Not Semi-Soldiers

It's no longer a question of whether women should be in combat. It's a matter of the regulations catching up with the reality.

By Anna Quindlen | NEWSWEEK

From the magazine issue dated Nov 12, 2007

« Return to Article

Discuss

Posted By: elac17 @ 06/17/2008 6:02:18 AM

Comment: Women can serve in the military no doubt. Women have performed heroic actions in Iraq and Afghanistan in intense combat. But a woman who runs into combat as a MP or a transportation soldier is much different than putting them in the Infantry where the standards are much different and combat more common, not to mention the unbelievale strains of a Special Forces soldier. Bottom line: women can and should serve in the military and they excel doing so, however, they should not be allowed to serve in the Infantry, Armor, or Special Forces.
Posted By: andreabhopkins @ 12/17/2007 9:39:38 PM

Comment: PS the ? marks are supposed to be periods for emphasis not as questioning.
Posted By: andreabhopkins @ 12/17/2007 9:34:08 PM

Comment: The previous comments enrage me. This is why: I am a US Army Reserve Soldier, a SSG. I have deployed 3 out of the last 4 years and recently returned from Iraq and am currently in 2 Masters programs: 1-Counseling/Psychology and 2-Masters in Social Work. I graduated my Basic Training as the Soldier Leader of the Cycle, beat out top men and a fellow woman not only in soldiering but also in physical fitness. I also was the Distinguished Honor grad. at PLDC and beat out all my fellow classmates men and women in PT and classroom performance. Today I mostly get 300's on my PT tests. So who is not keeping up with who? I can shoot, I can run and guess what I am smart as well. PT standards are different based on biology but sit-ups are the same. Take any athlete and compare male and female scores and you see differences, but are women any less of an athlete just because they do not reach the same heights or times as a man, NO, it's just different and we make up for in other areas. And when a fellow soldier has fallen I will do my best, I will know what I can handle and what I cannot. I am likely to suffer less in the aftermath because: guess what, we talk about things and are better able to deal with stress, we even have a higher pain tolerance than you. As to women not fighting off sexual assault, guess what, it generally is perpetrated by people whom we are supposed to trust and who are supposed to be fellow soldiers. It is hard to attack an enemy that is unknown and unforeseen, especially when it is someone whom is supposed to have your back. As to marches and humping a heavy pack, yeah *** happens but it happens to guys as well. So get used to us, we have been in it for the long haul and we are here to stay. If you don't like it then get out, we are fully capable, trainable, willing to learn and willing to grow. We can adapt and we can fight, we can do all and be all and it is when people tell us that we can't that is most damaging. I saw a lot of women in Iraq in a multitude of positions doing if not the same then better than their male counterparts. Don't forget to add to the equation the constant struggle that women go through of having to prove they are worthy, fighting stigma and sexism, the constant (sexual)advances and idea of being a "piece of meat," and to have to play in a "good ole boy system" that is already set-up to keep a female down. I just want to say in ending...We will continuously BE ALL THAT WE CAN BE, we will always AIM HIGH, we will be more than an ARMY OF ONE and we may be some of THE FEW. THE PROUD but we will always BE PART OF THE ACTION whether a few or many disagree or disbelieve that we can do the job. We are American Soldiers, We are Warriors and members of the team. We serve the people of the United States and live the Army Values???It is the SOLDIERS Creed not the MAN's creed. So when you want to play in our Military let me know, I know a few good Women???Who would probably Kick your Ass!
Posted By: magnum102205 @ 11/26/2007 7:19:23 AM

Comment: I saw that in a previous statment that saawariya thinks that women shoud be in the draft. that would be a very bad idea. like what was stated before you cannot change a whole system because less than 1% can do it. if you reinstate the draft then girls that can hardly drive a car, and is a complete airhead will be a soldier i think nor if i was in the same unit as her i could hang with the guys. becasue at least they could get me out of a situation if i had been wounded. then there is the biblical issues. it states that men are to be the defenders and providers. if a woman cant face the fact that men are stronger and built for muscle then she is blind. im currently writing a 12 pg paper on this very subject and i have found that when asked the question schould women be in combat 335 out of 350 said they should not be allowed in combat. when asked why the majority said that they cannot keep up in the aspects men can. A study at west point states that the training for solders has diminished in the past decads becasue women cannot keep up with men. also the requirments for the PT is far less difficult for women then men. if a women can DO EVERYTHING a man CAN DO then thats a different story but it will not happen. when dragging a troop after they have been wounded a woman cannot just sling him over her shoulder the way a man can. so that puts her and that troop in alor more danger. also women are supposed to be soft, loving, bears of life not takers of it. I am a Born Again Christian and while seeing a women in a uniform brings a sense of pride but when the metal meets the meat its a bad idea. i have nothing against women in military i have a big issue with women in combat.
Posted By: Mike775954 @ 11/14/2007 10:19:14 AM

Comment: OK, let's see Lee Ann Hester go one on one with an insurgent in hand to hand and see who wins. Still want to debate the issue, Anna? Women can't even fight off sexual assault by their own fellow soldiers - how are they going to fight off enemy troops. And just wait until they start spending time in enemy prison camps and their pictures are all over the cover of your magazine. THAT is the issue with women in combat. Wake up!!
Posted By: saawariya @ 11/06/2007 2:13:48 PM

Comment: In case you haven't figured it out boys, I am enlisted, thanks very much. So yeah, life is tough and I am putting on the helmet.

And the whole mother nature argument is truly the ad hominem of the desperate, not sexism. When will you boys learn that women will succeed in everything we do, no matter how much you try to prevent it? We've conquered other male dominated professions as well, the military is next in line.

So don't worry women will once again prove that "we can do it". We always do.
- Posted By: lasso31 @ 11/09/2007 12:50:11 AM
  
  Comment: Women haven't proven that they can do it. I've seen the results with my own eyes. Women perform poorly when humping heavy packs, and men pick up the slack. The same holds true for all physically demanding tasks. I've seen up to 75% of female Marine officers and officer candidates fall out of humps despite the fact that they were humping less weight- and these women who are among the most highly motivated of all women entering the military. Your bluster is hollow. I've seen the reality, and if you are enlisted, you have too, even if you aren't able to admit it, perhaps not even to yourself.
- Posted By: WiseguySoldier @ 11/06/2007 5:50:26 PM
  
  Comment: One more thing, little girl (see, it's ok to use these terms now that you've used 'boys' more than a few times here), if women are so good at everything they do, and will take everything over eventually, why has it taken you so long to take the reigns of power from us oafish, dumb and dim-witted males? If you're so aggressive, if you're so much smarter than us, why is it that you still can't come out on top? Why are you always the victim? Why do women in power and women who claim to represent women everywhere (NOW, for example) STRIVING for power instead of BEING in power? Keep telling us you're going to 'take over everything'. Blah, blah, blah. Talk is cheap. In fact, it's been cheap for thousands of years for you girls. Put up or shut up.
  
  Ah, but alas, you cannot. It's a shame that you live in the fairy tale world of movies and inspiring novels where women are artificially created to be as physically capable as men in all myriad of pursuits. G.I. Jane with Demi Moore, oh how inspiring!
  
  Too bad you all cop-out behind 'we'd do it if the men would just let us TRY!'. Oh, isn't that a dichotomy? You're stronger than us, but yet, you need our permission to play? Interesting. You all do so much to be accepted as masculine, yet you deride masculinity as brutish and shameful...
  
  Go to college for something other than coloring your hair purple and protesting anything and everything that might offend your oh-so-delicate feminine sensibilities. And try not to fight reality and nature any longer- it's a fight you can't win. It's in the cards, sorry to say.
- Posted By: WiseguySoldier @ 11/06/2007 5:39:29 PM
  
  Comment: So you're enlisted huh? And you'd totally be infantry if that big, bad patriarchal system would just give you the chance! Uh huh. And females are going to dominate everything, huh? Any day now. Any time. Yeah, except that you haven't dominated politics or professional sports, to name just two examples. So, what you have demonstrated here is not that you seek equality within the current system. What you have demonstrated here is that you seek dominance by girls (yeah, well, you used the term 'boys' often enough that I decided not to play nice any longer) over men. Won't happen. I know this burns you, but you cannot beat a man physically in any endeavor (track and field marks are always in favor of males' dominance), and you're too irrational to adequately demonstrate any reasonable period of consistent lucidity to dominate politics.
  
  Good luck though. Long live your dream of female dominated society. Let me know when you can out perform a male soldier in PT. Best against best, female vs male? Male wins every time. Remember, it's mother nature you have a beef with, not Uncle Sam.
  - Posted By: An American in Texas @ 11/07/2007 2:26:33 AM
    
    Comment: Son, you're an idiot in every way that matters. The world's not about physical strength anymore, in case you haven't noticed. You write well, so I assume you're both well-educated and intelligent. It's therefore very unlikely that you're going to be spending the rest of your life in the very limited spaces that are entirely male (so limited, in fact, that I can't think of any offhand). The time will come, and soon, when the attitudes you're expressing here are going to bite you in the butt, maybe when you're trying to deal with a female boss, maybe when you're trying to woo and win a smart woman. The problem is, you're speaking from fear . . . everything you say reeks of it. "You seek dominance by girls," "you dream of a female dominated society," . . . . power, winning, dominance, aggression, blah blah blah. Clearly women scare the pants off you, so you come back with all this exaggerated machismo BS. Either that, or you've got an extra Y chromosome. In any case, you'd better try to figure out where all this rage is coming from. You sound like a dangerous loon.
Posted By: saawariya @ 11/06/2007 8:48:21 AM

Comment: Oh and by the way lasso man, women are as aggressive as men. And I've known plenty of women who've have wanted to play football in school but were told they couldn't because of whatever prejudices or stupid fears the coaches had. And one reason more women don't pursue such paths is because of negative remarks they would recieve from individuals such as yourself.

Also, I do believe women should be drafted and that there should be no double standard. So get off your ideological high horse.
- Posted By: WiseguySoldier @ 11/06/2007 12:11:41 PM
  
  Comment: So women quit trying because of the way all those nasty men talk about them? How about commercials that constantly portray men as oafish and dolts? Should males be upset? Should we stop talking to our wives because they demean and degrade us with their angry, angst-ridden hate-speech?
  
  Feminsts in general need to relax. Feminists like yourself and the others here just like to fight. They don't care what about, just love to be told that they can't do something, so they can complain, whine about the system, and accuse males of systematic bias. Women can have children- that's a genetic impossibility for men. Men are stronger than women on the whole- that's a genetic fact. What you need is a long conversation with Mother Nature, where you can air your complaints and she can dismiss you appropriately with the words 'tough. life is rough. put on a helmet.'.
Posted By: lasso31 @ 11/05/2007 10:03:09 PM

Comment: Women have plenty of opportunities to show that they are as physically aggressive as men, but they aren't, so they don't. If women were, they would be signing up for their school football teams, and fighting UFC matches. Just because far less than 1% of women are masculinized enough to do these things, an entire system cannot be changed to accommodate them.
What women who argue for this do not understand is that changing the system to allow women to volunteer now, means that at some point in the future when a draft is required (this country will not go until the end of time without fighting a war that requires a draft), there cannot be a double standard that compels men to serve in ground combat, but allows women to volunteer if they feel that they are up to it. All women would be compelled to serve in the infantry, including the petite ones who cannot handle the demands. So what we would get as a result is a non-functioning and ultimately losing force.
These women are obsessed with the idealogical notion that women should do everything that men do even if it is harmful to all involved. These women tend to be rigid and inflexible in their thinking and are not able to deal with situations that are exceptions to their ideological rule that men and women should be exactly equal in practice, even if in reality men are physically stronger. They are so blinded by what they have been presumably told all their lives, which is that women should fight to do everything that men do (e.g. fight in the infantry), despite the fact that they are not as strong or aggressive. They believe that the functioning of the military should be bent to accommodate the mythical woman who is the exception to the rule despite the negative consequences. Rarely will you find women who have gone through female military training attempting to make this argument. They experienced the double standard in physical requirements, and know that most women have difficultly with the lesser demands that are placed upon them. They also are familiar enough to know that technology has not come anywhere close to reducing the physical demands of ground combat, as feminists who have no military experience like to argue. As I said before, this about feminist desire to gain power and status, not about trying to help the military accomplish its mission with minimal loss of life- something about which these feminists have neither knowledge, nor interest.
Posted By: MAureen Cronin @ 11/05/2007 11:32:39 AM

Comment: I am a young woman who just enlisted in the United Air Force. I do not know what struggles I will face next year, but I am ready for the Challenge. I grew up in a family of all men my mom died when I was young and I learned how to handle myself. I PROMISE that thoughout my militry career I will serve not only my country but also prove that women are just as capable to do the same as men.
Posted By: saawariya @ 11/05/2007 10:14:00 AM

Comment: what does being able to do 13 pushups have to do with anything? It's an arbitrary number. By your logic, Leigh Ann Hester probably couldn't do that many push-ups and look what she achieved. I bet you can do 13 push-ups in a minute, Wise guy solider...but have you ever won a silver star? I guess brute stregnth isn't all that matters in combat.
- Posted By: WiseguySoldier @ 11/05/2007 8:31:16 PM
  
  Comment: One more thing about your comments begs further commenting: Your use of the word 'won' when describing how the Sergeant acquired her Silver Star is inappropriate. Ask any recipient of the Silver Star (or any valorous award, for that matter) and they will tell you that awards are not 'won', they are 'earned' and 'awarded'. The Silver Star is not something one speaks of like the lottery.
  
  This comment demonstrates for the final time your total ignorance of military culture. Sorry to say, one must live the military culture in order to understand it. Would I dream of criticizing YOUR job without having been trained in the field and worked for a time in it? Of course not. Then why do you feel comfortable doing just that to the military? Telling, truly.
- Posted By: WiseguySoldier @ 11/05/2007 1:31:42 PM
  
  Comment: 'Achieved'? 'Achieved'? She returned fire. She was NOT SERVING in an infantry unit. Being involved in a firefight is one thing. If women are asking for the equality of being permitted to serve in infantry units, the sad fact is that they CANNOT MEET THE PHYSICAL STANDARDS. It's fact. It's sad, but it's fact.
  
  It's why womens pro basketball uses a smaller ball.
  It's why no women are in the NFL.
  It's why no women can compete with men in UFC.
  
  Once again, I tell you that your beef is with Mother Nature, not Uncle Sam.
  - Posted By: Sook @ 11/07/2007 4:28:00 PM
    
    Comment: You are really going to use the UFC as an argument? That???s sad. If you want to use that argument then I guess a man under 155 shouldn???t be in combat? The UFC (which is owned by a company that decides the rules) doesn't currently allow fighters under 155. However, if you want to talk MMA, women are fighting MMA everyday, even in cages. Until this company changes their policy, however, their will not be featherweight matches and will not be women fighting men.
    
    Women in pro basketball use a smaller ball because they have smaller hands. (common sense) What do smaller hands have to do with physical standards?
    
    Also; http://www.superfrogtriathlon.com/2007winners.html. Maybe they weren't all beating the men, but one minute off isn't bad. I work in the special warfare community, and while the majority I see are men, I see an impressive amount of women out doing PT alongside those men.
    
    I do not believe women should be in any elite combat units; however, I am not so ignorant to believe that women shouldn't be in combat at all.
  - Posted By: Sook @ 11/07/2007 4:27:38 PM
    
    Comment: You are really going to use the UFC as an argument? That???s sad. If you want to use that argument then I guess a man under 155 shouldn???t be in combat? The UFC (which is owned by a company that decides the rules) doesn't currently allow fighters under 155. However, if you want to talk MMA, women are fighting MMA everyday, even in cages. Until this company changes their policy, however, their will not be featherweight matches and will not be women fighting men.
    
    Women in pro basketball use a smaller ball because they have smaller hands. (common sense) What do smaller hands have to do with physical standards?
    
    Also; http://www.superfrogtriathlon.com/2007winners.html. Maybe they weren't all beating the men, but one minute off isn't bad. I work in the special warfare community, and while the majority I see are men, I see an impressive amount of women out doing PT alongside those men.
    
    I do not believe women should be in any elite combat units; however, I am not so ignorant to believe that women shouldn't be in combat at all.
    
    Women in pro basketball use a smaller ball because they have smaller hands. (common sense) What do smaller hands have to do with physical standards?
    
    Also ; http://www.superfrogtriathlon.com/2007winners.html. Maybe they weren't all beating the men, but one minute off isn't bad. I work in the special warfare community, and while the majority I see are men, I see an impressive amount of women out doing PT alongside those men.
    
    I do not believe men and women are equal. I do not believe women should be in any elite combat units, however, I am not so ignorant to believe that women shouldn't be in combat at all.
  - Posted By: Sook @ 11/07/2007 4:16:27 PM
    
    Comment: Women can't compete the in the UFC with men because its the rules. You are backing your arguement with rules of one company? If you are going to base it off silly things like then then no man who is under 155 should be allowed to enlist because currently they are not allowed to fight in the UFC. Women fight in MMA, they have lots of Female MMA. How can we say they can't beat the male counterparts until Dana White opens the door and gives them a chance?
    
    Women basketball players use a smaller ball because they have smaller hands. I mean seriously, you need that pointed out to you?
  - Posted By: saawariya @ 11/06/2007 8:36:08 AM
    
    Comment: ooh, look how upset both you and lasso31 are getting. Obviously both of you have issues. Don't either of you boys have anything better to do than whine all day and night about this issue, constantly responding to any post that disagress with you? Get over yourselves.
    - Posted By: WiseguySoldier @ 11/06/2007 12:05:49 PM
      
      Comment: Only because it's OUR lives at stake, honey. Perhaps you'd serve?
      
      And if you're so dedicated, why aren't you ought enlisting to prove women can 'do it'? Perhaps it's because deep down, the rhetoric force fed to our children rings untrue as adults- the sexes are not equal, and each gender has different capacities than the other. Or maybe feminists lied when they said that women were 'more nurturing' than men? Wouldn't that denote a genetic superiority? Or is it only when it benefits women is it permitted?
- Posted By: WiseguySoldier @ 11/05/2007 1:29:08 PM
  
  Comment: What '13 push-ups' meant was that if men are required to perform an average of 40+, why does a woman expect to be treated fairly if she is required to do only 13? Men are forced to be physically superior in PT standards because their job requires that they be in a condition capable of completing the mission.
  
  An infantry unit is among the most physically demanding jobs in the world. The point I made earlier was that if females are held to lower physical training standards than their male counterparts, why should they be afforded the oppostunity to perform the same tasks? Is not the purpose of keeping the men at high physical standards because the job requires it? Then how can a woman be expected to perform at the same level of success as a man doing that same job? The job of an infantryman is NOT synonymous with combat. If females wish to be allowed to enlist in MOS's in combat arms, then they should be required to meet the same physical standards as men. If they can, then I support their participation wholeheartedly. The dirty little secret here, the elephant in the room that feminists refuse to address is that 99% of females cannot meet that standard. So what you're saying is, even if it puts lives at stake because females would not be up to the physical challenge, that equality in combat MOS's is tantamount and should supercede all safety concerns. Wow. Unfortunately, serving in an infantry unit requires lifting that 99% of females simply are not capable of doing. Your complain should be addressed to Mother Nature, not Uncle Sam.
Posted By: k.haru@yahoo.com @ 11/05/2007 2:01:23 AM

Comment: I find it interesting that the ONLY reasoning the sexist commenters can provide for the question "why women shouldn't be in combat" is the point that "women aren't as strong as men". That's true. I don't dispute that in general, women aren't as physically strong as men. But I also point out that not all men are stronger than all women. There are plenty of women who are stronger than your average skinny male. But I digress from the main point of the argument, which is in my opinion, is the most important question. The question we should all ask ourselves is the relevance of brute strength in modern combat.

We no longer live in the era of Ghengis Khan, when men on horseback rode across the continent to kill with swords and bare hands. We're not roman soldiers who must be able to march from Rome to faraway destinations. We live in the era of technology when increasingly, brute strength is becoming less and less a necessity (unless you're of the unfortunate category of people who are SUPPOSED to rely on brute strength in order to battle.)

Not all sailors are marines and not all soldiers are of the most elite group. There is no reason that women shouldn't be in combat (if they are willing) even though they're not as strong as men because not all men are as strong as certain "gifted" men. The military can simply place the strongest of men in situations where brute strength is required and place everybody else in other areas of combat. After all, a bullet shot by a woman kills as lethally as those shot by a man.

I hardly believe that in modern combat, an American soldier will have to wrestle about with enemy combatants. I think locating IUDs and shooting at enemies from safe(er) areas probably occurs more often than epic hand-to-hand combats that you see in movies such as 300.

Besides, it should not be any of our concern when a woman is willing to serve in combat. I know i'm not physically stronger than most men because I'm not even stronger than most women (i'm petite) so I would never volunteer for combat. But any woman who is willing MUST be able to back up her willingness with ability. I'd give such women the benefit of the doubt unless the government is planning to reinstate the Draft system.
- Posted By: WiseguySoldier @ 11/05/2007 8:43:19 AM
  
  Comment: Sexist? Ad hominem attacks are always the last resort of the desperate.
  
  The military is simply not a place to test out idealism. When a woman can carry a 120 lb assault pack up a 70 degree mountain without assistance, when she can do more than the required 13 push-ups in two minutes, she can join an infantry unit.
  
  The question is not whether a woman can return fire. She can pull a trigger. Serving in a combat unit is an entirely different thing altogether. You have never served in an infantry unit? You simply don't understand. You are demonstrating complete and utter ignorance about how the Army is even structured. You simply write responses here because you serve a bigger cause: that of furthering feminist causes. The military is simply too dangerous to experiment in. We deal in life and death situations.
Posted By: WiseguySoldier @ 11/04/2007 9:29:16 PM

Comment: I speak as an American , as a liberal, and as a concerned soldier.

Across the spectrum of the Army (I cannot speak for the entire military, as my experience is obviously limited to the Army), women have done and continue to do a fine job. Women are serving our country valiantly and honorably in country and in garrison. That said, women are also presenting many problems in their quest to serve in combat.

Throughout training, women constantly complained of being forced to do tasks that males are told to 'shut up' and do regardless. Women are largely regarded as less capable, and largely, they do little to dispel that notion. Women are held to lower physical training standards, most of which barely qualify even at the lower standards. They do not ruck with assault packs that are as heavy as the males because their 'pelvises cannot handle the strain and are more subject to breaks and fractures'. They aren't required to do as many push-ups, sit-ups, or run as quickly or as far as the males. Their standards across the board are lower.

If women truly believe that they can perform as admirably and (more importantly) as capably in combat roles as the males, they must prove that they can achieve the physical standards that males are required to live up to. I cannot trust that a woman will support my infantry unit in a rough area, having lived in mountains for 30 days without showers or medical attention, if they cannot do 20 push-ups in basic training. Simply put, those in the military know for fact what the idealist author here seems to either ignore or remain ignorant of: the standards of performance for men remain much higher than women in the US Army. Until women can perform at the level of their male counterparts, they should not ever compromise the success of a mission and the lives of their male counterparts by performing in the same role at a lower level of standard.
Posted By: WiseguySoldier @ 11/04/2007 9:28:13 PM

Comment: I speak as an American , as a liberal, and as a concerned soldier.

Across the spectrum of the Army (I cannot speak for the entire military, as my experience is obviously limited to the Army), women have done and continue to do a fine job. Women are serving our country valiantly and honorably in country and in garrison. That said, women are also presenting many problems in their quest to serve in combat.

Throughout training, women constantly complained of being forced to do tasks that males are told to 'shut up' and do regardless. Women are largely regarded as less capable, and largely, they do little to dispel that notion. Women are held to lower physical training standards, most of which barely qualify even at the lower standards. They do not ruck with assault packs that are as heavy as the males because their 'pelvises cannot handle the strain and are more subject to breaks and fractures'. They aren't required to do as many push-ups, sit-ups, or run as quickly or as far as the males. Their standards across the board are lower.

If women truly believe that they can perform as admirably and (more importantly) as capably in combat roles as the males, they must prove that they can achieve the physical standards that males are required to live up to. I cannot trust that a woman will support my infantry unit in a rough area, having lived in mountains for 30 days without showers or medical attention, if they cannot do 20 push-ups in basic training. Simply put, those in the military know for fact what the idealist author here seems to either ignore or remain ignorant of: the standards of performance for men remain much higher than women in the US Army. Until women can perform at the level of their male counterparts, they should not ever compromise the success of a mission and the lives of their male counterparts by performing in the same role at a lower level of standard.
Posted By: lasso31 @ 11/03/2007 9:30:38 PM

Comment: Why does a feminist writer with no understanding of what ground combat entails want women in ground combat roles? It has nothing to do with ensuring the best tactical performance of our military - that which ensures mission success with the least cost to us in terms of lives and casualties. It has everything to do with a quest for power and status for women. These feminists do not understand that the word "service" is used to describe life in the military because one subordinates his/her needs to the needs of the service and the nation- not vice versa. Her argument that women should be allowed into ground combat so that they can advance their careers should be irrelevant. Sadly, for those like this writer who have no understanding of what mission success or failure can mean, achieving power and status is a higher goal than preserving the lives of those who serve.

Examples that use the actions like the female Sergeant who won the Silver Star are misleading. Her actions were absolutely defensive, not offensive like the writer states. Women not only lack the requisite strength to perform in ground combat, they also lack something that cannot be trained into them: testosterone and the aggression that comes with it. The mission of the infantryMAN is to locate, CLOSE WITH, and DESTROY the enemy. When you see women volunteering to compete in cage fighting matches, and competing and winning in those matches against men, then you can argue that women belong in the infantry. Information about women performing well for 27 minutes in a firefight, and driving vehicles in a region with roadside bombs is completely irrelevant to doing the job of an infantryman - just ask the Marines carrying hundred pound loads of equipment in Fallujah and fighting hand to hand. They came to the fight prepared with what they needed: strength, training, and pure AGGRESSION. They did it for weeks and months on end- not 27 minutes. That's how they got the job done with minimal loss of life.

Feminists are willing to set up a system that will, at some inevitable point in the future, require drafting 18 year old girls to fight as infantrymen. If you are willing to see those same girls go hand-to-hand in a bare knuckle cage fighting match against men, and you believe they are going to do just as well because they put on boxing gloves and workout at their local gym, then you will probably buy into this writer???s argument. If you believe that our forces should be trained and equipped to fight so that they might have the chance of achieving their mission and coming home alive, then you will recognize this argument for what it is- an attempt for a feminist who has never spent any time in the infantry trying to convince you that an infantry that is 50% male/female would be equally effective as an infantry that is all male. In her next article, she will explain why the fact that there are no women on NFL teams is actually a sign of baseless gender discrimination.
Posted By: lasso31 @ 11/03/2007 9:30:03 PM

Comment: Why does a feminist writer with no understanding of what ground combat entails want women in ground combat roles? It has nothing to do with ensuring the best tactical performance of our military - that which ensures mission success with the least cost to us in terms of lives and casualties. It has everything to do with a quest for power and status for women. These feminists do not understand that the word "service" is used to describe life in the military because one subordinates his/her needs to the needs of the service and the nation- not vice versa. Her argument that women should be allowed into ground combat so that they can advance their careers should be irrelevant. Sadly, for those like this writer who have no understanding of what mission success or failure can mean, achieving power and status is a higher goal than preserving the lives of those who serve.

Examples that use the actions like the female Sergeant who won the Silver Star are misleading. Her actions were absolutely defensive, not offensive like the writer states. Women not only lack the requisite strength to perform in ground combat, they also lack something that cannot be trained into them: testosterone and the aggression that comes with it. The mission of the infantryMAN is to locate, CLOSE WITH, and DESTROY the enemy. When you see women volunteering to compete in cage fighting matches, and competing and winning in those matches against men, then you can argue that women belong in the infantry. Information about women performing well for 27 minutes in a firefight, and driving vehicles in a region with roadside bombs is completely irrelevant to doing the job of an infantryman - just ask the Marines carrying hundred pound loads of equipment in Fallujah and fighting hand to hand. They came to the fight prepared with what they needed: strength, training, and pure AGGRESSION. They did it for weeks and months on end- not 27 minutes. That's how they got the job done with minimal loss of life.

Feminists are willing to set up a system that will, at some inevitable point in the future, require drafting 18 year old girls to fight as infantrymen. If you are willing to see those same girls go hand-to-hand in a bare knuckle cage fighting match against men, and you believe they are going to do just as well because they put on boxing gloves and workout at their local gym, then you will probably buy into this writer???s argument. If you believe that our forces should be trained and equipped to fight so that they might have the chance of achieving their mission and coming home alive, then you will recognize this argument for what it is- an attempt for a feminist who has never spent any time in the infantry trying to convince you that an infantry that is 50% male/female would be equally effective as an infantry that is all male. In her next article, she will explain why the fact that there are no women on NFL teams is actually a sign of baseless gender discrimination.
- Posted By: saawariya @ 11/05/2007 10:19:43 AM
  
  Comment: "they also lack something that cannot be trained into them: testosterone and the aggression that comes with it. "
  
  what a stupid comment. women have plenty of agression within them, with the desire to destory the enemy and fight on the "offensive" as well. They're just never given the opportunity to act on it. And as this article proves, the military doesn't doesn't provide women an outlet as well.
  - Posted By: lasso31 @ 11/05/2007 9:57:24 PM
    
    Comment: Women have plenty of opportunities to show that they are as physically aggressive as men, but they aren't, so they don't. If women were, they would be signing up for their school football teams, and fighting UFC matches. Just because far less than 1% of women are masculinized enough to do these things, an entire system cannot be changed to accommodate them.
    What women who argue for this do not understand is that changing the system to allow women to volunteer now, means that at some point in the future when a draft is required (this country will not go until the end of time without fighting a war that requires a draft), there cannot be a double standard that compels men to serve in ground combat, but allows women to volunteer if they feel that they are up to it. All women would be compelled to serve in the infantry, including the petite ones who cannot handle the demands. So what we would get as a result is a non-functioning and ultimately losing force.
    These women are obsessed with the idealogical notion that women should do everything that men do even if it is harmful to all involved. These women tend to be rigid and inflexible in their thinking and are not able to deal with situations that are exceptions to their ideological rule that men and women should be exactly equal in practice, even if in reality men are physically stronger. They are so blinded by what they have been presumably told all their lives, which is that women should fight to do everything that men do (e.g. fight in the infantry), despite the fact that they are not as strong or aggressive. They believe that the functioning of the military should be bent to accommodate the mythical woman who is the exception to the rule despite the negative consequences. Rarely will you find women who have gone through female military training attempting to make this argument. They experienced the double standard in physical requirements, and know that most women have difficultly with the lesser demands that are placed upon them. They also are familiar enough to know that technology has not come anywhere close to reducing the physical demands of ground combat, as feminists who have no military experience like to argue. As I said before, this about feminist desire to gain power and status, not about trying to help the military accomplish its mission with minimal loss of life- something about which these feminists have neither knowledge, nor interest.
Posted By: jojoc10 @ 11/03/2007 8:19:43 PM

Comment: I fail to understand why people are trying to turn this into a debate all of a sudden? There is no debate. Women fight right alongside men in all parts of the world everday. It seems like political mumbo-jumbo to even bring it up. What's even more foolish is the quote from Maj Kathleen Meilahn in which she is on record saying "I can get shot at but I can't shoot back?" Of course she can't, She's a cargo pilot. If she wanted to drop bombs she could have flown bombers of fighters, even helos, she is given that opportunity as soon as she gets her pilot slot. She either made the choice or she was given the heavy track because of her performace in undergraduate pilot training. The quote misrepresents the overall picture and makes the reader believe that the Air Force is not allowing her to shoot back. The C-130 (unless it's a gunship) doesn't have any defensive countermeasures.

Overall this is a decent piece by Ms Quindlen, however, before she goes and gets quotes I think it would behoove her and lend her more legitimacy if she understood the general context and the jobs of the people she is questioning for the article.
- Posted By: flygirlRWFW @ 10/17/2008 2:09:37 PM
  
  Comment: For the record. Major Meilahn spent the first 14 years in the Army, joined up during the Cold War, and was already flying helos before women were ALLOWED to fly C-130s, fighters, or attack aircraft. She spent the rest of her career in the Air Force. Know how I know? Because I AM Major Meilahn. I left active duty because the Army offered me the chance to fly the Apache, an attack aircraft, but I had to go to Division Maintenance and spend my time, not shooting missiles, but flying test flights. That is a career ender. So, indeed it was true, I used to say "I can get shot at but I can't shoot back?" If I had accepted that compromise, the Army could have counted me as yet another success - they would have told the world about how they had increased their numbers of female attack pilots. Problem is, we were all side-lined.

Top Story

Latest News

Not Semi-Soldiers

Discuss

Posted By: elac17 @ 06/17/2008 6:02:18 AM

Posted By: andreabhopkins @ 12/17/2007 9:39:38 PM

Posted By: andreabhopkins @ 12/17/2007 9:34:08 PM

Posted By: magnum102205 @ 11/26/2007 7:19:23 AM

Posted By: Mike775954 @ 11/14/2007 10:19:14 AM

Posted By: saawariya @ 11/06/2007 2:13:48 PM

Posted By: lasso31 @ 11/09/2007 12:50:11 AM

Posted By: WiseguySoldier @ 11/06/2007 5:50:26 PM

Posted By: WiseguySoldier @ 11/06/2007 5:39:29 PM

Posted By: An American in Texas @ 11/07/2007 2:26:33 AM

Posted By: saawariya @ 11/06/2007 8:48:21 AM

Posted By: WiseguySoldier @ 11/06/2007 12:11:41 PM

Posted By: lasso31 @ 11/05/2007 10:03:09 PM

Posted By: MAureen Cronin @ 11/05/2007 11:32:39 AM

Posted By: saawariya @ 11/05/2007 10:14:00 AM

Posted By: WiseguySoldier @ 11/05/2007 8:31:16 PM

Posted By: WiseguySoldier @ 11/05/2007 1:31:42 PM

Posted By: Sook @ 11/07/2007 4:28:00 PM

Posted By: Sook @ 11/07/2007 4:27:38 PM

Posted By: Sook @ 11/07/2007 4:16:27 PM

Posted By: saawariya @ 11/06/2007 8:36:08 AM

Posted By: WiseguySoldier @ 11/06/2007 12:05:49 PM

Posted By: WiseguySoldier @ 11/05/2007 1:29:08 PM

Posted By: k.haru@yahoo.com @ 11/05/2007 2:01:23 AM

Posted By: WiseguySoldier @ 11/05/2007 8:43:19 AM

Posted By: WiseguySoldier @ 11/04/2007 9:29:16 PM

Posted By: WiseguySoldier @ 11/04/2007 9:28:13 PM

Posted By: lasso31 @ 11/03/2007 9:30:38 PM

Posted By: lasso31 @ 11/03/2007 9:30:03 PM

Posted By: saawariya @ 11/05/2007 10:19:43 AM

Posted By: lasso31 @ 11/05/2007 9:57:24 PM

Posted By: jojoc10 @ 11/03/2007 8:19:43 PM

Posted By: flygirlRWFW @ 10/17/2008 2:09:37 PM

Reply

Report Abuse

STRATEGIES

The Paper Chasers

NATIONAL SECURITY

The General's Marching Orders

Subscribe Now

Partners