<p>I certainly don't intend to restart the discussion on whether women belong in combat or not, but just thought some of you may find this new article on the topic interesting.</p>
<p>Iam sure that women will continue to be ready to step forward and meet the challenges of combat situations regardless of the politics in Washington. Those situations will continue to present themselves whether socially acceptable by some or not. Social change is always slowwwwww........but inevitable, as reality usually wins out. In the end, a male soldier in harm's way should be no more or less acceptable than a female soldier in the same situation. Both situations are inevitable (and are already happening in Iraq every day) and we must continue to do everything to ensure the safety and support of all our serving men and women. Without the full potential that the service of BOTH provides, we are that much weaker as a nation.</p>
<p>While I believe women's lives are equal to men's, I think there are some serious problems with letting women in combat roles.</p>
<p>1) What happens when a male soilder is seriously injured and a woman is the only one that can save him? In most cases, the woman probably wouldn't be able to pick him up and take him to a hospital in time. You have at least 50 pounds on both guy, along with the actual weight of the guy. I don't know about you guys, but if I learned that my son died because a woman simply wasn't physically able to move him into a Hummer because he was too heavy, Rumsfeld would get an earfull.</p>
<p>2) The United States is a western nation with deep Christian roots, and it will stay like that for quite some time. The vast majority of men in this country are taught from an early age to protect women in times of danger. Even after decades of challenging socitial roles of men and women, in times of danger, saving the lives of women and children is still seen as more important than saving the lives of men. I'm no expert but I think the DoD's money can be spent in better ways than trying to reformat the ways men see women in times of danger (such as finding ways to recruit more men).</p>
<p>3) Women simply have a biological function that changes their mood on a monthly basis. When you're on the ground fighting against the enemy for days at a time, you can't have people having to fight both the enemy and their own biological functions. I know this isn't usually the topic of discussion on message boards and that it doesn't come up in public discourse, but this is a reality.</p>
<p>Don't mistake me here: I think women should serve in the military, and I'm glad so many have and so many have made sacrifices for this country. However, I have a problem with them being in combat roles on the ground in the Army and in the Marines. I'd be interested to read other opinions on this matter. I'm no expert at all and to be honest, I haven't really thought too deeply about this subject.</p>
<p>Skirbyy - </p>
<p>There was a long discussion about this not too long ago which might be of interest to you:</p>
<p>Really starts up the 2nd page.</p>
<p>My mood never really changes...not that I've noticed, anyhow. But you're right about the strength thing. I think that definately is a factor. But on the other hand, our perception of strength is always changing. In Band of Brothers, Easy company only had to do 30 push-ups to pass their test. I know a ton of 17 and 18 year old girls who can do the same. Now, we've moved the bar up to (46?). But that doesn't change the fact that 21st century teenaged girls now fit the physical (minus the sex thing) requirements demanded to be an "elite" WWII soldier--a paratrooper. Not exactly a marine or a green beret, but they were a cut above the rest at the time. Food for thought, you know?</p>
<p>Furthermore, I believe that in a rapidly advancing age, warfare may evolve to the point where physical strength is actually second to good ol' bravery and technical connaissance. I'm not saying that a tough body wouldn't behoove you ever, but...well, it is certainly my hope that women's participation in the armed forces will increase as technology bridges the physical gap between the sexes.</p>
<p>That's my two cents' worth.</p>
<p>Brief point Skirb: You must have never been around a woman with a serious case of PMS. I'd rather turn one loose with a BAD case on a terrorist anyday. She'll tear off his head with her teeth and spit down his/her neck. Seriously, I know a girl who can brench press 300 lbs and she only weighed in at 145. Excuses for not wanting change...... Not cool..... I wouldn't touch this subject with a ten foot pole dude.</p>
<p>Women are already in combat. </p>
<p>"Deep Christian Roots" have nothing to do with the issue at all. Social conservatives need to keep to religion and politics and stay out of national defense....</p>
<p>"PMS"???????????????????</p>
<p>I can think of a few male soldiers (and leaders) in history who wish they could blame their poor results and unjust actions on "PMS". Please.</p>
<p>If I had to choose between fighting along a soldier who could shoot straight and think clearly under stress and one who could fireman's carry a 260lb hulk, I think I know who I'd pick. Even among the males, you don't always get all three qualities in "one neat package".</p>
<p>American soldiers come in all shapes, sizes, colors, religions, and now in both sexes.</p>
<p>shogun and skirbby
Well this looks interesting... one point though -I neither followed the tie between Christian roots and women in combat and shoguns put down of christian conservatives..... 'put down' is probably too strong, but I think anyone ought to have a part in national defense... and whatever happened to the religion at west point thread?</p>
<p>15mbw</p>
<p>Agreed, I apologize for the social conservatives comment. They have every right to participate in national defense. I simply meant to assert that "officially" excluding women from combat roles using "socially unacceptable" as the reason was a weak argument, given that they already are proving themselves "unofficially". Too often in our nations past we have excluded other groups from participating as equals in our nation's military because it was "socially unacceptable" and didn't match society's role for them.</p>
<p>hastellion, I agree that the future of warfare is away from physical force. About your WWII comment, I don't know how much a typical WWII paratrooper had to carry out with him, but I wonder if it was less than what people have to carry around now. Does anyone know?</p>
<p>Bulldog, I've been around girls that PMS. I'm not a big fan of being around them during that time. Some girls can get through it all right, but then other girls just completely change. Like many other things in life, it really depends on the individual person, though also like many things in life, having some or most of a certain group of people reacting one way means applying a policy to all members of that group. Women having to go through that means perhaps barring them from combat roles completely, even though some girls may be able to live through it. Again, I think the DoD's money could be better spent on recruiting guys than engaging in ways to make sure a certain female soldier could go through the stress of combat and go through what she has to endure every month.</p>
<p>shogun, I knew women were already in combat. I didn't know if you aimed that at me or just to let everyone know. About your comment on social conservatism, I think you miss the point. The following isn't really about the current subject but just an argument against the belief that religion and politics/public debate shouldn't mix: For people who believe the way many Christians do, you simply can't seperate religion and the rest of your life: to do so would to be a sin. The way I, and many others, believe requires that I apply the principles and morals Christ taught us to everyday life, and this includes politics. To seperate religion and the rest of my life is something I, and many others, just can't do. That's how I believe many social conservatives see things, and this may explain my viewpoint on this subject.</p>
<p>And speaking of the subject, let's get back to it.</p>
<p>shogun, I'm not sure what you meant by the PMS comment. I think the vast majority of generals and war planners didn't even dream of having the excuse of blaming women's PMS for their failure. To the vast majority of generals and war planners, the very idea of having women in combat roles would be alien. Maybe I misunderstood your comment there.</p>
<p>You are right that you don't always get all the skills in one soldier, but I think male soldiers have to deal with less: They do, with very few exceptions, tend to be stronger than females. They don't have a routine period that makes most girls unstable in some ways. They also aren't raised in a culture that views women as a gender that, in times of danger, need protection.</p>
<p>I don't think it is right to exlude people from combat roles because it is "socially unacceptable". I think it is right to exclude some groups because of some problems that their involvment in combat operations would create.</p>
<p>On a side-note, I know that many women feel that because they are denied positions in combat operations, advancement in the ranks is toughter. No doubt it is tougher, and there are many capable women out there that could probably do a great job as generals. I wish there was a way we could somehow give women the combat experience they need not just to advance but also to put them more directly defending the United States. However, I know that finding a way to do this, especially in a time of great transformation in the military and in a time of a multi-theatre war, isn't, and shouldn't, be high on the list of priorities at the DoD. It pains me to write that, knowing there are so many capable women out there, but honestly, I rather the energy, time and money be focused more on winning wars than on creating opportunities to have women be in combat situations.</p>
<p>Thanks for creating a lively discussion, all. Also thanks for reading if you read all that.</p>
<p>There's been a lot of talk about strength. Well, if that's really an issue, why not allow women to try some of the Infantry training courses and see how they do? If they can pass the same standard as men, who am I to argue with that?</p>
<p>Sorry, but the PMS thing just doesn't work. I know for a fact that a large portion of female cadets are on birth control or taking the depo injection for just such a reason. Both Beast and Buckner are focused on Infantry training, yet women go through both. In these modern times, biological functions can be manipulated. </p>
<p>I honestly don't see how Christian values come into play with men being more protective of women. I'm a staunch Christian, but I think that kind of thing is more instinctive. What exactly are you afraid of that has to do with men protecting women?</p>
<p>men protecting women</p>
<p>How is that different from one soldier protecting another? How many soldiers have gone into harms way (without being ordered to in many cases) to protect a buddy or their unit from harm? How is it that a man laying down his life for his "brother" is somehow different than laying down his life for a "sister" or vice-versa? Again, the "men will be too worried about protecting the women" is hardly relevant in combat when the very nature of that situation dictates that one soldier have the other's safety in mind, no matter what the race, sex, or religion involved.
On the subject of "christians", I agree that SOME christian denominations may believe that women in combat is in someway a "sin" or not aligned with their christian values , it does NOT however follow that "all" or "most" feel that way. As a christian "Episcopalian" there is no such teaching or interpretation of scripture. It certainly isn't representative of a vast majority of christians if slightly over 50% of American's polled (most of America is christian) agree that women should be allowed to assume combat roles if they desire to.</p>
<p>When I think of a list "Christian values" I don't think of "no women in combat". I suspect as many christians feel the same as do not. The policy of our military should be independent of a biblical interpretation by a group or groups and strive to determine the fitness of anyone based on their ability.</p>
<p>The comment about male soldiers and leaders in history refers to the fact that many men still tend to make many bad decisions and commit unjust actions in our world without PMS. Women could do no worse. </p>
<p>Good discussion, but I think we've done this before! :)</p>
<p>I personally find that this happens to be one of those little debates that will never have a wrong or right answer except for maybe the individual. I do know that my son feels that his female counterparts are his equal and I'm proud of him for that. It must be a heavy burden for those upcoming future leaders to deal with the world's problems and I am comfortable knowing that women are leading the charge along with the men to fight the good fight. I truly believe that women play a key role in keeping mankind's compassion alive. Besides, anybody that can push an eight lb. cannon ball out of their bodies and live to tell about it can be my battle buddy anytime! I'd hate to see anyone of you be the one to tell my Mother that she could not take up arms and defend her beliefs in this country. WHEW! She'd knock your head off! :) BIG GRIN! She's a little woman but I've seen her pick up my 6' brother and pin him against the wall above her head and hold him there for a good while!
Hmmmm.... Interesting....
<a href="http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/combat.html%5B/url%5D">http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/combat.html</a></p>
<p>I agree with marines4me, that there should be one physical fitness standard, and if a woman can meet it, let her in.</p>
<p>Just out of curiosity, has anyone on here been in combat? Everyone seems to have strong opinions about whether women should be there or not. Personally, I'm still in high school and have no idea if I would want to fight with women.</p>
<p>i appreciate having women in the military, but i do not believe that they should be allowed in front line combat roles. most women cannot do the physical labor men can do and the very few who might be able to outshine some men in overall physical ability would not be worth changing the whole system. shogun-i understand your daughter is going to west point and i know you are proud of her but she does have her limitations as well. i think sometimes you say just because a guy is big he can't be smart too, its not an inverse relationship. "If I had to choose between fighting along a soldier who could shoot straight and think clearly under stress and one who could fireman's carry a 260lb hulk, I think I know who I'd pick". military men are strong and trained to shoot straight and think clearly under stress. personally whenever i do any type of physical activity we are always as strong as our girls. when i was at summer seminar during sea trials, the girls performed just as well as the guys in some events, but in many of the events they fell behind and overall were less physically capable than men. not to mention the fact that most of them naturally took a backseat to the guys who organized everything and got everyone to work together as a team. women are very capable of doing this maybe moreso than men so i say why not keep them their where their brainpower can be used effectively instead of trying to push them into more physical roles just for the sake of equality. the small number who could do the physical work of a man would not make it worth the effort to overhaul the system.</p>
<p>No accurate idea how much WWI guys had to carry, but Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers should give you a visual, if you trust the cinema.</p>
<p>Personally, I think troops are given too much to carry. I know it's more efficient to make the men double as packhorses, but my heart goes out to them all in Iraq...</p>
<p>I am 5'4 and 120 lbs and I would LOATHE rucking all day. I'm sure some gals wouldn't mind, but even if Infantry becomes open to women, I'm not sure I'd spring for it.</p>
<p>"not to mention the fact that most of them naturally took a backseat to the guys who organized everything and got everyone to work together as a team."</p>
<p>heyitsme, what session of Summer Seminar were you at, 'cause I certainly didn't see guys as being the only ones to step up and take charge. Not to mention the fact that you put the girls "naturally" took a backseat. That's BS. </p>
<p>a) the number of guys vastly outnumbered the number of girls, so it would be natural that in the majority of situations the guys might step up
b) The girls in my platoon (I can't speak for the whole Company, I didn't have that much exposure) were often the ones to step up and take control. I certainly did in my squad.</p>
<p>"the very few who might be able to outshine some men in overall physical ability would not be worth changing the whole system."</p>
<p>It's easy for you to say when you're coming from the male perspective. I feel degraded that I'm not at least given a chance to SEE if I'm strong enough to make the standards. I'm not going to be stupid; there are many girls that are very weak that probably shouldn't even be in the Armed Forces. But the same holds true for guys. There are many, many weak, unsatisfactory guys that probably shouldn't be in.</p>
<p>"personally whenever i do any type of physical activity we are always as strong as our girls."</p>
<p>Funny how that works. I did more push-ups and more sit-ups than any of the guys in my squad, and I was the second fastest in the 300 yard shuttle-run. I also had the highest score for the PRT (91).</p>
<p>"so i say why not keep them their where their brainpower can be used effectively instead of trying to push them into more physical roles just for the sake of equality. "</p>
<p>Push them into more physical roles? I certainly wouldn't be "pushed". This isn't just about equality, it's about being able to serve my country in a direct manner, not just in a support role. And are you saying that women's brainpower can't be used effectively in combat? That's presuming a lot, seeing as you've never seen combat. Don't get me wrong, I'm not pretending to know everything. I certainly haven't seen combat, so I simply don't know. All I DO know is that I'd at least like to have the OPPORTUNITY to try to pass the requirements for Infantry. I mean, by relegating women to support units, it's like saying "Hey, this is all you're worth: make our tanks, fix our coffee, and calculate our wages". Though I'm exaggerating greatly, that's what it feels like. </p>
<p>Bulldog, you're right, this question will probably never be answered. But it just makes me so mad that women aren't even given the opportunity to TRY.</p>
<p>in my group the only ones taking charge were guys. the girls just listened to what the other guys said. im not saying all girls are like that, there are many strong-willed girls, but you made a comment about how there were alot more guys that is why guys mostly stepped up and took charge, but out in the military there are alot more guys than girls so i guess it would be just as hard for women to step up. im not saying female brainpower can't be used effectively in combat, im saying that in front line combat you need to have physical and mental strength. while female's have mental strength, they, on the majority do not have the same physical strength that men do. it may seem unfair to be limited because you were born a female, but that is just the way you were made. is it fair to limit someone who was born colorblind or someone who has bad eyes from flying? your comment about having the opportunity is what im trying to get at. you have to do cost benefit analysis before you do anything, and looking at the cost of changing the system vs. the benefits of giving an "opportunity" to females so they can feel good that they have an extra option would not be worth it. we would have two options. one, very few woman would be able to exercise this option because they can't meet the same physical standards as men and therefore it wouldnt be worth it to change for the few woman who could make it. or two, we could water down the physical standards for women and thus risk the lives of their counterparts in battle. in this case i don't think the benefits outweigh the costs.</p>
<p>Heyitsme:</p>
<p>When you get to the academy in June check out whether there are any women there "willing to take charge, but be careful, one might be wearing a red sash or be your company commander :) </p>
<p>When you get ready to climb that big tall wall at Beast, look up---the hand you see extended to help you over may be my daughter's (or marine4me's) :)</p>
<p>At summer seminar (both USMA, and USNA) my daughter came back both surprised (and elated) at the fact that she was more than able to keep up with any boy in her squad--she beat them all at the 2 mile run, and the pushups in two minutes, and was competitive in most of the rest of the events (didn't do as well on a standing broad jump). She understands clearly that she won't be able to benchpress like a football player, and probably never will---but she is VERY confident (as I am sure you will find many women at West Point are) in the fact that what she CAN do, she can do well, will be enough to get the job done on par with the boys. She also understands, like many individuals in the past have, that there will be those who expect her to fail because of who she is---talk about motivation!
Good Luck!</p>
<p>Shogun-
What was her 2 mile time?</p>