(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

{ 159 comments… read them below or add one }

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.

Reply

Cesca June 3, 2013 at 3:52 pm

Apart from the fact I'm British – and so not in the US Military – don't worry bud, I'd carry you! I may only be 17, 160 lbs, and 5"4 , but I'm made of solid muscle, and over the last 3/4 years regularly have carried my 6'2 father about over my shoulders on a daily basis – as both of my parents are disabled.

I didn't have a choice from about 14, so I put up, shut up, and got on with it – and after training I'll be serving as British SRR Special Forces (kind of like our SEALS, but neither Army, Air-force or Navy).

So yes, we are out there – give a girl a chance. If she isn't good enough, she won't make the cut. Simple.

Reply

charles April 3, 2014 at 9:38 pm

carried radio in vietnam women do not belong in combat

Reply

CavGuy02 May 24, 2012 at 2:05 pm

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.

Reply

ANTHONY MORGAN April 4, 2014 at 7:59 am

Good day, sir, mam. Yes, I believe that women can succeed in infantry platoons. I honestly believe that she has to believe in herself and her comrades in order to succeed. I am retried military, Army, and every soldier, he or she has to carry their weight.

Reply

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.

Reply

majrod May 24, 2012 at 10:31 pm

Problem is the standards won't be the same. Mark my words.

Reply

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.

Reply

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!

Reply

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!

Reply

PBDVA May 24, 2012 at 3:24 pm

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?

Reply

Greg May 24, 2012 at 4:02 pm

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.

Reply

Q May 24, 2012 at 4:13 pm

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.

Reply

APAC May 24, 2012 at 4:16 pm

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!!

Reply

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"..

Reply

HalP May 24, 2012 at 4:30 pm

What fools want to make warfighting fair?

Reply

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!

Reply

majrod May 24, 2012 at 10:36 pm

I find it hard to believe you knew women that hump a 70-100lb ruck for ten miles especially as an Inf PSG. There is no school standard or requirement for women to do that and in the 20 years I spent as an Infantryman I never did a 10 mile road march. They were 6, 8, 12 and 20.

And in the case that you knew ONE is it efficient to develop a system to find one for the sake of "fairness"?

Reply

Travis May 24, 2012 at 4:53 pm

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.

Reply

Ruby May 24, 2012 at 5:47 pm

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.

Reply

mpower6428 May 24, 2012 at 6:33 pm

frankly, i dont understand all the attention "that time of the month" is getting here. pads are of negligable weight. people seem to forget that both **** have evolved in the exact same environment.

obviously there is a difference in the **** but, some people, male and female, transend those differences. if a rare lady can meet, maintain and cope with the requirements (written and unwritten) of a front line infantry unit… then it is her right to serve as an "INDIVIDUAL". periods and privacy be damned.

Reply

John Doe May 24, 2012 at 7:05 pm

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.

Reply

majrod May 24, 2012 at 10:39 pm

Mark my words, the standards will not be the same. They aren't now.

Reply

FormerSFMedic May 25, 2012 at 4:22 am

You're right, standards won't be the same. Not only that but there will be gaurentees for a certain percentage to graduate these schools. So basically, as long as a certain % of females come close to the standards set forth, they will be graduated. Nice huh?

The biggest problem will be frat. The frat problem can't be avoided and will inevitably get soldiers killed if/when females are integrated into infantry units.

Reply

Matt Woodbury May 25, 2012 at 4:35 am

Frat is my biggest issue with this, I'm an infantry squad leader. I was ****** when the FSC companies become part of infantry BN MTOE female 11Bs and integrated barracks will be a nightmare, kids in there late teens and early 20s

recipe for disaster

Reply

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?

Reply

smokey May 24, 2012 at 8:00 pm

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

Reply

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?

Reply

MarineSGT May 24, 2012 at 8:12 pm

EXACTLY! Guys generally act like buffoons when they are around women. Especially the alpha male types. They either try to show off or become protective. Its how nature made us. If anything, it takes their minds out of the game. Good order and discipline is an absolute necessity.

Reply

Paralus May 24, 2012 at 8:12 pm

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.

Reply

Lance May 24, 2012 at 9:19 pm

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.

Reply

majrod May 24, 2012 at 10:45 pm

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

Tom May 25, 2012 at 5:57 am

You're 1/3 right.

Reply

Jim May 25, 2012 at 1:23 am

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.

Reply

Jim May 25, 2012 at 1:25 am

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

Reply

Donald R. Lewis May 25, 2012 at 4:47 am

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

MarineSGT May 25, 2012 at 5:14 am

Chemical enhancements exist already. It's called ripped fuel.

Reply

Bill May 25, 2012 at 5:14 am

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.

Reply

Tom May 25, 2012 at 6:01 am

Good idea, two conditions:
1. They have to be volunteers or
2. Females that pushed the agenda.

Reply

Tom Lima May 25, 2012 at 5:41 am

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.

Reply

biker7 May 25, 2012 at 5:45 am

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

Reply

Gunner777 May 25, 2012 at 6:25 am

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

Reply

Gomi May 25, 2012 at 6:55 am

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.

Reply

Bruce Kennedy May 25, 2012 at 7:17 am

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.

Reply

Gunner777 May 25, 2012 at 7:21 am

Soldier or not men are hardwired to protect women so yes it likely will cost lives. I'm all for women serving in combat roles just not infantry.

Reply

D Gray May 25, 2012 at 7:24 am

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

LG May 25, 2012 at 8:10 am

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.

Reply

ajspades May 25, 2012 at 8:55 am

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

Reply

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.)

Reply

Carla May 25, 2012 at 9:20 am

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 –

NO EXCEPTIONS, NO BULL.

TRAIN HARD – GET RESULTS.

Reply

Carla May 25, 2012 at 9:23 am

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.

Reply

xcalbr May 25, 2012 at 9:28 am

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.

Reply

xcalbr May 25, 2012 at 9:36 am

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

Reply

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.

Reply

xcalbr May 25, 2012 at 10:19 am

there are indeed a few guys in the infantry that cannot do that, but there are a helluva lot more that can. That is the point.

And tough ****, left. you obviously dont have combat medical training. The first aspect is to shoot back and drag to cover before you do anything. She will not do me any good by staying with me, in a open alley way, getting shot up alongside me. That is ******* stupid.

"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."

That is utterly stupid. In that situation, i would expect her to stay behind cover and shoot at the enemy. One casualty is better than two. The last paragraph is a ********* stupid waste of life that is completely unnecessary.

Reply

leftoftheboom May 25, 2012 at 10:42 am

the issue is not medic training. we are not talking about medics. we are talking about infantry.

and you are missing the point. The WILL is the point. Does she have the WILL. I said nothing about mission.

I don't care what you physical capabilities are if you mentally are not up to the challenge. We have eqiupment and training for the other issues. I know the rules of the game. Try an parse the sentence correctly.
Or do you like serving with joes who have the strength of a titan and the heart of a mouse.

Reply

xcalbr May 25, 2012 at 11:37 am

so will overcomes physical limitations? thats weak sauce.

no i am not missing the point. I am calling ******** on your idea that it is seemingly okay for a female to lack the physical ability to drag a wounded fellow soldier behind cover, all because she has good will. Then you somehow think it is just as good if she is there with the wounded soldier, unable to move him, "standing her ground", despite being vulnerable to enemy fire and producing two casualties instead of one.

That is utterly stupid and i stand by my statements. The men i served with shouldnt concern you, as they have plenty of heart. They have paid plenty.

Reply

leftoftheboom May 25, 2012 at 12:21 pm

Since my words cannot paint the picture, there is nothing but to disagree.

I am not speaking about someone who will stay by my side in the kill zone and die. I am speaking about someone with the will to do so, (add cover to make you feel better). Because someone with that much determination and will, just might have used their brain, or their leader did, and already have another plan in place to overcome any limitations in any other departments. I have had females in my units in mech when I was assigned there. I watched the girls kick the boys buts changing track on a M113 when I challeged them.
The girls did not win because they were stronger. They won because they were smarter. A leader will plan around the limitations of every soldier under their command. That is part of the job description.

120 lb female doing a clean jerk ****** of a 200 lb male with both their sundry gear. Sure thats hard if not impossible to imagine. That is ONE issue out of hundreds.

I did not say you were wrong. I just wanted to point out there are more than one reason for things.

xcalbr May 25, 2012 at 1:20 pm

you said M113 so you're good in my book :D

majrod May 25, 2012 at 10:26 am

So the female soldier's desire to stay and defend a wounded comrade trumps her ability to evacuate the wounded? I guess we should allow folks to be pilots because they will go down with the plane ignoring the fact they are blind.

Another ugly fact is you can discipline and cut the guy for not performing without having to deal with an EO or harrassment case being leveled at you (first hand experience as a Tac at the academy). Women have a role in the service. It's not in the Infantry.

Reply

leftoftheboom May 25, 2012 at 10:47 am

I am sorry but your are exhibiting a knee jerk reaction. One if it happens no words here are going to change it. But more importantly there are men in infantry units today who don't want to watch their buddies back because of clics, frats, gangs and other thug related issues.

Having a hard charging volunteer would be refreshing for a change.

We can fix the physical limitations, to a individual based point admittedly, but we cannot give anyone the will or determination to succeed. Either they have it or they don't. You can train for it but it must start from inside.
That is my point.

Reply

majrod May 25, 2012 at 7:12 pm

Will is extremely important. How do you measure it before the bullets start flying?

Short of knowing what someone is going to do before they get in combat (an impossibility) we can measure physical ability.

My comment was NOT a knee jerk response. You need to look in the mirror.

Reply

Dale Swanson May 26, 2012 at 6:57 am

Spent 30 years looking in the mirror while on active duty and like I said before, I've had to relieve and replace male Marines due to lack of physical ability, some were simply too small and lacking the muscle mass and reach to do the job, regardless of will.

Using someone up until they are physically damaged and possibly causing injuries to others just to do daily training and ops is not what we are about. When you've spent months on end of 14 to 16 hr days, much of which is spent doing work that demand both mental acuity and heavy physical demand and mistakes cost lives, having (in my case Marines) male or female, who can't perform up to the needs of the job due to lack of physical ability, or mental, or attitude, all of which can be either *** not only endagers those around them, it jepoardizes mission accomplishment.

I always wanted to be a team shooter at Quantico and developed a high level of education and skill but my eyes were not up to the task at ranges of 600 yds and beyond. They barely made it at 500 yards with the degree of accuracy required to be competitive and not compromise the team. So? Tough luck. It had nothing to do with attitude or heart. It had to do with lack of physical ability on my part.

When the days are long, lives are at stake and one needs to be one of three who are hand lifting bombs onto high wing aircraft by the dozen, flight after flight as no lifting equipment is available; or your pack, rifle, ammo and gear weigh in excess of 100 lbs in 125 deg heat and one of your folks is out of the fight and you need to pick up the slack and carry his or her ammo, mortar rounds, base plates, 50 cal ammo for the M2, etc. the fact that you are willing to kill yourself to do the job is of little comfort those around you when you weigh 125 lbs and can't hack the load.

It's not prejudice of any kind, it's strictly ability and regardless of *** if you don't, you don't. So lets put this to bed for once and for all, lets form all female infantry companies, all female aviation ordnance divisions, all female artillery and tank companies, etc. and put them on the front lines where the male units have been for 235 years and make a direct comparison and see if this is what we want.

xcalbr May 25, 2012 at 9:50 am

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.

Reply

HANK HILL May 25, 2012 at 9:51 am

ANY WOMEN WHO WANTS TO GO INTO COMBAT, GET SHOT AT OR KILLED WHEN SHE DOES NOT HAVE TO IS SICK SICK SICK EVEN IF SHE THINKS SHE IS AN AMAZON! THESE "DEATH WISH" WOMEN SHOULD STAY HOME AND JUMP IN FRONT OF A BUS. THEY WOULD BE A GREAT DANGER TO ANYONE IN COMBAT! PS I SURE AS **** WOULD NOT LIKE TO MEET ONE OF THEM!

Reply

leftoftheboom May 25, 2012 at 9:54 am

Lithium should be taken regularly.

Reply

xcalbr May 25, 2012 at 10:20 am

in enema form

Reply

Mike May 25, 2012 at 9:56 am

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.

Reply

E. Ronc May 25, 2012 at 11:44 pm

Wrong, they are not civil rights issues like in exactly the same way as integration was in the 50s. First with black men or gay men in combat, they are men. The argument about unit cohesion was true, time did help with prejudices against race. I would like to think we have advanced so that is now a non issue, at least I felt it was during my service. There probably have always been gay men serving in the military. I think there will be more of a problem now that they can be out of the closet. What Joe didn't know for sure he could ignore. As to "will fight alongside each other without regard for the gender". Men will do stupid things to protect women. First thing we learn, don't hit girls, followed by watch out for your sister. **** we don't like it if you even talk about are moms. Since women as a whole are not as strong as men, for them to pass, the standards will be modified. They will probably change them all to a "universal" standard. Then try to sell you on that there harder. My response then would be if they were hard why are more men passing now than before. Much like my local councilmen who was trying to sell me that he lowered my taxes because he brought the tax rate down a smidge. Meanwhile they also revalued my house at a higher level. Like I told him; I paid X last year and Y this year. Don't tell me you brought anything down when Y is more than X.
About the only place I would like to see some more equality is in Selective Service. Girls should have to register just like the guys. If a war broke out they should also be drafted. They could hold more rear jobs freeing up men for more combat.

Reply

Gunner May 25, 2012 at 10:05 am

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!

Reply

majrod May 25, 2012 at 10:08 am

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.

Reply

xcalbr May 25, 2012 at 10:10 am

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.

Reply

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..

Reply

Marine May 25, 2012 at 10:58 am

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

BDCooper May 25, 2012 at 11:37 am

- 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.

Reply

INF May 25, 2012 at 12:28 pm

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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

Reply

Mike May 25, 2012 at 1:03 pm

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.

Reply

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….

Reply

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.

Reply

Bruce Kennedy May 25, 2012 at 8:14 pm

Semper Fi, Mac. I'm not commenting on this article, I've already said what I had to say. Just like your "handle", "former 0311". I am a former 0844 (1969-1970), I was always taught that Marines were "grunts" first and all other MOS's were just collateral duties. Anyways thank you for your service. One last thing, did you go through P.I or were you a "Hollywood" Marine like me?

Reply

biker7 May 25, 2012 at 6:32 pm

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!

Reply

Gomi May 25, 2012 at 7:37 pm

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.

Reply

Dale Swanson May 26, 2012 at 7:00 am

Like I said, I have had to replace male Marines for lack of physical ability, its only about mission accomplishment without unnecessarily risking the safety of those around you. That's why I said form female only units and give them the same evaluation as male Marines have had for 235+ years, then make your case.

Reply

Don Mohler May 25, 2012 at 7:56 pm

^This^
Awesome family history as well.

Reply

E. Ronc May 25, 2012 at 10:56 pm

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?

Reply

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.

Reply

ExNavRM May 26, 2012 at 9:23 am

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?

Reply

Gunner May 26, 2012 at 9:53 am

I guess I should have said those men who grew up in the time I did had a Mom and Dad at home unlike today. We were taught to respect/protect women during that time. My Dad taught me values of honor, the importance of family, duty, honesty and other values that are somewhat lacking these days. I'd still like to think that those who serve still have those values. I believe if anyone does I'd like to think it's this group.

I've certainly locked up my share of thugs who victimize both males and especially females. As you said whichever victim is the easiest target at the time is who they will rob or whatever.

I sure wouldn't want my daughter to take that route! As you said especially during that first year or two of training.

Reply

MJ May 26, 2012 at 10:34 am

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.

Reply

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…..

Reply

R May 26, 2012 at 8:16 pm

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

Reply

Emad May 28, 2012 at 9:45 am

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.

Reply

E. Ronc May 28, 2012 at 9:59 am

Can have same dream, just is it based on reality? If you are blind does that mean your dream should become reality?
I dream of hitting lottery… Possible not probable.
Dating a super model… And many other dreams. Just at 49, fat and slow not gonna happen for me now is it.

Reply

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.

Reply

Sharp June 1, 2012 at 10:56 am

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.

Reply

Sharp June 1, 2012 at 11:02 am

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.

Reply

APAC June 4, 2012 at 3:38 pm

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.

Reply

nraddin June 4, 2012 at 8:17 pm

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.

Reply

Todd Dallas June 6, 2012 at 1:29 pm

No.
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?

Reply

GRO June 23, 2012 at 2:44 pm

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.

Reply

noob June 24, 2012 at 9:39 am

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

Reply

Realist July 10, 2012 at 11:52 am

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.

Reply

Realist July 10, 2012 at 11:54 am

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.

Reply

Realist July 10, 2012 at 11:59 am

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

Reply

Realist July 10, 2012 at 12:09 pm

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.

Reply

BD Cooper July 12, 2012 at 4:24 pm

Realist,

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

GRO July 12, 2012 at 5:16 pm

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.

Reply

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!

Reply

BoogerHog July 18, 2012 at 5:49 pm

wow what a **** of a censor tool. all the *** is *** or ***..u..a..l.l.y.. or near the end is go.d…..da.a.mm…i.t…. and i meant "stomp" not "stopa" … stompa a bag of kittens…. i just hope the mother ******* dont censor this ******* post too ****** ************!

Reply

BoogerHog July 18, 2012 at 5:51 pm

changing pads! HA! Classic!

Reply

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

Reply

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.

Reply

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 *******.

Reply

BD Cooper July 21, 2012 at 12:40 pm

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.

Reply

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!

Reply

Gomi July 21, 2012 at 1:59 pm

The death of a few hundred male soldiers hasn't convinced people men shouldn't fight. Unless, of course, you think women are special little flowers and don't deserve to fight for their country.

Sure, make female only units. And when women continue to volunteer for it, even if they might die, treat them like any guy who volunteers in the face of risk.

There's no doubt that the physical requirements put a lot of women out of the running. The requirements shouldn't be changed, regardless of how people seem wedded to that particular straw man. But making decisions based on the *** of the soldier, either in barring their entry or giving them special consideration, is the same BS. Make the decisions on the capability of the soldier, regardless of whether they have a **** or who they prefer to ****.

So, if a woman meets those requirements, let her fight, rather than some condescending BS that she's too delicate for war.

Reply

BD Cooper July 30, 2012 at 6:01 am

Gomi,
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.

Reply

Gomi July 30, 2012 at 6:21 am

Lemme check… No, no, I'm pretty sure that's not a banana in my pocket.

I'm just sick and tired of the over emotional BS on both sides of the issue.

On the one side you get "Women are delicate flowers who can't handle the requirements, so let's make the requirements easier." Cuz it's a really great idea to reduce the standards for our troops.

And on the other side you get "Women shouldn't be fighting because they're delicate flowers with periods and mothering instincts." Which is BS considering the long history of women fighting and dying, of their own choice, in conflicts and wars.

It's all crap, regardless of your "oh, you must be a chick, ah huh ah huh."

Make everyone meet the same requirements. It's what I've been saying all along. Don't make the standards about *** or gender, just who can do the job or not. If no women can fit the bill, then fine. But, if a woman does meet the standards, then put a ******* rifle in her hands, regardless of whether they have nail polish or not.

But too many people in these comments have gone on about how the other *men* in the unit wouldn't be able to handle it. *That* is a BS reason.

Reply

Gomi July 30, 2012 at 6:23 am

Really, the word *** is censored, in a discussion of women in the military? I can understand "g-dd-mn," but "***?" Wow.

Reply

crackedlenses July 30, 2012 at 12:08 pm

Sorry, but there are not hordes of women who can indeed do it champing at the bit to enlist if ONLY they would open up infantry positions. This is probably why many are so hesitant to open the ranks. The military may do as it pleases; I just hope that they do keep the same standards as you have expressed. Many soldiers and former soldiers think this cannot be done (and writing them all off as merely sexist, etc is immature to say the least). Time will tell in any case.

Reply

Gomi July 30, 2012 at 6:25 am

That three letter censor should be: Sierra Echo Xray

Reply

DJ July 30, 2012 at 9:21 am

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.

Reply

BD Cooper July 31, 2012 at 11:13 am

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.

Reply

crackedlenses July 31, 2012 at 1:56 pm

@BDCooper,

I am not at all disagreeing with you. My above post was directed as Gomi. I agree with your above post.

Reply

BD Cooper August 1, 2012 at 12:56 pm

Cracked, Please accept my apologies.

Reply

crackedlenses August 1, 2012 at 2:04 pm

Apology accepted, BD Cooper. Thank you for the first-hand analysis of the issue; there is so much going around it is hard to find reliable info….

Reply

Moon July 31, 2012 at 11:43 am

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

Airborne!

Reply

DJ July 31, 2012 at 10:49 pm

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.
4.This isn't really an equal opportunity playground.This is for real, its not "lifetime"TV-THE REASON YOU SEE SO MANY OF WHAT YOU FEEL ARE "SILLY MYSOGINIST"(YEAH-HAD TO GOOGLE THAT ONE!)COMMENTS IS BECAUSE IF YOU'VE EVER HAD YOUR BUDDIES OR EVEN A STRANGERS BLOOD /GUTS BLOWN ALL OVER YOU, WHEN SURROUNDED BY HIGHLY TRAINED AND MOTIVATED INDIVIDUALS IN PEAK PHYSICAL CONDITION, YOU TEND TO GET EXTREMELY ****** THAT THE PC PEOPLE "THINK" ITS A COOL IDEA THAT
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.

Reply

BD Cooper August 1, 2012 at 12:54 pm

My God a lot of you will make perfect Gov't employees! Ignor the facts do the feel good thing. Screw the soldier and the country just to be PC. This is mor of that womens liber crap I've listened to my whole life about how mwn and women are exactly alike in all ways except plumbing! Do the country a favor and take advantage of your countys free spay and nueter program so you dont spread those stupid genes around. There are good places in the military for woman but a combat slot is not one of them.

Reply

DJ August 2, 2012 at 5:11 am

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.

PC?F'Q!

Reply

DJ August 2, 2012 at 5:17 am

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.
4.This isn’t really an equal opportunity playground.This is for real, its not “lifetime”TV-THE REASON YOU SEE SO MANY OF WHAT YOU FEEL ARE “SILLY MYSOGINIST”(YEAH-HAD TO GOOGLE THAT ONE!)COMMENTS IS BECAUSE IF YOU’VE EVER HAD YOUR BUDDIES OR EVEN A STRANGERS BLOOD /GUTS BLOWN ALL OVER YOU, WHEN SURROUNDED BY HIGHLY TRAINED AND MOTIVATED INDIVIDUALS IN PEAK PHYSICAL CONDITION, YOU TEND TO GET EXTREMELY ****** THAT THE PC PEOPLE “THINK” ITS A COOL IDEA THAT
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.

Reply

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

Reply

D August 31, 2012 at 8:20 am

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.

Reply

Someone You Know September 28, 2012 at 9:17 pm

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

Reply

bob January 9, 2013 at 12:21 am
bob January 9, 2013 at 4:21 am
Ed January 22, 2013 at 1:55 pm

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.

Reply

Jef January 26, 2013 at 12:42 pm

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…

DEPOPULATE THE EARTH!!!

Reply

DJ January 26, 2013 at 7:27 pm

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:

This isn’t really an equal opportunity playground.This is for real, its not “lifetime”TV-THE REASON YOU SEE SO MANY OF WHAT YOU FEEL ARE “SILLY MYSOGINIST”(YEAH-HAD TO GOOGLE THAT ONE!)COMMENTS IS BECAUSE IF YOU’VE EVER HAD YOUR BUDDIES OR EVEN A STRANGERS BLOOD /GUTS BLOWN ALL OVER YOU, WHEN SURROUNDED BY HIGHLY TRAINED AND MOTIVATED INDIVIDUALS IN PEAK PHYSICAL CONDITION, YOU TEND TO GET EXTREMELY ****** THAT THE PC PEOPLE “THINK” ITS A COOL IDEA THAT

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

Reply

Emad January 27, 2013 at 11:01 am

I now believe that women do not belong in the infantry. that it is for men to do the fighting and that men can handle the presure for a firefight and women can't

Reply

kooz January 29, 2013 at 12:43 pm

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.

Reply

DJ January 29, 2013 at 2:41 pm

Yes, Kooz is 100% correct.

Reply

Emma March 19, 2013 at 6:52 am

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.

Etc…

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.

Reply

Bruce Kennedy March 19, 2013 at 8:04 am

Emma well said. But let me change the subject for just one second. I find it appalling what is being discussed in Congress this week. The story of an officer being tried and convicted of a sexual crime, and then the sentence and ruling being thrown out on the whim of a superior officer. Which is perfectly legal, in the military. Men need to be educated to respect women as peers. There is no place in society for sexual abuse or assault. I listened to a Congresswoman grill a panel of Generals and maybe an Admiral and cite statistics that there were some 19,000 sexual assaults within the military, unfortunately I missed the time period for which these assaults occurred. Meaning I don't know if those 19,000 assaults were in a year's time over a longer period of time. I believe she said that of that 19,000, 2400 were reported and of those reported only about 240 were actually prosecuted with only about 36 actually resulting in a guilty verdict with disciplinary action. My numbers may not be exactly correct, but you get the idea. If true, this has a chilling effect on women, in the military, to even report such behavior. Although there are many things that can and should be done to address this injustice, I believe that it is vitally important to educate men exactly what entails sexual assault and inappropriate behavior, and then hand out severe punishment when those lines have been crossed. And everyone, especially men, should be taught not to stand idly by when they suspect inappropriate behavior or suspected sexual assault is occurring. And if a case arises where a woman is sexually assaulted and it is proved that individuals actually witnessed the assault and did nothing they should be tried as accessories to the crime. Now I'm sure what I have said is probably nothing new, but what needs to be done is a concerted effort on everyone's part to see that these guidelines are adhered to. Thus changing the whole male culture, that seems to exist in the military, into a culture of professionalism and respect. These are things that have been given lip service to, in every branch of the service, yet seems to be lost in practice. I believe once a professional culture is established in the military and a culture of mutual respect, for all members of the service, at all levels, then the question of who should and who should not serve, in whatever capacity they so choose, will be a non-issue. Each individual will be judged on their merits and ability to accomplish the job. Some women will be excluded from combat roles, just as some men will be excluded. It will not be about which sex is the best, it will be about which individual is best suited to fulfill the requirements of the job.

Reply

DB Cooper March 19, 2013 at 9:02 am

Women will make better leaders and improve efficiency.

Emma, That's a bunch of bullshit but strangely leads to the biggest problem. Few if any women can do actual combat arms jobs. I've had to carry to many females equipment in training and trained to many to be lied to about it. Back in the 80's they started pushing female into the MPs while changing doctrine of the MP's back into rear area (combat) security. Both because females were excluded from combats and they couldn't physically do an infantry job they were all tracked to being main post cops while the males had to pull all of the field duty. That's what this whole business is about. The bleeding hearts know that females cannot physically do the job so they want them all to be leaders while the men do the grunt work. This also means no upward mobility for males at all which is the point. Are you aware that the number one reason for medical evac's of female military personnel from the war zones has been pregnancy. Get knocked up and get a free ride home. That's disgraceful.

Reply

DJ March 20, 2013 at 2:29 am

….Women will make better leaders and improve efficiency…..

Ah , brilliance in action, if they can't do the job, put them in charge of it.

More regurgitory crap…..THATS THE APPALLING PART.

DBC ….stats as to medevacs for females from combat zones due to getting knocked up.

Roger that, kinda knocks the whole argument about having sexual discipline right into the shitter as well.

ROGER DISGRACEFUL.

DJ clear

Reply

Emma March 19, 2013 at 7:08 am

"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.

Reply

DJ March 20, 2013 at 12:15 am

…fast tracked to leadership positions…..What? leave a pile of dead in your wake, and you can "accessorize' with the latest HRP colors. If you haven't been led , you most likely will be unable to effectively live by example.

What a bunch of PC horseshit.

Reply

DJ March 20, 2013 at 12:19 am

supposed to read:…. If you haven’t been led , you most likely will be unable to effectively LEAD by example.

Reply

maria April 17, 2013 at 7:18 am

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…

Reply

Cesca June 3, 2013 at 4:55 pm

"women can barely run an obstable course and not have their legs buckle…"

That's just you Maria – please don't generalize and do women a disservice. Thanks.

Women in the UK can serve as special forces – undergoing the same training as your SEALs. "Can barely run an obstacle course" my arse!

Reply

Anonymous August 3, 2013 at 1:36 am

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

Reply

RLK April 2, 2014 at 9:29 am

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.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: