Quantcast
 
 
 
Top Story
Why the Economy Is a Long Way from a Depression
My Journey to the Top
 
 
Latest News
50 Cent sues Taco Bell over ad campaign
 
 
expand

The Case Against Women in Combat

The author of a new book contends that women shouldn't be in the front lines.

By Martha Brant | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Oct 24, 2007 | Updated: 12:01  p.m. ET Oct 24, 2007

« Return to Article

 
Discuss
 
Member Comments
  • Posted By: queensmonkey @ 07/13/2008 11:46:29 AM

    Comment: The M-19 was constantly being used in drills that would require the "dismount" of the weapon from the vehicle and mounting it on a separate tripod. The majority of the men could lift it off of the truck and setup the weapon in the tripod in 20 seconds or less. For the other men that couldn't do it in that amount of time the driver would help get the weapon "up" and operational. For each of the women in our Platoon... the women were not able to do any part of the drill except provide cover fire with their 6 pound M-16 rifle. There isnt the thought of them getting it into the mount faster than a guy, there really wasnt a thought of a woman helping get a 115-120 pound automatic gernade launcher off the roof of a 6 foot hummer while in "full battle rattle" (wearing armor and LBV and guns). Instead, it took the Team Leader to help the Assistant gunner get the gun off of the roof while the female "gunner" or "assistant-gunner" lay in the prone with an M-16... All-the-while the Team Leader should be laying on the ground making radio calls to other units or teams while the weapon is being setup.

    I want to say that I am not against women in the military, i am only against women that are assigned to a combat position. At times women will be forced to shoot back if shot-upon, that is the basics learned in military training... To have women at "forward outposts" really makes life of the soldier hard and in some cases will actually degrade living conditions.

    Thank you,

  • Posted By: queensmonkey @ 07/13/2008 11:45:16 AM

    Comment: The M-19 was constantly being used in drills that would require the "dismount" of the weapon from the vehicle and mounting it on a separate tripod. The majority of the men could lift it off of the truck and setup the weapon in the tripod in 20 seconds or less. For the other men that couldn't do it in that amount of time the driver would help get the weapon "up" and operational. For each of the women in our Platoon... the women were not able to do any part of the drill except provide cover fire with their 6 pound M-16 rifle. There isnt the thought of them getting it into the mount faster than a guy, there really wasnt a thought of a woman helping get a 115-120 pound automatic gernade launcher off the roof of a 6 foot hummer while in "full battle rattle" (wearing armor and LBV and guns). Instead, it took the Team Leader to help the Assistant gunner get the gun off of the roof while the female "gunner" or "assistant-gunner" lay in the prone with an M-16... All-the-while the Team Leader should be laying on the ground making radio calls to other units or teams while the weapon is being setup.

    I want to say that I am not against women in the military, i am only against women that are assigned to a combat position. At times women will be forced to shoot back if shot-upon, that is the basics learned in military training... To have women at "forward outposts" really makes life of the soldier hard and in some cases will actually degrade living conditions.

    Thank you,

  • Posted By: queensmonkey @ 07/13/2008 11:45:04 AM

    Comment: I am a former soldier. I was in the MP core and I gotta say women really hurt the Unit, the Platoon and the Team. Overall, women are suited for many jobs in the armed forces; however, when the Unit goes to the field there are no shower "rooms" there are no changing "rooms" there is no privacy and there is a lot of personal hygiene done in the open. Its not because they choose to, it's because there isn't a place to do it in private. Many of times showers are taken in large rooms with multiple shower heads, the room you sleep in, the area you change in, and the area that personal hygiene is taken care of is in a Large Room called a GP-Medium, absolutely no privacy.
    The reader might ask why I talk about the privacy so much... Having women and men in the same unit Makes the Unit Commanders accommodate for both sexes, which forces them to spend more time and effort to make shower times for each and setup or attempt to setup different holes in the ground for women and men to use the bathroom.
    When it is that "time of the month" it is impossible to find any womens hygiene materials or medication.
    As stated in the article soldiers use Extremely heavy equipment. Backpacks range from 75 pounds with a few days supply to 115 lbs with a decent supply of clothes and supplies. My women co-workers would never pack as they were told. Everyone put all supplies in one Ruck-Sack, while they tried to bring 3 bags... and we would always have to help them load the bags as they were too heavy for them to lift.
    On top of normal operating luggage, we would have to bring large weapons with us such as the .50 cal and the Mark-19 40mm machine gun. These machine guns were quite heavy... the M-19 alone without the required accessories weighed 75 pounds with accessories weighed in at 120 pounds.

  • Posted By: queensmonkey @ 07/13/2008 11:44:17 AM

    Comment: I am a former soldier. I was in the MP core and I gotta say women really hurt the Unit, the Platoon and the Team. Overall, women are suited for many jobs in the armed forces; however, when the Unit goes to the field there are no shower "rooms" there are no changing "rooms" there is no privacy and there is a lot of personal hygiene done in the open. Its not because they choose to, it's because there isn't a place to do it in private. Many of times showers are taken in large rooms with multiple shower heads, the room you sleep in, the area you change in, and the area that personal hygiene is taken care of is in a Large Room called a GP-Medium, absolutely no privacy.
    The reader might ask why I talk about the privacy so much... Having women and men in the same unit Makes the Unit Commanders accommodate for both sexes, which forces them to spend more time and effort to make shower times for each and setup or attempt to setup different holes in the ground for women and men to use the bathroom.
    When it is that "time of the month" it is impossible to find any womens hygiene materials or medication.
    As stated in the article soldiers use Extremely heavy equipment. Backpacks range from 75 pounds with a few days supply to 115 lbs with a decent supply of clothes and supplies. My women co-workers would never pack as they were told. Everyone put all supplies in one Ruck-Sack, while they tried to bring 3 bags... and we would always have to help them load the bags as they were too heavy for them to lift.
    On top of normal operating luggage, we would have to bring large weapons with us such as the .50 cal and the Mark-19 40mm machine gun. These machine guns were quite heavy... the M-19 alone without the required accessories weighed 75 pounds with accessories weighed in at 120 pounds.

  • Posted By: lifeisdelicious @ 07/10/2008 9:23:58 PM

    Comment: I'm an OIF Veteran and I'm a female. I was in the recruiting office on 9-11 so I say *** you. Plus if you???re right we are a product of what we've learned we need to integrate woman more into these fields so such reactions and negative effects are desensitized and eliminated. That is why you are a chauvinist. It???s because you look at that research and limit what we can do with it instead of how we can improve society. This is more than the female psyche it???s how society reacts. Your education will unfortunately deceive weak minded individuals to follow your limited view of woman and their potential especially to support other comrades on the battlefield.

  • Posted By: Bigdaddy2 @ 05/06/2008 2:15:33 PM

    Comment: Women in combat against men is a joke. If you want proof just provide combat training to 300 female volunteers, send them into battle and see how they fare. Try it, and prove generals and field commanders wrong. What are women afraid of, don't just talk the talk, but walked the walk. There is a reason why women don't play basketball, football, hockey, or box, wrestle, compete in ultimate fighting competion against men, and it has nothing to do with not liking women. Forcing the military to except women will only succeed in weakening the greatest military the world has ever known. We have met the enemy and in this case she is us.

  • Posted By: cannibaltribe @ 01/24/2008 4:00:00 PM

    Comment: I am a woman who has spent over twenty-four years in the military. Mr. Brown is correct. To dillydallylalli: You make several red herring arguments that take the primary focus of the article out of context. Serving in the military with men and serving in front line combat with men are two completely different animals. Near the end of your comment, YOU speak of "distraction" in sexual terms, not Mr. Brown. He never mentions this once in the article. Men and women are hard-wired differently; even if you find that offensive it still doesn't change that biological fact. Throughout my career I have been treated with different levels of respect; I have also seen my male counterparts treated with differing levels of respect. I have seen men who lived by the "boys will be boys" mentality in and out of combat. I have also seen women who use the close quarter environment of combat as an opportunity to prostitute themselves during their off time and also when they were on duty.

    The world of front line combat is a foreign environment where reality bends and stretches into a new and frightening entity where the human psyche must reach down to it's baser instincts to survive. Men and women are placed in this environment where their biological differences are intensified to the most extreme.

  • Posted By: cannibaltribe @ 01/24/2008 3:59:27 PM

    Comment: I am a woman who has spent over twenty-four years in the military. Mr. Brown is correct. To dillydallylalli: You make several red herring arguments that take the primary focus of the article out of context. Serving in the military with men and serving in front line combat with men are two completely different animals. Near the end of your comment, YOU speak of "distraction" in sexual terms, not Mr. Brown. He never mentions this once in the article. Men and women are hard-wired differently; even if you find that offensive it still doesn't change that biological fact. Throughout my career I have been treated with different levels of respect; I have also seen my male counterparts treated with differing levels of respect. I have seen men who lived by the "boys will be boys" mentality in and out of combat. I have also seen women who use the close quarter environment of combat as an opportunity to prostitute themselves during their off time and also when they were on duty.

    The world of front line combat is a foreign environment where reality bends and stretches into a new and frightening entity where the human psyche must reach down to it's baser instincts to survive. Men and women are placed in this environment where their biological differences are intensified to the most extreme.

  • Posted By: itspat81 @ 01/24/2008 3:00:13 PM

    Comment: well spoken dillydallylalli @ 01/24/2008 2:27:59 PM

  • Posted By: dillydallylalli @ 01/24/2008 2:27:59 PM

    Comment: As a law student and a woman I find it highly offensive that a law professor has written a book that is so inflammatory and sexist. Surely he could be spending his time writing about other worthwhile subjects that would add more to the legal field. I think the biological differences between men and women are nothing compared to the differences we are socialized with growing up. To divide people based upon gender alone ignores our many complexities and differences as human individuals. Surely there are some woman who would out test some men in physical capabilities. Likewise, there are some men who are more nurturing then women. I just think its ridiculous and TOO EASY for us to group people together based on gender alone. Not to mention that its not a very intelligent way of understanding the world. But then I guess alot of the people posting their opinions on this message board are not too concerned with sounding intelligent. So yes, if you choose to see the world divided into men-"subduers" and women-"helpers" then that is your choice. But I choose to believe that both men and women are capable of extraordinary things as people -- and that we need eachother equally.
    To that end, if a woman can prove her physical prowess through tests or what have you, there is no reason why she should not be able to fight for her country should she so choose. And as to this argument that women shouldn't be on the battlefield because it "distracts" the men --- I say its time to hold men accountable to control their "urges." Were I a man I would find highly offensive the notion that I was so controlled by hormones that I couldn't respect a female comrade. Women are not responsible for the inability of men to control themselves sexually. Its time we expect more out of men and do away with the idea that "boys will be boys." Its outdated and ridiculous.

    • Posted By: Neanderthal @ 02/10/2008 18:38:00

      Comment: I take it from your post that we as humans have now evolved to the point that we are more powerful than Mother Nature. We now decide who is best fit to fight wars.

  • Posted By: jenna4inhbgpa @ 01/24/2008 2:27:06 PM

    Comment: I served for a while, with the Marines. If I couldn't do it, they wouldn't have trusted me. And they trusted me. "The glass ceiling" is NOT my fault. Nor are the sexist comments that lace this exerpt. Insert a racial group instead of women in this and people would be a lot angrier than they are on this board. The Armed Services have physical readiness testing for a reason and it's not for kicks.

    • Posted By: Neanderthal @ 02/10/2008 18:35:00

      Comment: When the physical requirements are the same for men and women then you may have a point. Until then, blame Mother Nature.

  • Posted By: itspat81 @ 01/24/2008 2:18:40 PM

    Comment: I am all for women and men fighting for what they believing in believe that we all have different paths. I think pretty much we are all capable (sometimes not as easily as others) at achieving the same goals. I wonder what the women of the past were like after the war. Studies were not done on them to see if they readjusted well. Also, the roles that men and women take on now are a lot different than history. So although a very valid agreement, I tend to lean more towards current studies and statistics. A lot of studies have been done on various special forces units. It is a fact that special forces men are pretty much classified as crazy and through the vigorous training it is also mandatory that they are able to balance the difficulties of the physical as well as the mental, because society now a days is very different than days when Pirates would come pillage. So if the studies done on women can prove that they are equal to the men, then go one with your bad self. If not then why not support our troops in ways that become a benefit to the entire society, starting with something as simple as donating blood.

  • Posted By: dillydallylalli @ 01/24/2008 2:09:57 PM

    Comment: I find the discussion regarding this issue highly offensive. I agree wtih the comment that perhaps smaller men should be prohibited from combat as well if we are judging off of pure physical prowess. I think woman are just as capable as men of serving in the military and in combat. Yes there are physical differences but surely some women can perform just as well as men. Following that logic, perhaps individuals should be judged on their abilities and NOT their gender.
    What I find most offensive though is the suggestion that women shouldnt be fighting in combat cause they "distract" the men. When are we going to stop blaming women for men's inability to control their sexual urges? I find it insulting that we still hold women responsible for men's lack of control. Why is it a females fault that the males around her "just can't control themselves." We need to start expecting more out of men and not hold women accountable for the sexual morality of our culture.

    • Posted By: darling137 @ 07/05/2008 20:06:10

      Comment: Since when is the mere discussing of an issue offensive? Got thin skin? The problem with your suggestion is that smaller weaker men are in fact kept from serving while women of lesser abilities are recruited and retained.
      The sexual urge street is one that goes both ways as it takes two to tango.

  • Posted By: hprunyan@hotmail.com @ 01/24/2008 1:54:24 PM

    Comment: As a woman whose sister is going to Kosovo in two months, I wholeheartedly agree with this man. Any married woman who knows a bit about her husband's way of thinking must agree that men have difficulty trusting women with something as important as their lives. That's not meant as an insult to men and their limitations; it's how they're hard-wired. Men were placed on this earth to "subdue" it, and women were placed on this earth to be men's "helpers". And as a personal trainer, I can tell you from experience that a woman's physical limits are below a man's, generally speaking. Biologically, men have an advantage. Feminists can talk all day long about equal rights and being up-to-date with your opinions, but that doesn't change the facts. It's time someone stood up and said that having a woman working in a road crew as a sign-holder while wearing makeup and pantyhose is not equal rights; it's simply a feminine ego-trip.

  • Posted By: Mortsubite @ 12/19/2007 2:05:16 PM

    Comment: Read a history book. Women have fought across the centuries in many different cultures- from a Royal impi of Zulu women warriors to the thousands of women and some 80,000 men that served Ching yih Saou,the most feared female pirate in the South China Sea who commanded over 1,000 ships. It was European Christianity and Islam mixed with Victorian nonsense and ignorance that forced women into subservient roles- after all, if you have one God, he must be male, right?? The Jews treat women as equals with men in the military and in combat (probably from numerical necessity) but the results do not support the view that women are in any way "inferior". Other comments here referred to the Russians in WWII. This "women can't handle it" garbage gets old.

    • Posted By: darling137 @ 07/05/2008 20:09:05

      Comment: I've read a history book or two and I've noted that cultures that fight with women are desperate or not around any more. You have to cede the fact that females service has been a fraction of men and not often distinguished.

  • Posted By: observer101 @ 12/16/2007 2:14:34 PM

    Comment: Well the women in the soviet army were trained and did a kick ass job against the german forces. Women can be trained just as men for frontline combat. They as well as anyone can fight passionately fight for there country.

  • Posted By: Sycadelick1@yahoo.com @ 12/14/2007 1:24:49 PM

    Comment: Women fight in israel and do a kick ass job. Women use to teach the men how to fight in the Celtic days and by far were as physically strong. Genereations of men have been fighting so theyre gonna be strong due to genetic memory. No reason the same cant happen for women. Women have been RAISED in suppression and most behavior is learned behavior. Social change needs to take place in the home. Stong women have strong girls who in turn suffer less emotional trauma and can do more physical things.

    Of course the doctor doesnt include that! and of course this is not taught in schools. Society WAKE UP! Women can do ANYTHING they put their mind to! I ve seen it!

  • Posted By: skipmerkin @ 12/11/2007 12:20:40 AM

    Comment: SInce my first day of basic (over 8 years ago), almost every woman I've served with has flirted, cried, "quit but not quit" her way through, all the while enjoying a double standard allowing for them to display a disgusting amount of ineptitude and moral flexibility. However, this manipulative talent coupled with their moral flexibility makes them uniquely suited to be spies.

    I also find it amusing how some women who have commented here said some comments made them cry, proving the book's very point.

  • Posted By: rollin2sublime @ 12/09/2007 7:28:41 PM

    Comment: I know that when reading these posted comments that they are all oppinions but it does not change that fact that I am a female in the Army and I cried when I read some of the comments. Is this really about females in combat or females in any dangerous job. There are weak and strong females. There are weak and strong males. It doesn't have to do with gender. Being in a combat zone means serving your country with honor, regardless of gender. When I was a young private there were many men in my unit that could not load a large grenade launcher and I could. There were men who didn't have the strength to carry me but I could carry them. But that doesn't make me better than them because they could outrun me. We all have our strengths and weakness. I believe making a gender issue is ignorant. Yes there are females in the military out there who become pregnant to escape their obligation but not all of us do that. Some out there just want children because they are ready for that step in life. Should we really be punished for one persons mistakes?? Once when I was young, before all this war and death, before I became a soldier, a man asked me why do I think women are not in the infantry?? I gave my oppinion that it is because we are not strong enough!! He then asked me if it is because of our strength or is it because society is not ready to see their daughters, sisters, aunts, mothers, wives, and friends bleed and die on a battle field? The world is changing and we no longer feel obligated to be a wife, mother or cook. We have the choice of what we want for our destiny. If that means being a soldier, I think we should be able to choose that destiny. We don't volunteer to go get our legs blow off in Iraq because we want to prove something. Honestly who wants that?? LOL!! We don't even want to go fight a war. Believe me when I say we have no choice in that matter. Most of us just want to give ourselves to a worthy cause. We may not agree with war but it is the honor of fighting for an idea of freedom that makes it worth it. Even if it isn't our own freedom we fight for. It takes all kinds to make a nation. If we weren't all different would we still be the great thing called THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?? Even if it means being a woman in the military!! Before you have an oppinion try to walk in a different pair of shoes next time. I love being a woman in the Army, I am 25 years old, a Military Police soldier, and veteran of three deployments. Please don't take my right to fight for by country away just because of my gender!!!-Just Another Soldier

    • Posted By: Neanderthal @ 02/10/2008 18:47:59

      Comment: Please accept my respect and admiration for your sacrifice to our country,. That having been said, please do not take personally what I am about to say. The fact that you are physically stronger than some males you have served with in the military doesn't come close to proving that the inclusion of women in combat or combat related roles is a good idea. I defy you to tell me how the inclusion of women in combat or combat related roles has increased our military effectiveness. After all, that's what it's all about, isn't it?

  • Posted By: phsbigred13 @ 11/29/2007 1:19:41 PM

    Comment: I as a female do completely agree with the fact that if you cant match the male physical standard then you shouldn't be there... The only thing in the military fitness test that is the same for men in women is sit ups, where as to men have to run 2 miles in 16 minutes and 36 seconds where as to them women can run it in 19 minutes and 42 seconds. A very large difference. As my parents were both in the military and retired i can tell you that as seeing both parts of this, I can say that my mother agrees with not having women on the front line. As a military man you can not logically admit to not wanting women on the frontline due to it being job suicide, End of story.

  • Posted By: phsbigred13 @ 11/29/2007 1:15:51 PM

    Comment: I as a female do completely agree with the fact that if you cant match the male physical standard then you shouldn't be there... The only thing in the military fitness test that is the same for men in women is sit ups, where as to men have to run 2 miles in 16 minutes and 36 seconds where as to them women can run it in 19 minutes and 42 seconds. A very large difference. As my parents were both in the military and retired i can tell you that as seeing both parts of this, I can say that my mother agrees with not having women on the front line. As a military man you can not logically admit to not wanting women on the frontline due to it being job suicide, End of story.

  • Posted By: rebeccasill @ 11/25/2007 2:23:30 AM

    Comment: I agree that women in combat is a bad idea. If women want to be equals, then they need to act as equals. Starting with the physical fitness test. The standards are already lowered to allow women to be in the military. Women are biologically made different than men, but they do have the ability (with a lot more work involved) to make the male physical fitness requirements. So why is the bar being lowered for them? Lowering of bars is anything but equality, it is a free ride. (Does Harvard lower their entrance requirements to people with a naturally lower IQ??? NO- you either work harder and become an equal or you don't go.) The military is anything but an ordinary job. Why should the guy next to you die in his burning humvee because as a woman in the military you do not have the strength to pull him out? A touchy subject, but it needs to be addressed. Strength is important in military operations and every military member deserves someone next to him that can do the job and do it right. So if women in the military think they can be in combat fine, then pull out all the inequalities in the system and make all the entrance requirements the same for everybody, male and female. The females that can adhere to the regular male requirements, by all means, let them be equals, they will have earned it. But as for the rest, they will only be endangering others. There is a reason for minimum standards in a combat zone. (I am curious as to how many current female military members that think they should be in combat can even do the basic male requirements.)

    • Posted By: vikitorie @ 02/01/2008 03:23:48

      Comment: To answer your question about meeting the male standard.... I can. I have out ran most males, done more sit-ups and push ups than most too. Am I in combat? Yes. Do I want to be here? Just like everyone else it is my job. But having the ability to do my job both physically and mentally has nothing to do with my gender. And think about this, I am only 5'3" and weigh 110 pounds. But I hold my own. I wear my gear like any guy and I can handle an uparmored vehicle through dangerous streets of Iraq. What does any of this have to do with gender? It just called doing my job. Don't be so ignorant. Women are in combat, like it or not. How about you come join me. I bet i'd out run you too.

      • Posted By: darling137 @ 07/05/2008 20:15:37

        Comment: Taking your comment at face value, maybe you can, but the majority of women cannot. From what you've said you are the exception to the rule. I'm sure that there are a large number of 60 year olds with or without prior service who can meet the military's standards yet not many have a problem with that. Physical strength is only one small part of Dr Browne's thesis. I encourage you to read his book. Thank you for your service.

  • Posted By: Kanter.elizabeth @ 11/22/2007 6:44:09 PM

    Comment: WOW. This blows my mind. How dare someone make a comment like that? I feel when it comes to the marine corps at least, if you are good enough to even get in, you are good enough to fight. I can understand not wanting some army people to go into combat, most havent been trained for combat. However in the marine corps EVERYONE is a riflemen. I myself feel that I am good enough and have the mental capability to be in combat. I also have many men in the infentry that back me up on this. If I want to fight for my country and go on the front line I should be able to. There are many men that can't handle combat that are allowed, why is it that just because I was born female I'm not welcome?

  • Posted By: Kanter.elizabeth @ 11/22/2007 6:43:56 PM

    Comment: WOW. This blows my mind. How dare someone make a comment like that? I feel when it comes to the marine corps at least, if you are good enough to even get in, you are good enough to fight. I can understand not wanting some army people to go into combat, most havent been trained for combat. However in the marine corps EVERYONE is a riflemen. I myself feel that I am good enough and have the mental capability to be in combat. I also have many men in the infentry that back me up on this. If I want to fight for my country and go on the front line I should be able to. There are many men that can't handle combat that are allowed, why is it that just because I was born female I'm not welcome?

  • Posted By: USARMY2003 @ 11/22/2007 7:39:58 AM

    Comment: As an NCO in the Infantry I believe that there may be some women that are able to do the job that I do, but not the majority of females have the upper-body strength that is required to perform on the front lines. If women want equality and want the right to fight alongside men on the front lines then their APFT (Army Physical Fitness Test) standards should be the same. Except for sit-ups females need to do a lot less pushups and situps then their male counterparts. If a woman wants to serve in my team, she can, as long as she can do everything both physically and mentally that myself and my other Soldier's can.

    • Posted By: darling137 @ 07/05/2008 20:18:57

      Comment: I still have many reservations that correspond with Browne's other points but I wholeheartedly agree: start with standards that everyone, yes everyone in the Army is supposed to meet. Besides the APFT, I would add height min/max (though not necessarily body fat), wear and appearance of the uniform, and promotion standards to begin with.

  • Posted By: caarmygirl @ 11/09/2007 1:34:43 PM

    Comment: It seems to me that the author is implying that women who deploy, join the service, etc, want to be men. I don't want to be a man, and I don't want to serve with men who act like pansies. Neither do I want to serve with a female with a chip on her shoulder. Everyone has a job to do and if a SM, male or female, can't hack it, then let them out. 'Cause they are the ones who get others killed. I have served in combat zones and I have served in "peacetime"; I have been shot out and shot back; I have been injured and seen others killed. Do I want those things in my head? Not particularly, but a SOLDIER does what needs to be done, so CIVILIANS can sleep peaceful in their beds at night...sound familiar? A Soldier is not a male or a female. A Soldier is not black, white, hispanic or asian. A Soldier is not rich or poor. A Soldier is not smart or stupid. A Soldier is someone who steps forward when others step back. And if any male has a problem with females in the service, I invite you to step forward. If you are a female, who thinks females should not serve...grow up.

    However, I also believe that if you sign on the dotted line and then decide you are a conscientious objector, you have just committed Treason. Not only do I not want you anyway near me in war I don???t want you near my brothers or friends who are still serving. Treason in war is punishable by death???which is too lenient.

    Just becuase the Army I joined isn't the Army I was discharged from, doesn't make it any better or worse, just different

  • Posted By: caarmygirl @ 11/09/2007 1:18:10 PM

    Comment: What a crock...having bserved in the Army..in war and not; it's not what women and men can or con not handle by sex, it's what that Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine, Coast Guard - can personnally handle. I've been shot at and shot back. I've been on patrols and worked in an office. The highest "award" I ever received was when an NCO I had followed into combat, and would again, told me that I could be on his patrol anyday, that I was someone he'd want, out there, next to him. It had nothing to do with me being female or male; it had to do with me being a Soldier - and good at my job. The author's assertion that females don't want to go to combat is hooey, which is a word I learned that from my Arkansas friends that I deployed with, it's a nice word for horse****. I know just as many men who have said "I joined to go to college" as I do woman who said "I joined to blow stuff up." I'm smaller, so I am incapable of serving my country...you might as well just issue me a veil and be done with it.

  • Posted By: michellelee22 @ 11/02/2007 2:10:00 PM

    Comment: Being a woman serving in the military and actually deploying to Iraq, I completely agree. Granted there are exceptions to every rule, but most women I know would not be able to handle the strain of combat. There are men who can barely handle the day to day. How I reacted to a rocket attack and how my husband (also serving in the military) would react are completely different. I started to worry about all of the people around me before myself. He got mad and wanted to automatically retaliate.

  • Posted By: Timothy Curtner @ 10/31/2007 3:53:26 PM

    Comment: women getting preg during military is wrong and article 15 without bebefits.

  • Posted By: Timothy Curtner @ 10/31/2007 3:49:45 PM

    Comment: in basic the girls couldn't hack it. how about a sports team 50% women? women best be in office jobs.clerks,kitchen patrol on bases. i went to basic in 74.

    • Posted By: caarmygirl @ 11/09/2007 13:38:01

      Comment: I would like to call you a moron, but that wouldn't be polite. However since I was born in 1974, I would like to assure you that LOTS has changed since then. Including womens sports teams. My sister is a Sacramento Siren...they are currently, and have been for several years, the Women's Championship Football team...and no they don't play like girls. Anymore then female Soldiers play dress up.

      • Posted By: darling137 @ 07/05/2008 20:24:09

        Comment: But do they play men? Well then maybe not that much has happened in the world of pro sports when a 50+ Bobby Riggs lost a fairly close match to Billy Jean King in her prime the year before you were born.

  • Posted By: Timothy Curtner @ 10/31/2007 3:45:55 PM

    Comment: i went to basic in 74 and not to many women could keep up. would you want 50% women on a sports team? they work fine in offices.
    vietnamvet

  • Posted By: shellymay @ 10/31/2007 11:35:03 AM

    Comment: Today's military is biult up not by draft, but from vollenteers. If you joined the military after 9/11 you knew there ws a chance you could go to war. Med need to get over it and realize that females are there to stay, and help them in more ways then they know. Being a female in the military I get the bad looks, and people saying things. Its not going to stop anything..

    • Posted By: darling137 @ 07/05/2008 20:25:11

      Comment: Maybe women need to "get over it" and stop worrying about bad looks or if someone complimented them on their appearance.

  • Posted By: soren lerby @ 10/30/2007 1:10:20 AM

    Comment: Feminists coud entertain such joke argument as women being capable of leading men or fight alongside men or better deal with emotional stress, etc. etc, because even the Iraq quagmire notwithstanding, the US force is so much superior than any oher forces in the word, maybe even all the rest of the world combined. When things really get bad, and not much room left for experiments in social engineering and diversity, there is no time to put girls in combat aircraft or naval ships and having feminist feeling good about themselves. This kind of argument is a luxury that only superior forces like US can enjoy.

  • Posted By: Iron Mike @ 10/29/2007 6:35:42 PM

    Comment: Almost 4000 pregnancies and counting. If a male soldier incapacitated himself like the females do they would go to jail. I have heard woman say let them command the vehical or drive it. What kind of BS is that? All members of the crew are a team and must be able to do the others jobs. In all the years I was on active duty and worked with the military (over 25 yrs) I have never seen a woman break track. We used to be an army and nation that did what was best for the many and not the few. I'm sure there are a couple of women out there that could be in the infantry but not enough to change the rules. Even in Israel the female soldiers are only allowed to patrol in very very safe nieghborhoods.

    • Posted By: soren lerby @ 10/30/2007 01:15:38

      Comment: To Iron Mike,

      Shouldn't these female soldiers be court-marshalled for getting pregnant? What is the difference between desertion (by male soldiers) and intentionally getting prenant to avoid "uncomfortable" combat zones?
      Do men have similar escape route? Or they will be slapped with child suport by these deserter-mother whom they have impregnate?

  • Posted By: Iron Mike @ 10/29/2007 6:28:03 PM

    Comment: almost 4000 pregnancies in iraq now. When the going gets rough the females do what they can to go home. Besides what is this stuff about Female soldiers being affected more by PTS? The feminists have been saying for years that women can take more strss than men and still deal with it effectively. Was that a lie?

  • Posted By: marcellag @ 10/29/2007 6:22:09 PM

    Comment: First of all, if men don't want to follow women into the gates of hell, then put women who want to fight on the front lines into their own seperate unit so that they won't have to worry about the incompetence of men ruining their mission. Second of all, both men and women followed Bodicca and she was one of the most ruthless generals in human history.

    • Posted By: darling137 @ 07/05/2008 20:26:20

      Comment: And how did that turn out for the Iceni?

  • Posted By: SLAVKO @ 10/29/2007 4:49:29 PM

    Comment: Comment: The individuals in an effective combat unit must BOND. They will have to sleep, eat and go to the bathroom wherever they can. An incredible distraction is to bring a young woman into the midst of a unit of young, horny troopers. No matter how good a soldier this young woman may be, her presence will disrupt and endanger a combat unit. Posted by a Korean veteran 10/29/07 4:45 PM

    • Posted By: vikitorie @ 02/01/2008 03:33:24

      Comment: Sorry to say this but, keep it in your pants. A level of respect is needed between the genders when deployed together. I have shared tents with the males that I am deployed with. nothing close to what you have said has happened. They respect me and I respect them. If a male soldier can't keep it in their pants it is not the females fault. And think about this, before females were on the front line, what females were taken advantage of? The local females of the countries that the US was fighting in. Now is that the right thing? Soldiers raping local females during combat because they can't keep it in their pants? IS that right? I think not. So neither is thinking females in comabt is a distraction for males. Get a life.

  • Posted By: Observer1 @ 10/29/2007 3:16:29 PM

    Comment: I would listen to the combatants who are actually in the war zones and have witnessed women in combat first hand. If they say that women don't belong there, then I would take their word for it. What man would not want another soldier to fight side by side with and to trust him or her with his life and vice-versa? If men soldiers can not put their trust to women soldiers then that just puts everyone from the fields to the basecamp in danger.

    I have a nephew and a very good friend who are in the Navy and they both say that women should not be in combat. I know these two as very caring men who love, respect and provide for their wives. I believe that they say women don't belong in combat out of respect and love for our women and not out of chauvanism.

    I think that men do what they do best and women do what they do best. One compliments the other as nature intended it. Men have their protective instincts to give them that sense of duty to fight for our women and country. Women have their ability to nurse injured men back to health maybe not always physically but psycologically. Their maternal instinct is therapeutic to the injured soldiers.

  • Posted By: Observer1 @ 10/29/2007 3:06:45 PM

    Comment: I would listen to the combatants who are actually in the war zones and have witnessed women in combat first hand. If they say that women don't belong there, then I would take their word for it. What man would not want another soldier to fight side by side with and to trust him or her with his life and vice-versa? If men soldiers can not put their trust to women soldiers then that just puts everyone from the fields to the basecamp in danger.

    I have a nephew and a very good friend who are in the Navy and they both say that women should not be in combat. I know these two as very caring men who love, respect and provide for their wives. I believe that they say women don't belong in combat out of respect and love for our women and not out of chauvanism.

  • Posted By: Iron Mike @ 10/29/2007 12:25:07 PM

    Comment: Having trained hundreds of female soldiers I can say that very few are capable of performing the mission of a combat soldier. Few can shoot , I have never seen a female soldier that could throw a hand grenade the minimum save distance , It would take 2-6 female soldiers to carry what 1 male could. A female soldier charging a M-2 was not going to happen ditto having one carry a M-2 or Mk-19, load a 155mm howitzer rd.
    Add to that the large numbers of pregnantcys before deployments AND after they get to the ME! In the first Gulf War the major problem we had with females was prostitution! Jessica Lynch didn???t have a weapon when she was captured as it was locked up in a connex!

  • Posted By: Iron Mike @ 10/29/2007 12:16:37 PM

    Comment: Having trained hundreds of female soldiers while serving as an XO of a BT Co at Ft Jackson and 2 years as a Company Commander in Germany. I can say that very few are capable of performing the mission of a combat soldier. Few can shoot worth a damn (sometimes felt I would be safer in front of them an behind them), I have never seen a female soldier that could throw a hand grenade the minimum save distance (most threw them less than 10 feet downrange), I would often have to assign 2-6 female soldiers to carry what 1 male could carry ( I often carried a case of .50 cal ammo without any problem and that was a minimum of a 4 female soldier carry), a female soldier charging a M-2 was not going to happen ditto having one carry a M-2 or Mk-19. Carry or load a 155mm howitzer round (98 lb???s) ???forget it. I even had one female who couldn???t pull the lanyard to fire a 155.

    Add to that the large numbers of females who get pregnant before major deployments AND after they get to the ME! In the first Gulf War the major problem we had with female troops was prostitution! Jessica Lynch didn???t even have a weapon when she was captured because it was locked up in a connex they were pulling! Females have a place in the army its just not in combat.

  • Posted By: Iron Mike @ 10/29/2007 11:06:40 AM

    Comment: m

  • Posted By: phdjd56 @ 10/29/2007 9:39:34 AM

    Comment: FATJOEY - Can a 130 lb man carry a 220 lb man in full body armor...? If not, then I guess we need to start eliminating smaller men, too, eh?

  • Posted By: rockwoodca45822 @ 10/29/2007 8:43:15 AM

    Comment: What a load of hogwash! Women perform heavy duties such as firefighting and lawenforcement work here in the US just as well as their male counterparts. Israel regularly trains womens in its military with no biased gender complaints. What I hear from Browne is a lot of old wivetales and myths, but no hard evidence to back up his rhetoric.

    If Browne had his way, women would be back in the kitchen baking cookies and pursuing careers that didn't go beyond the classroom, keyboard or healthcare profession.

  • Posted By: FATJOEY @ 10/29/2007 7:34:57 AM

    Comment: can a 130 lb woman carry a 220 lb man in full body armor 200 yards in 100 degree heat? then stay out of it?

    • Posted By: vikitorie @ 02/01/2008 03:36:23

      Comment: Should the male be 220 lbs in the first place. The military has height and weight standards too. FAT joey...

  • Posted By: FATJOEY @ 10/29/2007 7:33:12 AM

    Comment: barefoot and pregnant.....barefoot and pregnant chasing butterflys

  • Posted By: SuntoRY1 @ 10/29/2007 2:45:20 AM

    Comment: I disapprove of the anaolgy between African American integretation and female integration in the military. We have to stop kidding ourselves, there are significant biological diffrences between men and women, particularly in areas related to combat. Men are much fast than women, and signficantly stronger. The pc daycare idea that "everyone has their own abilities" does not apply to the battle field. In war, strength, aggresivness, and speed are paramount and without them one is simply an inferior soilder. Where the obvjous bioligcal diffrences do not apply, allow women. Where they do apply, just don't.

  • Posted By: SuntoRY1 @ 10/29/2007 2:39:09 AM

    Comment: asd

  • Posted By: sgtdjusmc @ 10/29/2007 1:32:14 AM

    Comment: I could care less if women want to get their legs blown off in combat like the men. good for them

  • Posted By: newsreader @ 10/28/2007 8:01:10 PM

    Comment: I'll buy that men and women are often socialized differently- but military training is about overcoming your socialization and capitalizing on your ability. Everyone brings different capabilities to the battlefield... there's no one-size-fits-all warrior. You deploy as a member of a unit, not a lone commando with ammo belts strung around your neck and a K-bar in your teeth. This is the macho, Rambo fantasies of an armchair anthropologist, not legitimate, scientific research. If Mr. Browne really wanted to know how women perform in combat, he could have asked any military police officer who has deployed to Iraq at any time in the past four years.

  • Posted By: georgec32772 @ 10/28/2007 7:43:30 PM

    Comment: Having served with the Marine Corps in a combat situation I think that having women at the front is a major distraction for the men. In a tight spot they try to be protective and sometime sacrifice their own safety for a female because she is female. Many young men are funny that way. There is also the problem of sexual attacks on women by men in the military. Everyone knows that it's wrong, but it happens. I think it would happen less if the women weren't out there with the men in the first place. There should be some areas where women are not allowed, for everyone's safety. Infantry combat is one of those places.

    • Posted By: rockwoodca45822 @ 10/29/2007 08:46:49

      Comment: This is a purely sexist comment. In the 70's when I applied (I am a woman) for a heavy equipment construction job, I was told that because I was a woman I would be a "distraction" to the men, not that I was incapable of doing the job.

  • Posted By: gil6002 @ 10/28/2007 3:23:28 PM

    Comment: Is this guy a law professor or a military expert? Neither! He's an arm chair quaterback who wants to sell his book because it is a good debate subject and really has no clue about the front lines as in todays war, there are no front lines. Fighting can erupt on a moments notice wherever you are! I was in Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom 1 and let me tell you, I saw some guys who just froze under the stress of a fire fight and some who fought like champs. As for the women there with me? I would definately trust them with my life as many times I did as we shot bullets down range at the enemy and the enemy returned fire unlike targets at the shooting range whom did not fire back. There is no stress like a firefight and thats when your true colors show and the women, definately showed their true colors!

  • Posted By: jncc1701 @ 10/28/2007 2:09:12 PM

    Comment: Bring the women home :) that will put an end to the Iraq (soon to be Iran) wars. We can send Browne and Bush instead.

  • Posted By: KRB1 @ 10/28/2007 8:50:38 AM

    Comment: Actually, Co-ed Combat devotes a couple of pages to the mid-air collision that led to the emergency landing of the EP-3 on Hainan island. "Forced down" became "shot down" through inadvertence in the interview.

  • Posted By: jojoc10 @ 10/27/2007 4:17:44 PM

    Comment: His argument for the case of women that should not be allowed in combat aside, Mr. Browne has a significant credibility issue that he needs to overcome. He mentions that the EP-3 that went down over the South China sea was shot down. It was not. It was an accident. Mr. Browne needs to get his facts straight before he enages in public discussions that he is not qualified for.

  • Posted By: jojoc10 @ 10/27/2007 4:15:55 PM

    Comment: Mr. Browne has a significant credibility issue that he needs to overcome. He mentions that the EP-3 that went down over the South China sea was shot down. It was not. It was an accident. Mr. Browne needs to get his facts straight before he enages in public discussions that he is not qualified for.

  • Posted By: rskaine @ 10/27/2007 12:04:16 PM

    Comment: I hope that this web site will post an opposing view by authors who have written books supporting women in combat. I also hope that readers of this article will read the books of authors who support women in combat. Women in the Line of Fire by Erin Solaro is a contemporary work; Women at War by Rosemarie Skaine and Battle Cries and Lullabies by Linda Grant De Pauw, both 1999 are also excellent reads. Rosemarie Skaine, author. http://www.authorsden.com/rosemarieskaine

  • Posted By: rskaine @ 10/27/2007 12:00:48 PM

    Comment: I hope that people who read this article will also read other books that support women in combat and I hope this web site will interview one of those authors. _Women in the Line of Fire_ by Erin Solaro is a very recent book on the subject. I also authored _Women at War_ in 1999 and Linda Grand De Pauw authored _
    Battle Cries and Lullabies_ in that same year. Rosemarie Skaine, Author

  • Posted By: tessa_bear17 @ 10/27/2007 1:31:13 AM

    Comment: Oh and one more thing.

    I personally don't want to go to the frontlines. BUT I think that if a women wants to fight right up on the frontlines it is her right as an American to do so equally alongside the men. Didn't they try the seperate but equal thing before with skin color? That didn't work out so well if I remember right... How rapidly things have changed in the past 100 years, I believe this discussion will be considered ignorant and medeival in another 20 years.

    I also believe though that if a women wants to stay at home with the kids, do the soccer mom thing and be there 100% of the time for family exclusively, than that is her choice also. I just think that if military is something that people want to do, then that option should be completely open with no limitations.

    There was something I was reading on the comments about women possessing 3 factors. Physical, emotional, and mental strength to handle the stresses of battle. In my short time in the military, I haven't met many men that I believe possess all three either. But I believe as a human being, you get scared but when it comes down to it, you do what you have to do to survive. I know that if I was in combat and someone was firing their little rifle at my head or trying to hurt someone in my company, I wouldn't hesitate to take them out.

    I think the trust issue should be knocked out of the problem also in co-ed units that deploy together. If my whole company deployed together, we all know each other. We hang out outside of drill weekends and we all go out together on drill weekends. We know each others families and we know where each other comes from. I would know that the guy sitting next to me had a wife with 6 kids and another on the way. I think knowing each other is what the trust issue is based off of. If you drill with someone continously, then you have a good idea if they will lead successfully or not.

    I do know that if I get mobilized and transfered to another unit where I don't know anyone, I wouldn't trust them and I don't expect them to trust me. I think it's more likely in those situations to have an every man for themselves situation because there is no bond. It's just survive this deployment so I can get back to where I'd rather be, with my unit back at home.

    I don't think I've heard anything truely dimening towards females in my unit. The closest we get to sexist is when we have to sit through a 4 hour sexual harrassment slideshow. Anything negative I've noticed is always on the individual level. Never is it stating that someone would do poorly because they were male or female.

  • Posted By: tessa_bear17 @ 10/27/2007 1:03:32 AM

    Comment: I'm a women and in the US Army Reserves and I have 2 children 4 and under and their father is also in the US Army Reserves. I have never been deployed in the 5 1/2 years of my enlistment, but my childrens father has been deployed for 18 months. My basic training and AIT was co-ed. Everything the guys did we did to. Our rucks were filled with same thing as the guys on our marches and we went the same distance as the guys. We spent the same amount of time out in the field. In training, our drill sergeants (male and female ones) stressed that we worked harder than the guys actually to prove to people like the author that we could excel. The only seperation was where we showered and slept.

    The same is with my current unit when we have our summer AT or weapon qualifications. Sometimes women can excel better than men in some subjects. Our entire unit was reclassed last year to a different job. At the school, our honor graduate was female. Last year at our battalion weapon qualification, I was the only one who shot 40 out of 40 (I do realize this is entirely different than a real combat situation). Out of the 13 females in my company, 5 come in on the 2 mile run right with the fastest males. I believe the only 2 females that struggled on the last PT test had just had children within the months before the testing.

    I don't believe there should be any seperation between people based on age, sex, or ethnicity. I think a seperation of things should be taken on an individual level. Doesn't matter if your a guy or girl. That is why it's a military made up of volunteers.

    Oh, and the part about Post Traumatic Stress affecting females more than males. Most of the time, in my personal opinion, I believe women are more willing to seek help or talk about problems they are experencing. My fiancee has no hearing in his left ear since an IED blew up the humvee he was riding in. Although the doctors say there is no physcial damage, they say it is stress related. He witnessed 5 men in his unit dying throughout the whole tour of Iraq, 3 of which he was the combat lifesaver closest. He has countless nightmares, days where all he can think about are his friends dying, days where he says the only thing keeping himself from suicide is the thoughts of his family. He would also rather die than go see a doctor.

    Anyway, that last part is just to show an example of part of the reason why I believe girls would talk before men would about problems. FYI: it's been a year since he got home and he is getting better.

  • Posted By: beli01 @ 10/26/2007 9:24:02 PM

    Comment: Women fight as well as men.
    Checklist: The militaries of
    Israel
    the LTTE, Sri Lanka
    right/left wing revolutionary groups (in India, at least)



  • Posted By: soldiermom @ 10/26/2007 8:25:07 PM

    Comment: Nonsense! If the men aren't "hard-wired to follow women into danger", then it's the men who are untrustworthy. Don't blame military women for the weaknesses of military men!

  • Posted By: nutbastard @ 10/26/2007 1:12:22 PM

    Comment: He's right about the trust aspect, though, and I sure as hell wouldn't wander into combat with female comrades. The evolutionary factors that have made modern women what they are have not bestowed upon them reasonable upper body strength, quick reflexes and the ability to stay cool under pressure. The WNBA is a a joke, there are very few female pilots, race car drivers, hunters, atheletes that can hold a candle to their male counterparts. The INNATE skills required to be effective in combat simply aren't there for most women.

    I dont have a problem with women as a gender, even if the predictable, reactionary response to the comments above by typically hyper-emotional females will be to conclude I somehow hate women, or believe them to be inferior in all ways. Well, you can delude yourself into whatever makes you happy. I love women. But when so many of you are helpless when it comes to simple things like changing a tire, or fixing a computer, and men have to step in, well, it's not that different from having a helpless kid around who can't open the pickle jar. We pity the lack of ability, which translates into whatever ongoing meta-image of that person we already have being affected proportionally. I have male friends that are useless, and i wouldn't want to go into combat with them either, but they only constitute a small fraction of the men i know. i've met maybe 2 females i would trust in combat to do as well as the men. Even if more of them COULD do as well, if we dont trust you to, its moot.

    • Posted By: rollin2sublime @ 12/09/2007 20:01:26

      Comment: Sir not all of us are helpless. I've had to handcuff a man who was about 210 lbs. and trying to hurt me. Because it was my life, I got it done and safely. Needless to say he was the one hurt. We all have strengths and weaknesses!! Even you!! Remember that when you have to ask for help. Just because I'm a woman doesn't mean I can't pick you up and carry you. Not all of us have the same strengths, even men are not always strong enough!!!

  • Posted By: swordsbane @ 10/26/2007 1:11:14 PM

    Comment: "The INNATE skills required to be effective in combat simply aren't there for most women."

    You're confusing evolutionary with cultural. Women have been told so long that they can't do things as well as men that it is usually only the exeptional ones who make it. You don't get it. It doesn't MATTER what MOST women can or can't do. If they aren't allowed to try, and respected when they succeed, the last 200 years of this country's ideals have been a sham.

    And as for trust, if you let your hind brain get in the way of what you should be aware of, that is YOUR problem, not the woman next to you in the trenches. Trust is a CHOICE. Deal with it. If you can't then YOU don't belong in combat.

  • Posted By: nutbastard @ 10/26/2007 1:05:16 PM

    Comment: He's right about the trust aspect, though, and I sure as hell wouldn't wander into combat with female comrades. The evolutionary factors that have made modern women what they are have not bestowed upon them reasonable upper body strength, quick reflexes and the ability to stay cool under pressure. The WNBA is a a joke, there are very few female pilots, race car drivers, hunters, atheletes that can hold a candle to their male counterparts. The INNATE skills required to be effective in combat simply aren't there for most women.

    I dont have a problem with women as a gender, even if the predictable, reactionary response to the comments above by typically hyper-emotional females will be to conclude I somehow hate women, or believe them to be inferior in all ways. Well, you can delude yourself into whatever makes you happy. I love women. But when so many of you are helpless when it comes to simple things like changing a tire, or fixing a computer, and men have to step in, well, it's not that different from having a helpless kid around who can't open the pickle jar. We pity the lack of ability, which translates into whatever ongoing meta-image of that person we already have being affected proportionally. I have male friends that are useless, and i wouldn't want to go into combat with them either, but they only constitute a small fraction of the men i know. i've met maybe 2 females i would trust in combat to do as well as the men. Even if more of them COULD do as well, if we dont trust you to, its moot.

  • Posted By: nutbastard @ 10/26/2007 1:04:31 PM

    Comment: He's right about the trust aspect, though, and I sure as hell wouldn't wander into combat with female comrades. The evolutionary factors that have made modern women what they are have not bestowed upon them reasonable upper body strength, quick reflexes and the ability to stay cool under pressure. The WNBA is a a joke, there are very few female pilots, race car drivers, hunters, atheletes that can hold a candle to their male counterparts. The INNATE skills required to be effective in combat simply aren't there for most women.

    I dont have a problem with women as a gender, even if the predictable, reactionary response to the comments above by typically hyper-emotional females will be to conclude I somehow hate women, or believe them to be inferior in all ways. Well, you can delude yourself into whatever makes you happy. I love women. But when so many of you are helpless when it comes to simple things like changing a tire, or fixing a computer, and men have to step in, well, it's not that different from having a helpless kid around who can't open the pickle jar. We pity the lack of ability, which translates into whatever ongoing meta-image of that person we already have being affected proportionally. I have male friends that are useless, and i wouldn't want to go into combat with them either, but they only constitute a small fraction of the men i know. i've met maybe 2 females i would trust in combat to do as well as the men. Even if more of them COULD do as well, if we dont trust you to, its moot.

  • Posted By: nutbastard @ 10/26/2007 12:59:41 PM

    Comment: He's right about the trust aspect, though, and I sure as hell wouldn't wander into combat with female comrades. The evolutionary factors that have made modern women what they are have not bestowed upon them reasonable upper body strength, quick reflexes and the ability to stay cool under pressure. The WNBA is a a joke, there are very few female pilots, race car drivers, hunters, atheletes that can hold a candle to their male counterparts. The INNATE skills required to be effective in combat simply aren't there for most women.

    I dont have a problem with women as a gender, even if the predictable, reactionary response to the comments above by typically hyper-emotional females will be to conclude I somehow hate women, or believe them to be inferior in all ways. Well, you can delude yourself into whatever makes you happy. I love women. But when so many of you are helpless when it comes to simple things like changing a tire, or fixing a computer, and men have to step in, well, it's not that different from having a helpless kid around who can't open the pickle jar. We pity the lack of ability, which translates into whatever ongoing meta-image of that person we already have being affected proportionally. I have male friends that are useless, and i wouldn't want to go into combat with them either, but they only constitute a small fraction of the men i know. i've met maybe 2 females i would trust in combat to do as well as the men. Even if more of them COULD do as well, if we dont trust you to, its moot.

  • Posted By: nutbastard @ 10/26/2007 12:58:59 PM

    Comment: He's right about the trust aspect, though, and I sure as hell wouldn't wander into combat with female comrades. The evolutionary factors that have made modern women what they are have not bestowed upon them reasonable upper body strength, quick reflexes and the ability to stay cool under pressure. The WNBA is a a joke, there are very few female pilots, race car drivers, hunters, atheletes that can hold a candle to their male counterparts. The INNATE skills required to be effective in combat simply aren't there for most women.

    I dont have a problem with women as a gender, even if the predictable, reactionary response to the comments above by typically hyper-emotional females will be to conclude I somehow hate women, or believe them to be inferior in all ways. Well, you can delude yourself into whatever makes you happy. I love women. But when so many of you are helpless when it comes to simple things like changing a tire, or fixing a computer, and men have to step in, well, it's not that different from having a helpless kid around who can't open the pickle jar. We pity the lack of ability, which translates into whatever ongoing meta-image of that person we already have being affected proportionally. I have male friends that are useless, and i wouldn't want to go into combat with them either, but they only constitute a small fraction of the men i know. i've met maybe 2 females i would trust in combat to do as well as the men. Even if more of them COULD do as well, if we dont trust you to, its moot.

  • Posted By: nutbastard @ 10/26/2007 12:58:08 PM

    Comment: He's right about the trust aspect, though, and I sure as hell wouldn't wander into combat with female comrades. The evolutionary factors that have made modern women what they are have not bestowed upon them reasonable upper body strength, quick reflexes and the ability to stay cool under pressure. The WNBA is a a joke, there are very few female pilots, race car drivers, hunters, atheletes that can hold a candle to their male counterparts. The INNATE skills required to be effective in combat simply aren't there for most women.

    I dont have a problem with women as a gender, even if the predictable, reactionary response to the comments above by typically hyper-emotional females will be to conclude I somehow hate women, or believe them to be inferior in all ways. Well, you can delude yourself into whatever makes you happy. I love women. But when so many of you are helpless when it comes to simple things like changing a tire, or fixing a computer, and men have to step in, well, it's not that different from having a helpless kid around who can't open the pickle jar. We pity the lack of ability, which translates into whatever ongoing meta-image of that person we already have being affected proportionally. I have male friends that are useless, and i wouldn't want to go into combat with them either, but they only constitute a small fraction of the men i know. i've met maybe 2 females i would trust in combat to do as well as the men. Even if more of them COULD do as well, if we dont trust you to, its moot.

  • Posted By: 03178541 @ 10/26/2007 12:53:10 PM

    Comment: WOW!!! This is such a great debate! We live in a society that embraces mediocrity, makes excuses for fat kids, and takes the competition out of competitive sports. It really makes me smirk. Now, we are still debating about women fighting on the front lines. I am a United States Marine Scout Sniper and let me be crystal clear???WOMEN DO NOT BELONG IN THE FIGHT. I am not going to provide any scientific rationale just the simple truth. Women in general are not as strong as men??? put any woman in a power lifting competition against men, see who wins. Women are not as ferocious as men??? put any woman in a UFC competition and see who wins. Women have too many other problems, whether it is feminine hygiene, PMS, or the fact that they do have to talk about every little problem they have. Men win wars and whether it messes with our heads or not we do the job. Come on people do you really want to see your daughters on the front lines fighting hand to hand with MEN from other countries who will rape, sodomize, and torture them? Should women be able to serve in support roles? Yes. Do they belong on the front lines with us animals???NO!

    • Posted By: vikitorie @ 02/01/2008 03:43:32

      Comment: Most women who end up on the "front line" of combat didn't have a choice when they ended up there. You mentioned letting females be in combat in support roles... Ok. So that means that they are on convoys serving as truck drivers... The hardest job in the military. Convoys get hit by IEDs all the time. That is the front line. It changes all the time. Females will be on the front line, like it our not.

    • Posted By: TNismyhome @ 10/26/2007 16:06:29

      Comment: I'm a woman and I agree totally with you and the man who wrote this book. Women should not be in combat. We have no business being in combat or war of any kind. Our bodies are not built for this type of physical or emotional stress. I have never met a woman who exhibits ALL of the qualities necessary to be a good soldier. Some women are physically strong, some are emotionally strong,