As President Obama and GOP candidate Mitt Romney court Latino voters, CNN takes an In Depth look at what matters most to this diverse group, and how that will influence elections.
By Stephanie Siek, CNN
(CNN) – Lani Hay was just a kid when she decided on her career goal: to join the Navy, serve her country, and become a flying ace with the Navy's Blue Angels. The child of Vietnamese immigrants, Hay made it all the way to the U.S. Naval Academy before learning that a career as a Blue Angels pilot would be impossible: flying in the troupe was considered a combat role, and as a woman in the mid-1990s, she was barred from participating.
What kept her out was a policy called combat exclusion, which forbid women from being part of units that could be exposed to the dangers of the front line – direct combat, hostile fire, or capture. But the reality in conflicts such as Iraq and Afghanistan is that the front line is not a defined field, and women can be thrown into what is essentially a combat role at any time or place.
Hay, a veteran of intelligence and reconnaissance operations in the Persian Gulf and Kosovo, said it's time for women to get the credit they deserve for serving in what amount to combat conditions.
"To get around the Combat Exclusion Policy as written, women are being 'attached to' and not 'assigned to' battalions, as intelligence officers and communications officers for example, but they are not getting the credit for being in combat arms," said Hay. "Not allowing women the opportunity to 'get credit' for their combat experience and contributions to front-line battalions ultimately denies them choice assignments, which hinders career advancement."
The Department of Defense recognized that earlier this month when they announced that they would be changing those rules to open 14,000 new positions to servicewomen, allowing them to officially serve in positions such as tank mechanics and artillery radar operators. They are still barred from the infantry, special forces, and from performing certain jobs in communications, logistics and intelligence for units smaller than a brigade (which in the Army is composed of 3,000 to 5,000 troops).
Wanted: Women in top military roles
Hay graduated from the Naval Academy in 1997 and went on to become an Air Intelligence Officer, serving in several overseas missions before being released from active duty in 2002. Then she served three years in the Individual Ready reserves before being honorably discharged. Now she runs Lanmark Technology, Inc., a government contractor which provides administrative and technological services and asymmetric warfare consulting to federal and state agencies. Hay is also a passionate advocate for women’s right to be full members of the armed forces. She doesn't think the new policies go far enough.
"This is progress, but too little too late," said Hay. "The combat exclusion policy needs to be completely lifted to not only establish a level playing field for qualified women to enter all military positions and specialties, but to also reflect the realities and necessities of modern day warfare."
According to Pentagon statistics, 144 women have been killed and 865 have been wounded during combat and noncombat actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. About 12% of the 2.3 million military personnel serving in missions in the last decade have been women.
The biggest reason to give women full access to combat roles is not just a sense of fairness and equality, Hay said – it's because the success of the mission depends on it. For example, women are recruited especially because of their gender to serve on Cultural Support Teams in Afghanistan, which perform searches and intelligence collection that an all-male unit wouldn’t be able to do because of local restrictions on interaction between the sexes.
"The women on the Cultural Support Teams do what their male counterparts are unable to do, such as conducting female searches on burqa-clad women, or engaging the female population to conduct information gathering or build individual, group and community relationships," said Hay. "Although the women assigned to the Cultural Support Teams are training for and conducting the missions with their male counterparts, they are not getting the acknowledgement for being in the Special Forces."
What defines you? Maybe it’s the shade of your skin, the place you grew up, the accent in your words, the make up of your family, the gender you were born with, the intimate relationships you chose to have or your generation? As the American identity changes we will be there to report it. In America is a venue for creative and timely sharing of news that explores who we are. Reach us at inamerica@cnn.com.
© 2010 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertise with us | About us | Contact us | Help | Advertising Practices
This is unreal. Women's rights in the military represented by this woman? someone should do the real story of her career.
I'm gonna be a b word... I and so freaking sick of these females in the military whining about they should get more!! Why? Why should you get more? And it's not all women in the military because I know many personally who are amazing at their job and position. I have a husband who is a 19 1/2 yr soldier in the Army and he is amazing in those many years he has worked hard and kept his nose clean and then I see all these women come crying and whining to everyone how they are treated different and horrible....really is that why your pt standards are less?? Why you can skip being deployed because you got yourself prego? While a man whose wife is prego and due at any day still has to go?? Stop whining please many women fought for these rights and many died not whining. He'll you get to wear makeup,jewelry and fake nails to work now ask some of the first women to get in if they were allowed that extra? No and guess what they served proudly and with dignity. Sorry soapbox time but I'm soooo tired of hearing about ppl who say they don't have it fair and other ppl get more than them stop whining and just do the damn job
Thanks to your husband and you for your combined service. Our service people need supportive spouses like you. Too many are there for the paycheck.
Ty but I am just doing what I love. Taking care of my family I don't need any thanks cuz I would do it all over. Though I will admit I'm ready for retirement lol there are amazing spouses in the military and I salute them all
Just like you are tired of hearing females in the military whinning, we as soldiers are tired of Military wives thinking because their husbands are in the military they know everything. Unless you yourself have served in the military then you cannot say how it is for us Female Soliders.
Thank you Daisy, as a fellow female soldier I couldn't agree with you more. It's so easy for someone that has no clue what they're talking about to complain. Army wives-stop whining, you married a soldier, you knew what you were getting into so accept it.
pass the pt at a male standard and train and do a real infantrymans job you kno 90ib rucks for 12 miles in the infantry standard time. carry them up and down mountains and still be able to pick my ass up and get me to an extraction so i can recieve medical help then maybe you can have a segragted women infantry unit. im not gonna even get into what having a segragated unit would bring.
Agreeing with Aaron there.
Read about Monica Brown http://voices.yahoo.com/women-already-combat-10984172.html?cat=49
I don't think making women sign up for selective service does anything even remotely beneficial for anyone. Think about it like this... World War Two, all but a hand ful of men (when compared to the many that DIDN'T get rejected for service) were sent off to war. We then had no one to raise the children of our country and no one to manufacture the machines of war or the ordinance for those machines. Then Rosie the Riviter (we literally called on women to leave the kitchen) came along and built the boats, tanks, planes, trucks etc. They made the amunition. They did everything the guys were doing after they left. Sure we could make it a number system and then tack on a percentage and say "We'll only take this many women and this many men and we'll only take the men out of a married family. Honestly we all know the amount of marriages would go up and the amount of draft dodging would go up because the bottom line is if dad leaves home then it's up to mom to take care of the kids and the rest of the family issues. Requiring women to do selective service would do more harm than good to the nation as a whole. Anyone agree?
This woman should not be the face of women's rights when it comes to their role in land combat. Furthermore, being attached to a SF group does not mean you earned the right to be considered SF. Go pass the selection process under the same standards as a male, then we can talk. If a woman can meet the same requirements as a male to be in a combat arms position, more power to them.
Just walk on a military base or on a FOB in Iraq or Afghanistan. You want to see a bunch of out-of-shape, overweight women look there,
If they want to get in shape like GI Jane, be able to carry a large man if he gets injured, carry the ammo just like the guys, then great. We'll greet you with open arms. But if you're doing it just so that you have more promotion potential. No Way.
This is not discriminatory. Guys are left behind all the time when they're not in shape,
Bwahahaha! This is SO TRUE. Overweight, unkempt, lazy as hell. The few women troops I did know either had mental issues, were sleeping w/every guy around, or constant complainers.
Not to disagree with you but I saw way too many Army males that were more than just overweight when we had R&R at Al Asad. When you have the largest uniform size the army makes and the buttons are still about to pop, something is seriously wrong
Agreed. Another issue in the "new" Army.
Deserve more? They can leave their unit anytime they want simply by screwing everyone until they get knocked up? They make more than male soldiers do. Not legally, since how they do it is screw civilian contracters for 4 times the pay the pay the soldiers get in a week.
Sure, women can serve in combat- but if and only if they match the standards that the men must meet. I don't think the enemy is going to go easier on them because they are women. Common sense eludes a lot of you equal opportunity fanatics here. I've been in combat zones for a pretty long time, I'll tell you right now- if I had a choice, I'd want the most fit and capable person supporting me. 9.9 times out of 10 that will be a man.
Put them in combat. Let them face being turned into hamburger on the scale that men have had to. Let them start earning their place.
You can read this article or go over to FOX News and listen to Liz Trotta explain that women in uniform are just asking to be raped.
Just so she keep an aspirin between her knees when around men.
Women have been asked to drive tanks – I have a photograph. This is utterly shocking that the US would conceal, omit, or deliberately block women from receiving due notice for their substantial roles to serve in this way. We do not affirmatively act to supplant attention paid to male soldiers, but we certainly treat both equally in combat for medalry and honors.
What a stain on our society that fails to evidence the role women play daily in our lives as if we are lesser people.
Total non-sense. Unless you have been school trained in the states, you are not going to be driving a tank.
They may let you sit in the talk for a picture but that's about it.
I would dearly like to see that picture you have sir.
If you are in the military you should be eligible for combat duty. If there is a draft, women should be part of it. I'm tired of women, and other groups, getting preferential treatment and then sitting around complaining that they aren't getting enough special treatment. If you want to be equal let's do it. Make everything level and the same. No exceptions
Besides that has to be a moral boaster for the guys.
+1. But one has to wonder, given how many women "coincidentally" end up pregnant just around deployment time, how many of these oh so tough wimminz will chicken heart at the last minute of a combat deployment and leave us short handed.
Would it be roughly around the same amount of men who "accidentally" get injured and cannot deploy? False logic.
Pregnancy does not equal "accidentally" injuring yourself. That's humorous. While there are several males I know that milk injuries to skip PT testing (or deployments) statistically they pale in significance to the amount of females I know that missed deployments or TDY due to pregnancies. Out of twenty four women I've known pre-deployment seventeen ended up testing pregnant and one claimed mental issues after receiving a combat tasking. That is a staggering 75% dropout.
Let them serve, heck, allow anybody that is willing to defend their country, but lets not lower the standards, lets rise them by giving mental eval so we can have a better force that can handle not just the physical part but also the mental
Women have served in the US in combat for a very long time, Sir. Perhaps you need to adjust your thinking and accept it as reality.
There are some extremely rare (yet well publicized) cases of women posing as men in order to participate in combat. there are also instances of women serving in support roles suddenly finding themselves to be temporarily near combat due to shifting front lines or infiltration by the enemy. You are attempting to rewrite history into herstory based on exceptions to a rule, and your argument is flimsy at best.
The lamest excuses repeated over and over don't prove anything.
www dot idebate dot org/debatabase/topic_details dot php?topicID=425
I'm a man, I've had a female soldier outperform me. I've had a female soldier save my life, when other male soldiers failed.
The cold hard reality that the Old Boys club can't stand is that women can kill them or save them, and there's nothing they can do about it.
But try as they might, legislation won't stop a female soldier from killing a male soldier, or saving a male soldier's life.
That's why other countries are better than us. Because we're a nation of pretenders, and when reality sets in, we go into denial.
time to go back to momma if a female outperformed you. Pathetic
Try remedial PT
Was she a really smart doctor at a military hospital? Because I truly hope you're not making up stories about being in combat with a woman in a war (and posting them at 2 in the morning).
Don't think women aren't already in combat. They may not be infantry, but I have been on numerous convoys (and firefights) with female "support" Soldiers. In Afghanistan, convoys result in many dangerous situations. There are plenty of female truck drivers/fuelers/mechanics.... My Admin Clerks spent plenty of time out on the roads going from one combat outpost to another.
100% positive that "Gant" is a woman. What nonsense!
I say test this out just like we did blacks.. all female units set up for combat. Sit back and watch results. Look what happened to blacks... integrated. I am talking all female infantry units, armor, arti... not the current integrated so called non-combat jobs like medics and logistics. One thing i picked up back in 1995-98 down in the 47th field hospital in fort sill OK was that it takes 2 females to do the lifting of 1 male. The catch phrase was always... i need working bodies to lift this temper tent... this is not to say that the females wernt motivated... in fact they did those jobs with gusto but it still took 4 to to the job of 2. Now look at combat units... they carry heavy gear and what you have is a unit running half capacity in some situations. When we directly engage the enemy in traditional warfare we do not want anything slowing down combat capabilities as peoples lives are on the line, freedom is on the line. There are lots of jobs in the Army which we screen for intelligence of individual, for height, for strength, and weight. Lets test but keep this grounded in reality... its war.
Now compare that to Israeli and Russian units. What's that? Israeli and Russian military women perform better? I wonder why? Perhaps it's because they stopped dolling up the women and accepted the reality?
Hey, explain to me why the USMC MALES cannot beat a female IDF soldier's physical fitness standards?
but those counties didnt lower the standards either...the Army PT Test, woment do alot less then men do..so again, if you want women doing everything, then give them the same standards as men. Dont lower it just cause...its not fair to them or us.
I googled your claim about physical fitness standards for female IDF soldiers. I checked out a Rand Corporation study, and went to the IDF's own website, and your claim is utterly FALSE. If you have to make up facts to support your case, you might want to rethink your position.
Please list an instance in which an active duty USMC male soldier was measured against an Israeli Defense Force female soldier and didn't match her performance in an identical physical fitness exam. Women are not 'equal' to men. They are 'equivalent' which isn't quite the same thing especially in physical activities. If men and women were 'equal' physically the Olympics (and every other major sport) would not have male and female categories for the same event. An apple doesn't 'equal' an orange. Just as delicious and nutritious but not 'equal'. Just saying.
You are a total, utter, and complete id iot and liar. GTFO of here.
Your statement about non combat roles such as medics will not ring true for Combat Medics. They serve with Infantry companies and fight along with their fellow soldiers until they have to do life saving duties. The carry a heavier load than most regular grunts as they carry a large aid kit on their back along with everything else. I know this as I earned the CMB in Vietnam in 68.
I get medics/combat medics as i have seved11 years in medical units. What you failed to menton is gender. I know female medics who have served 3 tours in Iraq (to include patrols) I can tell you from direct observation that the intate mussle of the rank and file female to do the jobs physical aspects place them as a inate capablity that is 50% of men in terms of lifting weight of any kind.
No, they're a distraction, Men needlessly die when a female is hit and cant be gotten to. Male instinct is to protect the women, too many good fighters will die when they curl up in a ball when they're getting shot at, like I've seen in Iraq. Plus most women in the military don't really earn the rank they have they get it because we have to fill quotas. They need to stay in the support roles where they belong.
Ignorance is bliss.. Females have to work twice as hard to prove themselves worthy of a higher rank... It took me a lot longer to make MSG than most of my male counterparts... more than half have a lot less of the cualifications I have... Do your research before you spew uneducated comments...
Women work twice as hard at a lower standard. What you refuse to acknowledge is that the standards have been lowered BY LAW for women. You can't handle competing at male standards and that's why the sistas had to get big daddy government to tie men's hands behind their backs. Face it, you succeed because the game is rigged for you to succeed. If you have to work twice as hard just to pull that off, you have no chance against a man on a level field.
Quit complaining, you made MSG without having to even know how to spell qualifications. I made E5 in 27 months, E6 in just over 48 and E7 in 7 years. I got out at 12 year mark biting at the heels of E8. I am sure that was quicker than most and it had nothing to do with not being discriminated against. Timing and skill. You in fact did not have to work harder than the male counter-parts because your physical requirements were lower and you were not required to perform combat roles and Infantry tasks as I did.
I agree that the woman interviewed here is less than qualified to attest to the rigors of land warfare and is therefore not the person to be championing the integration of women into combat arms. But I do feel that some women are capable of serving in those jobs. I picked up my fair share of female KIAs off of the battlefield. I've also drug females out on patrol with our squad to conduct pat downs on the female local nationals, and they did a fine job when it came to room clearing, IMT, and carrying their own stuff. So I feel if they are going to do it, there needs to be one stipulation, make it equal. Equal physical fitness test scores for starters, women should sign up for selective services, and some males should be issued midol and feminine napkins as well, because I've had more males cry about being in combat than I care to count. Someone stated that IED's don't discriminate, well, neither does weakness.
Well said, comrade. I've had my life saved by enough women to know that the patriarchs and Old Gentlemen clubs are full of it. A woman is a human with the capability of giving birth. Their systems are just as capable of lifting a 200-pound gorilla out of a burning tank as a man.
But the armchair warriors disagree. Even experience has taught me that men are just as capable of folding under pressure as women. In fact, my life was almost lost due to a hesitant "manly" man who had to have a "delicate" woman step in and get the job done.
What weak mothers and wives do these patriarchs have?
"I've had my life saved by enough women to know..." So now you've been saved by women in combat SEVERAL times? Do you think it's not obvious to the rest of us that you are living in a fantasy land?
You miss the point. It's not that their mothers are weak. It's that they are and their afraid to admit that their mothers are stronger.
So this is about women breaking the military 'glass ceiling?' – they want to run the joint and need combat experience so they can be in charge? Really?
Really? That's what this is about? Really?
What IS the US military coming to? We've turned fighting wars into an Affirmative Action debate? Really?
Unbelievable.
When it is a choice between reality and fake status, women will choose fake status every time. They really think that since they so effectively fool themselves, they must be fooling others. They fail to recognize that threads like these are simply the proof that we're not fooled. Especially since everyone that can read knows all the laws and policies skewed to favor their pursuit of fake status.
REMEMBER JESSICA LYNCH ??SHE WAS RAPED , THE MILITARY DIDN'T TELL US THAT...THAT IS WHAT IS WAITING FOR WOMEN WHO ARE CAPTURE..WOMEN JUST DO NOT BELONG IN THE FRONT LINES...IF THEY DON'T GET RAPE BY OUR OWN TROOPS, THEY WILL GET RAPE BY THE ENEMY....THEY ARE COMPLAINING NOW ABOUT GETTING RAPE BY OUR OWN TROOPS...WHAT DO THEY THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO THEM ON THE FRONT LINES ??
To get to the upper ranks of combat arms in the Army, you need to earn a tab – look at the left shoulders of those colonel and above. It's just not going to happen without lowering the standards and then what's the point. You have to get through RIP or Assessment and Selection just to become eligible for the training.
Women should not be in combat at all. Period. Any drift away from that is a sign that we have lost touch with obvious basic common sense and common decency.
You're confusing "common sense" with "patriarchy"
If you are a female and you want to serve with the grunts then fine but, you have to meet the physical requirements that are required for the job and you have to be able to accept the environment that is not exactly PC and full of alpha males. IF you can accept that then pick up your rifle and gear and get the job done.....if not then that is fine as well but, don't do it because you want "equal rights".
Well said, Marine!
In countries where universal service is available, women often outperform men. In fact, an Israeli female officer who worked her way up the ranks from grunt set the standard which you and your fellow Marines cannot and have not yet matched when the USMC and IDF do combined training.
It's not that the requirements have to be matched, it's that the Old Boys club need to stop getting their feelings hurt when women can do just as good a job as they.
As for the Alpha Male club, there is a saying about elite military units that only allow men and h0m0secksuality that make us so nervous in the service, they go hand-in-hand.
The IDF has no physical standards for female recruits. None. Check their website. They will literally accept anyone.
Keep making stuff up.
I seriously don't see the problem here. If women want to go into combat and pass the physical requirements, let them. Why not? There are plenty of "distractions" on the front lines, like being shot at or blown up, so please spare the line about how you can't concentrate on your job if women are around. That says a lot more about your incompetence than about women. Secondly, okay, so they can't carry all the same gear as the men. There's an easy solution for this: add more people. Invent a way to bring gear into your area without carrying it. Use a little ingenuity, and where are our defense contractors? A trillion dollars and you can't figure out a good way for people to tote their stuff? A 120-lb soldier can't drag a 200-pound soldier off the line? Get two people. Assign people of similar physical stature to the same platoon. Problem solved. It's not like there aren't short, slight men in the Armed Forces. Are you actually trying to say that a 135-pound, 5'6 guy can do the job but a woman of the same size and weight can't? Please.
I mean, seriously, some of you men act like YOU are the only ones capable of combat–like it's a job reserved for everyone over 5'10 and 180 lbs. I hate to break it to you, but last time I checked, the Vietnamese aren't exactly known for their stunning physical stature and yet, by golly, they kicked our American ass. Likewise, you wouldn't think a bunch of half-starved Afghans or Iraqis could cause problems for our military, and yet HERE WE ARE, ten years later, having made zero in-roads in the stability of that region. Why not? Can't all of you big tough guys pull it off?
Now who's doing the second-rate job?
It's time to think outside the box when it comes to winning wars. It's how we won our first war as an American nation and it's certainly how we lost wars–to people and nations who thought outside the box of how war is "supposed" to be.
Hey Jessica,
Get your facts straight. The Vietnamese didn't kick our American Asses. It was peace loving hippies back home that did.
Here we go with appeasement. You want us to invent something to carry equipment when a woman can't but as a former combat soldier men have had to carry the equipment you now want special treatment for. Frankly I don't care if a woman is a soldier or not, just don't ask for special favors. 1 standard for all...
Jessica, only the strongest need to be in combat. By nature, women are not the strongest. Some men are not the strongest. Women are also a distraction – just as ask any 19 year old male what he's thinking about.
WHY DONT WE MAKE THEM SIGN UP FOR THE DRAFT LIKE MEN DO?????????????????????/
And take away their right to vote too! Get a clue.
So.... how would insisting that if women want to have 'equal treatment' in our military that also requiring them to sign up for 'Selective Service' like men are legally obligated to do is somehow unfair to them and equates to wanting to take away something from them?
Remember that they were technically drafted to work the homefront jobs during major wars. They built the tanks that "glorious men" fought with.
Are you referring to the United States? Because no, no we never drafted women. "Technically" or otherwise. Ever. For any war. Keep making stuff up.
As long as the women can pass the exact same physical requirements as there are for men then by all means, let them serve where they wish. If they have to be handicapped then no dice.
There are a small minority of females that could undouperform decently in a combat oriented Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) such as infantry, armor or artillery. If they can meet the requirements they should be let in. But there should not be any gender specific special arrangements made for females either. Same privacy, hygeine and physical demands as experienced by every other grunt.
It's only a small minority in the US where women are barred from combat service. In countries such as Israel or Russia, where they are not, women outperform men. Why? Women build lean muscles more often than men who focus on bulk- which does not perform well under combat situations. Bulk is for quick strength, not prolonged and often malnourished conditions.
Women DO NOT serve in direct combat roles in Russia or Israel they tried it it didn't work. What they do is allow women in some combat roles to train the men.
You're basing your fantasy statement off what truth? Would none, be a correct guess? They do serve in direct combat roles. Stop lieing to yourself.
Look up Russian Motor Rifles and Israeli Eilat and Golani divisions. Then take a big dose of "I'm sorry, I'm full of it."
Outperform men at what? The Miss Russian Army pageant? (Yeah, it's real) Because both the IDF and the Russian military have reduced standards for female soldiers.
Women already get preferential treatment in the military, so its a lie to say that they get 0 credit for doing these things. Just because it doesnt say "combatant", doesnt mean that the higher ups dont know where youve been.
THe funny part to me is that most of the women that served during my carreer didnt' want to be in combat arms. In the early 90s the Army Times conducted a survey and asked thousands of serving women if they thought women should be allowed in combat arms and well over 90% said yes. They followed by asking if you were allowed would you serve in a combat arms MOS and around 90% said NO.
Then there shouldn't be a problem allowing them.
Ask the same question to the men. You'll get the same results.
I'm in 2/5 and when I was wounded in Iraq my entire squad was ambushed and our Humvee was hit by an IED. My two best friends legs were blown apart and I pulled them out. I was hit by a bullet in my leg. You know who pulled me out? An army medic who was stationed nearby and was a woman. She was 5'3 and 115 lbs.she pulled both my comrades and me out. We are alive because of her. I support women if they can live up to Marine Corps standards. She did. And there are women who can.
There should be one standard for each position. If you meet it you are in with the same rules for all. I have worked with a few females who could be in combat arms. 11 and 18 series would be the toughest but I would welcome a test unit of each mos with a 1 in front of it.
I don't know, the 13 series is pretty difficult, especially the 155mm Units, those joes weigh 94lb to well over 100lb per round. A battery six is pretty tough for someone without serious muscles.
You know those bulky muscles are frowned against in the service? You know that a 240-lb gorilla is given infractions for packing on so much weight? You know why?
Lean performs better than bulk. Lean can go longer and can tolerate malnourishment. Bulk cannot.
Bulk is about the quick explosion of power, followed by a long cool-down and massive intake of calories and nutrients to replace damaged muscles.
Hollywood is not a good measure of reality, m'mkay.
@Gannt Nope. No branch of the US military hands out infractions to anyone for adding muscle. If it's 240 pounds of FAT they'll send you to fat camp. They also don't want you too lean, because in strenuous conditions the body consumes itself. In a 2-hour marathon it's true: "lean can go longer and tolerate malnourishment." On a 2-week maneuver, "lean" is a problem. Keep making stuff up
How much you wanna bet she's favored for receiving government contracts because she lists her company as a "woman owned service veteran" business. If you don't believe me, check out the company. Sorry for the tangent, now where were we... oh yeah, preferential treatment.
I think ALL Amexikenyans deserve an equal opportunity to die for Wall St., corrupt politicians and the Israeli lobby. Will the body bags now come in His & Hers? Dumb Kwans.
Haha, you ignorant trash, probably sitting in your Berkley studio, second generation fool from a country you still pledge allegiance to but would never visit.
Normally, I don't post on here, but wow. Some of these comments are incredibly ignorant. I'm a female in the military, and have been in for over 13 years. I have *always* thought that PT standards should be the same for both men and women. Would that make it more difficult for some women? Yes. But that's not the point. Neither is the whole "have to be as strong" issue. Even if all women in the military passed the same physical standards, men would still not want women in combat units. The common excuse is that it would be a distraction, a hindrance, chance of rape, etc. Sure, those may all be items that *could* happen. And having been the ONLY female working with male groups, it's a valid point. HOWEVER, the same could have been said for minorities in the military, or allowing females into the military at all, or *gasp* gays in the military too. At the end of the day, sometimes the military has to convince its ranks to own up to a National and equal footing, even when it's not what used to happen or what some of those troops would want. Other countries of the world are fully integrated–Israel immediately comes to mind. Ultimately, I knew what I was signing up for. That's the beauty of a volunteer force.
This all stems from the misapplication of the word "combat" by people. Going on patrols is not combat. Hanging out with SF does not make you a Green Beret. The PT test is a poor measure of true combat endurance, as I cannot recall the last time I had to run in my shorts and t-shirt and do crunches when maneuvering on people shooting at me. I understand the desire for equality and opportunity here, but let's use a better argument than PT and going on "combat" patrols.
4 reasons women should not be in INFANTRY, combat is OK: Females don't have the same PT standards, so there is no baseline for comparison, and a female General shot down the idea of women doing the same PT standards. DoD demands equal facilities for females as males, which is not feasible in some infantry scenarios. Females can get out of deployments by getting pregnant, and there is no recourse to prevent that without debasing civil rights of employees, if males try to get out, it is punishable. Males react differnetly to females getting hurt vise other males...that is obvious to anyone who has a daughter, wife or sister. So what is our recourse? The military is in a no-win situation, slammed by liberals and women, but doing our job none the less.
What a pants load. Women serve in combat jobs all over the world, but in the USA it's too hard? No way, I was in the Army for 21 years and women can do most jobs jsut as well as men. The arguements that you make are simply self serving, if you are on an infantry patrol and there are no latrines, well guess what, there are no latrines for the men or women. If you want to act all macho and try to carry the womens load then you lack discipline. If you let a subordinate do so, then your unit lacks disipline. As for the pregnancy thing, there are plenty of remfs that get out of going on deployment, don't try to fool the folks that don't know any better. TBL is that the military needs to make sure that the standards for any given job are the same and if a female can do it then she should be able to.
WOMEN ON THE FRONT LINES ??? GUYS I GOTTA GO PEE, CAN YOU GUYS LOOK THE OTHER WAY, IN A COMBAT ZONE. LOL. PICTURE A WOMAN FOR WITH MEN IN THE JUNGLE FOR 12 MONTH'S ?? NO SHOWERS–NO BATHROOMS.
idiot
Beg pardon a******, I spent 24 months in the jungle with men doing the same job. I was placed in the same dangerous situations as everyone else. They watched my back and I watched theirs. If you don't like it or think that is possible, you may put a sock in it.
What jungle and when?
None of hte guys ever have to say that, why would women? I have a feeling you have never served and are just making up self serving drivel.
I'll bet none of you jerks have ever seen a gun. Lari Hay was as good as a veteran could be. She was very smart. I'm smart enough not to get my leg blown off. If i get killed, i'll get killed with honor. Don't you ever, ever, insult a woman the way you do. I'll write to Obama and get you blown up if you ever insult a female veteran.
I'm a 27 year combat vet (Desert Shield/Storm, OEF, OIF...) – I have NO PROBLEM with women serving in combat roles – as long as 2 little items are 1st met:
1. ALL physical requirements must be met AS IS – no downgrading SF schools' regimens
2. ALL FEMALES MUST REGISTER FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE LIKE ALL MALES
Equal rights also means equal treatment!!!!
I feel that the term "combat experience" needs to be clarified. I seriously doubt that the Navy thinks of combat the same as an Army troop. Same goes with the Air Force. If anyone can agree on what combat means it would probably be the Army and Marine Corp. Otherwise "combat experience" can be grossly misunderstood when thrown into the same sentence as "military"... As an example, why would you put a Naval commander in charge of a large scale ground operation? It's possible but probably not your first choice. Same goes for putting an Army comander in charge of a Naval operation.
Army MP, you seem sorely lacking in your breadth of experience.
Have you deployed to a combat zone?
Have you taken mortar rounds, rockets, small arms fire?
THATS COMBAT EXPERIENCE.
I have done all of that and I'm retired AF.
AF and USN know PLENTY about combat – when you finally do deploy I'm sure you'll see plenty of both.
Unless you're a PJ, a SEAL, EWO, or EOD, I don't want to hear it. It is people like you who take credit away from people who actually get shot at, RPGed, car bombed, IEDed, and mortared on daily basis. EVERY DAY. Think of it this way, civilians are in the same amount of danger as 90% of the AF and Navy personnel over in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're called contractors, and they live in the CHU next to you. Heroes I tell you...
1: Sure Sparky, I may still be lacking on TOTAL experience. You might have scored a point on me there. I have never been in the Navy or the Air Force. Though, I have fought beside the Marines in Fallujah during Operation Phantom Fury.
2: Yes, I have deployed to a combat zone. Iraq FEB2004-FEB2005 and AUG2006-DEC2008
3: Yes, I have been the target of SAF and IDF. Since you didn't mention much else I'll throw some extra candy in for you. I have also experienced IED's, RPG's, and VBIED's. I have also closed the distance with the enemy and engaged and destroyed the enemy.
Since we're comparing the size of our male reproductive organs. Let me ask you some questions.
1: Ever had to clear a village/ town of weapons caches or IED facilities?
Wait a minute...
2: HAVE YOU EVER EVEN LEFT THE DAMNED WIRE?
And on top of that your idea of combat is my reason for clarification. You think that just because you went to X combat theater and took IDF or SAF that you have combat experience. Walk up to an Army troop or a Marine and try to put yourself on the same level.
Sparky99.... You are an idiot if you think hunkering down with your tail between your legs while the mortars are coming in is combat experience! I have deployed with the Air Force 3 times and that is the way it is done; an attack happens and you get down, take cover, and/or cower and in the meantime all work STOPS. Combat Experience means you still HAVE to do your job while those rounds are coming in. Yes, you took the chance of dying by being in that combat zone but it does NOT put you in the same league as the Army and Marine units that had to be out in the thick of things. As a former Combat Engineer in the Army I know what combat experience is and as an Air Force veteren I know what people like you THINK combat experience is. You want combat experience then here is what you do; grab your rifle, rucksack, and some extra socks then go out on patrol in the mountains and participate in one of those ambushes you read about all the time in your cushy little world.
Ameriken05 – you left out Weather Jumpers, Combat Medics, Convoy Drivers/Security/Commanders, etc...looks like you've got some limited experience as well.
Rangerwalker24 – You really don't know who I am or what I've done. So why try to sum up ALL AF personnel and experiences based on your time in the AF? Did you meet everyone? How about just half? 1/4 of all AF personnel? Just what is your sample that you're making your judgment from?
Army MP – no , we're really not measuring members – merely pointing out that your view is extremely narrow and closed minded – on a different subject, congratulations on your total command of acronyms and abreviations by the way, I'll bet all the sillyvillians are so very impressed.
You've all 3 illustrated my point beautifully – you want to make instant judgements about someone based on what your preconceived notions of them are. You don't bother to investigate or even just honestly ask them what their experience actually is. For all three of you – I know who I am, what I've seen/done/experienced. I do not feel the need to justify myself to you or anyone else. Why do you? I don't feel the need to try to belittle or besmirch someone I don't even know in order to make myself feel better. Why do you?
As a US Air Force Desert Storm vet and pilot I say "you go girl and Godspeed" to Hay. Most men could not handle the mental stress of training alone women go through since we train with the men and must always must prove we are better at our jobs. Anyone who says men are worried about "protecting a woman in combat" never served with me, my commander claimed I "made ten men" when asked by his superior officer about my ability. Men are raped just like women by enemy combatants...Go serve and then condemn women for doing more than their share. It's always some man that can't compete who needs to subjugate women.
When I went to basic training the women did not train with the men, their basic training was with females only. I don't believe that has changed so where are you getting your info from?
I graduated army basic training on October 13, 2011. My company was 206 strong. 74 of which were females. So that has changed. But I still don't want them in combat.
Brian,
Men and women train together in flight school...from API in Pensacola, to Primary in Milton or Corpus, to Advanced, to the RAG. (FYI – My source is that I was the only female in my class flight school class).
So she wants equal rights? No problem, as the United States we pride ourselves as having the best armed services's in the world. So that means women HAVE to perform at men's physical demands. After all as a nation we must become better not worse. This is not impossible for women and I know this because while my time enlisted I have seen women do more pull ups than me, run faster, and do more crunches(not all done by the same woman though).
So what if majority of women can not meet the criteria to enlist… oh wait there is already a program in place to improve the physical and mental performance called the delayed entry program which helps both men and woman for boot camp. Then obviously the next step will be same boot camps and drill instructors. Same standards, same weight, same tools, same weapons, same facilities, and same personnel. After boot camp is mos training and this will have to be the same as boot camp: Same standards, same weight, same tools, same weapons, same facilities, and same personnel. If a Marine, soldier, seaman, or airman can not meet the demands of the mos they are either processed to another field or just out of the service. Once trained he or she will be placed in action according to their field. Who will lead them? Who ever is the best man for the job!(Just a saying, it could be a woman too)
What about logistics? If you change society's views of women working with or apart from men at step one of enlisting in to our military we will not have to worry about where who sh**s where and who sleeps next's to who in what building. You have to be able to reject woman from enlisting from the military because she is the wrong PERSON for the job. This only fair because men are rejected already for health, fitness, and whatever requirements that have to be met.
But all this doesn't matter. It is not a military discrimination but society's. Women are capable to perform any task as men but just not common to see. If we hold women to the same standard as men it will only be a subject of who is the best PERSON for the job. If that chick in the photo can carry me out of a combat zone or would not mind having a conversation with me while sitting in the next stall as I take a sh**t then let her be in the infantry.
All this because she could not fly a jet...
What does talking to somebody in a bathroom stall have to do with anything? I didn't realize that was a requirement of the US Armed Forces.
I agree so long as the requirements are for the job and not just made to be exclusionary. I don't know about other services but in the Chair Force very few jobs actually had physical requirements more stringent than the standard PT test. And the PT test isn't actually supposed to be about making sure anyone is strong enough for the job, it's about making sure you are in good health and physical shape. In the infantry I imagine it'd be different with actually having to hike around with lots of heavy equipment, but that's endurance not brute strength and a woman can easily train for it just like a man. The reality of the situation is that women are already being put into combat situations and doing fine. But they are being prevented from being recognized for it which can mean less promotion potential and denial of other benefits.
For starters I'm in favor of female in combat fields, but like others I believe it has to be completely equal. Though Whorhay has probably never done a 10 miles force march with complete combat gear. Wearing MOLLIE Gear, helmet, flak jacket, M-16 as a basic starting weight and then throwing on a .50 cal, the spare barrels, or the tripod (if on a machine gun team); a MK-19, the tripod (if on a machine gun team); a mortar barrel, mortar base plate(if on a mortar team); a TOW MSG, night sight, optical sight, tripod, traversing unit(if on a TOW team). People seem to believe all this stuff is delivered on HMMMWVs or on 7-tons and don't move once its inplace.
The United states Coast Guard had a slogan when I first came in, It showed a picture of a mens room door, and stated that this was the only restriction placed on females. In 13 years I have seen woman in every field the Coast Guard has to offer. There only restriction right now are serving on ships made in the 1960's that don't have the facility for females. I have no problems with females serving in any capacity as long as they are capable. We allow them to be police officers, federal agents, prison guards and all these other jobs, why not let a woman who wants to serve in the military in a combat role. If thats what they want, let them. Just an opinion from a male coastie with 13 years in.
I have always suspected that this was happening – women are not protected from the injuries, but they are "protected" from getting the same respect for serving their country that men receive. Doesn't sound fair to me! Women may not have the same brute strength as men, but brute strength is becoming less and less important as technology advances. I think women should be able to play a role in combat in any position except one where their smaller size represents a REAL handicap. And with all this concern for "protecting" women it's interesting that there isn't more support for childbearing, which is the most dangerous thing that most women ever do, and more dangerous than anything many men ever do. Either be real about "protecting" women (and I don't just mean in war – women in this day and age aren't protected at home either, we are expected in many cases to support ourselves and can't rely on a man) or just don't bother and let women get the same credit that a man would receive for the same work.
I know I am going to be viewed as a traitor, but as a female in the Navy for almost 20 years, deployed as the only woman on a combantant ship, supported embassy evacuations, received incoming and treated wounded in Iraq – I don't see women in combat as a successful option. What advantage would the US military have in any scenario for a female over a male? We may think critically, shoot just as well, etc but the presence of women in situations that will make them vulnerable or make the team vulnerable is unacceptable risk to operations. Rape and torture are tools of war that predate civilization – what it does to our integrity and unit capability and image as a nation would weaken our resolve for whatever conflict it occured in. We cannot have that and remain strong and resilute. Our enemies know that and are chomping at the bit to use females in combat as a tool to humiliate and harm us. Yes, I love weapons and studying warfare tactics, and if push came to shove I have not problem fighting in a combat role – I just know the reality of what will most likely happen if I fail my mission or my unit.
edc, I appreciate you looking at the big picture. You realize the military isn't about you, it's about winning wars and doing our best to win wars. Thank you for your service.
searches and intelligence collection is not combat!
At the end of the day "America" will not stand to see a women put directly into harms way. Jessica Lynch is a perfect example. She was driving in a convoy. Not a front line MOS. She was captured and America as a whole freaked. Even the President said get her back. America is not ready to put women in the direct position to be become a POW.
Women are in combat roles, Our medics, truck drivers, our mp's. And yes our intell and translators.
Women can't serve as combat medics. Thats a male only MOS.
Hate to break it to most people. The term combat role isn't any job that takes you to a dangerous area. It's a term for the jobs that are in principle design to engage the enemy. As a Marine I was a 2171 in a recon battalion, I had a 240 machine gun as my weapon in the field, and served in the front lines of Iraq. Will I did engage the enemy and received a Combat Action Ribbon, my MOS is technically listed as noncombat
Is that right PV2 FO. So tell me where the line of combat begins and ends. How many arty rds landed in and near hospitals in Iraq and Afghan. Females are not assigned to combat line units but support units do go out in combat areas.
MAN I COMPLETELY FORGOT ABOUT HER. DID WOMEN ALSO FORGET ABOUT HER ? WOMEN IN THE FRONT LINES ? A JOKE...BUT POLITICIANS ARE CRAZY ENOUGH TO DO IT..
JESSICA LYNCH , I FORGOT ABOUT HER.... SERIOUSLY WOMEN ON THE FRONT LINES IS A HUGE MISTAKE. ANYONE THAT DISAGREE IS AN IDIOT.
CAN YOU PICTURE A WOMEN WITHOUT A SHOWER FOR 3 MONTH'S IN THE JUNGLE ? NO BATHROOMS ?? NO TOILET PAPER ? EVERY GUY WOULD WANT TO BE NEXT TO HER, PUTTING THE MISSION IN TROUBLE.
Why is this listed as "news"???
In my years of service the females got better treatment then the male's, in the 80s we carried thier ammo, in the 90s we worked the harder post, in 2000 they were put in duties that put the others in harms way, YES some did it great but not most
Complex issue. Brass tacks:
Women are not typically as strong as men. Women who weigh 125 or even 150 pounds are not likely to be able to carry as much weight, say a wounded partner, mortar base plate, number of rounds, etc. at the same pace as a man. It's not gender bias, it's just biology. It's also questionable to add any possible gender-based emotional burden to the combat environment because a change in the super-tight combat team relationship adds a question, therefore a risk. Add hand to hand and POW situations and I think women could be placed in a position to fail, not because they are not intelligent enough or don't have the drive, but the Typical woman would not thrive in this environment, I don't think. How many women would thrive in cage fighting against men? Some, but they would be the exception rather than the rule.
If a woman can pass the same tests, then a woman should get the job. The same tests though – not a watered down version. That's what equal really means, isn't it? And for the record, I am a woman.
I agree, Mab. I, too eschew those arguments that say women should have the same opportunities, as firefighters for example, where physical strength is key, simply because they are of the female gender. Maxine Waters suggested that an 'electric axe' should be developed for women so that they could fight fires on crews as men do, to overcome an absence of upper-body strength which is biological and not controllable. That was clearly a ridiculous idea.
I was assigned to an aircraft maintenance squadron at Mtn. Home AFB, ID. While I was there guidance came down that female trainees in the flightline maintenance AFSCs would not be required to lift as much as their male counterparts. They would drag around 35-pound tool boxes which would give them a better chance at passing the school. Of course, they didn't get these same tool boxes when they hit the real air force. They had to lug around the same toolboxes their male companions did which meant the male mechanics and crew chiefs had to help them. Totally ridiculous!
Served 6 years in the 366th myself.
Modern day political correctness doesn't change a million years of genetics. When it comes to thinking roles woman are just as capable as men in most regards. When it comes to down and dirty urban combat, woman would be spear fodder. Combat is not all about sitting behind a sand bag pulling a trigger. Sometimes it comes down to knives, helmets, fists, rocks, or whatever is handy to bash the head off the enemy. It isn't glamorous. At its core it is a disgusting thing and woman need to stay away. Men need to pray to avoid it when possible.
Bryan,
I don't disagree with you at all. However, I have know some woman who could hold their own in a fight with just about any man they would come across. I have also know some men I would not walk into an unruly Starbucks with.
My wife is a pilot and a veteran who flew helicopter combat missions in Iraq. Aviation is one of the few places where women are allowed to serve in direct combat roles. These female pilots performed their jobs well and have honorably served their country. If a person can meet the military requirements, do not hold them back if they want to serve.
Being in the AIR and being on the ground are two completely different perspectives. In the air you are safe (call it what you will but unless your a blackhawk, a shinook, medivac, or little bird pilot you don't have to worry too much about (combat). Vital roles? Hell yeah! Does it prove their combat ready on the ground? Hell no! Seriously its like comparing a HDTV to a frying pan. The comparison doesnt really exist. Sitting comfortably in the air providing air support for the grunts is much appreciated but not the same thing friend.
Absolutely correct, Ramadi. We have to take this scenario to the most horrifying to see if women should serve in this role: Hand to Hand combat to the death against a man; POW scenarios for women who may have killed the enemy's pal in the previous firefight; being able to evacuate a wounded team member who outweighs you considerably; even adding a romantic scenario to a combat team. Men behave differently around women. Lord help the combat team whose replacement is a hottie.
All the points I've read from both sides are valid. Having served in the Airborne and the Rangers I can say for a fact that no women, let alone very many man can do the demanding tasks we are asked to do. Overseas we had some support that were females, in a very volatile situation. 1 was kicked out for...mm hm doing some incredible extra curricular activities and getting caught. Another claimed she was raped by a bunch of grunts until a video with 5 other dudes was shown that made it pretty clear she was into it. 2 bad cases. The others were great in the role they did. Now would I ever trust my life or my buddies in the hands of a female. Never. Its not the physical strength or the mentality I've seen plenty of men break down in combat as well. The point of the matter is its a brain-f$*. As a male our responsiblities include protecting each other but to a certain extent. You throw a female into the works and your whole "game" is thrown. Whenever we went out on patrol and we even just SAW a women we would all jab and jeer and have fun with it. WE didnt see many for 15 months. Rape is a serious thing, especially when a unit like mine took heavy losses and became combat ineffective for over 3 months and continued to fight. Stress and feeling sorry for yourselves and physicall tand mentally exhausted take. Women should be allowed to try out, but remember its alot more then physical and mental strength. And FYI for those woman who are in combat they do earn CAB's. CIB's are only awarded to infantryman or 11 bang bangs. Just food for thought they are rewarded as well .Combat medics and such can be females. Its just a male issue when we see a woman put in harms way. Is that wrong? Sure. Does it change how we act and react? Definitely. Its dangerous plain and simple. You want females to fight in the infantry you keep them under female leadership, female barracks, and keep them the heck away from me so i have my head on straight.
I understand what you're saying. Shine a bit of a different light on your opinion. Would you be able to trust that woman if you had been training with them for X amount of months or years before you deployed with that person? I would have a hard time being able to trust anyone that was just thrown into the mix of our unit. Man or woman. It takes a while to trust and fully integrate casualty replacements into the inner circle. Not to mention having a local national living with you as an interpretor.
You can say that for a fact? So you've met every single woman on the planet? No? Then you cannot say that for a fact. That is your opinion, nothing more.
Besides, if you are truly convinced that no woman could meet the standards, then there could be absolutely no harm in allowing them to try since they wouldn't succeed anyway.
Keep in mind that the only reason this b***h wants to have equal rights for men and women in the military is so she can fly a f***ing jet at an air show.
Women do NOT belong anywhere NEAR combat operations. It is the man's job to go out and fight and protect. I also don't believe women should be allowed to serve as cops or in ANY role that would put them in harm's way. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
What a moron.
And you know this how? As a former female soldier, I totally get her perspective. Guys don't accept us because they can't get their head around females in combat. This is a societal issue that needs to be changed. Women fight in combat in several countries around the world, but not here. Or here, but not acknowledged. If women can do the same thing as men, and I mean the same, not a lower standard, then we should be allowed to do so. If you learn and train with us, then we just become another member of the team, and that's the way it should be. How much easier would combat be for men if they didn't rotate in and out of theater as frequently because women were there too? We're in the 21st century, but in a lot of ways, our brains are still in the 19th and early 20th centuries when it comes to women and the miliary. Remember, the same excuses were used to keep African Americans out of the military, and we can clearly see that is no longer the case. It won't happen over night, but it needs to happen...
Out of all the people post on here, How many have fought with a female troop next to them? I mean ACTUALLY took fire, returned fire or ducked an RPG with a female? I did in Sadr City. In fact I was the only male on my three man MP fire team. We had four females in our squad and seven in our platoon. When Operation Phantom Fury kicked off towards the end of November of 2004, our living arrangements were such that our women HAD TO LIVE WITH US. Sardines had more room. Our sisters changed in their fart sacks to keep some modesty. When it was time to goto work we loaded up and went to work. If they had to urinate we would stop pull security and business would get handled yes our girls would go #2 in an MRE box and burn it just like us. (Couldn't think of a more P.C. way to say that
) We had more important thinks to look for than someone trying to do their business... I saw a few posts talking about pregnancy. Bluntly stated? If your'e on the front lines that's the last thing on your mind and my personal opinion is my platoon is my family. Why the HELL would I try to get with my sister. When it's that time of the month I never knew it. Never heard any complaints about it.
To Army MP and your fellow female MP's. I salute you all. I have a female friend that is an MP and she has served in Afghanistan. She has done patrols, (foot and vehicle). I very proud of her as I am with all that are there. And your buddies, male or female will fight with you and for you and will bring you home at any cost. Hooah.. All the Way..
*Tips hat*
I love this modern day "us women should be treated equally, but still treat us like princesses when it's convenient for us" mentality.
Leave the fighting to the men..I still get the feeling that if women were allowed in, they would demand special perks, such as separate facilities, easier routines, etc...the harshness of war might also tempt men, which could bring up even more issues..all in all, I think women and all the special benefits they would need would just be a major drag-down.
From the standpoint of total ignorance (because you've never done it), your blog is a total drag down. Conversely, a real world experience as posted by Army MP proves your assumptions absolutely wrong.
Yes, because if it's posted on the internet it MUST be true right? You personally know Army MP and watched him/her type that comment? I can change my name to Army MP and call you an idiot if you like.
Troll much Soldier? Just trying to constructively argue for something based on my own personal experience. Are my own personal experiences limited? Sure. I am kind of the only one that experienced it from my point of view. Will it be completely different from anyone elses experience? Absolutely. Don't want to believe it? That's fine don't.
Funny how no one is clamoring for women to also have to sign up for the Selective Service (aka The Draft) when they turn 18 like us men.
I against the draft and don't believe there should be a selective service. Why. don't need unwanted duds and crackheads. it's hard enough to deal with good soldiers with personal problems. After being a leader of infantry soldiers, send the females that want to be soldiers, I'd train them the same as men and give them the same respect that's earned.
I've advocated for women needing to register for the draft for YEARS, so don't even go there. What is preventing women from doing that? US law. Who wrote the law? Mostly a bunch of old white men. Women didn't write the law excluding women from combat either. Don't blame women for something we have no control over and cannot change on our own...
THAT PICTURE IS PART OF OPSEC AND NEEDS TO BE TAKEN DOWN!
Some comments have brought up good points. We could save a ton if we cut women's pay to be proportionate with their minimum passing standards on a PT test. Also, let's court martial any woman that gets pregnant in a deployable unit. I ran an MP basic/AIT company after my Infantry days, and 90% of the females could not meet the male standards. But if they do want to allow it, then allow everything except Infantry, SF and Ranger BN. Those are really the only ones that should be male only.
As long as we have the same physical fitness standards (same number of push up, same times on the run, etc) then I have no issues with women in combat arms.....
Let em in, I could use a nice HJ every now and then.
When I was deployed you were the type of person I worried about crossing. You have no respect for women and that is very clear by your post. Again, you are the type of creeper that I worried about coming across.
All the more reason females shouldn't be in the infantry. The UCMJ isn't going to stop males like him.
You have to think of the logistics involved if you allow women to fill the same roles as men in our military. Allowing women to serve combat roles automatically increases the amount of support you'll need in an area where you have to have the ability to pack up and leave at a moment's notice. You have to have separate bathrooms, showers, living quarters, etc. It just doesn't make sense if you look at it from that perspective.
Wow....all I can say is, wow.
great point
And once a month they would attract bears........
That should probably apply to gays, shouldnt it? I don't really want to shower next to a gay who would let his imagination grow in a shower room. I am not really familiar with this issue though.
Hey,
Well done Lt. that looks like Camp Phoenix!
OPSEC now blown.
Women I tell you!
And those towers in the background provide a pretty good reference point for anyone that wants to hit those living quarters with a mortar or a rocket. Go back to your f***ing boat and leave the job to us men.
Current Army PT standards.
For a perfect score in each PT test category ...
pushups: male = 77, female = 50
situps: male = 82, female = 82
2 mile run: male 13 minutes, female 15 minutes 36 seconds
There is no general weight lifting or carrying standard.
Data from: http://www.apft-standards.com/
I am a F-16 crew chief in the USAF and I have launched out many female pilots in "combat" missions. There was also a female Thunderbird pilot, Major Nicole Malachowski, who started flying with them in 2006–I am not sure if there are any females on the team right now. That being said, regardless of gender, if they are qualified they will get the job. You are just starting to see females enter the "male dominated" career fields, I believe it is just a matter of time before you see a female Blue Angels pilot.
Call a Wambulance.
Women should not be in combat, whereas, men should not be in combat, either.
How about the logistics of this? What happens when your mixed gender infantry platoon of 42 people has to live in a tent were you can't sleep without touching someone else. Or in a small compound in the local village. You CAN'T tell me that putting mixed gender people in conditions like that is not going to create an overwhelming amount of problems. The "front lines" are not working out of a large FOB and driving out to a village and dismounting for 30-45 minutes and going back in time for chow. When you have ZERO personal space, no bathroom besides the corner of the compound, don't shower for 4 months at a time, don't get proper nutrition, no contact with home, no climate control, no break from the enemy THAT IS TRYING TO KILL YOU WITH ALL THEIR BEING (who would love nothing more than to kill some american women btw) come and tell me that the majority of women, how have LESS THAN EQUAL standards can hack it. Then do all this with a high op-tempo of combat patrols (CLPs don't count either gals) and tell me again how they are going to make it. It's hard enough finding men who can deal with the physical and mental stresses, we don't need to compound the problem by adding someone who is already on the low end of the "I can do it!" scale.
I think you are misinformed. Women are already serving in these roles... doing the things you claim they can't and shouldn't be allowed to do. It is just not officially allowed to be declared as such. Quite a rant from someone ill informed.
IRAQ IS NOTHING COMPARE TO NAM.....PICTURE A WOMEN WITH MANY MARINES IN THE JUNGLE FOR A FEW MONTH'S ?? NO TOILET–NO SHOWERS–I CAN'T SEE IT.
Yes. I'll informed. You're right, I have no experiences in these matters AT ALL.
The fact is, these conditions did exist, do exist and will exist in Afghanistan and in the next country we invade and women are not biologically as capable in these conditions. You can bury your head in the sand all you want, but tell me a women who hasn't showered in 4 months will be healthy and I'll show you a liar.
They use a Naval Academy Grad as an example. Please. Maybe 1/4 of 1/16 of a per cent. The vast majority of women in the services are enlisted. They don't discuss the number of women in the services becoming pregnant while deployed nor do they discuss they have differnt standards for them to qualify in basic training. This is nothing more than PC being forced upon the young men who have defended this country very admirably for 200 years. Results of this test are not encouraging nor have they been successful. Look at the studies. The costs of accomadations are substantial and unjustifiable.
And women are getting pregnant by themselves? The way to fix that is to hold the men who impregnate women accountable and make them get out too. Women aren't in the military to provide comfort services to men, but you treat us as if that is our purpose. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard women join the military because they are dikes or because they are looking for a husband. Puleeze! I worked for an E7 who told me in front of a dozen other people that as long as I worked for him I would never make E5 and that women either belonged home and pregnant or were in the military to relieve men's stress. As soon as he left I got promoted. That's the crap women put up with. Fine, don't let us into combat positions, but then don't keep us from getting promoted, from getting deserved awards, and from getting good assignments. Men can't keep preventing us from being the best we can be and then holding us accountable for not doing so.
I completely agree. Judging by your name I can tell that you are an infantry man. I have no problem with female pilots or whatever positions they want, such as serving aboard submarines. And in no way would I say that males are smarter than females. However females are physically weaker than males. It's a scientific fact. Listen if I have to share a fox hole with a female or clear out a house with a female I want to know that this female would be able to help me out if it were to come down to a hand to hand fight with the enemy. The fact of the matter is, the modern day enemy we fight is predominately male, with the exception of a few female suicide bombers. What happens if we allow women in infantry roles and they come face to face with a male enemy combatant? In hand to hand combat, the enemy will more than likely be stronger, bigger and able to over power her.
ARMY, MARINE HERE, MY POINT... ARE WOMEN GOING TO PEE IN FRONT OF THE GUYS ? WHAT IF THE ENEMY IS CLOSE BY ? THEY CAN'T RUN OFF TO GO PEE....ARE THEY GOING TO SHOWER WITH THE MEN ?
No. The only fact is that MOST men are stronger than MOST women. Same physical standards = problems solved in most respects. In the other respects, as long as men can keep it in their pants and act like professionals, there shouldn't be a problem. Is that too much to ask?
Candid and true.
Great publicity for her company.
I think that the standards should be the same across the board for men and women if a person can't perform physically, mentally or emotionally, they shouldn't be in that job. I am in the militaryand if I had to perform and pass by the standards they set for men my age I have no problem with that, I think it should be that way. Bullets don't discriminate why should we?
I like how women want to get in combat positions, after trench warfare and other forms of human battlefield misery have ended. Let them have their way, and if there is ever a military draft reinstated, draft them first.
As a veteran of 24 years with the Navy, and a woman who began serving in the late 70s when women weren't allowed shipboard yet, let me say there have been so many changes to the role of women in the military. Women have always found a way to serve in combat even when the rules said they couldn't. Let's lift the official ban and make all service open to women and men alike. @rightster, you seem to think women wouldn't want to fight in the trenches or be drafted. Grow up, shut up, and sign up!
Back in your day, Navy men or women didn't fight in the "trenches". By the way I've already served my 20 years too.
your an idiot!
Rightster – your comments are foolish. I was in Fallajah when a 7 ton full of women Marines was blown up by an IUD. Guess what, they are red blooded Americans just like male Marines. They do a great job. You need to get over yourself.
I hope you meant IED not IUD....
I KNOW he ment I.E.D. Very funny typo considering the conversation.
And it's Fallujah.
You Amazons do or do not want women included in future drafts, even if they have suckling babes?
After it's all over? REALLY? We've been fighting this fight forever. Just because your head has been buried in the sand forever doesn't mean we haven't been fighting this forever. Women wanted to be in the military since the founding of this country. Women in the American Civil War fought right next to their male counterparts and the men never knew it until the woman was injured or in one or two cases she became pregnant. How did that happen? They were fighting right next to their husbands to whom they were married before enlisting, so don't you dare say now that combat is over we are asking for equality...
Many of the people here who keep putting forward "possible worst case scenarios in the remote case that women may be allowed to serve in combat" are forgetting something: women ALREADY serve in combat and do all the things that you are talking about. They are just not CALLED "combat" because of the policy. So they actually DO combat but don't get paid or recognized for it.
I recall the day when women whined and complained about getting in the miltary and having equal opportunities. Women need to put up and shut up. They do not deserve anything more than males. Tired of women thinking they are something special. Quit whining!!!!!
Women don't want anything "more"....they want the "same." Learn to read.
not true, make the standards the same, then compete. Otherwise shut up and get to our level of performance
I don't see women demanding that they should have to sign up for selective service just like the men.
I'm going to try and chime in here without sounding like a troll... I was an MP in Iraq, my first time was in 2004. As an MP we have women in every section of our career field. Women were our gunners, leaders, peers, and comrades. My unit took part in Operation Phantom Fury in 2004 and we brought our women. With that said most of our women were upset with the P.T. standard being lower because it put them in the spot light on their acheivements. At least half of our women could pass the male P.T. test... That's how they felt around that time anyway. As far as the recognition for combat goes. Hey lighten up ladies. If a man is in a combat support role he gets no more credit that you do. I was at no point in my career ever eligible for the Combat Infantry Badge or any other Combat Arms related awards. Because you aren't allowed to be in combat arms does not mean you don't get recognition for combat (at least fo the Army). You get your combat patch, Combat Action Badge, and if you DISTINGUISH yourself by getting wounded or with valor you get a Purple Heart or one of the other top tier medals that are awarded during combat. Though only one woman har ever won the Medal of Honor, a few in my unit came back with Bronze Stars a medal I never personally earned. I hope I don't get trolled to death.
Sure, but at least you could have had the chance to attempt getting into a combat MOS. Until you have someone say to you that you are by default not good enough because you have the wrong genitals, it is really difficult to understand.
You're absolutely right I don't know. I'm not trying to say I do. I scored high enough on the ASVAB to do anything in the Army but I chose MP. I'm not even trying to say that it's fair. The article talks about not getting credit for "what accounts for combat conditions." That hyper link goes to a video about Spc Shoshana Johnson, an Army cook that got captured after her convoy got ambushed and captured. Though I have my own opinions about THAT specific incident, women GET credit and acknowledgement for those kinds of incidents IN THE ARMY. (I can't speak for other branches) My overall argument is that women deserve what they earn should be allowed to earn what they deserve...
According to my experience the navy only needs enough men to do the work and fighting. Women could do the rest.
@CCT, My apologies I should not have forgotten the Airmen. Our Air force is the greatest in the world.
Well,
Maybe one day they'll be a female US President also?
Then that would be time of prosecution for males in teh US. Like VAWA now – protects victims females from males. And males presumed guilty untill proven innocent. Way to go.
I pray that never happens. We'll be at war with a different country one week out of every month.
Whatever your mother did to you growing up, Im sorry.
This article is outdated in its information and does not reflect whats happenning on the ground in Afghanistan and previously in Iraq. It is disappointing that CNN continues to write articles with half facts or half truths.
Women don't have the strength to carry a soldier out of a combat situation.. let's be realistic, do you actually think a 150 pd woman will be able to drag a 230 of man.. bell no.
250 ? 200 POUNDS. PLUS THE RAPE FACTOR..PICTURE A WOMEN PULLING HER PANTS DOWN TO PEE IN FRONT OF THE GUYS....NOT A GOOD IDEA
So, okay to let rapists in the front lines, but not women? Got it.
It's one thing to say that you as a woman you should be allowed into combat roles, and quite another to actually step back and think about what you are getting into. For that we can look back into history a little bit. When the Germans invaded Russia, the Soviets used woman militia (i.e. cannon fodder) to slow the German advance. The Germans mowed them down and blew them up by the thousands. They got no quarter nor will a woman today. Although the Soviets used many women in the Red Army to crush the Nazi's.
One of the paratroopers that went into Normandy was found hanging in a tree with his throat cut and his "stuff" cut off and lodged in his mouth. War is violence extreme the enemy's job is to kill you in any gruesome manner he can devise. Just a little food for thought for women that think they want to go join the front line guys.
Point: When I did a pre academy physical for law enforcement I was amazed that women have a lighter physical demand by about half of the mens. Here we are going for the exact same job, it just amazes me. We have a female deputy in our county. Sure she's smart enough to do the job but she's all of 5'3" and about a 100 pounds soaking wet. The gun on her hip is like an over sized toy. Where will she be when the scrap hits the fan, right in the worse than useless pile.
A while back we had a small town officer, this time male he's a little scrawny guy about 5'5". A big old guy said he was going to beat his head in, the guy panicked and unloaded most of his magazine into the guy.
What my point is, just because you can put on the uniform and place yourself into a position. It does not mean that you can do the job. A woman that thinks they want this should take a look into their future just a bit.
Let them serve in combat. As long as they can meet the same exact physical requirements that men have to meet in order to serve in combat.
PAUL, YOU KNOW WOMEN ARE NOT PHYSICALLY AS STRONG AS THE MEN, WE ALL KNOW THAT...THE ONLY REASON WOMEN ARE IN THE MILITARY ?? POLITICS .....WOMEN BEEN COMPLAINING OF BEING RAPED IN LARGE NUMBERS, WHAT DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN IF THEY GO TO THE FRONT LINES ?? DUH....
You know, you're right. Only men should be in the military... natural selection at it's best
Wow
Paul, you do realize that a big part of being in combat arms units (which I was never a part of, but still worked with) is being out "in the field"? Now, take for instance some of the units out here in Afghanistan in remote FOBs and COPs who sometimes don't get a shower for months at a time (not uncommon). A woman is more susceptible to bad stuff going on "down there" than guys are.
Then there's the logistics aspect of providing separate bathrooms, separate living quarters, and you can see WHY it becomes a problem
What most women don't want to admit is how they are completely favored in todays society. Why is it OK for women to have a gym that only allows women to join, but women always want to crash an all male program stating discrimination?
Women dont want equal rights they want special rights. I bet if you polled the women around the country and asked if they would be willing to be drafted so a few women could try out for the seals it would get a resounding no. A woman can't be a Navy Seal because they are not required to sign up for the selective service.
In the PT tests, a woman is given more time to complete the same course. They aren't required to do pullups at all. I'm sure there are several women that could complete the men's testing, but if you required ALL women and all men to take the SAME testing, you would see the same rate of drop-off for males, and a 90% drop off in females (or more) that could pass the testing.
Sure, a woman can say she can run fast, or keep up with a male around a track, Try doing it when you haven't showered in 20 days in full gear boots helmet, pack, weapon, and 2 hours sleep over the last 4 days and someone is shooting at you or you are chasing an enemy, or protecting a fellow soldier.
Bet if you polled the women in the country, heck even just the women in the military to see if they wanted their standards raised to be the same as the men's, and if they couldn't meet the standards they were out and if they scored low their promotions would be held up. I bet you wouldn't get many yes votes.
So make the standards the same. I agree with you (and I'm a woman). If a woman wants to be in the military they should have to meet the same standards as any man should. Some men are not strong – they're standards should not be lowered. Some women are incredibly strong – they're standards shouldn't be raised. Same job, same recognition, same tests to get in. I don't want to be in the military, because I know I couldn't cut it. I also don't want to be a teacher, because I know I couldn't cut it. But I don't want the test to be easier to get a license to teach. (Obviously totally different, but you get my point I hope!)
Lani Hay is hot.
Honestly, I wouldn't lift a finger to fight for a country that won't let me fight. And since they won't let me fight, well, that makes it easy for me to reconsider my career options. Lani, forget about the Navy. Work in education or health care instead.
Your country hasn't let you fight in the past because despite you being equal in smarts, you are not equal in physic.
I AGREE....WOMEN LEGS AND UPPER BODY ARE WEAK , PICTURE THEM PICKING UP A 200 POUND GUY FROM THE GROUND...PICTURE THEM CARRYING THAT 200 POUND PERSON FOR A MILE IN A HOT JUNGLE ? THERE ARE NO WASHROOMS IN COMBAT, PICTURE A WOMAN PULLING DOWN HER PANTS TO PEE IN FRONT OF THE MEN ?
Relax... The same country you seem to resent gives women advantages that men don't have, so you might want to calm down a little. When men are too weak to pass the military's PT tests, they are sent away and unable to serve. Women however, get a much easier and watered down PT test from the one that men have to take. Women are paid "equally" as the men though. Isn't that fascinating? How would women like it it men got a much easier test and were paid the same? I wonder if the feminists would demand an "equal" test if men got the advantage. ...because currently, feminists are perfectly fine with women having the advantage here and getting "equal" pay for "unequal" work.
well said areyoujoking
First of all, no matter what the job or who the employer, women do not get equal pay or equal recognition. Second of all, when it comes to the military, if the JOB requires certain physical abilities, then anyone with those physical abilities should be elligible for the job – at equal pay, equal benefits, equal recognition, and equal opportunity for advancement. If the job does NOT require certain physical abilities – and many military jobs do NOT require the ability to run ten miles with a sixty pound back pack – then smaller, weaker men or women should both be elligible. The whole strength thing is macho talk for 'no women allowed.' Women have been on the front lines since there have been wars. They've been intelligence offices, ambulance drivers, nurses in MASH units. This IS combat. It's time they were recognized for it. What's the matter guys – your feelings hurt because it just might be possible that a woman can do it better than you can?
It's not combat its called support!
Combat defined as active, armed fighting with enemy forces.
Not the things you listed!
Again think before you type.
Hey Katie, get back on the couch with your Bon-Bons and Days of Our Lives.
Katie says "First of all, no matter what the job or who the employer, women do not get equal pay or equal recognition."
And she's absolutely right. Men don't get maternity leave.
Also, I was in a unit where a woman purposely got pregnant so she didn't have to complete a deployment. Meanwhile she took the spot of men that were BEGGING to be deployed.
Men can't get maternity leave by definition. They do get paternity leave though. It's FMLA and required by law.
Women get to take MUCH easier PT tests where less is expected of them, yet they are paid EQUALLY as the men that are required to do more. Why isn't the author complaining about THAT inequality. Oh, because women benefit from it? Exactly. When women take the EQUAL PT test, then they can complain about combat roles. Until that day, just be thankful the military watered down the test for you. When weaker men cannot pass the PT test, they are denied the chance to serve. Women get a HUGE advantage here. Maybe we should stop pretending women are "the same" as men when their physical testing demands aren't even close to "the same" thing. That makes a HUGE difference here.
This is true. Men have a standard they are expected to comply and pass. If a male takes that physical test, and fails, he is denied. Meanwhile, a woman takes her physical test, and passes and is sent onward to serve. The male is sent home, even though he could have passed the female test. You would you rather have backing you? I'd take the male.
Exactly. Picture a squadron of entirely female soldiers. Do people REALLY think they'd be "equally" as effective as a squadron of entirely male soldiers? Look, I know we see 90 pound women in movies kicking the crap out of men that outweigh them by 100 pounds, but please understand that it's just movie fantasy. Angelina Joilie would get knocked out by 99% of dudes out there if there was a fight in "real life.". Common sense.
Some of the physical requirements are based on the size of the person. Men should be able to lift and push more weight than women. If they can't, they're not personally fit. But that has very little to do with a woman's being physically fit. If I had a macho he-man avenger guy as my partner vs a smaller, physically fit woman who thought with her brains I'd choose the woman every time. 'Hero' requires courage and wisdom, not just me-Tarzan-you-Jane kind of thinking.
“The difference in the stature, vitality, voice, development, muscular quality and physical strength of men and women shows that men are stronger and more capable in all fields”
Hashemi Rafsanjani quotes
Katie, you are correct – the standards are based on peak physical fitness – which is exactly WHY women do not belong in the infantry. The most physically fit woman is not going to be able to mtach the abilities of the most physically fit man. They don't call them grunts for nothing. There are many jobs in the miltary that women can do, and they should be treated the same as their male coutnerparts in those mos's. Infantry is a job that mainly calls for carrying heavy things for long distances for long periods of time, followed by moments of sprinting, dropping, getting up, dragging/carrying someone else who may be heavier than you, etc. There is not a woman alive who can do that as well as a man. That doesn't even take into account the s3xual tension, which no amount of regs or UCMJ will ever stop. Sorry, but men are attracted to women for the most part. Now take a man away from female contact for several months and then put a woman right in the middle and tell me there aren't going to be problems, even if the woman wants nothing to do with him. It isn't right by the standards of our societal norms, but our societal norms aren't the military. That's not to say women shouldn't be protected when it comes to rape, etc, but why add that cr@p to a combat situation.
I'm telling this to every male on this website. This is in defense of every woman here and in support of them too. There has never been a male who has set a school record. I've set it twice. My friend Madisyn ran 50 yards in 6.2 second. My friend Lydia ran a 600 yd dash in 1:25. My friend Shana did a shuttle run in 5.8 seconds. You guys are just stupid arguing oxes who care about nothing but muscles and politics.
Congratulations Brooklyn, you're what, in high school? A track meet record equals the rigors of combat? I feel very sorry for you, because your school isn't pushing your male athletes to their highest potential, and they sure have failed to prepare you for life. Do your fifty yard sprints while wearing 50+ pounds of gear and carrying a 10 pound weapon several times an hour followed by dragging/carrying a 200lb man for a 1/4 mile, followed by a 8 mile forced march (that's around 4-5 miles an hour) with a 100lb pound load. Tell me who is going to be able to do it faster, males or females? Why are male olympic athletes times faster than female times? It's not because they don't train as hard – it's because our bodies are built differently. I hope you learn this lesson; know what you're talking about.
The point of the article is that if women are there and in the combat situations and are listed as communications officers vs armed soldiers, then yes, the rules should be a re-written so that they can receive credit for being in a heavy combat situation and doing the job.
As far as my take for women in the military... I don't believe they should be there to start with. Out of instinct a man loaded with gear will run across an open road to get to cover, and make it, while the woman carrying the same gear will fall behind and get wounded. The male will then be obligated to save the woman. While many of you say he should save his comrade be he\she male or female, this is true, but he may not be in the predicament in the first place if she could have kept up with the group.
He also will be able to carry her weight, while she would never be able to carry his.
Fighting is for me. Sorry, Ladies. I believe you're just as smart, just as capable in 100 other things, but not for physical macho running\heat\lifting\combat situations. Many will say women can do anything because of the pressure of the feminist movement, but the majority, in their heads, know it's not true.
Men have physical characteristics that make them combatants. Women have physical characteristics that make them child bearers. This has nothing to do with brains, but since we're talking about the battlefield here and not a job at NASA, I'd have to say let the men do their jobs. Who the heck can possibly argue with nature.
As an add up to my post, it's a silly comparison, but imagine women in the NFL? They could start their own league and compete only with other women teams, but they could never compete against a male team. In war, against other countries, the women in the U.S. Military forces are usually (about 99%) of the time, fighting against a male enemy. Not a smart idea.
If a male is captured in war, he undergoes the treatment of war. I don't even want to know what an Afghan male would do to one of our women if she was over-powered and alone.
Well said Wreck.
Wreck... Good point. We do this thing in this country where we pretend women are the same exact thing as men because no one wants to seem like they're being "anti-woman" , but deep down... Everyone knows that men are physically stronger (generally) and there are thousands of examples that we see every day. The NFL is a great example. We all know that we'll never see a female linebacker for the NFL and we all know why that is.... But we're somehow supposed to forget about the superior strength of men when it comes to things like the military and choose the path of false empowerment for women.
The issue is that technology is changing the battlefield. Its not just about brawn. Language skills, intelligence, technology, it's all becoming more important than carrying 200 pounds. With more than half the US college grads being women- the US might not have enough qualified young men if the s- ever really hit the fan. Yes, you need strong guys but I'm betting a female soldier would be just as adept to sneak behind enemy lines & call in air strikes. That's all the friggin' Deltas really did to try & get Bin Ladin.
WHOA JAKE?
Calling in airstikes is all they did?
What about all the mission prep?
And correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that the Job of a Comabat Controller?
You're the expert right?
I think our boys play a little bit harder than that!
Give us some credit couch potato!
I'm sorry to tell you this but if you belive that gon arethe day that you no longer have to hump a pack 25 mile or spend a day clearing a city with a 100 lbs pack on them i must say you have nevere trully been in combat. truth of the matter is that males and females are different thinkers men react quicker fire fast can stay motivated for longer men just do not flinch in when women do and the things i mentioned above are what is needed to not just get the job done but to get it done correctly. it not that a monen can fight on the front line (combat mos ) its that they cant do well they will fail and not for lack of trying but lack of abbility and in was failer is not a option . USMC when you need it destroyed over night call us
Women deserve the recognition they will never get for their time in the macho-man, I'm Conan-the-Barbarian military. Most women are smart enough to understand that war is never glorious, never righteous, and never something to be proud of, but for those that want to serve, they should be allowed to, even though it often means killing innocent people, including children, ruining countries for decades, and PTSD for life.
What you said is not even part of the debate here?
Not much wisdom in that is there?
War is about death and casualties!
Ever seen a war where people don't die?
Didn't think so!
SOF operators are not conan the barbarians!
Get your facts straight before commenting!
Let them join full combat rolls Blood is red no matter who bleeds it
women have no business in direct combat. the only thing that will happen is that they will get more men killed.
I hate to inform you but I already have a Combat Medic Badge from Afghanistan. This is received for medical care rendered under direct enemy fire. We are already in combat without the credit. I had the privilege of leading a Female Engagement Team all over the Noor Gul Valley. I did not get men killed, I saved the lives of countless Soldiers, men and women alike. I hope this broadens your perspective.
Staff Sergeant – U.S. Army
Combat Action badges are given away like candy!
Also a medics primary role is medical assistance?
You're not a trigger puller!
Staff Seargant please apply a tourniquet!
Oh boy. Some people are really strange. You led what? What company? I'm calling b.s. on this one. Who did you shoot? Women shouldn't be in combat units. Being on the front line is different than in the front line.
If someone gave you a weapon and put you into a combat unit, you would get a lot of men killed(our men). Let's narrow your perspective.
you got your credit.."Combat Medic Badge".
Doc
Funny!
SSG Kickinem – I can relate to you – I have a CAB that I earned while driving thru Baghdad in my gun truck during OIF II, and as I am reading these posts, I can't help but laugh. As a female Soldier, and as a leader, I can't believe the egotistical remarks about women serving in the military, not to mention combat. Makes it sounds like these guys (and that's the only ones saying it) think every American woman is made of fluff and butterflies and couldn't possibly risk breaking a nail while firing a .50 cal mounted on the top of a moving truck – trust me, that couldn't be further from the truth. When we suffered our only KIA from that deployment, I was the one in charge of the response and my assistant, if you could call him that, was in such a state of shock I thought a few times about slapping him to bring him back to his senses, especially when the bloody sensitive items were recovered and brought back for storage. He is almost 6 feet tall and male – doesn't that mean he should be taking care of me??? (sarcasm intended)
If women aren't willing to go into combat then they shouldn't be in the military. There's a lot of b s jobs in the military and women signing up know they're not going to get sent to the front lines with a gun and have to risk their lives- that is what has to change. There are women up to the task. There are women in my Crossfit class who can keep up with the former SEALs, so if they want the benefits of being in the military- make them really be in the military. Otherwise you get these situations like the single mother in the Army that refused to deploy 'cos she couldn't find chldcare for her kid. Why in the world is someone like that allowed to enlist. Women getting pregnant while deployed should be sent to prison.
They do Jake. It's a violation of Article 92 and General Order #1 to have... intimate encounters while downrange. Typically the punishment comes down more heavily on males than females however.
The error of this logic is that only mens' roles are important. Perhaps it's time to admit that women contribute in different ways than men, which are equally important.
Exactly. I can't have a kid, and my wife can't lift as much or run as fast as me. We are different, and it's time to embrace those differences. I thought differences were good.
i bet i can run twice as fast as you and hang up on a bar with my chin above it for twice as long too. Don't you go insulting your family or anyone else. Think twice.
Brooklyn, first of all, if you can't take being insulted, then you have no business being in the infantry, or the military, really. Second, my wife will be the first to tell you that I am physically stronger than her in most areas. It's not an insult, it's the truth. I know you're just in high school, but judging by this and other comments, someone in life has failed you. You don't care about combat effectiveness, you care about your supposed right to be let in to the so-called boys club of the infantry. Guess what, you don't belong in the infantry. There are many reasons why which I and others have posted, so I won't do your homework for you – you can read and find them yourself, since you are such a tough person. You can run fast? Great, good for you. You can hang a long time on a bar? Awesome, now try seeing if you can drag a 250 lb man 100yds faster than a male Marine. I guarantee you it won't happen. Here's the bottom line: you can have heart and train hard and be strong, but because of THE WAY YOUR BODY IS MADE, you will not have the same strength as a man. We want the strongest in our infantry because the job demands it. I do invite you to join the military, specifically the Marine Corps if you want to be strong, and you will learn very quickly it's not about you, it's about accomplishing the mission. There are many areas that females serve in and excel – I know, becasue I've seen it. The only area that needs to be left to men is combat arms – infantry, artillery, SF etc.
Pretty much, yes. Some people get offended when told they CAN'T do something and have to try and change it even when the changes don't make sense.
Not a good idea at all. Women could put men in a lot of danger on the battlefield, the men would feel more obliged to protect the female and end up doing something stupid. A woman cannot carry the heavy loads a man can, 100 pounds in a ruck in 100+ degree heat, I don't think so. What about all the women who would get pregnant on purpose so they wouldn't have to get deployed? Our army worked fine with just men for 300 years, why change it?
The 1950s called- the decade wants its paternalistic misogyny back.
Women are equals. If a man feels the need to "save" a female, I hope that it is no more pressing than saving anyone else in his unit, regardless of plumbing.
The majority of the world believes men are superior to women. If a female soldier gets captured in Iraq she'll be raped, her breasts will be sliced off, and they'll inevitably kill her. Thats why women shouldn't serve.
A couple thousand years of natural selection gave most males an instinctual need to protest women and children. We can't undo that with some briefings and a lecture. I have a hard time not giving my MRE candy packs to local kids even though it's terrible for them. Likewise I go out of my way to protect females in combat, it's just my first reaction.
So, if a man gets captured, mutilated, raped, and killed, it is ok? Only if it is a woman is it a tragedy?
I see what you are saying, but just like a man, the woman knows that she is putting herself in peril to serve her country. Women do not need to be protected.
Women should be seen as equal under the law, but they are not "equal" to men. Women are much different from men. Especially when it comes to physical strength. Women are given much easier pt tests. Why is that? Right, because the army understands that biological FACT. And men protecting women isn't from the 1950,s it's since the beginning of time. Men have ALWAYS instinctively protected females. You can't undo centuries of evolution simply because you'd feel more "empowered" by the fantasy.
11 other soldiers were killed in the events that lead to Jessica Lynch being captured (who never fired her rifle ONCE). Do you know any of their names(without looking it up)?
Didn't think so
Obviously, a single female who lived through her ordeal was more important than the 11 men killed on that day, because their story wasn't what was made popular.
The only area women are equal to men is their worth as a human being. After that, men and women are very different. Unfortunately, you have been taught to frame the debate with different meaning worse. If you can keep up with man in most jobs, you can have it. The infantry has many requirements that are extremely difficult for most women to meet, not to mention the close quarters living with a bunch of 19 year old males.
saopaco, it appears you fail to understand what it's like to carry a 100lb combat load in 100 degree heat while trying to keep up with the rest of your patrol. You should try it sometime and then see if you believe your PC claptrap.
Scott, I used to fight wildfires in southern California. I have carried gear up and down hills, in full firefighting gear while hauling a hose, using a brush hook, etc. I understand the physical requirements.
Are there not male soldiers that struggle with carrying gear, or are all the male soldiers just naturally able to carry the pack? If a soldier is physically unable to perform that soldier's duties then that soldier should not be in that role. If a woman cannot perform the same duties as a male, then she should not be there. We should not assume that no women are capable of doing the job, we have to judge each woman on her combat fitness. The current policy seems to assume that all women are just incapable.
Yeah they die or get kicked out!
@saopaco I don't doubt you fought fires. I don't doubt you carried gear. I do doubt you carried it as easily and as quickly as your male co-firefighters. I also doubt if you hit the gym with your male firefighters, that you could run as fast and bench as much. This is just a pure black and white line between how males are built vs females. You're arguing a losing argument.
You claimed above that if a woman can carry the load, she should be able to go. I would have to agree since my argument is only based off of physical requirements. This is where I bring up that women don't have to pass the same physical testing that the males do to get into the military. They get the 60% version and a pat on the butt and a "good job ma'am."
If as a male, I have to run 10 miles with 100 lbs on my back, and you have to run 4 miles with 30 lbs on your back, and we both get 20 points when complete, a rifle and pack strapped to us and are told to take Hummer 85 and hit the back allies of Bahgdad, I can assure you I'm not going to be comfort with you as my backup in an all hell breaks lose combat situation. You never passed the same testing I did.
He has a point!
@saopaco
How convenient. You're a firefighter. You carry hundreds of pounds of equipment up a mountain on fire? I'm calling bs on this one.
If a man is not capable of doing the work he shouldn't be there. If a women is not capable of doing the work she is there. Men in combat units have already proven that they can do the work. If men can get through basic training then they can do the work. You can't fight biology. You can't handle the same work-load.
Bdg08
I'm with you a bunch of trash!
saopaco, I understand that the terrain is tough in SoCal – I was stationed at Camp Pendleton. That being said, while you may have done a difficult job, I doubt it was nearly as easy for you to keep up with your male counterparts. There is no reason a woman should not receive the same rewards as a male for her military service, but she does not belong in the infantry period. You're on a fire for what, a week at most? I'm not saying you would do this because I don't know you, but if you or any other female were to sleep with one of your fellow firefighters, what's the worst that could happen? In combat the extra distraction of relationships is deadly. You need to be able to focus on the mission, and no amount of UCMJ regulation is going to take away the s3xual tension caused by placing females in very close quarters with a bunch of 19 year old mostly straight males for months at a time. I saw it happen a lot in garrison – out in the field is even worse. So, give females their dues where they can serve, but they do not belong in the infantry. Period.
I'd die to serve my country and I'm a woman. If you think some random rapist or enemy solider could catch me you think wrong. I was born a fighter and i'll die a fighter. i'm equal to any man and better than some. It was Chrissie Wellington who won Kona in Hawaii, not some guy!!!
A commander and chief not using them as legal weight to slaughter any American he sees fit still more courage than him but even saying that is an insult to them...
For everyone arguing against women in combat, there is one huge chink in your armor: Israel. In Israel, everyone has to serve 2 years. Including women. Apparently, the amount of pressure to squeeze a trigger is the same on a rifle whether a women holds it or a man does.
I used to be in the Navy. The only ships women could serve on where tenders. What this meant is that a vast majority of women got to stay on shore their entire careers. What that meant to the men is that they had a hard time rotating into shore duty because the billets were already filled by women. So, hell yes, hand them a damn rifle!!
And here is a dent in yours. In the Israeli Army fitness standards are the same. In the US Army they are not. If a female can perform a job at the SAME standards of a man, then fine, give her a shot. But to ask a female who can have 30% body fat to clear a street of insurgents is just asking for more body bags.
If you want equality, use the same standards, don't be hypocritical
Don,
Well done!
AFFECTS WOMEN WHO ARE NOT IN COMBAT, TOO
ou want to be G.I.Jane not happening use the stool!
Don, your logic against equality is that the Israeli army uses equality? Seriously?
However, I agree with your point. If they want equal opportunities, they should display equal capabilities.
Somewhere along the way people seem to have forgotten that equal rights also means equal responsibilities.
Your argument is partly correct, women are allowed to serve in one infantry battalion. Israel's policy still bans women from most infantry battalions.
WOMEN ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT BEING RAPED BY OUR OWN TROOPS, WHAT DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN IF THEY SERVE ON THE FRONT LINES ?? FRONT LINES DO NOT HAVE THE CONFER OF HOME–NO SHOWERS–NO TOILETS...IF OUR POLITICIANS ARE THAT STUPID TO ALLOW WOMEN ON THE FRONT LINES ?? RAPE WILL TRIPLE.
" chink in armor" to funny An ESPN writer was fired for that
I think maybe rather than chink in your armor he meant to say there is a gash in your logic?
AFFECTS WOMEN WHO ARE NOT IN COMBAT, TOO
Do you actually have an original thought or are you just editing internet feminist articles to post. I was in the military as well and the most effective units were all male units. When women were placed in the mix, the effectiveness went downhill. It wasn't a question of ablility, but the dynamics of male/female relationships and interactions. That, and most of the cunny whine bags couldn't shut up long enough to get anything done, or were getting knocked up.
Thank you for the compliment, ie feminist. I appreciate it.
Same argument against black men. Identical.
Additionally, there is a serious problem with rape in the military. This is an argument used to exclude women. Rape is a form of control. Male soldiers raping fellow soldiers is not what I would describe as men having the suitability to be in combat. Their behavior is un-military like and they should be discharged. Not excluding women because these animals can't control themselves on or off the field of battle. As for relationships, I know a lot of married couples in combat/support positions.... it can work.
Yeah,
seen quite a few knocked up but it takes two to tango!
Men need to be more disciplined and not yeild to tempatations!
Oh in my unit temptation was never there so didn't have that issue.
I agree rape is a problem. However I would like to point out it's an all-volunteer force: The kinds of men attracted to combat (like me) aren't generally low key, pacifistic flower children. Then basic training, advanced technical school and real combat don't help matters at all.
So when I see a small female joining up for college tuition money I wince a little. It's reprehensible that rape happens but anyone that didn't see it coming was putting their head in the sand.
You can't take one example and make a sweeping generalization. Well YOU can, because that's the type of person you are. There are just some situations where men just don't want women around- as for the rape issue; way off topic and not very relevant to the conversation but you only make an argument FOR a lowered presence of women in combat or highly charged environments.
But yes men are largley animals. And we each are capable of great violence. The only solution is the mass extermination of men; leaving only a few to be "milked" of sperm so that females can continue to reproduce. If that comes to pass let me know- I'll be the first in line for the gas chamber; finally get a break from listening to all that female garble.
Well, let's say, for the sake of argument you can stop rape in our Armed Forces 100%. What about the enemy? You can try to protest them all you want, your American rights won't and don't mean squat to them.
How do expect a woman to fight an enemy combatant if she is not able to fight off someone trying to rape her.
I served over 20 years in Light Infantry and Special Operations Forces. Even though I loved what I did, I don't recall too much of the glamour that these females seem to be yearning for. It's not just females, there are plenty of "men" that join just to check the block and use it for their benefit later. It needs to be remembered that this is SERVICE; not something that you do because it benefits you, but because it is a dirty, thankless job (and it is) that must be done for the greater good.
You are correct. It's about Service and being recognized for that Service. Not marginalized because of gender. I do not believe SOF work is glamorous. I also think there is a place for women in these combat positions. The absence has created a security gap. It is fear and ignorance that keeps women and minorities from positions that would benefit the United States Military.
Instead of preventing people from participating and utilizing their skills to benefit our national security, we need to develop a system that enfranchises our skilled labor and ensures that their skills are being maximized in the battle space.
What skills do women have for SOF?
AFFECTS WOMEN WHO ARE NOT IN COMBAT, TOO- i disagree 100%. Woman should NOT be on the battke field period. It causes issues all around. Woman clearly cannot perform as a man can, (proven) and also it causes men to want to prtect her more, and create emotions on the battlefield. i can think of 100 more reasons if i sat here for 10 minutes too. Fine, keep the woman fueling trucks or something, but NOT in battle period...
What skills????
I am in the light infantry, we have plenty of men who struggle, we've had MI Females attached to us, who used their gender to get what they wanted out of our command. Women and Combat Arms does not mix. Anyone who's been in the infantry can tell you that. All you people who never served a day in the role of Light Infantry, QUIT ACTING LIKE YOU KNOW HOW IT IS.
What if you had to be on an OP or in a sniper position and you're on the rag? Can't change your tampon and the blood just seeps out for days all over you.... at least feces and urine can be disguised by eating the same garbage food as the enemy
If women want to be in the combat arms, then how about starting with the same APFT standards as men? How many women do you know that get a 300 on the APFT using 18-21 Male Standards? I've yet to meet 1.
BEFORE ANY CIVILIANS AND POG'S START SPEAKING THEIR MIND, SERVE IN THE COMBAT ARMS FIRST
AND BEING A MECHANIC ISN'T COMBAT ARMS
????
I was a POG, but Marine Corps boot camp gave me just a little taste of what you grunts have to do everyday. I agree with you one hundred percent. Just because you can turn a wrench doesn't meant that you are going to be able to keep up for a ten hour patrol in 100 degree heat with a 100lb combat load. Females can have most other mos's, but combat arms need to stay with the men.
Hard, but true
Not second rate but not in combat orientated jobs.
Pilots are the exception and maybe a few women gunners but majority of women are not directly involved in DA operations point blank.
That's for the men!
You speak of limbs being blown of but in the war zone that is compared to a an automobile acident in the states.
It's an accident on our part and intentional on theirs, it can happen to anyone including civilians!
Jumping out of a UH-60, reconn, or clear and breaching a house is another thing.
I respect you service based on humanity not gender!
If you can do the job you don't have to prove it!
Can we see a pic of her boobies ?
Glad one was not next to me would have had a problem carrying me to the Huey in Vietnam.
Funny
The first female Blue Angel is LT Amy Tomlinson, who joined the team in 2008. She is a Naval Flight Officer with two OIF combat deployments. LT Tomlinson flew 33 combat missions totaling 135 hours of combat flight, and received two Air Medals and a Navy COM with "V" device. Women are advancing into combat roles and being recognized for their contributions.
Woman put danger in the lifes of other soilders. Dont take it rude.
Uh, huh. Women have pulled men off the field of battle... including Iraq and Afghanistan. Tell me which instance of a woman putting a male colleague in jeapordy you know? I know a lot of young men who don't know their head from their butt hole who don't think and put their colleagues in jeapordy alllll the time.
We were mortared at our forward operating base the second night in country. At the same time insurgents hit the northern checkpoint with RPGs. We all dove into body armor, grabbed kit and hauled it to our assigned defensive positions to do a headcount. We came up two short and had to run back through hostile fire to haul our two female members from underneath their beds
Plenty of people have bad reactions– a few guys had bladder control accidents during that fight for example. But you asked for a case of a female putting others in danger: There you go ma'am.
IAgain, women who are trained for combat will react accordingly. Some charge into the cannon's mouth and other run away. As for dragging a man off the field of battle... I know women who dragged colleagues out of the line of fire.
In fact, BIOLOGICALLY women who detect danger to a loved one can find strength beyond her size to physically pull them from harm. Studies have been done on it. Look it up since you are so into articles.
AFFECTS WOMEN WHO ARE NOT IN COMBAT, TOO- you must be a female? Unreal, you are retarded, YEAH, woman puling men off the battlefield, get over yourself. Women have NO place on the battlefield PERIOD, they are no even close to having the strength that a man has period. They DO NOT HAVE THE SIZE, STRENGTH TO FIGHT LIKE A MAN CAN. ALSO, BELIEVE THIS OR NOT, WOMAN THINK EMOTIONALLY, MEN THINK LOGICALLY, PROVEN FACT. SO, WITH THAT BEING SAID, EMOTIONALLY THINKING WILL GET YOU AND OTHERS KILLED ON THE BATTLEFIELD.
Please tell me females don't have to be in love to drag me out of fire. I will probably be a dead man rapidly. Can I instead opt for the male soldier than can lift me without needing a loved one in danger?
AFFECTS WOMEN WHO ARE NOT IN COMBAT, TOO
I admitt you know your stuff so you must be an anlayst!
But what you see behind a desk and onscreens and on predator feed is whole different story to what is going on the battlefield and through the minds of the operators on the ground.!
You mention the the Lynch recuse WHAT area of the room were you responsible for clearing.
Oh, forgot you were not there.
Stick to the paper pushing honey!
During six deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan and Africa I only met two females that could even carry all of their required equipment by themselves. Granted there are more men than women in combat but I always felt uneasy about doing patrol partnered with anyone that couldn't even drag me out of direct fire if necessary.
I've heard this lame excuse every time. I haven't met a combat soldier that spoke Pashtun like a woman intell officer. Men pick up on cultural cues slower. They learn languages slower. They don't blend in. Even in combat theater, women have advantages you do not. A pack isn't going to tell you where the enemy is... or... as women have to deal with it more... understand whether he is a lying sack of ***t.
That is what contractors are hired for. I have yet to meet any soldier that spoke Pashto, Urdu or Farsi anywhere close to the level of proficiency our civilian linguists displayed.
That's because the women in the military are being excluded from combat positions. And, I know a TON of women civilian government personnel that speak those languages and others fluently.
THERE IS NO LOGIC IN YOU WHATSOVER, ITS CLEAR YOU ARE A FEMALE, SO LETS JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT.. YOU ARE FUNNY, KEEP TRYING GIRL...
Made this point elsewhere in the stream of comments. All the arguments you are using are the same ones to keep black men out of combat. Illogical then, illogical now. And, you are incorrect about the draft. It is illegal.
Please let me know the articles you are reading from... because I remember their POW videos like it was yesterday. I even remember where I was sitting in the Pentagon when we were reviewing them.
You seem to be arguing very hard that women make excellent analysts, Command Post linguists and Pentagon television watchers. I will definitely agree with that ma'am. However I don't play professional basketball because I lack the necessary skills– whereas you'll never tackle a suicide bomber to the ground and break his fingers so he can't push the switch.
Women and men have different roles and while a very, VERY select few can work outside the box it simply isn't something we will see often.
Well said!
I’m all for equal rights, woman should be drafted not men.
No problem with that. When were you last Drafted?
When did you register to BE drafted, ma'am?
No law against it by the way. Head on down to the Post Office and fill out the draft card. Females can't be forced to join but you can always volunteer in case the equal service bill passes. Think of the progress you would make for equality!
@Myrmidon
Where do I sign up?
And, give me a break... I have personal knowledge that the last thing senior military leadership wants is draftees. Please.
Took me a while? That's because your responses are disallowing a "reply" field. Which is indicative of men who don't want to listen to logic. Just create the conditions for non-inclusion and then make up excuses.
As for the draft, there was a case in the 1980s and it can be reversed. But, you are incorrect. It is illegal for a woman to sign up for the draft.
I was involved with Jessica's rescue, my dear, and I don't follow their promotions since. I have other fish to fry. But, I was given a commendation for it. Was also Delta when GWOT started. How about you?
I'm seeing no option to disallow replies ma'am. Maybe the system won't let "reply to reply to reply" go through. And you can pick up a Selective Service card at your local US Post Office. They'll look at you funny but there is no law against you filling it out.
And frankly if you're telling me you were in Delta I'm calling you out ma'am. That's a flat lie. Likewise there were no female boots on the ground at the Lynch pickup, you weren't there.
You seem to believe staying at the CP listening to the radio or reading after action reports is the same as getting hit in the plate with a 7.62 and dragging yourself under the MRAAPS for cover. We have a discontinuity in perceived roles– you'll do fine telling me where to go, who to detain and who to kill but you'll never be there with me watching RPGs fly by.
From the "lowest" to the "highest," all assignments are important. Women deserve no more, and no less recognition than anyone serving their country. Not sure what the argument is here.
I completely agree with Hay's assessment. The moniker of women not being allowed in combat, infantry or SOF positions does not only affect military women, though. Women working in the Defense community are routinely denied positions working with SOF because they are women. Although I have been working operations for over 18 years, I still get called an analyst. Women can't be operators. Tell that to our advesaries, who use women in strategic and tactical operations to collect on the United States national security, engage in terrorist activities and act as agents in businesses to disrupt our economy. I have even seen men in our community prefer the adversary get information than promote or utilize women in positions which, BECAUSE of their gender, are uniquely qualified to execute the position against the target. It's obscene and a National Security gap that continues in this country.
I would also like to point out that the lack of minorities also creates this gap. Try to stick a 6'2" blonde haired blue eyed guy in parts of Africa and see how well he blends in with the locals!? Things need to change. Our security depends on it.
Ridiculous. There is an unspoken policy to keep females on post for two reasons. The first is physical: Enhanced individual body armor weighs 60lbs– 74.5lbs with a rifle and ammunition. That is generally about half a female's entire body weight. The second reason is political: When a female is captured in combat the media goes insane. Ask yourself this: Who else was captured with Jessica Lynch? Remember any of the other people in the vehicle with her?
Spc Joseph Hudson
Spc Edgar Hernandz
Spc Shoshana Johnson
Pfc Patrick Miller
Sgt James Riley
Lori Piestewa was captured and died of her injuries. She was driving the truck. Jessica was the first person of the six who was rescued and the first POW rescued since WWII.
I supported that rescue mission. And, the press is not the military. They misreported a lot of things because they wanted a story. Including that Jessica went out with a guns a blazing. Lori was the one who engaged the enemy.
Any more questions?
Took you a while to look it up, interesting you named them in the exact order from the article as well. Several have been promoted since then, you're reading outdated information.
A 6'2" black American is not going to 'blend in' in parts of Africa any better than a blond haired, blue eyed white American. Multiple combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that to me. We would send Iraqi soldiers into villages to 'blend in' and everybody knew they were outsiders. Female engagement teams work because of the culture we are dealing with in Afghanistan, in other parts of the world it may be something else (religion, etc).
You are correct. But, I knew a black woman who ran ops in Africa and it always shocked people how unbelievable her assimilation was with respect to the culture. My point is, that the military has always had a prejudice about what a combat soldier or operator should be. Black men were excluded for the same reasons women of any race have been excluded. Too physically weak (yes, this was an argument), not intelligent enough, lacking moral compass (women will just get pregnant to get out combat... uh, huh), etc. etc.
Women should be recognized for their combat status. Period.
AFFECTS WOMEN WHO ARE NOT IN COMBAT, TOO
Are you still there?
"women can be thrown into what is essentially a combat role at any time or place" This has always been true. War is hell, and anyone who actually WANTS to be there is a few cards short of a full deck.
Apparently women do all sorts of second-rate jobs "in support of " combat units. Not exactly the same thing as actual combat, is it?
Second Rate Jobs? Which jobs are these... because I guarantee any combat support role a woman is in, men are in too... or by virtue of a woman executing these roles, the roles are inferior. Right. Uh, huh. Guess who got Bin Ladin? It wasn't Seal Team Six. They were sent to kill Bin Ladin... there were a whooooole lotta women involved in that operation, my friend, over several years. And, there a lot of women who point and shoot, too. It's about time they got their due! My friend's leg wasn't blown off because she WASN'T in combat! I guess we need five blown off limbs to match a man's blown off limb. Hmmm, sounds kinda TALIBAN-ish. Maybe that's who you are, "JIM."
I am a veteran and I fully understand a women's role in the military. They are soldiers, sailors, and marines. I think that when faced with the situation of combat, a women will fight if the fight is brought to her. I do not believe that they should be placed in intentional combat patrols that are seeking out the enemy. They simply by in large do not have the size and strength for combat. I am sure there are the few exceptions out there but they are far to few in numbers. That being said even those exceptions are not likely to have the size and strength in hand to hand combat. The prospect of a women being captured and raped is far more likely as well. I think women perform their jobs in the military with great respect and honor, coming home in flag draped box will not bring you any more honor. Haven't we lost to many men that we should add more women to this list.
"Guess who got Bin Ladin? It wasn't Seal Team Six. They were sent to kill Bin Ladin."
So they did get him and didn't get him at the same time? Schrodinger's Seal Team here, that is pretty scary.
Yeah most women point and shoot behind a desk and in their intel briefs.
Shawn,
Don't forget Airmen!
Feminist
Ummm. No. Women should stay in the secondary roles. Just because your friend got her leg blown off doesn't mean she should of been there. Trama is not experience.