The Case Against Women in Combat

None of this makes one bit of difference. The only question we need to ask ourselves is: Should women be given the same opportunity that men get? If the answer is yes, then women should be allowed to serve in combat, end of story. Everytime a "scientist" says: "Generally speaking, women are....." I switch off. Generally speaking is not what we're talking about. The service is still volunteer and we should have a screening process in place that accepts those who can be soldiers and rejects those who can't regardless of their sex. I'm sure you can make a case for saying that one body type or one psyche profile is better suited than others for combat, but better and worse should not be taken as pass and fail. No matter how carefully you screen for it, every platoon is going to have a weak link. That's because everyone is different. Even if women are "generally" less effective soldiers than men (and I haven't heard any evidence that convinces me of that) some men are less effective soldiers than other men. Do we get rid of them too even though they passed basic? It's about opportunity, and women should have the same opportunity to attempt to pass the same tests men take to be combat soldiers. If the tests are designed with the right purpose in mind, to make good soldiers, then the issue about women being suited for combat or not takes care of itself.

Mr. Browne might want to get his facts straight. The EP-3 that made an emergency landing in China in April 2001 was not "shot down," but was instead damaged in a mid-air collision with a Chinese fighter aircraft. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his position on women in combat, he doesn't do himself any favors by getting the facts wrong.

logwoman : Maybe men...? Stick to the facts and statistics. Women have more to fall back on? Again you bring this back to men? Typical response from a typical slice of the pie. I would actually like to see more action and less talk from the female side.

logwoman : Maybe men...? Stick to the facts and statistics. Women have more to fall back on? Again you bring this back to men? Typical response from a typical slice of the pie. I would actually like to see more action and less talk from the female side.

Maybe the rate of men with PTSD is lower because they report it less; they feel ashamed to be having such an emotional response, and are less willing to ask for help. To admit they are having a problem would probably hurt thier military career, and they have less to fall back on in life than women. It isn't fair to a male vet in that sense, but don't blame women for the situation either.

Maybe men have a lower PTSD rate because they talk about it less, just like they talk about every emotion less. That doesn't mean they don't have it. I'm sure vets who let it be known they are suffering emotional are less likely to allowed into combat, which I'm sure prevents some male vets from speaking out.

This is reasoning is the same old, tired and still just as lame as it was 25 years ago. Just because at this point women are more likely to report having combat stress does not mean that the men are suffering any less. Check the sucide rates of returning vets.

Very, very brave men. Not like bureacratic Pentagon brass who pretend that women can take on combat roles because if they do not parrot feminist-approved lines, their promotion are in jeopardy.

This chauvinist thinks I would trust every male to be able to help me out of pressing situation?