Grassroots Commentary

10 Reasons to Keep Women Out of the Infantry

By James Atticus Bowden · Jan. 28, 2013

The issue isn't women in combat. Women have always been near or in combat. Women in our U.S. Army have been pushed closer and closer to the front lines of the Infantry in combat by politicians of both parties since the 1970s. In campaigns where there are no front lines women ride in vehicles that get blown up – but that isn't the Infantry. Women pilot helicopters, get shot down and lose their legs – but that isn't the Infantry. Women shoot back when they are ambushed – but that isn't the Infantry. The issue is forcing the Infantry to become girl compatible.

Since the 1970s, everywhere women entered in the military the adjustment was to make the military organization, school, or course girl-compatible. Women served well where assigned. The quality of female military service doesn't change the reality that adjustments were made for women. The compromises didn't cost The Army too much – enough to lose a war.

Adjusting the Infantry for girls may mean America loses a war. At the least it will cost the unnecessary additional loss of life, because the Infantry won't be as good as it could be. The girlish Infantry won't be all it can be.

Here are 10 reasons to not create girlish Infantry.

  1. No improvement to combat effectiveness. Name one way a woman improves the combat effectiveness of a rifle squad. Cite one measure of effectiveness or performance that a woman makes better. Name one. Then, prove it.

  2. Equity is for lawyers, victory is for the Infantry. Promoting more women generals doesn't make America win wars. Promotions for women isn't protection for America.

  3. Women in the Infantry are like women in the NFL, NBA or NHL. If women could play professional sports as well as men, they would. The Infantry is more demanding, like professional sports are, than any other branch. The only way women can compete with men in professional sports is if the standards are compromised. Change the rules. Except the rules of Land Warfare don't submit to political whimsy. Ground combat is an equal opportunity killer. Separate male and female physical and appearance standards reaffirm that separate, but equal, is never equal.

  4. More Women will be injured. Basic sports medicine applies. More women will be injured in training and combat. Women's bodies are different from men. Women aren't men. More injuries cost the military many ways and society in lifetime disabilities.

  5. More Women will be raped. Sooner or later women will face aggressive demands for sex from their battle buddies. Women will be raped by the enemy – and the Infantry faces capture more than any other soldiers.

  6. Women will be degraded. There is no privacy in the Infantry. Creating privacy burdens and distracts leaders from training good Infantry. And, often it will be impossible. Decency demands differences between sexes. No differences means no decency and real degradation of womanhood.

  7. Women will be drafted into the Infantry. Some day in the future there will be a war of national survival, or a really big war. Young people will be drafted. For legal equity women will be drafted into the Infantry. Your daughters, granddaughters, nieces and neighbors will go serve. The children of the elites won't be in the Infantry. Yours will suffer and die so the Elite Class can feel so superior – for the sake of equality, diversity, and political correctness.

  8. Women aren't men. Male-bonding matters. Liberals and rabid feminists hate that. Women don't bond with men the way men bond with men. Neither do men who act like women as open homosexuals. It's science. It's culture. It's history. It's truth. The Infantry is based on squads of men working as a team. All male teams fight better.

  9. Women don't win wars. A Nation that relies on its women to fight for it – deserves to die. Women in the infantry don't make the best infantry. They'll be the best politically-correct infantry and play that part until the dogs of war are unleashed.

  10. Homosexuals will be jealous. Real women will compete with the homosexuals for sex with the men in the Infantry. It gets more complicated when the lesbian women compete with real men for sex with the women in the Infantry. Infantrymen and Infantrygirls are a volatile mix every day, let alone in combat. Ask a Combat Infantryman what combat does to arouse a man's senses.

Making the Infantry girl-compatible is another national folly. Except this one will get Americans killed. America may lose battles – even a war - for the cause of creating girlish Infantry.

James Atticus Bowden served in 5 U.S. Army Divisions as an Airborne, Ranger Infantry Officer.

Appeal_patriots_day_6

View all comments

101 Comments

wjm in Colorado said:

Well said sir, but it is not just for political correctness from this Power Mad bunch of Traitors, it is intentional to harm America and our Military, just look at the appointment of military hating Hegel.

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 10:41 AM

rab in jo,mo said:

Amen.

I would like to add another reason, if I may:

11. The infantry is no place for diversity experiments. To be effective, an infantry unit must have cohesion. Men don't get pregnant and go on maternity leave. Are these women that are ostensibly so anxious to join infantry units willing to be implanted with birth control meds (such as norplant) to ensure combat-readiness?

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Arianna Spencer in Herndon replied:

Can you squeeze a 5-9lb human being through your vaginia.No you can not. Until you have actually gone through that don't make comments about maternity leave.

And yes, we are at least I am.

Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 12:15 AM

Benjamin in Albuquerque, NM replied:

Having been stationed with several high OPSTEMPO support units overseas and in garrison, I can say that pregnancy and maternity leave does affect unit readiness. Women often times have a hard time passing fitness tests after maternity leave - an absolute requirement for the troop I'm may be asked to march,ruck, patrol or shoot alongside in combat.

Of course women deserve the right to serve there nation. They deserve the right to maternity leave. In support, communications, aviation, and maintenance units, female service members often times run sections and perform identical duties to the men alongside of them. This isn't the case in Infantry/SOF. Of course there are women who can outrun or outwork men on the combat course, but they are the exception and certainly not the rule.

Monday, May 6, 2013 at 5:33 PM

leaf in louisiana replied:

So are you supposed to be some form of badass because you give birth, birth is far from anything extremely rigorous when it comes to the military and especially infantry. im tired of hearing this stupid bullshit about oh we give birth, were tough. blah blah blah shut uppp. please getting kicked in the nuts hurts more than that woosy shit. look women deserve what they deserve, but women are just not equal to men in this aspect and cannot honestly think they're going to improve combat statistics in any way, shape or form

Wednesday, September 25, 2013 at 7:57 PM

Justin Story in Calvert City replied:

I respect women for wanting to step up and play a larger role than they are currently allowed to do, but when I went to Benning for BCT, it was all males, and we all formed a brotherhood, I've never felt anything stronger before. Now when my buddies went to Leonardwood and jackson, they didn't experience what I did. Said almost every female there was incapable of handling pog positions. They would bicker, and nag, have mood swings, wouldn't eat their MREs because they were "nasty". They were injured more and performed poorly in PT, they even have extremely lowered PT standards and still miss it. I DO NOT want those people by my side down range. There are also men that act the same way and are weak, just don't belong, but rarely did I meet any. Men are not going to get raped or overpowered by gender dominance. I'm sorry, but the 11B is for a certain type of human being that not many can measure up to. But hey, prove me wrong, show me that a woman will meet the sae standards as any infantryman. That, I will truely respect you for.

Wednesday, October 23, 2013 at 12:58 AM

army2017 in fl replied:

Yep I sure am don't under estimate

Sunday, November 17, 2013 at 9:12 PM

Marianne in Remington,Indiana replied:

Two words birth-control

Saturday, December 28, 2013 at 9:44 AM

courtney in california said:

This article is trash. These arguments are soooo similar to the ones used when the military became desgregated. Show me PROOF that it will actually HURT the Infantry to have women. You want someone to show the effectiveness of having women; show me quantifiable evidence that having women will make the Infantry worse.

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Jim in Alabama replied:

Same reasons women shouldn't be Cops or Firemen, nitwit. They lack upper body strength. Female Police Officers fire their weapons at a radically disproportionate rate than their male counterparts. A male cop is about 50% more likely to be a physical match to anyone being arrested. Any officer in danger of being overpowered is in danger of being disarmed and murdered with their own weapon so there has to be zero tolerance to that possibility. The fact, that she will be more likely to appraise the level of danger, as worthy of at least the threat of deadly force, is amplified by the hoodlums' obvious appraisal that she might be easier to overcome, hence the greater likelihood of resistance.
Firemen need to be strong enough to carry the injured or the unconscious out of burning buildings. If the rest of you is as fat as your head, I'm guessing you'd be up there gasping, hoping for a big burly guy to come to your rescue.

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Kevin from Arkansas in USA replied:

" show me quantifiable evidence that having women will make the Infantry worse."

As soon as the gender norming qualifications start showing up - there is your proof.

Combat Load of the Average Infantry Soldier

http://www.45thdivision.org/Pictures/General_Knowlege/combatload.htm

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 8:19 PM

James Atticus Bowden in Virginia replied:

Courtney: I taught Research and Methodology for the Social Sciences at West Point (USMA). I'd be happy to see who is best by test. The burden to prove an improvement lies with those would change what has worked for all of recorded history. But, if the politicians insisted on proving the harm caused by girlish Infantry, that would be simple.

The fact that the arguments sound similar to an uneducated ear, doesn't mean they are same or are tarred with the stain of segregation. Nice try, though from the old Liberal playbook.

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 10:07 PM

Grunt Wife in Washington replied:

I agree, It is the burden of those who would have the infantry changed to prove the benefit of having women in the military. The problem is they can't prove it would be beneficially beyond protecting the feminist from having their feelings hurt. The scientific data is women are not as physically capable as men. The psychological data proves that women are more easily prone to PTSD than men and are less aggressive because of the lack of testosterone. Unit cohesion plays a huge factor when the unit is deployed and women would disrupt it. Plain and simple just don't allow it. I don't feel hurt that I can't join the infantry because I know that I could never do my husband's job and endure the hardships he has. Keep America safe, Keep women out of the infantry.

Friday, November 15, 2013 at 3:14 AM

wjm in Colorado replied:

Courtney, have you ever tried to be all that you can be? You will have the evidence first hand if you ever did try, and then ultimately fail.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 11:10 AM

MAH in Wisconsin replied:

Insisting on placing yourself in harm's way in combat is counterproductive to the movements in the US highlighting domestic violence and sexual crimes. These things do not compare with the potential for sexual and perverse crimes committed against captured women by our enemies.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 7:56 PM

Daniel in San Diego replied:

You want quantifiable eveidence, that's easy..Join the military and try for the infantry, then and only then will you see the the tangible not to mention the intangible eveidence your speaking of. I may not agree with all of his points but he is right on a few and unless you have served in an infantry unit and understand the things he is talking about you have no room or as you like to put it "quantifiable evidence" to prove otherwise. Just so you don't think that I'm BSing you here take a look at the Marines Infantry Officer Program and how two females volunteered a few months back and didn't even make it a quarter of the way through it before they quite.

Thursday, January 31, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Drew in Birmingham AL replied:

Read the article, he just mentioned 10 reasons of proof. Here I'll give you an 11th reason. Sexual harassment cases. Who can deal with that kind of stress and paperwork on the front lines. When you have say 5 women to every 100 infantryman give or take. When I was in combat in Baghdad in 2003, I hadn't seen an American girl in over 6 months. Imagine if there were women among the ranks. It's the truth! No sugarcoating!

Friday, March 15, 2013 at 2:57 AM

me from here in home replied:

Courtney, look at the apft scales and compare what it takes to achieve a 300 on both male and female scales. the female "300" is a joke. ill take a chick that can hack it on the mens scale but until were tested equally I feel our standards speak for themselves.

Saturday, March 30, 2013 at 11:46 PM

Justin Story in Calvert City replied:

Amen. That is the exacty point I've tried to get across to so many people.

Wednesday, October 23, 2013 at 3:39 PM

bender in afghanistan replied:

We are showing you proof dumbass, women doing marine infantry training. And they are suckin, fragile bodies cannot handle it. And that doesn't even touch on the fact that they will be raped, its almost a certainty. Be happy with what you got, and stay away from our mens club

Friday, October 11, 2013 at 1:56 AM

army2017 in fl replied:

Yeah Marine not any other retard

Sunday, November 17, 2013 at 9:18 PM

Jim in Alabama said:

This is a great article! But here's a great idea. I'm sure some leftie loon somewhere has already thought of this, and is busy trying to work out a few kinks. But why don't we just declare war with another country that also lets their women fight and agree to make it women only. You could probably finance the whole thing with royalties on the film rights. I think lots of men would support this glorious victory for women's rights!

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 6:42 PM

wjm in Colorado replied:

Roller Derby for border control, priceless!

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 11:12 AM

Jim in Alabama said:

This stuff would actually be funny but the thing is these idiots are actually serious and are going forward with this insanity and slandering anyone to a point of destruction who offers an ounce of common sense..

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 6:45 PM

DownUnder in Australia replied:

Do you know what's funny, Jim? I thought you were talking about the author!

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Ruth in Topeka, KS. said:

I understand what you're trying to say here, Sir. I am joining the Marine Corps in May when I turn 24 and I am female. I am going to try to join the infantry. I had lunch with my ex-Army brother two days ago and he said "there are women out there who can out-run me and out-shoot me." He was in the 82nd Airborne and was a sniper. He had a Ranger contract but opted out because of shin-splints. I could go on all day about why I think you're wrong but that's not going to change your opinion. I know you're wrong about one thing, though. If I was on the front lines with a sister in arms beside me I would be trying to protect her and save myself the same as any two males. Maybe you have an idea in your head that women are caddy and don't bond as well as males. That is the farthest thing from the honest to God truth! I have amazing aim, I am a very good long ditsant and sprint runner. (I could out-run any Jihad in a dress without training!) , and I want to serve my country just as much as my little brother who just graduated from Marine boot camp. Thanks for trying to hold me down and you were porobably one the of the guys calling females POGs even though they never had the chance to be a grunt. Your arguement is highly illogical and I am glad you have no say in any decision making. Your article is very offensive to young women who aspire to be on the front lines. And I am the farthest thing from a feminist you could find. I just want to prove my worth and I know you are wrong, good Sir!

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 1:46 AM

James Stark in Northern Virginia replied:

>> I just want to prove my worth

From what I've seen, this is one of the two motivating factors for many females desiring infantry positions. The other being a combat tour to assist with future promotions.

By all means, lets screw with our infantry so that women can make their OER/NCOER look better, or carry out petty upsmanship grudges with their little brothers.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 10:28 AM

Jim in Alabama replied:

Bless you Ruth. In fairness the Israelis have made great use of female soldiers. IF this country were not infected with the mind destroying diseases of Political Correctness, a clear sighted use of women in war might be a possibility. The question is really not so much gender as it is standards. We have seen the results in Fire Departments all over the place. They DO get lowered to appease the affirmative action crowd. People do die as result. People will die needlessly if we lower the standards required of our fighting men, not only by putting women on the front lines but by putting weaker men there beside them.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Heidi in Dayton OH replied:

Thank you Ruth! I completely agree with you. Women WANT to serve, and they can! Women are often better shooters than men because they do not have any bad habits from shooting in their backyard as a kid. Women obviously think differently than men and diversity of thought is needed when trying to make the best decision on a deployment.
If you are arguing women are a distraction, what about homosexual males? Straight men would be worried about gays hitting on them. When it comes to the front-line, it is a life or death situation, and surviving is the only thing on one's mind.

Thursday, February 7, 2013 at 12:15 PM

Rob in FT Lewis replied:

This insane policy is going to cost the lives of our soldiers, women and men alike. I have been active duty army for about 10 years, 7 in an all male unit and 3 in mixed gender. My current unit is about 65% females which are mostly medics. Throughout my career I have never seen a female soldier, in full kit, be able at carry a male soldier, in full kit, by herself. Even to drag a male soldier it takes 2 females, which is usually only effective for about 30 feet before they stop and rest.
For those of you who dont know the significance to what I am talking about let me explain the importance here. In an infantry platoon/ squad/ team or what have you, every soldier is dependent on the other soldiers around them. If you're in a firefight and someone in your squad goes down, another soldier must move the wounded to cover as quickly as possibly in order to avoid any further injuries to themselves or the wounded. If you have a female soldier trying to do this my experience has shown me that she will be unable to do it alone, so that requires an additional soldier or 2 to help. This means that not only are you exposing a 3rd and perhaps even a 4th soldier to enemy fire, but you are also taking away those soldier's ability to fire on the enemy bc they're focused on moving the casualty. This reduces the squads effectiveness to suppress the enemy and invites more casualties. If you have served in a infantry platoon you know that the best treatment for a wounded soldier is fire superiority and you cant gain that if half your squad is trying to deal with one casualty.
This problem also translates into a psychological issue for our soldiers. Like I said earlier, every soldier is dependent on the soldiers around them, and if the soldiers around them are unable to move their fallen comrades by themselves then they lose trust in each other. Trust is the most important part in keeping a combat unit together, take that away and that unit will be ineffective in combat which leads to more casualties.

Thursday, February 7, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Rob in FT Lewis replied:

Lets also talk about the equipment that soldiers carry today. In Afghanistan, when I rolled out on mission my kit weighed around 100+ pounds this included body armor, mags, frags, radio and batteries, aid bag, water, food, M4, etc. This weight was only for a day long mission, add more days and you'll add more weight in food, water, ammo, and batteries. With all this weight I hiked through the difficult terrain of Afghanistan, through rivers, over walls, in 130+ degree heat, all day long. Now include when you start taking fire and have to run with all that #$%$ from position to position. As for female endurance while carrying weight, in my experience I have seen where 7 out 10 females quit on a road march within 2 miles, with only 55lbs of gear, wearing shorts and a T-shirt instead of a full uniform, in 60 degree weather, going at a 15 minute per mile pace(which is army standard for both sexes). Only one of the females finished at the same time as the males. And as for the women that do participate on dismounted missions in combat theaters, remember that they are not carrying the M240's or the tripod/ammo for it, the mortars, the radios,the dismounted DUKE, or any of the other heavy equipment.
I can go on and on about how this is a terrible idea, but the bottom line is that on average males are physically stronger than females and in combat you want soldiers that can handle their weight and then some. Everyone wants to have equality in this nation, which is perfectly fine for civilian life, but is equality really equal in the military? How is it equal that a woman is allowed to perform less physically as opposed to her male counterpart? Dont believe me, just look at the PT requirements.

Thursday, February 7, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Justin Story in Calvert City replied:

Excuse me ma'am,
If you haven't noticed that 95% of the worlds best snipers are males. Bad habit has nothing to do with it, the army has very good training techniques that can train any man to become a hot shot killer. And no offense, but women have breasts, which would very much so get in the way when shooting in the prone firing position, especially with an inch and a half protective plate on your chest.
And for your other point, a true man would beat the **** out of a man who attempts to mess around with him. A real infantryman doesn't have time for that crap

Wednesday, October 23, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Cas in Australia replied:

Mate,
e all know you wont try and join Infantry your just having an opinion like woman you all love the last say and this is not viable within our jb description.
I have served with the Regiment for the last 22 years and have instructed woman and worked with them overseas as well and find that the one thing I keep hearing is.
Woman want higher positions to open for them WELL I dont actually ever hear them say I want to be an Infantry soldier because my dad did or because I love my country and I am prepared to die.
Woman have a ambition they cannot match with action and should remain in support roles and even then they should be reduced from them as well.

Tuesday, April 9, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Arianna Spencer in Herndon replied:

THANK YOU! I'm a 14 year old girl and I want to be in The Marine Corps specifically Infantry. Men like him are basically ruining my dream. So thank you again for your awesome comment.

Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 12:05 AM

Haley in Canada replied:

I'm 15 years old and I am a women who would also like to get invovled in infantry..

Wednesday, September 18, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Marianne in Remington,Indiana replied:

I am 11 and want to be involved with the infantry too. So I am with you.

Saturday, December 28, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Justin Story in Calvert City replied:

So there's this kid with down syndrome who wants to fight, and another who has asthma and narcolepsy. Might as well make it fair and lower the standard so thsy can join and risk not only the lives of them men who serve with them, but also the safety of our country just because they have a dream.
We're not trying to crush your dreams, we are taking into consideration the bigger issues that would result of this happening. I am not against women being equal, but ever since the days of christ, it has been made in obvious that women are not as physically capable as men. There will always be an exception, a woman who meets the standards, she would be ok in my book. But that standard better be the same damn standard that every other American soldier has met. Not the sissy pass. The truth is you will never be able to say I'm wrong, never, unless you join and meet the same standard I had to meet. Thats the only way you will ever have the right to argue this subject here.
I wish you good luck.

Wednesday, October 23, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Justin in Louisiana replied:

Ruth I admire your motivations but many of your points are mute. You may be able to run faster and further than some of us infantrymen, but through my experience in combat, your run times matter about ZERO. What matters is being able to climb mountains to 10,000+ feet after marching 16k+ with 150-250lbs+ of gear on your shoulders. The only thing that mattered was mental toughness, discipline, willingness to die at any given moment, and most of all Physical Strength. That is heavy lifting/working out none of the body weight crap but puttin up 300lbs+ on bench..doing 100's of lunges with 60lb dumbbells, curling 50lb dumbbells in each hand, etc it was physical strength and even after all that training there were missions that I didn't know if I could make it back because my body was utterly exhausted on mission.

Friday, May 3, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Justin in Louisiana replied:

On the being a better shot portion..in combat your fine motor skills are the first thing to go away. When you shoot it's usually in quantity and not accuracy this is to establish fire superiority(more rounds down range, more chance to hit target). Adrenaline is a powerful yet restricting hormone. You will never shoot as accurately on the battlefield in a react to contact situation(due to restrictive rules of engagement this is the most common form of enemy contact) as you would on the range or in your backyard.

Friday, May 3, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Jeff in Camp Pendleton replied:

Ruth, congrats to your decision and semper fi. Let me start by saying I have immense respect for women in the millitary, but as an infantry man myself I can tell you women are not allowed in the infantry as of now. Also I believe it is not about the shooting or the running it is about the long term wear and damage it will do to womens bodies and mental health. The infantry is a constant wear down and often times men who get out have long term back and knee injuries, something to consider since women will have proportunatley less muscle mass. The only thing I have to say is I don't want to have to see americas young women being killed in a unit I am in.

Sunday, May 26, 2013 at 10:30 PM

Berry Croft in Big Spring replied:

Okay, you want truth forget Iraq and afghanistan, Think ahead to the next war Iran or china, Im not talking a few pissed off guys who hate you. Imagine a whole army vs army. Or hell even think back to Dday I am sure you have seen private ryan movie?? If not watch it, now imagine yourself as one of the people on that beach?? Watch any military combat movie and imagine yourself as one of them doing that invasion,, thats a f-ing war seeing people literally get their guts splattered all over you. Not dogging the desert, fought in Both Of them 10th mountain man Myself been on many missions, yes many woman died in them but always on defence. The truth is and this s truth no woman in american history has ever been on on offencive objective. And more truth no prominant nation in world history has ever had a woman fighting the wars and same as we follow if a woman is put in an offincive objective then that will be the end Of Americas great fighting force. More truth and since you want it this Is what would happen,, after a battle with woman on the front lines the enemy would rape your dead body and do unspeakable things to you if You where caught,, America would be the laughing Stock Of he world because they would think that we Are week and Need our woman to do our Fighting for us because we are to cowardly to fight for ourselves. THINK ABOUT THIS WOULD YOU GIVE ANY REMORCE TO A ARMY WHO HAD THE WOMAN FIGHTING THE WAR. And yes we will have a war like this soon and it will either set those liberals hippies straight and john wayne will be scared of us or it will turn us into into france and britain will once again rule the world.. because we would loose the war and wd would ask britian to help then say we dont Need them once they get us out,, plus No offence America has Never Lost a battle,, civil war doesnt count because despite the differance it was also americans on the south also, and i know without thinking that no american will want to start loosing them because a Woman was Involved. And more truth either you believe In creation ( right answer) or evolution, either way both have it as the men the hunters and he woman s the gatheres..

Thursday, June 6, 2013 at 3:06 AM

Ruth in Topeka, KS. said:

And you can't just call everyone who opposses you liberal! I do like liberals and am not one myself. Just because I am a woman and I want to fight just the same as a man does not mean I am using "liberal arguements." Aren't liberals for peace and all that jazz anyway? I think you'll be hard pressed to find a woman who wants to join the inifintry but also recycles and loves Obama. Pfft, if they love Obama they're probably too busy staying home and having free-love sex and getting free abortions from the state.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 1:55 AM

Ruth in Topeka, KS. replied:

Do NOT* like liberals. NOT* probably a fruedian slip because I do like to make fun of them. Yes, I do enjoy that.... very fun pass time.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 1:57 AM

wjm in Colorado replied:

If you can carry a hundred pluss pound pack, live without bathing for weeks at a time, function without latrine facilities, and prove you can carry a two hundred pound man a hundred yards, then go for it. If you cannot, seek a support role, you will still be fighting and may even die in combat, as the terrorists use remote bombs and jihad bombers to attack "safe" zones. Putting you up front with the warriors who are capable is sheer stupidity.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Junta in San Francisco Ca. replied:

Hey! Broadzilla!

Let the boys play cowboys & injuns and you all just carry on and play house with your Barbie dolls. Feel me. The guys just want something to call there own. And don't even think of Ranger school, Marine Recondo school(for their sniper teams/STA platoons) , Marine Recon Batalions, Marine Force Recon Companies (out of range of artillery support), Air Force PJ's ( the awesome Para Rescue Jumpers, the now three week long selection course for the Army Special Forces (Green Berets & there special detachment DELTA units or DELTA Force,) the US Navy SEAL Teams at Coronado & Little Creek, (your not gonna "powder dust" Richard Marchinko's roster of meat eating "Green Faced Men", or Britains Royal Marine Commando's , US Coast Guard Rescue Swimmers, but last & most certainly NOT!! ; HER MAJESTY'S "SPECIAL AIR SERVICE" or "SAS". They might all well disintegrate the planet Earth for that matter. Leave the BOYS alone, unless it's bed time.

Friday, March 29, 2013 at 8:18 PM

Nuetral in Milwaukee, WI said:

How about this as soon as men and women have equal physical tests with everybody (man and woman) and being treated the same then and only then will it work. other than that there will always be different standards between the two.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Brittany in Colorado replied:

I agree completely with having all soldiers having the same standards. My husband is in the Army Infantry and I can honestly say I have not met any females I would trust out there with my husband's life. Not saying that there isn't a woman out there who couldn't be his equal in the field. I think it is AMAZING that women want to do what men can but as far as safety goes, for both genders, the standards at LEAST need to be the same for everybody! And they need to stay what they are at now as well. That way nobody can complain.

Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 3:52 AM

Justin Story in Calvert City replied:

God bless you ma'am

Wednesday, October 23, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Nuetral in Milwaukee, WI said:

Oh yeah also most the people that want this so called equality have never served in their life. you have no place to talk about this!!!

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Jim in Western NC said:

Warfare is deadly serious business. I want whatever makes our Army and Marine Corps Infantry the best fighting force possible. Victory in battle is the chief end. I'm opposed to anything that diminishes combat effectiveness.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Berry Croft in Big Spring replied:

Really?? Right before the events of pearl hourbor top military and political officials said the same thing.. Had big fight over navy and army because many said we no longer needed a standing force wanted to give army budget to the navy and do away the army (either fully or keep reserves and guard keep very small army, cant remember).. arnt you glade we didnt Listen.. same s Near future we will have another army an army war. Might even Be Another Civil war

Thursday, June 6, 2013 at 3:20 AM

MAH in Wisconsin said:

The capture of a Westen female by terrorists would be a true prize. We've only had one military female POW situation that I can remember and it wasn't good. We held our breath and imagined all kinds of atrocitites. All the smart talk about equality fades when reality hits. There are physically developed females that can compete with males,sure, but they are still women and have vulnerabilities that men will never have.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 8:10 PM

fred in oregon said:

not having been in the military, i can not speak from expieiance, but i did have a career in police work. we had several women in the department. they ALWAYS called for backup, no matter the call. they NEVER could handle a big male without resorting early to a nightstick or their sidearm.true many women could outrun me, of course i weighed 40-50 pounds more than they did/do. i NEVER saw a woman get back up after receiving a side shot from some asshole, because they were OUT FOR THE COUNT. women in combat---stupid stupid stupid, but gee whiz golly gee, it fits perfectly with todays climate of the dumbing down of our society.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 7:21 AM

Dan in Michigan said:

8 years Army Infantry. During desert storm I was assigned to a medical ambulance company, about 50% women. coming from a Infantry unit, I found the whole unit undisciplined, sex happy and unorganized. They might have been smart medics, but they sure would not have been good Infantry, not by a long shot.... Strike Hold....

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 3:53 PM

F.E. in On this planet said:

1. As long as women don't negatively effect combat effectiveness, there is no reason to exclude them. Whether they improve combat effectiveness or keep it the same is neither here nor there.

2. What? This isn't a reason.

3. Professional sports teams still have the right to select women to play in them, there is no law saying "NO WOMEN ALLOWED". You also can't compare a typical infantry unit with a pro sports team, where infantry units comprise of soldiers who have simply passed the tests and got on with the job, whereas pro sports team members are selected because they're deemed to be the most talented at said sport. Theoretically a woman could possess the talent to compete against men in sports.

4. Reasonable point, but the fact is men still leave the military with a lifetime of health issues. However, considering the fact that these women will pay for their own healthcare costs, through taxation and insurance and whatnot, this isn't really any of anyone elses business.

5. That's very nice of you to infer that women will be raped by their own colleagues. If a soldier rapes a woman in his platoon, the woman is not the problem, it's obviously the piece of scum rapist, and he needs to face a Court Martial ASAP. Believe it or not, most men can handle sexual urges. As for the enemy raping the woman - rape is only one weapon of torture, oh and men can be raped as well. How the media react is neither here nor there.

6. This isn't even an argument. Anyone who joins the infantry joins knowing what to expect; that privacy is not a priority and that it may be lost in a number of circumstances. Very few men are cool with letting other men see their stuff or seeing them use the toilet, but the get over it, and so would the woman. This would be the very least of her concerns.

7. Neither men nor women should ideally be drafted, however in a big war scenario, why should only young men be drafted anyway? Young women SHOULD be drafted as well. The life of a young man is not less valuable than a young woman and it's ignorant to assume that men are anymore willing to be drafted. If there is a draft, is it right for a 24 year old working single father to be drafted over his unemployed female friend of the same age who has no responsibilities?

[Continued]

Saturday, February 2, 2013 at 9:11 AM

F.E. in On this planet said:

[Continued]

8. It's a workplace, not a bar. Men and women work well together in all work places and lets be honest, the type of women who want to join the infantry are not petty little Princesses who don't want to break a nail or will throw up at the thought of Pvt Johnny and Pvt Tommy double-teaming some girl at the bar or a rape/holocaust joke.

9. This point is nullified by the fact that the military is and always will remain a vastly male dominated profession. Nobody genuinely believes there will be an all female infantry or even an infantry which is 50% female. In other countries like Canada, New Zealand, Germany, France, etc. where women are allowed to join the infantry and other combat billets, women are still a significant minority, comprising of no more than about 5%-10% of the total force. Even in a conscription situation, elegible men would still outnumber elegible women.

10. I hope this point is a joke, because I am not taking this seriously.

In countries where women have been implemented into the infantry and other combat units, do you know what they think? It's not "oh this was such a bad idea, we're all gonna die" it is "what was all the drama about?". Case in point, I was speaking to a couple of Canadian Infantry NCMs who had served in the Afghanistan theatre and they had no problems with the women they served with.

Australia and the USA are the latest Western countries to remove the combat barrier, and I bet in 10, 20 years time, they'll be saying the exact same thing.

Saturday, February 2, 2013 at 9:25 AM