Women do not belong in the infantry.

(That’s the title from The Soldiers Load. I’ll let you guys debate it and -for now- keep my opinion to myself.)

Note, keep it clean. This isn’t about women in the military, just the infantry. This is one argument against. Feel free to post links or write cogent responses for.

[Excerpt] “Women do not belong in the infantry. But they do belong in the military. We cannot simultaneously honor their service and dishonor the vast majority of men and women who serve in combat support roles by inferring that non-infantry service is less valued than that of the infantry.”

Here’s something from the start of the full article.

“…in the bosom of modern democracy and in the heart of its most disciplined warrior elite, the prohibition against employing women in the infantry appears about to change. The Marine Corps announced recently that it plans to send women to the brutal, 11-week Infantry Officer Course in Quantico, Virginia. Simultaneously, the Corps plans to enroll women into the enlisted infantry schools at Camp Lejeune and Camp Pendleton. [And of course there is the announcement that females might be allowed into Ranger school.]

Frankly, I am astonished.

If the enrollment of women into previously all-male infantry schools is designed as an experiment, with the results to be examined and the suitability of women for combat arms assignments then debated, determined, and declared, I could save the Marine Corps significant expense and ferocious opposition by predicting the inevitable result. They will find that women are different from men and those differences severely prejudice the value of women to the infantry.

Wait. Women and men are different? Can’t we just gender-norm the infantry standards, modify the equipment, and make the barracks coed? Don’t women deserve the same opportunity that men have to fight and die for their country?

The answer is no. Let me explain…”

Read the article in its entirety on The Soldiers Load

113 Comments on "Women do not belong in the infantry."

  1. MarineSGT | May 24, 2012 at 1:47 pm |

    The frustrating thing is that even if the "experiments" are a total disaster, it will be published as a great success because whatever officer that is in charge of the program will put his career over the lives of Marines/soldiers. I am sick of politicians using the military as a giant social experiment. Males are different than females. Period. Are there maybe a few females that would be able to do the job? Possibly. I personally have not met one who I would choose to be in my squad. I'm 210 BEFORE flak, kevlar, rounds, water etc. If I get shot and it's up to a female to drag me to safety, well, I've got a letter to my wife in my left breast pocket. Make sure she gets it.

  2. As a Cav Scout, I routinely rucked 70-100lbs of gear, armor, etc. With all that on, I weighed 300lbs. In two tours in Iraq, I've have to carry many people up to 300+ pounds. Sorry, but I have yet to meet the woman who can slug me over her shoulder and run me down to the medic.

    I do believe woman have a place in the military and, during limited combat operations in Iraq with Female Engagement Teams, the women were worth their weight in gold. Unfortunately, that would not have worked routinely with a 70lb ruck on a 10 mile walk to the objective.

  3. mpower6428 | May 24, 2012 at 2:12 pm |

    it is a rare woman indeed who can do everything a male grunt can do but, they are out there and they're coming. if an "individual" can do the job without reduced expectations then they have every right to serve.

    thats just where i come out.

  4. Snakebymistake | May 24, 2012 at 2:27 pm |

    Better send the gunner back for a refresher course since he missed and had to call in the Brown Shoes to finish the job.

  5. Randy Eberling | May 24, 2012 at 2:27 pm |

    I was an infantary squad leader in Vietnam and for what it's worth I say NO!

  6. Randy Eberling | May 24, 2012 at 2:29 pm |

    I was an Infantary squad leader in Vietnam and for whats it's worth I say NO!

  7. The bottom line is that dealing with women is just a pain in the *** under the best of circumstances. Do we really want to have to deal with their issues in combat?

  8. Not to mention the huge psychological threshhold differences between men and women and the other things, but their might be a few real life GI Janes out there that can hoof it like any guy can.

  9. Bad Idea all the way around. Not built to do the job, unfortunately its a BS political move that will be as someone said earlier a huge success…….ridiculous.

  10. Some women can carry the loads, do the hardship but not separate but equal. Being on a patrol in Iraq or short missions outside the wire in Afghanistan does not mean you can hump a hundred pound load excluding vest/weapons, live like a rat in a poncho, don't wash or change clothes, don't have any privacy at all. In ranger school the whole unit will strip down, wash and change clothes without any thought of running behind a bush for coverage! You can't take a butane powered curling iron on a field ops like I had one female do. A few days of living out of a vehicle with some privacy is ok but real grunt work is dirty and crowded. I don't think our women can tolerate that aspect. In the mech infantry changing pads means track pads not tampons!!

  11. Christina | May 24, 2012 at 4:18 pm |

    Hi, i am a women and i agree with you. i believe that the standards should change before women are allowed to join. Pt should be the same if not harder. But for many men here i find your comments distasteful… not wanting to deal with us… There are many men and women who should not be in the military but to single one out through discrimination is cruel. Men can be just the same as women there are better and worse for both sexes.

    Change the military so **** cannot be viewed on the navy ships big screen and men can change some of their views on women.

    Also while in iraq my husband had the misfortune to come in contact with the commander of my base kalsu. He brought muslim women to have *** with on the base… therefor completely compromising our saftey for his pleasure.

    Please do not be biased when there are soo many things that need to change already. I believe the pt test should be raised dramatically…. i will be joining soon and i should not be able to pass the test by simply working out for less the 2 weeks. This is absolutely pathetic. And i am so ashamed by those men and women who cannot work out to their fullest to show everyone that the army or navy or airforce is more then …"ohh its the women that bring us down"..

  12. What fools want to make warfighting fair?

  13. Patrick Bloom | May 24, 2012 at 4:31 pm |

    I am a retired Infantry PLT SGT. (20 years active) I do not see a problem with females serving in the Infantry,…except..because of biological things that happen to females every month, the lack of a sterle environment for those needs, special treatment because of emotional difficulties( double standards), and the male infantryman always wanting to protect the female ( way they were brought up). Other than those issues, if the female can meet the current standards, without special assistance, bring it on. I have seen some females that could carry a 300 lb. wounded soldier, carry a 70-100 lb. ruck for a 10 mile hump, and dig a fighting position to defend. Probably better than some males. If they can meet the standards, follow me. If not, move on. Infantry!

  14. Women are allowed into the US Army's Sapper school I believe I saw on "Surviving the Cut". But that doesn't mean they will be in a position to utilize the skill. Is this the same effect with allowing women to attend infantry courses? Have they said they would allow women to lead combat units? Or be enlisted for the infantry? I do understand this is just one domino to all that.

    I think it's a moot point. This is a case of squeaky wheels getting the grease. I say open up the flood gates and let everyone try to do whatever they want. It's a small percentage that even want to and even less that can pass muster.

  15. The menstrual cycle really poses no issues at all. There's ways of dealing with your period that are more comfortable and cleaner than others. Also, women can safely skip their periods for six months to a year by taking normal birth control pills straight through their cycles. There's a few other versions of chemical birth control which have the same effect. Most women who participated in the initial invasion of Iraq endured the same sanitary conditions as did the men. Most women on Active Duty in the Army and Marines (and other active women like EMTs and athletes) don't even skip a beat when their periods come. In fact, we may run faster during, since estrogen's at its lowest level of the month.

    Debilitating cramps should not be an issue as that is SUPPOSED to be disqualifier for military service – I think MEPs and recruiters are squeamish about asking, and TRADOC commands are reluctant to boot recruits with those issues, but they need to get over it. Women I served with had that issue were almost as frustrating to me as women who chose to get pregnant and become non-deployable. Both issues are a severe drag on a unit and need to be dealt with with better policy.

  16. Let's cut to the core. Every last alpha male can kick scream and whine about how women can't physically do there job (sorry but I know a lot of females that can smoke most infantry and Special Forces soldiers and day of the week).

    We as the military are an instrument of foreign policy. That policy is political in nature and the civilians elected to office are not only political but a fair idea of what society is at that moment. Society wants female in front line combat. If society is will to accept lots females coming home in body bags (they've gotten use to it from Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 10 years) then they'll push for females on the front lines. Again this goes back to my point. You can whine, cry and scream but at the end of the day it is going to happen, period. The ONLY argument we have that is valid is one of standards. Set a standard for combat arms that is gender neutral (flip the tables so to speak on those who push for females into combat arms) and stick to the standard. If a female passes then what do you as the Alpha male to have to cry about other than maybe releasing you're not a big of a bad *** as you pretend to be.

    As for those also crying about girls getting their period that's an easy fix, birth control pill taking every day with the hormones that actively prevent the menstrual cycle from happening at all.

    Again my point every last male here can bring up some point, all of them are moot. The only option you have that hold any water are standards that are change to be gender neutral thus allowing to control only those who meet the standard to get into combat arms (male and female). If you're just anti-female, grow up or get out the military reflects society and society has moved on.

  17. MarineSGT | May 24, 2012 at 7:51 pm |

    John Doe,
    It's easy to say that when it's not your butt on the line. It's not just the physical aspect, it's mostly the good order and discipline aspect. IF it were to work, then it would have to be gender segregated. I'm telling you from experience, as most everyone else here who has served, that it is a bad idea. You don't have to preach to us that our job is to obey orders. Trust us, we know. Even if society has "moved on", you need to understand that we live in a completely different world than normal citizens. Once again, we do a **** of a job completing the mission no matter how difficult, but when asking for an honest opinion, I can honestly say that this would be a huge mistake. We are the best in the world at what we do. Why try to mess with that?

  18. The KSK accepts female applicants, although none have made the cut.

  19. JTMedic83 | May 24, 2012 at 8:06 pm |

    I think @Patrick hit the nail on the head with something everyone refuses to acknowledge. Ok so you've found that perfect candidate, that female that can jump what ever loa you give her for however long you ask. She meets and exceeds the same standards makes have…

    But can the males handle it? And I don't mean keeping the sexual tension down, I'm talking about will they be able to keep the mission, goals, and priorities in order? Or will they instinctively "watchout" for the female?

    Is this something we're willing to risk? For what?

  20. I'm still not sure what to think, but all this concern of menstruation (by men no less) reminds me of the story my wife told me of her not being able to play sports because her (male) coaches said they might "damage" her reproductive organs.

    While women might be admitted to such schools, it doesn't say they will pass them. If most men can't make the cut Ranger school, most women won't either. Place the emphasis on the standards and make them inviolate.

    As for not keeping their hands to themselves, then the standard should be that no *** between anybody is permitted and that the punishment for violating that should be more severe. My experience is that hormone-addled people in their teens and 20's exercise poor self-control, whatever restrictions you place on them will be circumvented by nature's second most powerful instinct.

  21. I agree with most who agree with this. Women can defend themselves and fight but that shouldn't make them for infantry fact is it make thing harder for male solders and living in tight corridors and in horrible combat conditions can lead to many legal problems too. Overall some area of the service should be one *** and other are ok coed overall enough experimenting to get lesbians and feminist happy for votes by liberal congressmen and senators.

  22. Dave, you're a brave man to raise the subject. The essay was wery well written (as a combat infantryman/former Academy Tac I can wholeheartedly agree and can provide other examples) the problem I fear is he doesn’t understand the agenda of the activists. Facts, the mission and the good of the unit/service or country are all minor in comparison to the goal whatever the impact. What’s is almost as bad is that many of the servicewomen that want to pursue the opportunity don’t want to be Infantry to be Infantry but to be more competitive for rank which is not what “service” is about. Finally, the worst aspect of this is I have very little confidence that flag rank officers will do the right thing. We’ll see if the standards are gender normed or standards remain where they are and the chips fall where they may.

    BTW, folks interested in well documented and reasoned book about why women shouldn't be in combat should pick up Kingsley Browne’s excellent book “Co-Ed Combat”. It's a wonder he's not on the talk shows. Well actually, there are plenty of reasons he's not.

  23. xxMadRocKxx | May 25, 2012 at 12:54 am |

    Black men do not belong in the infantry,
    Gay men do not belong in the infantry,
    Women do not belong in the infantry.
    Men who think that should not be in the millitary at all.

  24. Majrod, could'nt agree more. The woman who passed the Royal Marines All Arms Commando course did so after 7 attempts (two fails for a Man is RTU time) and only after senior officers, said she WOULD pass and changed the criteria. She did not however go on to serve in the RM.

  25. Madrock. You win the prize for the most spurious argument on the forum. Well done.

  26. I am a Blackman and I served eight years in the Heavy Mechanized Infantry. People who think like madrock are destroying the military and this nation. I don't agree with gays and women in the Infantry, as a straight blackman who served this country I am proud to be an American and I will fight to defend it. My family has served in all the wars and conflicts in this country.

  27. LookingAhead | May 25, 2012 at 5:02 am |

    I read a short story once set in a future where the ENTIRE military was female. They had figured out how to tap into the Maternal Instinct and turn it on at will… Personally, I've always been more wary of the female members of the wild species I've encountered (brown/black bears, moose, wolves/feral dogs). Does anyone really want to fight a woman with her maternal instinct turned up to "11"? Again, it was sci-fi, but so was caseless ammo and laser technology, once. I don't think it'll be too long before we see chemical "enhancements" employed for our service personnel on a wide scale; will we eventually see an enhancement that taps into the physical attributes women already possess?
    I have no opinion either way, just a thought.

  28. Why not create an all female infantry unit and put them to the test next time theres a conflict. Using well established military establishments as a social (touchy, feel good,isn't this nice) experiment will only cost lives.

  29. We have been through this argument before. Now I can't be the only one who knows this, but back during the Clinton Administartion, the Army tried out an all women infantry class at Ft. Benning. I was not there, but I receieved a back brief after it was over. The last woman dropped out after the second week. The Army, as I was told, deliberately made sure they had some of those "Other women" read lesbians in the group. This had to have been right after Clinton was inaugurated which would mean mid 1990s. This whole situation is a result of, or caused by the lack of frank and honest discussion of this case and why we and all other nations who are not desperate, use only males to fight violent combat.

  30. So much for being able to shoot, move and communicate. All for P.C. and votes. Liberals are ruining this country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  31. Gunner777 | May 25, 2012 at 6:25 am |

    In a tank, helicopter etc ok fine but not infantry! It just won't work period.

  32. If women are allowed in the infantry it should only be after setting the physical standards *exactly* equal to men. Or, rather, setting the standards the same for all people, regardless of gender. If a woman can pull the weight, then so be it.

    People have already pointed out that menstruation isn't a real problem. Same goes for all the "it'll hurt their tender wittle reproductive organ" BS. Women have handled rough labor and even combat since we came down from the trees. It's been done, and it can be done.

    The one block is the reaction of other men. Which is a pretty sad state of affairs when the guys can't freaking deal with a woman without getting wobbly kneed and distracted. Same argument was made about gays in combat, but there have been plenty of gay soldiers who've proven it wrong. Maybe it'll be proven wrong here too. Or maybe women really can't serve in the infantry, not because of their weakness, but because of men's weakness.

  33. I personally am against women in combat operations, but obviously that is just me. It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out. Ultimately I hope it doesn't cost lives in the real world.

  34. Ladies and gentlemen, this debate reminds me of our most recent "gays in the military" social media circus. The bottom line is, there have always been gays in the military and there have always been women "in combat". Those on the front lines know this and no one out there gives a damn. We work together. The Army has been combining male and females for Military Police training, living, working for YEARS. It starts on day one of basic training. MP's are regularly some of the first in and last out in combat zones. They are constantly placed on distant outposts, COB's, FOB's, and sent to the field for lengthy training ops and missions. And you know how we do it? TOGETHER. It's not even something we think about. We're all Soldiers. We live in tents, buildings, trucks, whatever… TOGETHER. We hang up a poncho liner if we need privacy to change. We squat behind the truck and tell the dudes to "not look" when no restrooms are available. We shower when and how we can with what is available. We buy our "personal products" ahead of time and pack them into our field gear. We take Midol when we get cramps. We keep our mouth shut about "girl issues", we carry our weight, we do what every other MP does and we accomplish the mission. We go on walking patrols w the infantry, we live and train and shoot and work out, with the rest of the SOLDIERS. I'm do sick and tired of hearing about the "differences" between males and females and how it will never work. Some of us have been doing it for years. If the girls can't hack it, they'll wash out. Just like the guys who can't hack it. Let anyone who thinks they can handle it give it a shot. If they earn it, it's theirs.

  35. Gary Braden | May 25, 2012 at 7:24 am |

    I was asked my thoughts on women in combat when I was giving testimony to a congressional committee. In many ways, my thoughts now are the same as they were 30 years ago. It is not a question that some women have the capability to perform under strenuous situations. My comment back then was it is easy to tell the difference between a man and a women double timing or running. If I was a "shooter" with a mission to slow down/decimate a small unit I would wait until the female member was 20-30ft from cover and shoot her in the stomach. A very painful wound. I would then be able to shoot a number of additional members of the unit as they would continually try to rescue her. That is simply the way we were brought up. Having said that in today's modern battle field there is no front or rear so everyone is at risk. Anyone dying in combat is bad enough but don't think America is ready for a significant increase in women coming home in body bags.

  36. Allowing women in the infantry just ruins all the good insults that NCO's use on underperforming or whining grunts. You ask the sarcastic question: Do you need a ****** you ****. Now they say, why yes, yes I do.

    Just ruins it.

  37. Since I have not done extensive research, personally witnessed women in combat, interviewed combat women and men, nor have published articles regarding the issue, I will link to someone who has.

    The Amazon's Right Breast http://www.baen.com/amazonsrightbreast.asp

  38. leftoftheboom | May 25, 2012 at 9:08 am |

    When was the last time Congress or the Government was concerned with winning a war? The military has been used as an instrument of social change since the revolutionary war. People who give their rights to self-determination away in the name of a belief or a cause are always more biddable then the public who owes loyalty to no one but themselves. So the military will continue to be the instrument that elected officials use to get whatever voting demographic they are currently weak in on their side. Soldiers don’t count because you do not have freedom of speech, you cannot formally protest, and they can order you to shut up and drive on.
    The issue is about voting blocks, getting their names in the papers, and glitz and glam. The first female to graduate from any infantry course will be made famous and allowed to perform however abysmally they chose and they will be considered a success because the authors of change will not accept a failure. Who knows, she might be the next Iron Michelle. I have known some outstanding female leaders just like I have known the failures. I don’t say they would all make it in the infantry but then most would not try. I know that light infantry grunts tend to stay in the woods training. Trust me, the weak of heart won’t be trying out for this. The Posers will but the can be weeded out too.
    It is not about physical limitations; those can be waived or changed. Truthfully the physical is the only argument that matters though it is a valid argument. We could solve it by a pushup competition or a ruck march. There will be no such competition or evaluation. Once the door is opened it will not be closed until the numbers of pregnant infantrypersons is a mission critical issue and even then they will transfer enough people around to make the numbers lie. (Would you like to know the real strength of your unit?)
    True potential? Women who apply should demand that the standards remain the same and not accept excuses from themselves or any other females. Let the women police the standards and you will find them much more effective and even brutal than the males. If the standards drop then all previous infantry can always say they are the “true infantry” but face it, standards change all the time anyway.
    Regardless of regulation, each commander has changes to policy and standards that are criticized. We learn to deal with it. So get over yourselves. Ensure that standards are maintained. And be proud that women want to be all they can be. (hehe, I liked the old slogan.)

  39. Women are not to blame for the standards being lowered – the men in charge are.
    I personally train by the men's standards in the Army Ranger PFT. I am female. I can max out situps currently and am working on all the other requirements. The problem is women need to train AND HARD. HARD AS THEY CAN AND BE DETERMINED. If you read up the center for military (can't remember the rest) claimed that there were SOME WOMEN who performed just as well and some who exceeded men's performance in combat training at a man's level, but they "have to go by the majority – not the exception." So as long as people are making massive generalizations, let me bring in the POGS who barely workout at all or perform well in the military. The fat women AND MEN who walk around the Army bases.

    Every single MOS needs to have the same physical fitness standards. WE'RE REPRESENTING THE U.S. MILITARY –



  40. I'm also here to say I'm glad my husband ex-combat infantryman who quit the Army and was offered to be in the Rangers & Specops backs me 100% in my training and is helping me kick my own butt and get into shape. I don't want to join the military, BUT I know there are those who do and are determined. I hope for their sake someone makes an exception. Just don't cheat them out of a job well done.

  41. Utter bull ****. Another case of "politically correct", fairness being enforced on the military (similar to flirting with the idea of forced diversification of special operations personnel).

    I dont have a problem with females in the military. I have a problem with females in combat MOS's simply because there are physical differences and infantry units should not lower their standards to accomodate diversity. In fact, if anything, infantry units have lowered their standards far enough in the past decade. I believe women in a Infantry SCHOOL is not a bad idea, especially for officer types, though the standards should remain the same.

    Im sure there are females that can hack it, just like there are women that have served alongside the Marine infantry. That being said, the primary issue is sanitation and hygiene. Combining 18-20 year old kids of the opposite *** is a recipie for utter disaster for discipline, morale, and good order. I havent encountered a female that i had confidence in that could drag me to cover with both of us wearing full kit, while my guts are shot out, that could treat me and bring me home to my family. I havent seen one. Id like to think one at least exists.

  42. Carla, you are absolutely correct. It is a case of blaming the "victim". It wasn't the woman's fault that the army needed manpower and started accepting felons with a waiver, or people with abysmal AFQT scores (though i have seen exceptions as well to this). yes, god forbid you break a sweat :D

  43. leftoftheboom | May 25, 2012 at 9:42 am |

    Everyone has the argument that a woman could not drag them to cover. Well there are a few guys in the infantry that cannot do it either.

    Ask yourselves a better question. Don't ask if she can drag you to cover.

    Ask if she is willing to stay with you and die defending you because she will not leave you to die just because she cannot move you.

    I have known women just like that.

  44. Majrod, Im with you. In my 20+ yrs (half of it light, airborne infantry), i have never seen or heard of one.

    Dont mistake my position for sexism folks. My wife, a triathalon runner and crossfit junkie, would probably beat me senseless. But my point is that, on the battlefield, wearing full gear with my guts or pelvis shot out, a female medic would have been a death sentence.

  45. HANK HILL | May 25, 2012 at 9:51 am |


  46. Right on. DADT and women in the combat arms are civil rights issues in exactly the same way as integration was in the 50s. People said many of the same things about unit cohesion, political agendas, and lowering of standards then as they are now, and today no one questions that black men have every bit the same right as the rest of us to serve and die for their country. At the end of the day, we have the most professional armed services in the world, and when it comes time to fight and die on the battlefield, those professional men *and women* will fight alongside each other without regard for the gender or background of their comrades. I think it is important that any gender integration be accompanied by identical or raised standards, and if the decision is made to lower them, *that* will be a damn shame and an affront to the strength of our infantry. Lowering standards should not be confused with allowing women in though. One is foolish and dangerous, the other is a necessity for us to fulfill our promise as a free society.

    Integration of the military in the 50s was a major step forward for blacks in gaining equality in other aspects of life. In the same way, giving women the right to serve and die the same as men will strengthen their bid for equality in the larger sphere of public life, and that is worth the growing pains that breaking through intolerance will cause.

  47. Agreed Carla the standards should be the same regardless of MOS, active duty, reserves, guard etc. If a male or female can't do it then other measures need to be taken to get them up to speed.
    No changing the rules to be politically correct. That is a disaster waiting to happen for the females and males. That type of thinking is not doing anyone any favors!

  48. BS flag! No offense against the MPs but they aren’t infantry. MP’s don’t doctrinally go trolling for the enemy. They conduct SECURITY missions. They do not go out looking for the enemy and when they get into a firefight don’t pursue the enemy. They typically operate from vehicles, are subsequently more heavily armed than their Infantry brethren who CARRY all their gear on dismounted patrols which MPs don’t do away from the FOB. MPs are not deployed to combat outposts. They doctrinally don’t conduct raids, air assaults, ambushes and a whole list of other OFFENSIVE combat missions.

    MPs are great but they aren’t infantry. Sure some of the missions cross but the MP mission is NOT to make contact with the enemy. Making the case that MPs are equivalent to Infantry because they get into some scraps would be the same as saying Infantry are equivalent to MPs because they conduct searches and can read a person his rights. We both know there’s a heck of a lot more involved. Your argument is a canard.

  49. that is a incredible book.

    "Well actually, there are plenty of reasons he’s not."

    yeah its called feminism and politically correct bureaucracy. But if you defy it, you are sexist, racist, anti-sematic etc etc, ad nauseum. a social outcast.

  50. Retired marine | May 25, 2012 at 10:52 am |

    I say yes, allow them to go to combat but on certain conditions only, make all the women sleep in a dorm together and once a month when they are all on there period, "womens dorm mentrual syndrom" put them out on the front lines, they will slaughter the enemy but beware not to put any friendlies nearby because they will slaughter them as well in ther psycho frame of mind..

  51. This is not going down well in the Corps, especially in the grunt community. The Marine Corps is infantry centric, and thus this is a perfect example of why only infantry officers, or at least combat arms MOS should hold the Commandant billet. I'm not a grunt snob, but, there is some validity that perhaps someone from the Wing doesn't quite understand what it entails to be outside the wire on the ground.

  52. Bronco 13 | May 25, 2012 at 11:25 am |

    I was not in the Army but I did spend a number of years supporting the infantry and rangers as a ground forward air controller and later as an air forward air controller. From my experience there is not a place in the infantry for women on a number of levels:
    1) If you eliminate the exclusion then you must require all women of draft age to register. Just because some women want to serve in the infantry do we really want ALL women to do so?
    2) The difference in emotional thresholds between men and women has already been mentioned.
    3) In order to accommodate being able to go to war at full combat strength units will need to over-man in strength to offset the women who are pregnant or nursing and are not deployable. This is a large cost factor. The alternative is to go to war at less then optimum strength.
    4) A society can survive losing half its young males but cannot survive if it loses half of its child bearing women.
    5) In the field there are no sanitary facilities. Is it a good idea to place young men and women (17-25 yrs old) in the situation where they must go to the bathroom together? Hormones do play a large part at that age group.
    6) The difference in physical strength has already been mentioned.

    This is another "good idea" being foisted on the military for the cause of political correctness! Just because some women want to is no excuse to force it on the military.

  53. – They will find that women are different from men and those differences severely prejudice the value of women to the infantry.

    The army has tried these things many times with the same result as stated above. However just as coed Basic was tried several times and failed miserably the results were thrown out because they were not the results the PC crowd wanted to see. Airborne and Air Assault traing was greatly dumbed down so that women could pass the course. As a result male soldiers lives are endangered because of poor quality training.

  54. Infantry standards are just that – INFANTRY. Not male, not female, not gay, not black. Maintain the standard and see what happens. I'll bet money a lot of infantry females die in the next conflict (if they make it that far). If females want to be close to the front, there are jobs that will get them their – Civil Affairs, MP, and EOD come to mind.

  55. MarineSGT | May 25, 2012 at 12:50 pm |

    Reading all these comments, it is clear as night to day who has actually served and has a clue. If this passes, batallions SARC, UVA and EO reps are going to be busy.

  56. charles williams | May 25, 2012 at 12:52 pm |

    i'm all for fairness, but do we really need to do this in the middle of a war? women have different issues they need to deal with on a regular basis (menstrual cycles, psychological issues, lack of body mass or the ability to build it). integrating women into the infantry, however fair, is just stupid. also, i'm not in the military but i've met several infantry guys, the way they act around eachother is less than polite, you want proof ladies then watch some youtube videos. i haven't met any women that would put up with that ****. lastly, if women are integrated into the infantry the attrition rate for the training schools is going to sky rocket, wasting government money and resources. bottom line, get real, there are things that only women should do, and there are things that only men should do and this is one of them. -ChuckD out

  57. Make it simple, one standard for everyone… don't dumb it down.

    If they can do the job to the same level as the others let them. Don't baby them, don't give them extras or special treatment…

    And this goes for race, gender, sexuality, religion. Don't bring personnel bias into determining whether someone is a good soldier.

  58. Dale Swanson | May 25, 2012 at 3:30 pm |

    Like I said a moment ago, the heck with it, let 'em in. But let 'em in all the way. Lets have 100% female infantry companies, tank and artillery units. How about a 100% heavy weapons company. Come one ladies, grab those 100 lb + packs, ammo cans, artillery rounds, motor plates, M2s with mounts, etc and lets go. We'll see you 10,000 feet up in the good air when you get there.

    100% female units compared directly with male units in our toughest jobs. If it works, that'll put an end to the argument and shut us all up for once and for all. If not, well….

  59. Former 0311 | May 25, 2012 at 5:23 pm |

    Everybody is missing what this is really about and it's not about adding capabilities. This is entirely about the careers of a select few. Mission is secondary here it's entirely about how the individual can get theirs. That is absolutely pathetic.

    As a former 0311(2001-2005) I've seen that non standards female marines already have. That exact same ******** will end up in infantry unit and degrade effectiveness, capabilities, and result in the deaths of other Marines. Female Marines don't have standards already. They literally are golden and I never saw any carrying their own weight. That means an MOS which is already under manned at all times males will have to pick up the slack on top of their own duties.

    This is pathetic. Military service isn't a right and the battlefield cares nothing about your wants of equal opportunity. You either win or you lose, there is no 2nd place. Here we are though foolishly going down the road of lower standards to up hold some fantasy idea that combat is fair. Screw everyone else as well just as long as you can get yours to further our own career.

  60. UH, sorry P.C. dumba–es, as a drill sgt in the mid 80's who had both male and female trainees (woops) had to call them soldiers even though they had'nt earned the title. There is a diff and there is diff standards for females for a reason, if you've never been there, you should focus elsewhere. If you are in the C.O.C you should think of a career change or be freed up for future opportunities, cause as soldiers and leaders you suck. They don't make em like they use to!

  61. There shouldn't be different standards. There should be one standard, male, female, gay, straight, black or white. If you can hack it, pull your weight and do the job, then that's it.

    Most women won't meet those standards. A lot of men won't either. That's how it should be. If you're too weak or otherwise incapable, then you shouldn't be doing the job.

    But, if a woman does meet those standards, and the only argument left is that other men would do their job poorly for her presence, then they are the problem. They're the ones too weak to do their job. Maybe, given the likely gender proportion of units, it would make more practical sense to keep her out then kick all of those guys out, but it should be acknowledged then that she isn't the weak one.

  62. Don Mohler | May 25, 2012 at 7:56 pm |

    Awesome family history as well.

  63. Welcome to the social experiment. Well experiment isn't quite the correct term, since there is a predetermined outcome. It doesn't matter what billet the Commandant of the Marines came from anymore then where Chiefs of any of the other services. Look at the CNO, a sub guy. No submarine man in his right mind would think women in submarines was a good idea. So here the rub, the Commander and Chief tells his Defense Secretary what he wants. More than likely to make some useless Senator happy. The Defense Secretary tells the appropriate service secretary and I guess we are all familiar with of the rest of what runs down the hill. When it reaches the head of say the Sub or Ranger schools they get the heaping plate. They will get to scour there services for the best women officer candidates they can find. Then we run them through and even if it didn't quite work out, we will call it a victory for equality, or replace the school heads after trashing the rest of their careers hoping the next set get the big picture. With this "victory", I kind of think of it like the movie Taps when they decide to just leave and say they won, we will do the really stupid thing of saying well it "worked" with officers let us open things up to the enlisted women also.
    Like some said we all know that one female who can kick the crap out of most of the guys. The reality is they are the exception. Pick two companies randomly at boot camp that are graduating, one male one female. Test them both equally. Pull ups, sit ups, the same type pushups, run and what do you think the results would be. A women posed a question to the effect that if I was hanging on a cliff would I refuse the help if she was women, quick its life or death choose. Well of course no rational person is going to say no. What I will say is I would of rather have a guy. Oh I forgot, the reason there is no guy there is because some idiot in charge decided it would be a good idea to put a women in that billet, in the interest of political correctness.
    Besides a submarine I also served on an oceanographic ship with women. These women use to think they were doing the same amount of work as the guys. A loading party was sent to load a certain items onboard. The party consisted of two guys and two girls. The men took one box each, the women said one box was to heavy so they were both taking the same one. To move the 24 boxes took The party each 8 trips. The females said they did as much as the men, after all we all took 8 trips to complete the mission. They had a real hard time understanding that not only did they not do as much as the guys, the guys actually had to do more to make up for them. I pointed out if it was four men we each would of took one box so we would of been done in six trips, so in our party each guy had to take two extra trips to make up for their lack of production.
    God would I love to see a stores loading party or just watch them load TDU weights, we still got them don't we?

  64. Dan Charlseworth | May 26, 2012 at 8:04 am |

    "(sorry but I know a lot of females that can smoke most infantry and Special Forces soldiers and day of the week)."

    No you don't. You might know one woman who can beat one weak infantryman in pushups, but you don't know "a lot of females that can smoke most infantry and Special Forces…" blah blah blah. You are lying, and you are not helping your cause by lying so blatantly.

    As a few people have said here, there is the occasional woman who can beat a middle of the road infantryman at his own PT test, but there is not a woman in existence who can beat "most" of the most elite physical specimens in the history of the world. If you want to talk about physical prowess, I am just a physically middle of the road signal officer, and there is not one female at my crossfit gym who can beat me on any event. At all. These are astoundingly in shape females who compete in events, and little ond unimpressive me has not yet been beaten by a single one of them.

    You are lying.

  65. Gunner777 – You most likely are a Gentleman – that said:

    If Men were hardwired to "protect" Women our Society would be a much better place. Of course if Women were hardwired to protect themselves it would be even better.

    At one point I believe that Men in this Country were Socially Trained to protect Women. Some, if not most, who have/had the mindset to Serve may still have that mentality or not.

    Now in the Civilian World a "thug" is just as likely to Predate upon either Gender dependant upon availability.

    Either way the only Standard should be "Can She meet the same requirements that all others serving in that position must?"

    As to the "17 yo and 18 yo" mixed training/stationing – I'm smart enough not to throw my Daughter into a group of Guys to hang out in the Civi world at that age, how could it work in the stressful first year/two of training?

  66. It isn't just infantry, but all the combat arms . Can you think of the close quarters in a tank with the crew in the field for just 30 days in the dirt. Just ******* ammo to the tank, doing a barrel swab. Then add in the sexual tension, you can not just ignore that boys will be boys and girls will be girls. Dont make a social experiment of the combat arms. Boy am I glad I'm out.

  67. crackedlenses | May 26, 2012 at 12:07 pm |

    In a sci-fi context you could also envision a scenario where you would use female combatants as a counter to enemy female combatants to negate the effects a female opponent could have on a male soldier. Once, again, it's not a general license for women to fight like men, it is a specific mission…..

  68. I guess you beat me to it. I actually laughed when I read that.

  69. i belive that anything is possible threw a woman as much as threw men. i want to join the
    USMC and has alwas dreamed about it. so why can't a women have the same dream.

  70. Dale Swanson | May 28, 2012 at 11:15 am |

    You can! You can be a Marine as long as you can meet the standards. The question here is about the Combat Arms MOSs (Military Occupational Specialties) and a couple others that require above average physical ability. Not everyone can be a Marine and not every Marine is qualified for every job.

    Some jobs require higher scores for initial qualification, some require higher physical ability and some require both. You can be a Marine and maybe you can achieve anything you want, it's up to your individual ability combined with your personal discipline and determination.

  71. FET teams were awesome and fulfilled their rolls well. But they were not really combat oriented, as much as they were women's PR for the LNs. Did they get in firefights? Yes, in fact they did. But, as I remember correctly, they usually had inf. support and combat camera nearby.

  72. No, but there is a consensus amongst most here that the reduction in combat effectiveness is not worth the risk in doing this. That, and women can be a pain in the *** because women and men are wired differently.

  73. Guys fail under the loads, it takes a real tough guy to put up with all the lack of humanity in the Infantry.When really doing the grunt job, you live out of a ruck, are sleepy, hungry, dirty, beat down. You still soldier on! Carrying a ruck on the occasional road march is not the whole infantry package. Getting shot at, wounded, killed, decorated in combat is not the whole infantry package. In Iraq, you did short duration patrols, mostly mounted. Raids were quick nightly affairs. I just can't see many women champing at the bit ti sit in a muddy trench @ Bella Wood or Monte Cassino or the Frozen Chosin or Attleboro or Khe Sahn! When I was an NCO, a very senior CSM spoke to all NCOs @ Ft Benning, GA. He asked" How many women would like the option to go Infantry?" Every manicured hand went up. He then asked: " Now honestly, how many would exercise that option?" There was not ONE hand raised! This was in the 1980's.You wanna be Rangers and grunts, fine haul the load, do the deed and don't complain and whine women.

  74. That's a pretty lazy excuse honestly. Essentially you are saying 'we can't count on the military to do the right thing, so instead of holding the military accountable we will just exclude people cause it's easier.' America should be better than that.

  75. Todd Dallas | June 6, 2012 at 1:29 pm |

    Hopefully, I'll sound like I'm using objective reasoning.
    I'm supporting previous statements and have some additional arguments.
    Although women have been warriors across the world and throughout history, American culture is a huge obstacle.
    So much WILL go wrong.
    You will have 5 men competing for 1 woman in a squad of 6. This breaks unit cohesion (esprit decor). 1 or more of the males will choose to save the female over a male who is injured worse.
    Me, no. I'd let her die so that we could finish the mission. (I am a combat vet – Cavalry Scout, Bradley gunner – and fought in 8 major battles). I completely shut down all of my emotions in combat except rage/anger and exhilaration. Numb.
    If there was a woman present, I would have been distracted because I would want to have *** with her.
    In Desert Shield (the recon and logistics phase) – I had not seen a female in 7 months. I was already in Iraq doing reconnaissance and not around any form of civilization.
    I'm not alone in saying that I would want to have *** one last time before getting killed.
    In the Gulf War, Iraq War and Afghanistan, females in support units would intentionally get pregnant to be sent back to the US. Just a small percentage, but males don't have that option unless they purposely self-injure or flat out refuse (in which case they may not even get to go to jail if they are already deep in the soup). As stated before, those women took up the spot that a male could have filled.
    Females do make excellent fighter pilots (helicopter and fixed wing). They have demonstrated that they can vaporize the enemy. They fly cargo, re-fueling and intercept planes as well as being crew chiefs, but that's a completely different environment than the sand box. And ground combat is very personal. You get to see what you did to the enemy. You can smell their blood and walk on their corpses. You have to stop and pull body parts stuck between road wheels or wrapped around torsion bars. You can hear the bodies crunch and burst when you run over them. It's real.
    Women are not inferior, just physically (lower muscle density) and emotionally different. Females do not have the amount of testosterone that men have. It's the magic juice that makes men violent, stronger and mission capable. Add a female and the juice turns on us. We will use it to achieve alpha male superiority over our male squad members. Are any of the females reading this post willing to demoralize the enemy or will your greater empathy cloud your judgement?
    Are any women reading this willing to torture – psychologically or physically – an enemy combatant? Are you willing to toss perfectly good opened food into the sand or otherwise render it inedible right in front of your starving enemy? Would you run over someone who is not shooting at you because they are blocking the way as you race to support another element?
    As a woman, what are you willing to do in combat? How extreme will you go to win a battle?

  76. If you doubt that women can handle themselves Combat, then read on.

    Captain Ashley Collette, a platoon commander inn the Royal Canadian Regiment (RCR) has just received the Medal of Military Valour (MMV), Canada's third highest decoration for valour during combat. Her citaian reads as follows:

    "As a platoon commander from May to December 2010, Captain Collette demonstrated front line leadership that was critical to her soldiers' success during intense combat in Afghanistan.

    Stationed in volatile Nakhonay, her platoon regularly faced the threat posed by improvised explosive devices, all while repelling numerous attacks on their base.

    Despite suffering casualties within the group, she kept her soldiers focused and battle-ready; her desire to succeed never wavered.

    Captain Collette's fortitude under fire and performance in combat were critical to defeating the enemy and disrupting all insurgent attempts to reoccupy this key village."

    Captain Collette, I understand is the first Canadian woman to be decorated for valour in combat.

    Anything a female Canadian combat soldier can do, so can an American, or a woman from any other nation, for that matter.

    That should close the book on the discussion.

  77. Servering as an indvidual is not a right its a privlage.

  78. I would not mind a woman working with me in the infantry, if she could do everything a man could…which she can't. She can't sleep in the same quarters…special secluded.

    POW prime targets.

    Seperate quarters means lowered defense.

    Take birth control? solved one problem, bring up a chick who can have *** with whoever she selects. Bring with us a **** to war, us guys do need one afterall. Someone gets jealous. Now we have dissent among the ranks. Now she is kicked out…back to square one, no females.

    Having a female is not only a risk to just the female due to the higher possibility of rape, being that she is around guys who haven't been around girls for months on end. Now we are talking about strong capable men, in a group…. with one chick… good luck.. at least have the female sign something upon coming in saying "yes i will more than likely be taken advantage of".

    She wants out of the unit… back to square one with no female in the unit. She goes into another infantry unit.. rinse and repeat.

    Now keep your mind on the mission….okay..hard to do if you have a chick along. Now your chances are lowered at least a little. Success of a mission lowered. Granted a female can lead with amazing orders equal or better to a man, it is possible.

    The only chicks i can imagine who can lift 250+ ruck 10 miles with 70lbs + will have to be an ugly big uneducated female. She won't be able to lead.

    Go ahead and have this Infantry school. Just Video tape it all, and show us that they can do it all…then video tape a war situation and see if they can…….

    all in all, it is one more thing to endanger the squad. Name a way it can be better. Leadership is all i can think of. followed by far too many negative out comes.

  79. Women still are fighting for equality and being stubborn doing so….okay not all, but some. Why fight for 100% equality? we aren't born physically 100% the same. Look in your pants.

    Your stubborness will end up taking more lives than saving.

  80. wow you pretty much said everything i said…i didn't even see this post til after i submitted.

  81. In the coming months, Amos said in an interview, the Marine Corps plans to assign about 40 women to 19 battalions of six kinds: artillery, tank, assault amphibian, combat engineer, combat assault and low-altitude air defense. Infantry battalions, however, will remain closed to women.

    That is understandable…I resend all I said since it is moot now. I was talking about straight up Infantry, which is still closed.

  82. BD Cooper | July 12, 2012 at 4:24 pm |


    Women will get into infantry school and succeed in it they same way they did in Air Assault School. Lower standards and eliminate all training that would by their nature weed out a female students. Doctrine will be changed to validate the training changes and the lives of all soldiers will be in jepardy. The 60's liberals are still pushing women are just like men despite eons of proof otherwise.

  83. BD Cooper | July 12, 2012 at 4:56 pm |

    You fall into the fallacy that the argument is about the intellectual abilities of women when that is just not the case. Overly emphasizing Collette's one experience and using it as the norm will cause physically inferior women to be put into into leadership positions while males are only put into doing the heavy lifting of actual combat.

    IDEA: Lets put the women forcing this issue out in full combat gear on the front lines with no male soldier support. If they survive we can start talking about it seriously.

  84. It takes more than intellect to lead combat troops when under fire.

    If the question is can women handle combat, the Capetian Collette's performance demonstrates that they can. No not all women can, of course, but not everybody can earn the position as a Captain of infantry either.

    The point being that The Captain's performance should show that you can't just dismiss a soldier's potential ability on the sole criteria of gender.

  85. BoogerHog | July 18, 2012 at 5:34 pm |

    "We cant count the military to do the right thing, america should be better than that". I dont know what that is. Okay so lets say one female in 200 can perform to the current infantry standards: what unit is she assigned to? what is barracks room is she assigned to? is it currently coed or have a shared bathroom like many barracks do? when on ship or in country what is the bathroom/shower schedule, who is her assigned "battle buddy" is it a male? how do we know he didnt ***ually harrass/rape her? now gays and trans genders can be openly in the military, what units are they assinged to? what barracks/barracks rooms do they stay in, what *** do they associated them selves with? whos showers do they use? are they males/females comfortable with a transgender being in there with them? if not what is the bathroom/shower schedule? are current infantry standards being maintained? if not why so? who is assigned a gay or transgender battle buddy? how do we know that they arent ***ually harrasing/raping one another(either way)? do you see where I am going with this? THIS IS ALL TAXPAYER MONEY WE ARE USING! this whole scenario gets way out of control as time goes on: eventually everyones freedom/rights are infringed upon once everyones freedoms and rights are permitted! and then the taxpayer is the one who gets ****** on the whole deal! people want to talk about government waste: this should be a headline for why this is a bad idea! the military is not the place for self expression and proving you, as a woman, can do a mans job. I've watched the transgender fiasko play out personnaly in a unit not far from home, and basically it boiled down to: NO ONE was comfortable around the transgender regardless of what *** it claimed itself as, and it had to transfer units, at taxpayer expense, to begin anew, and not violate its rights to privacy. and i know this is about men and women, but the basis is the same: current facilities and current doctrine are not setup for a dual *** infantry force. Looking at this issue threw a strictly "taxpayer money" lense, i do not want my tax dollars being used to: #1) evaluate whether or not females CAN do the job(because YES, SOME can, but not all, and the same for MEN, but women have a much smaller percentage than men.) and #2) those that can meet the criteria be housed away from males at extra cost #3) body armor/personal gear may incurr an extra cost as each unit my be required to maintain extra sets of ## type non-standard gear (such as body armor, fatigues, boots, etc… I will admit im not on the cutting edge whether or not females have special cut body armor or not, but i have read they do have special cut fatigues, and of course female size boots, which is the basis for this particular issue of the argument.) #4 EVENTUALLY! the fitness standards/expectations of the infantry will degrade once the females are allowed in en masse. I know i will take som heat for this mother ****** but think about it: eventually: 10, 15, 25 years from first integration, standards will becaom more lax,. At first it will be bar bones the SAME! then, age degradation will be different, a 28 year old male will be held to a higher standard than a 28 year old female. sure. then a new PFT chart will be approved, Males pull up, females flexed arm hang, crunches the same, 3mile run the same. Then, even those will be degraded, WHISH WILL BE AN INSULT TO ALL WOMEN IN THE MILITARY! because once the fat bodies, that get into the infantry regardless of ***, cant make height/weight and or pass the PFTs, they will be an inquiry to see if the tests are biased, and they will be found to be biased, regardless of who is in charge because that will be the PC thing to do so everyone is "entitled" to there oppurtunity, and when they fail out, it is the systems fault. ********** now im furious. Im gonna go stopa bag of kittens. RIGHT NOW!

  86. BoogerHog | July 18, 2012 at 5:51 pm |

    changing pads! HA! Classic!

  87. BoogerHog | July 18, 2012 at 6:09 pm |

    I agree with your statement that the PT standards should be changed, and as you said, harder. BUT! I cannot agree with your claim that men should change there views on women. This statement is talking in generalities. The men in the military are entitled to the same freethinking and personal opinions as yourself. to state that the "men"( on such a broad scale, ha! "broad" scale!) can change some of there views on women, well, how about the women getting into the military change thier views of men? i dont see how this could be unfair, because the logic is basically the same group a: wants different treatment from group b: group b either resists, adjusts by influence, or adjusts by force. I guess i just dont see the legit argument that the men have to change to accomodate women. if the women want to get into the military, do some research and discover what kind of lifestyle that entails. dont jump on a wagon and tell the grand canyon to come to you, it doenst work that way. nor will it meet you halfway, ive tried, its very stubborn. -BoogerHog

    ps: give me your boogers

  88. BoogerHog | July 18, 2012 at 6:16 pm |

    HA! I guess majrod never had an LT or PltSgt that wanted to kick your *** and take u on random humps that werent part of the Battalion schedule. heck we used to do them all the time, the battalion even got into a rythem of doing a hump every friday, but our platoon was doing 2 a week. and we didnt do "road" marches, we humped the hills of camp pendelton, from horno to mateo and back again. damn i miss those hills.

  89. BoogerHog | July 19, 2012 at 4:07 pm |

    sorry for the past couple posts, i was drinking last night, and jumped on the computer to tell the world what i thought ( always a stupid idea, but for some reason i trick myself into it every now and then). I apologize, and feel like a real *******.

  90. Booger,
    Whenever females are inserted into a formerly all male area in the military standards have to be lowered across the board to accommodate them. In 1985 I went to Air Assault School at FT Campbell (there now) and found that the AA Course was about half as tough as I was told it would be. It had been radically changed to accommodate female soldiers. Out of the approximately 30 that was there the first day only 1 graduated the course. Now I'm sure the course is easier. Look at the graduation rate for the 1st year female cadets at West Point and The Citadel. Almost 0%. The standards were lowered and that changed. I remember having to physically carry female cadets through many of the obstacles on obstical courses in ROTC. Those obstacles are now gone. Being PC never accomplished the mission and never will. Stop the madness.

  91. BD Cooper | July 21, 2012 at 1:02 pm |

    Everyone here seems to miss the point that just because a very very few women can do the job why to we need to change everything and spend the massive $$$$ to do it? This crap of catering to the exception instead of the rule has got to stop. I have trained many hundreds of female soldiers and I have yet to see one personally throw a grenade more than a few feet down range. Does that mean we have to make smaller grenades so they can keep from blowing themselves up? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Use some common sense. If thats not possible then set up seperate all female combat units that have to operate in the same threat level environments. Let them prove their worth. Maybe after a few hundred get killed even the worthless PC crowd will get the hint!

  92. BD Cooper | July 30, 2012 at 6:01 am |

    You have to be a female based on your emotional response and complete willingness to follow the PC doctrine of ignoring all scientific studies and proven facts that disagree with your PC agenda. Fact: almost no women want to go into combat units except those trying to set an agenda. Fact: every study every performed showed that women cannot perform basic combat requirements due to their smaller lungs, heart and substantially lower physical strength. Ever been out on an extended high tempo field exercise where you are expected to go without sleep for extended periods of time? Women’s ability to function starts to severely degrade after 24 hours where as men start to reach that same level at about 32 hours of sleep deprivation.
    You try to degrade the discussion to say men think women aren’t smart enough to be a grunt because its the typical PC response when you have no way to refute the truth.
    BTW are you aware that every year we were in Iraq we brought back more women for orthopedic injuries than we did combat injuries? We also averaged over 5000 females per year for "gynecological" problems.

  93. That three letter censor should be: Sierra Echo Xray

  94. one more time….REALLY???? Because we all know a 120# female can hump a bleeding out 180# male up a steep ridge line in the **** with a combat load, just a fast as a 170-200# man….its all good til you are the one bleeding out. But then I venture to guess most of the "you go girl" "guys"…haven't really been in any ****. I will say lose the boy girl-keep current standards-and your problem goes away. No different push ups, no different chin ups….same combat loads, same q-course times…and that would end this BS. But we all know thats not how it will be…and just because people don't "debate " it correctly, doesn't mean there isn't a valid point . …and if you don't think there will not be sexual distractions , you better pull your head out.

  95. Cracked,
    I've trained hundreds of female soldiers and as I have said before I have never seen any throw a hand grenade the minimum safe distance nor have I ever seen one that could carry their own equipment for any distance. Few shoot worth a damn. Break track or load arti or tank rounds? Ain't going to happen. What will happen is the females will be tracked into leadership positions so they won't have to work. You can keep looking through cracked lenses and see what you want to see but it wont change the well established facts about female physiology. I know women that go to the gym every day and pump iron that are half my age. I have partial paralysis on my left side from an army injury and have not been to the gym more than 5 times in the last 3 years and I still lift more with one hand than they can with both!
    Yes there might be 1 or 2 females that could be a combat soldier but do you truly want to change the whole organization to accommodate 1 or 2 people? That’s just stupid. Leave them in the MOS’s that they can truly contribute in. This is one PC social experiment we do not need to participate in.

  96. They keep on lowering the standards and they will become a powder puff Army.


  97. Who ever said this must be lookin to "get some", or perhaps thinks that a few females in his crossfit cl*** are "******".

    "Let’s cut to the core. Every last alpha male can kick scream and whine about how women can’t physically do there job (sorry but I know a lot of females that can smoke most infantry and Special Forces soldiers and day of the week)."

    1.You meant "any", but you are full of ******* only for making the above statement, and apparently believing it, but for completely disregarding the lives of men who lay their's down for you every ******* day, whether you realize it or not. But please be careful in your next yoga session.
    2. A crossfit cl*** isn't a combat situation, "exercises" are easy enough to "learn" in your leotards.Some women can and do get into serious physical condition…its not the same kiddees.
    3. ALPHA MALE????? …Well using that phrase in the manner you have pretty id's you as a female, or the next best thing. You are definitely a noncombatant.
    FEMALES ARE JUST AS CAPABLE AS THE AFOREMENTIONED MALES.Shag your "PC" *** out there and try it yourself, then try to make that same argument.
    5. The previous statement was a moot point , because you won't…but you will completely disregard other people lives, in order to "right".
    6.For a third time:"Because we all know a 120# female can hump a bleeding out 180# male up a steep ridge line in the **** with a combat load, just a fast as a 170-200# man….its all good til you are the one bleeding out."
    7."I’m just sick and tired of the over emotional BS on both sides of the issue."..We tend to get emotional over body bags full of buddies. That's what you are arguing against.
    8. A banana in your pants?I doubt its in the front.
    9. That last remark was stupid of me, but this IS a STUPID argument.

  98. Why are the last posts out of order? and you censored the last 3 letters of class??????
    BDC-You are "dead on", female Infantry soldiers=Many more body bags,and is just STUPID plain and simple, and thats sugar coatin' it.


  99. reposting to get it in chrono…..
    DJ August 1, 2012 at 2:49 am
    Who ever said this must be lookin to “get some”, or perhaps thinks that a few females in his crossfit cl*** are “******”….or you just might be a female.

    “Let’s cut to the core. Every last alpha male can kick scream and whine about how women can’t physically do there job (sorry but I know a lot of females that can smoke most infantry and Special Forces soldiers and day of the week).”

    1.You meant “any”, but you are full of ******* only for making the above statement, and apparently believing it, but for completely disregarding the lives of men who lay their’s down for you every ******* day, whether you realize it or not. But please be careful in your next yoga session.
    2. A crossfit cl*** isn’t a combat situation, “exercises” are easy enough to “learn” in your leotards.Some women can and do get into serious physical condition…its not the same kiddees.
    3. ALPHA MALE????? …Well using that phrase in the manner you have pretty id’s you as a female, or the next best thing. You are definitely a noncombatant.
    FEMALES ARE JUST AS CAPABLE AS THE AFOREMENTIONED MALES.Shag your “PC” *** out there and try it yourself, then try to make that same argument.
    5. The previous statement was a moot point , because you won’t…but you will completely disregard other people lives, in order to “right”.
    6.For a third time:”Because we all know a 120# female can hump a bleeding out 180# male up a steep ridge line in the **** with a combat load, just a fast as a 170-200# man….its all good til you are the one bleeding out.”
    7.”I’m just sick and tired of the over emotional BS on both sides of the issue.”..We tend to get emotional over body bags full of buddies. That’s what you are arguing against.
    8. A banana in your pants?I doubt its in the front.Or its a ********.
    9. That last remark was stupid of me, but this IS a STUPID argument.


    Read more: http://live-military-kitup.sites.thewpvalet.com/2012/05/women-belong-in
    Kit Up!

  100. This was done in Israel and it had disastrous consequences. Insurgent snipers would intentionally bleed out females and watch a squads discipline deteriorate as each man irrationally endangered the mission and the unit to run out and save this soldier. I believe there are women that can meet the standard and that there have been examples off that but overall i doubt the average female service woman can hold the standard that we grunts do. Most cases women might have to vary another soldier 2.5 times their body weight or more in some cases. That would be near impossible for most humans. I'm a grunt and my wife has a support role and we both agree that women are invaluable in service but what is the point of pushing agendas which have between tried and failed? It endangers everyone.

  101. Ladies and Gentlemen,

    I have been told that less than 3% of the males in these U.S. Army are infantrymen. To me that means that 97% of the men in the army are unable to qualify as infantrymen.

    If a female is able to hump a 70 pound ruck in the mountains, patrol through the woods with an M249, sweat like a pig, freeze like a dog, carry on a conversion using words her mother would blush at, kill her fellow human being, and anything else those 3% can do (but the 97% can't or won't) for four to twenty years, she deserves to serve and be called an Infantryman.

    To paraphrase the Marines 'Many will try, but few will succeed'

    Peace, SYK

  102. What an intellectually dishonest argument it is to dismiss the reality of physical and mental differences between the sexes in the face of rock solid, irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

    There is no excuse to advance political correctness at the expense of the most important part of our military.

    Warfare hasn't changed as much as many of you apparently believe it has. It still requires a great deal of stamina, endurance, and strength. Women do not have these attributes on the same level as men. This isn't something that can be changed.

    All of the arguments in favor of mixing the sexes in combat are deceitful and disingenuous at best. They overlook critical issues such as how men would feel about sharing intimate space with members of the opposite sex for weeks and months at a time as well as documented examples of sexually integrated forces failing because women weren't up to the job. It's gone too far. The military isn't Star Trek. I for one would never serve with women in combat under any circumstances. I respect women and believe they are capable of achieving most anything men can including becoming President. But combat isn't something to be toyed with.

  103. Well maybe it is not about able or not able (although we all know this is what really counts in the hell that is combat).

    What I mean is that there are others factors and issues going on in the world. Maybe what the politicians and other members of the NWO oligarchy don't really care about either males or females…this is just a way/means for what they really want is to…


  104. This f#cking argument is pathetic. B I O L O G Y. How many poor bastards are gonna have to bleed out and die because some "crossfit" chick thinks its great to "play army".If you can live with the thought that you are gonna be "patsied" in, and may very well be the reason that several male counterparts die because you didn't have enough ass when the time came(because most likely , you won't; you see boys and girls really ARE different) and I if had to watch it happen a few times…….

    I will repeat myself:


    FEMALES ARE JUST AS CAPABLE AS THE AFOREMENTIONED MALES.Shag your “PC” *** out there and try it yourself, then try to make that same argument.

    The previous statement was a moot point , because you won’t…but you will completely disregard other people lives, in order to “right”.

    For the umpteenth time:”Because we all know a 120# female can hump a bleeding out 180# male up a steep ridge line in the **** with a combat load, just a fast as a 170-200# man….its all good til you are the one bleeding out.”

    ”I’m just sick and tired of the over emotional BS on both sides of the issue.”..We tend to get emotional over body bags full of buddies. That’s what you are arguing against.

    Is there a place in some specialized units that will interface with the populace for intelligence confirmation, under some conditions yes, but thats it. GI Jane was a movie

    people-an utterly completely made up fairy tale.

    DJ Clear

  105. Men are stronger and more violent than women. Why are there no women in the NFL, or NBA. Why are all track and fields events restricted to gender (because women would never win any events). Why are world records set by men so dominating over female world records.

    I was in a pathfinder unit with the 82nd. Whenever we had a female assigned to our team, one man would end up carrying her ruck sack, another would carry her weapon, and in some cases one or two solders would have to pull her along to keep up.

    Get over it, nothing in this world is fair.

  106. This is whiney and annoying. I would think a Marine could "adapt and overcome."

    Besides there are things women do better then men.

    – University of Georgia study found women learn better, are more attentive, flexible and organized.

    – Women are smarter according to a study of IQ tests from U.S., Canada, New Zealond and Europe.


    The kind of women that would do great in the Infantry will still probablly avoid USMC because of the reputation this branch has for overt sexism. And this passive aggressive wall of text emphasizes that point. Humans evolved due to our ability to work together as a team. Men & women are meat bags and the fundamental differences between gender are small when considering that point. I can carry 100lbs for 18 hours in cold, muddy, black fly infested, rainy, North Canadian wildernesses with a group of 14 year old girls doing the same every day for 7 days, so whining that women can not endure this is ignorant. I had a baby my first semester of grad school by C -section (6 in. Abdominal wound) and was back to work and school the following week to take my midterm with NO pain killers. This document is a joke to me. Instead of thinking about all the things women are incapable of try to remember what women have endured and the triumphs in women's history. I encourage you to stop being so fearful and help women succeed in the infantry instead of promoting this can't do attitude.

  107. "Women will be fast tracked into leadership positions"

    Good, women are smarter and more organized according to science and chances are this will improve combat situations. If women are deemed better leaders than ground fighters – awesome. Men have muscles and women have brains, so now the only problem is attracting the type of women that can do the job appropriately by putting an end to sexism in USMC. Thanks for solving the dilema of why the military wants women in the infantry. Women will make better leaders and improve efficiency.

  108. i am a female, and i agree with most of the comments against women in infantry divisions. i believe women have no place in such a line of work that deals with grunt work. privacy is one issue that leads to sexual harrassment one way or another plus rape by rank seems to be a problem. standards seems to play a critical role in being able to carry a battle buddy out of harms way (women have lower threshhold when it comes to carrying 100 lbs or more over the shoulder) and also whos to say mission priority will come first, women usually have to say leave pregnancy until they leave the military assuming they persue a military career. also, whos to say a woman can protect herself from the brutality men endure during combat training. i've heard stories of men getting into some heavy altrications with eachother… insane fights, disrespect to weak in order to toughen up the soldiers, and mental break down is crucial in order to form anger to go out and do your job and kill the enemy. there aren't enough qualifying women to take up a whole platoon that can hold their weight just like an all men platoon would. Physical barriers in terms of mensturation are also in play… men barely have time to rest (sleep) and eat… but where are the women going to find the time to clean off… unless they take some weird pill or shot to reduce the amount of times they bleed out in the field.. when they're being targeted… also, when men get captured.. they get tortured and then killed… if a woman gets captured… she'll probably be raped and kept alive.. you think a woman being vulnerable as she is isn't going to come back to USA with extra deep psychological wounds…. women are the weaker of the human race… we've proved that we too shall have many rights.. but i believe INFANTRY division jobs should be kept males only.. they're the ones who can carry their own weight plus anothers weight…. women can barely run an obstable course and not have their legs buckle…

  109. Excellent notable analytical eyesight pertaining to detail and can
    foresee complications just before they will happen.

  110. I always think that the P.C. Police are working overtime. Does anyone know why the Congresswoman from Colorado (I think) was so adamant that the 1st female POW in the 1st Gulf War be ordered to not discuss her treatment while being held by her captures. The military lowers the standard and gets women killed and all to be P.C.
    An honest and logical evaluation of women in combat needs to be undertaken without the input of the political talking heads in Washington. And at the same time those Generals and Admirals need to stop kissing A** and do what is correct, be that include or exclude women in combat – but based on a genuine study, not a P.C. demand or test.

  111. My major concern as a Infantry Company Gunnery Sergeant was to ensure that every Marine was technically and tactically proficient at their MOS which included physical fitness. One concern would be longevity or endurance with the current combat load and my other concern would be pregancy while in leadership positions. If a female is in a leadership billet and in a combat pre-deployment work up, what happens when they suddenly get pregnant? I potentially lose a company/platoon commander; platoon sergeant; and or squad leader that I finally understand or helped train. I do not see the validity of females in the infantry and I think that the end result will have been an exercise in jackassery. I would like to see an experiment that has 50 females and 50 males with the current combat load conduct a 15 mile movement to contact that includes crew served weapons mix.

Comments are closed.