Not Semi-Soldiers

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.

PS the ? marks are supposed to be periods for emphasis not as questioning.

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.

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!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.