the young lady that joined the reserves and said she didn't know she would have to go to Iraq? She said she had no one to watch her children so she went AWOL. They let her out of the military with an honorable discharge. Would a man have been so lucky? If they had an all womens unit, they would kill each other. No women that I know of likes a women boss. Terrorist around the world must be thinking how stupid we are to have women and homosexuals in the military. I'm glad my military is over, this is a joke.

All the more reason to include 'bad-ass' women in the battlegound...their presence mght make it more likely that we take out the bad guys.

All kidding and ideology aside; the purpose of combat is to win. That's all, just win! Politics aside, if we put our young people in harms' way, then let us do it with resolve and purpose, and let us make sure that those we put in harm's way are the most capable force that we can deliver. If that force is male-only, hetero-only, DADT + Hetero, or a truly integretated force of all those folks who are truly ready to give it all, what should be our choice? One of the most formidable fighting forces EVER were the Celts, Greeks and Romans; the Celts kicked ass for centuries, with women wielding swords and spears alongside their men. The Greeks and Romans carried same-sex companions into battle; anyone out there remember Troy, and all of that?

What is the issue, after all, except battle effectiveness? If ther is a 19th century guy out there, here or there, then maybe it's time that we transition...

Respects to all; just voicing my 2C

beenthere, and Rome fell didn't it. The way were going, were next.

Then there was boudica a female warrior-queen who got her ass kicked by the Romans who also happened to be outnumbered 10-20 to 1. Romans arn't a good example in general for a diverse fighting force. They excelled because they did one thing perfectly large amounts of heavy "roman" infantry in formation.

So when the well trained female troop runs out of ammo and air support and is forced to fight hand to hand with her Obama knife, because Obama determined that bayonets are obsolete--how good are her survival chances opposed to the average male troop in the same conditions?

Oeda: Boudacia and her thousands finally fell to a tiny Roman force.The Battle of Watling Street settled Roman dominance in Britain.

There is NO woman that could compete with me on the battlefield or in the ring. Why would our military decide to dumb down and include substandard women troops on the battlefield? Is this politically correct BS out of control or what.

Are children without a dad much different? Just asking....

With respect, sir, not all women want to be mothers, and given their preference and choice, they should be allowed to pursue their dreams. I am male, and conservative. I also respect ANY person's choice to determine either his or her own destiny.

Respects

Exactly, MSNBC carrying the water for the Obama Administration...what did you expect?

You know, one of the realizations I got out of the 9-11 tragedy from researching the counties and individuals that did this awful thing was the repression of the "Women view" within their society. Where was their voice. It isn't just about fist fighting or whether they can shoot straight, it is about bringing to the table their views, their talents. If we are really serious about winning and we all know it isn't all about killing now, it is about moving a generation of people to form new ideas instead of "death to American" ideas. I want the best person and dude, if the strongest, most talented is challenging all in the room to be better, then those in those roles will be better equipped to win and protect us.

I doubt many female soldiers will apply, it will probably still be a problem, there is some really small percentage that are capable of doing what the lowest skilled current elite combat members are physically capable of doing. If the woman is capable, and has special skills like maybe some languages, they could be useful.

I think it is telling that one of the retired femal officers that thinks this is a good idea, mentioned working as teams to accomplish things that the lady cannot do herself. I believe the answer is likely to be, "get the men to do it". Some are officers who feel or know that they need this experience to get a particular job that they need to get promoted, if they can meet the male standard for all of the required physical skills have at it. If you are slower, weaker and have less endurance the more dangerous you make the "leave no man behind" pledge for the other soldiers. Alls soldiers regardless of gender should strive to maintain top physical capacity.

For combat assignments, my guess is that the requirements will need to be the same. As they should be -- if we women want equality, then the same standards need to apply.

And for the record, there will be MANY women able to hit those requirements you mentioned. Just last summer my husband got his butt kicked in a 10K race (6.2 miles) -- by a thirteen year old girl who finished in 38 minutes. One of my girl friends (who also runs marathons) has no trouble doing pull ups or push ups, and can beat most of the guys I know.

Canespider, I disagree with you on that. Very few women can pick up and fireman sling a 200+lbs person and carry them to safety. And also, there are quite a few males that can't do it either, but overall, most males can do that.

I will match any male on the rifle range and pistol range, and there would be less than 5 points between our scores. But when it comes to fighting, using weapons, don't sell us women short. A lot of us gals were raised around firearms, and do know how to use them.

There is no doubt the male has, or should have, more upper body strength than the female, and that is what I based my decision on when I disagreed with canespider. But the desire, ambition, and the willingness to go into combat is best left up to the individual woman. Not by some person who has never served in the military, which is most of the GOP.

The problem is: She thinks she can, but she actually can't.

She thinks she know the risk, but she actually doesn't

It may cost lives to fix her mistake

TP

You are the reason the Divorce rate is so high. What "Lady" in their right mind

would want a mach=de-macho boob like you?

And ladies don't want a jerk like you for a MAN. What you wrote is nothing but ugliness and misogyny. You don't want a lady, you want a puppet. You can still be a lady and have a voice. Wow.

Doc

OLD SCHOOL...NEW WORLD. Its a choice.

It`s a choice that`s going to get alot of people killed.

Doc57

While I understand your viewpoint, I dispute your conculsions. I personally know a number of female warriors who are not only capable, but who far surpass many male warriors I've known, in all aspects of combat; strength, durability, perserverance, and mental fortitude. The point is this; no one idnividual should be denied the right to serve, regardless of gender. As I have stated before, physical and mental standards should be the same. That being said, I see no obstacle to women in the combat arena, other than stereotype and misguided opinion on the part of the 'good ole boy's club'. Let's not forget our female warriors who've already served, and given their all...

Respects,

I smell BULLCRAP. tell another story... You are just plain full of it. You are probably nothing but a regime poster/pay per post sell-out. To hell with people like you.

Gee, beenthere...how many male warriors have you known? How many female warriors for that matter? What were the circumstances you witnessed that showed you these female warriors were superior to the male warriors? Remember, when you want to fabricate facts to make a point, avoid the comic books. At least try to make it believable.

Imagine a special squad comprised of horny women that can't stop servicing the male members of the squad.

Oorah! Hello Women!

obama: And I thought there was a limit to ignorance. I stand corrected.

You seem to be getting a bit emotional there, Teri. The emotional thing is not a myth. Your post tends to confirm that. It's so a part of your make up that you don't realize it's happening. Combat in no place for your political, "I am woman!", correctness.

In this type of war, there are no front lines so to speak, right? This isn't WW2 or Korea. You don't know who the enemy is until they start shooting, or you see their weapons. So again, what front lines? And yes, women do realize that the enemy we now are fighting treat women like dirt. So what, right now women are getting raped by their fellow American males that are also soliders.

But it's time for the men to back off, if a woman is qualified, and wants to go to combat, let her go. You men need to quit trying to control us women.

SallyAnn -

Again, I say I'm all for this. But there is still a front line. Ask patient rehabbing a war injury in a VA hospital and they'll tell you there is a front line. On the ground in Afganistan, when we had troops in Iraq. Wars are won first on the front line. True, it may not be the same kind of war we fought in WWII or Korea or Vietnam, but there will always be troops that carry guns and there will always be men firing at them. Lest we not forget the US soldier that was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu in 1993. Jessica Lynch, who was captured in Iraq in 2003 and was subsequently rescue at an Iraqi hospital can tell you there is a front line.

My comment is less about control over women and more about compassion for my fellow human being. War is brutal. It's brutal in every aspect. It's also the bane of all human existence. We are a warring species.

You take any person -- PERSON -- regardless if they're a man or a woman and submit them to the kind of tortures common to prisoners of war. Forget the Geneva convention. Water torture. Sleep deprivation. Electrocution. Physical beatings. Food and water deprivation. Then you add rape and other atrocities that the enemy can do to a woman?

First, I'm not saying women soldiers don't know the risk. They sign on the dotted line so they assume that risk. Second, I'm also not saying a woman can't take the torture. There are hundreds of thousands of women that are just as badass as their male counterparts. What I am saying is that while I agree that women can and should have always been allowed to serve on the front lines as they so choose, we that don't serve along side her need to remind ourselves of the dangers she could be facing at the hands of the enemy. A bullet is an easy death. It's the slow tortuous kind that make me, as a human being, want to have her -- or him for that matter -- out of there.

So bottomline, it makes you feel icky? Condescend, much? Women aren't your little precious china dolls you have to look after.

You absolutely don't get it, do you, Al? Why don't you get your left head into this century?

Because, women ARE NOT held to the same standards as men...

They have pyhsically lower standards and MUCH lower grooming standards.

When that is made equal, then I've no issue with it...

Yes, this is very much true and I'm wondering why those in charge are trying so hard to avoid answering the obvious next question. Will women's physical standards be raised to reflect the current situation? Everyone in the marine corps is qualified as a basic rifleman and women still have drastically lower physical requirements contrary to the author's lies!

Also, this gives them an ADVANTAGE towards promotions because they can meet the physical standards easier. I've seen women that are very out of shape get a perfect score on the pull-up equivalent exercise. The physical fitness test alone counts a huge portion towards promotion eligibility. Only officers could ever be hindered in the slightest by not having held a combat leadership role.

That's basically what it is...political correctness. Women have not been allowed in combat before so there is no way these so called experts could have anything to base their expert opinion on. Women don't have the same fighting instincts that men do. They will not do well in this and unfortunately we'll have to learn this the hard way. History has shown the results of leaders who have no military savvy overruling those that do.

If you look down in history women have been in combat in every war we have been sent too by the United States not so that you would notice it like the new law they came out with Just now but they have been shot at and killed the enemy when they had to..

After reading most of the posts, I've concluded that our problem isn't gender discrimination, it's the pandemic of stupidity that's swept the nation. Some of these posts are beyond unbelievable.

"Women don't have the same fighting instincts that men do." In spite of the fact that in the rest of the animal world, females do most of the actual fighting and hunting. And try to keep in mind that we, too, are just another part of the animal world. A lot to ask, no doubt.