I was having a conversation with my wife last night and I brought up the fact that I think women do not belong in war.

She got upset and said that I am a sexist.  She now really thinks I am a sexist.

I don't think she has a good understanding of war.  Maybe if she did, she would agree with me.

 Ask your wife if she wants to live in a hole for six months, and doesn't have a chance to take off even her boots for weeks at a time.  Ask her if she can stand having her best friend's guts raining down on her like Satan's thunderstorm.  Ask her how she would like to be gang-sodomized repeatedly if captured.  Ask her if she would happily cut someone's throat.

My girlfriend is in the Marine Reserves. Since we started dating, I never hid my feelings about women in the military. She always thought I was a sexist, bullheaded pig, but the longer she is in the military, the more she realizes how right I am. And she even tells me so.

The problem is not [b]women[/b] in the military, it's about 51% of the women in the military that are the problem. And anyone who has been on active duty before can tell you the problems when you mix men and women together in the same units. Keep them apart and you solve most of the problems.

A lot of people argue that women can do everything men can do in the military, but as long as physical standards have to be lowered for them just to enlist or recieve a commission, I will remain unconvinced.

(nomex on)

Women do not belong in war, or in ANY position in the military except support staff and the like.  Period.  As long as we go on with this touchy-feely-no-yelling liberal crap, we will not be producing warriors.  Period.

!. They would be a distraction to the [i]real[/i] soldiers.

2. They would have a really hard time killing IMHO

3. They would try to "Talk to the enemy" trying to find out "what is [i]really[/i] bothering them and causing this violent behaviour"

4. There is no USGI approved tampon.

[peep] Let me know when it is safe to come out!

Sgtar15

While I was on active duty I knew some who could "keep up" and some that were total loosers. We had one while I was at Ft Polk who stayed pregnant or on profile most of the time she was there. We had to take up the slack. In Korea while running back from the rifle range with some 11Bs we had to keep stopping so a few of our females could catch up. We were not going that fast. Took a lot of ribbing from the grunts that day. Some can, most can't.

I dunno.

I think it would have been a great idea to round up and arm 10,000 plaid-wearing bull dykes and send [b]THEM[/b] to Afganistan.

Hey, if the Taliban doesn't like women, they'll lose their friggin minds at being attacked by a drove of lesbians.  Besides, I'm sure some of those ladies would love to show the the Afgans some women's lib.

I think women definitely do NOT belong in offensive combat. But they do belong in the military.

Just as SKSboy said, there is plenty of stuff for women in the military to do.  They do NOT belong in combat.  If someone thinks you are sexist for having that view, that is unfortunate.  

Sometime in the last year I saw a poll taken of women "IN THE MILITARY" and how they felt about serving in combat.
As I remember 83% did "NOT" want to serve in combat.

I always thought women were pretty smart and this again proves it.

All I'm going to say is: When ARLady sees this thread, stand by for incoming.

The "average" woman is not as strong as the "average" man. I really doubt that most women would be mentally fit enough to be able to kill and keep cool. Can you picture two divisions of women attacking each other? they would probably get scared, start crying, and try to talk out there problems with each other. Sure, SOME women would be able to, but for every woman that can, There will be twenty who can't.  

Women cannot fight the "3 meter battle". They do not have the innercore killer instinct that men have. Will any given infantryman tackle and kill an enemy soldier with his bayonet if this situation arose. The answer is yes. A female soldier would probably not. A female would recognize what is about to happen and want OUT of that situation. A male soldier who is constantly falling behind, not carrying the same amount of weight in his ruck, performing to the lower end of PT, complaining about how tired they are, etc. is not tolerated. We are not sexist. We are simply asking women to do something that they are not set up to do. When a man is kept in constant combat, he becomes hardened. If a woman is kept in constant combat, she becomes devastated.

Women in [ground] combat?  Total bullshit.  Only liberal lefties and women in loose shoes with an agenda that don't include the defense of the Constitution of the United States would really advocate placing women in combat.  They just don't get it.  They scream that it's about 'fairness' in career opportunities, that it's just like race-based equal opportunity disparities we had in the military before the services were integrated.  BS.
I'll tell you [them] what it's about:  It's about hump-hump-hump all day carrying all your goods and your rifle...no hot chow, damn little to drink...damn little sleep, then going into eyeball-to-eyeball combat.  It's about carrying your wounded buddy out to an aid station.  (I saw this video about WM recruits going through the Crucible...and when the DIs imposed a casualty on the girls, it took three or four to drag/carry the 'wounded' Marine to the rear! (ILMAO)).
In the real world...(Not the 'fair' world.), 99% of the girls can't hack it.  They lack the strength and the endurance.  The girls can push the buttons and fly the planes in the Air Force and Navy...but keep them off the battlefield.  To be a successful (read long lived) grunt...you gotta be tougher, meaner and harder than the enemy grunt.  Just ask the guys at Chateau Thierry, at The Cowpens, at Gettysburg, or Tarawa, Guadalcanal, The Chosin, Ah Shau Valley.  How many women could have done what the twelve men of Easy Company of the 506th PIR/101st AB Div did to the Germans in Normandy on D-Day?  Granted, Easy company was an exceptional unit...but how many women could really do what the average grunt does in any American Army or Marine Corps rifle company?
We lowered the standards so the girls could play the boy's game.  Now we are paying the price in reduced readiness.  Hopefully, President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld will continue the current policy of ensuring that the girls don't see combat.
It ain't about fairness...it's about killing.
Women in combat...my ass!
[soapbox]

Lacking killer instinct, the ability to go into an ass kicking rage, strength, endurance, and quick action as opposed to talk, women have no place taking combat roles.

as someone earlyer pointed out, the problem is with a certain percentage of the females. I had several females serving on my crew (LCAC) and some of them handeled themselfs in the most professional maner, others I kind of kept busy cleaning the office. all were required to take fire arms training due to the nature of or mission. And the few that were good were really good. I have no doubt that in a combat situation they would be heart breakers and life takers. so as to the question "do women belong in combat?" Id say yes, if the personel in charge of them feel they can hack it.( by personel in charge I mean their direct enlisted supervisor, you cant trust an officer to do anything non-PC)

[:)>]

_______________________________________________

Let us all remember there are usually exceptions.

Anyone gives me grief I'm gonna introduce them to my ex-wife.
(She teaches "Killer Instincts" to the Navy SEALs.)
[:D]

Hey all:

I am currently reading the public version of the Sniper manual released in 1989 by the Army.  (Of limited use, but interesting none the less)  A note in there mentions that in foreign countries, usually about 1/2 of the snipers are women.  A quick look at history bears this out, especially in Russia.

This does bring up the repeated theme that women may not be suited for for close quarter combat.

Just thought that I would throw that tidbit into the mix.

On another note:  I found out that holding your breath at the same place from shot to shot will affect your placement.  Breath...release to EXACTLY 1/2 half...hold...squeeze.

Be good.

Molly Pitcher huh?...well, point conceded on that one...but the accurate details of the action remain somewhat clouded in myth.  On the other hand, since you bring up that fine fighting arm of the Army, the artillery, my great grandfather the artillery officer served with Teddy Roosevelt in Cuba, fought in the Phillipines in 1901-03 as a captain of artillery and led an arty regiment in Flanders in 1917-18.  His letters and pictures (some REALLY gruesome ones too!) while showing the horrors of war fail to show a single female troop.

Again...I restate:  Several times I have tried to imagine women serving in some of the fiercest ground combat in history and I just can't come to grips with that state of reality.  I just can't see women in the ranks of the Spartan Hoplites at Thermopylae, with the 2nd Maine on Little Round Top, or with the Marines on Iwo.

How many women could have done what John Basilone did at Edson's Ridge on Guadalcanal?  

I reiterate, it's not a question of rights, nor of desire to serve...it's a question of creating the BEST fighting force possible.  Size, strength, stamina, and maybe even a bit of primeval warrior killer instinct...that is what makes men more efficient and more effective killers than almost all women.  I won't deny the possibility of exceptions...but for the most part men are the better troopers...and by a clear margin.

(Flame suit ready...)[grenade]

I remember when this debate was being argued before some congressional committee that Patsy Schroeder (Lib, Dem. from CO) was sitting on.
A retired soldier (not sure which branch anymore) but with the credentials to prove he knew what he was talking about put it this way to Patsy.
As a rule women do not have the same mindset or physical ability that men have. To prove my point there is no law or rule that says women may not play on any major league pro sports team in this country. Any NFL team would gladly sign a woman who could rush for 1,000 yards a season. BUT there is not one playing or even on the bench. AND compared to actual ground combat there is not one sport that is even close to combat in either physical or mental stress.
Tuco

Women, political correctness, the black beret for all troops, the "gay" looking new PT's, the stupid new PT test effective 2003, and thousands of incompetent leaders are why..........I leave the Army in less then a year....I have been motivated.....even when I must issue weapons at 1am, 2am,3am, or 4am for some stupid s##t. But the Army can survive without me - it seems hard-working individuals who give a S##T are not what is desired in the "Army of One".........

I have no problem with women......just women working with men in the Army.....but Klinton destroyed our military......and sorry, but I have to bounce before the ship completely sinks......

Maybe the Army will get better once it fields its battery-operated Land Warrior program of virtual soldier-robots - I highly doubt that though.........

Thanks for your service to the country J_Smith.

The problems go beyond that of just "physical" and "mental" toughness. I haven't done a lot of time on active duty, but I have seen WAY too many good Marines go down because of a psycho female. Sometimes it's not always the woman's fault, but when you put men and women together in tense situations, shit happens. MORALE IS A [b]HUGE[/b] ISSUE!!!

The military doesn't exist to be fair. If anything, it's mission is to be unfair. Both to those who are unfit for service and to the enemy.

Think about it... who would you want with you in a bar brawl? Who would you want to pick you up after being wounded in a firefight and carry you a half click to the rear? Who would you feel confident in before combat when everyone is loaded down with 200lbs of gear and ordinance - who could carry their own weight?

Sure, some women can, but when rounds are flying, I'm not taking any chances.

And don't forget, ANY JOB IN THE MILITARY is a potential combat job not just in the defense, but in the offense. Just ask the cooks and pencil pushers in Somalia that had to help bail out the Rangers and Delta Force!!!

Very interesting discussion.  I'm especially glad to hear from people with actual experience.

I would like to remind you folks that we already have a model of how women can do well in our military-- WWII.  I think they called it, "Free a man to fight."  Among other things, they used women for the valuable and important job of ferrying aircraft around, driving trucks, test-firing artillery(as seen on TV), & etc. Nevermind all the nurse and clerical(read that "non-combat") jobs out there.

I think it insane that some wacked-out liberal FemiNazis *feel* that women should be pushed into frontline combat roles.  If this is such a good idea, why don't we see lots of women in frontline combat roles in other militaries?

If women cannot be cursed at, let alone punched in the mouth, Then Why are they Suitable for US Infantry!!!!!

When a large, angry man punched me on the jaw, all it did was make me mad. Almost any woman would have Gone Down, for good.

We need capable infantry.

What is all of this crap about women not suited for combat????  By God, they get the same pay as I do, THEY HAD BETTER BE READY FOR COMBAT!
As a male service member, is my life worth less than a female's?  That is such a crock!  If they aren't ready and capable of fighting, they are ripping-off the American tax payer.This crap about lowering physical standards just because they are women is also a crock!  Do you think the enemy will take pity on them because they are women??  Hell No.  They will shoot them first.  Just like in the wild, the slow and weak are killed first.  
I do not think a woman's place is on the battlefield, but,if they are getting paid the same as I am, they HAD BETTER be able to do the same as their male counterpart.  

Personally I think bitter 40 & 50 year old men should do our fighting.

Women can fight well, but I think they should be held in the reserve to do the other stuff. Why some feminists want women to serve in combat is that the lack of combat experience can hurt your promotion chances.

Soem women could be really good in combat, but men are better for the most part.

MAybe they should start Amazon only women regiminets in the Infantry and test those out in Iraq next year.

I am going to bring my wife to see Black Hawk Down the movie.  Maybe that will give her a good understanding of what war is actually like.  Maybe then she won't think I'm sexist for saying that women don't belong in combat.

While not having served in the military, I will foward the opinions of my high school Gov't teacher, retired Force Recon.

When on patrol and your buddy goes down, you push on not thinking about him.  Not because you have no feelings, but because if you stop you will die too and the mission is now 2 men short.
Now replace that buddy with a women and how many men can push on or will stop the put a thumb in the pumping chest wound that is clearly fatal...

To my teacher it was not always women cant hack it but somtimes men cant handle their natural born instict to save the damsel in distress.

Dont get me wrong he was quite against the lowered standards and felt that the "average woman" was incapable to put a bayonet hilt deep into someones chest.

[size=5]Forget "Blackhawk Down", show her the video of the russian being beheaded![/size=5] That'll give her an idea of what total war looks like.  


Molly Pitcher brought water to the troops but it placed her in a position to have to fight when the men fell.  Rosie the riveter was at home, working hard to support the war effort from a safe position (where our women should be).  


[img]http://www.nara.gov/exhall/powers/wecan.jpg[/img]


I'd sure like to see Rosie O'Donnell talk that schmack to Rosi the Riveter!  It'd be an 'ol fashion ass whoop'in for that cow!  [;D]

You guys  crack me up. My wife and my best friend are very pretty women. The friend was sent to Newark for  911 as she is a fedreal agent. she got into a problem with a big bad Nat. Guard soldier, he lost, she has responsible for some serious ass kicking.
My wife was at Judo class, she completely ripped her ACL, she drove home and went to work before her Sensei made her go to the  ER.
I have a officer at work football, beer all the guy things, when something kicks off, he disappears.....
GO read the book 'The Avengers', by Cohen. It is about a team of three partisans in WWII. One guy and two women.

The psycological effect of women dying in combat would also be a major issue for most men.  Remember that most women are mothers of children.  Picture your mom dying next to you.

There might be a woman out there, somewhere, who has the martial arts skills to kick my ass(though I doubt it).

HOWEVER, there isn't a woman on this planet who, after hiking 25 miles, with a full combat load, could drop pack and kick my ass.
No how, no way.
Period.

Yep', during WWII women served to free up men.  In fact, my mother was a WASP pilot, she ferried airplanes all over the place....but, what are men being freed up from?

When the REMF jobs are filled by females, where will the guys be rotated back to?  Soft duty, something non-sharp with regular food?  Sorry guys, little Sally Sargent doesn't want to get dirty so, you get some other shit job.

If 40% of the troops can't do the dirty work, the 60% of the functional troops will get it...over and over.

Women don't belong in combat, the Navy found out the slut rate on a ship is amazingly high, especially when there is no punishment for getting pregnant, only rewards.  Just look at how pathetic women have shown themselves to be as firemen (they get the "cake" jobs of ambulance or driver/pumper operator" since they can't do much else).

But there is one major societal problem...women have never been taught to sacrifice for anyone but themself or a child.  Women won't sacrifice themselves for their husbands, their partner, their fellow troop.  It isn't expected by society-so they have no history of doing it.

Major, I will take it on myself to seek and train that woman......How old are you? Hmmmnn age difference could be an advantage?

34.
Bring her on!

ump45, your girl probably thinks it's sexist because she probably hears you saying "women shouldn't be in the military because they can't physically/mentally/emotionally hack it."  there's a difference between that and "women don't belong in the military and/or combat roles (depending on your viewpoint) because the drawbacks to their presence outweigh the benefits of their presence."  as a female, i can honestly say i agree with the latter.  but the former just grates against every nerve because it's simply not true.

i think it's laughable that some of you guys think you know so damn much about the female psyche.  especially when it's so obvious that you don't know shit.  all i've seen hear from those of you who believe women can't hack it is a gross overgeneralization about the abilities of all women based on some women and a complete ignorance of the female mind.

if you don't believe women belong in the military/combat, that's fine.  i don't either.  but these bullshit excuses are just that.  don't try to make up stupid crap to support your belief.  in fact, i wonder why you'd have to do that.  don't you have some concrete evidence to support it?  or at the very least some personal convictions/opinions about a woman's role.  but to say that a woman can't kill?  ridiculous.

Oh, NO ONE is saying a woman can't be ruthless.

I mean, take Lorena Bobbitt for instance.

[:D]

I hear she's getting an endorsment contract with a cutlery company.

[}:D]

total bullshit.  your conclusions, that is.  i'll agree that it isn't expected by society, and there is very little history of it.  but that in no way supports the conclusion that women aren't "taught" to sacrifice for anyone but themselves or their children.  sacrifice isn't taught in the first place.  sacrifice is rooted in the heart and mind of the individual.

there are lots of men on this planet that wouldn't sacrifice a day of NFL football for their women, let alone their life or livelihood in the second place.  so just because society leans a little more heavily on men to do it doesn't mean it's going to get done.

this is a prime example of the ignorance of the female mind that i referred to in my first post.

Since I was a REMF I was in units with women for the last half of my career. It always amused me to see less qualified females promoted ahead of me due to affirmative action. I remember one PT test. I was in my 40s and just finished the two mile run. A much younger female finished about a minute after me and got a much higher score. Equal indeed! John

This is a great post subject!  It hits the emotional buttons and REALLY has a lot to do with the future of our country.

Wind...with all due respect, and I really mean that; I suspect you haven’t been there and done that.  If you had any grunt experience, especially in Indian country, I KNOW you wouldn't be arguing this position, asserting that women (any women) can hold their own in ground combat.  Not having that seasoning, I submit that you are in no position to make such assertions.  (Again...nothing personal here...just a perception from this end.)

Ground combat is something so different from anything you can imagine, who has felt the sting of combat can make such a cogent argument.

Taking down a Guardsman, or beating up a dude in a judo/karate match isn't combat.  I say again...it isn't combat.

Major Murphy hit the nail on the head when he said, "...there isn't a woman on this planet who, after hiking 25 miles, with a full combat load, could drop pack and kick my ass."  “No how, no way."  I know many females in and out of the military.  My daughter-in-law serves with the 101st AB.  I can’t think of ANY women who could successfully beat any “average” infantry soldier or Marine in close quarters combat...none.  I’m not even including the Rangers or SPECOPS guys like SEALS, Green Berets, or Force Recon boys…I don’t think you want to go there.

Again, I reiterate my basic argument:  This is not about rights, career choices and equal opportunity for women in the military.  It is about ground combat.  Just take a minute to review some of the fierce, terrible battles in our history...and ask yourself, what would have happened, had the ranks of our units been populated with females?
Consider Guadalcanal and Edson's Ridge.  Consider Stonewall Jackson's end run around Hooker's right flank during the hot afternoon in the Battle of Chancellorsville.  If his Corps had been populated with women could they have made that long forced march equally fast, then gone into combat with equal force and rolled up the Union right flank?
What about Chesty Puller's Marines at Chosin?  The grunts carried out their wounded and dead.  Ever seen a couple of WMs struggling with a litter...and this litter has another female Marine in it?  Ever see a female Marine try to fireman’s carry a “wounded” buddy out of the combat area?

Body mass...upper body strength, stamina, speed and killer instinct.  All traits of a good grunt.  All lacking in females...relative to their typical male peers.

Oh…one last thing…don’t think for a second if I had a female in my unit I would treat her ANY differently from her male counterparts.  Some men might try the, “Shucks, Ma’am” crap as they try to protect the little lady.  BS.  Not me.  She pulls her weight…and therein lies the problem.

Flame suit firmly affixed! [;)]

[argue]

LWilde:

Sir, this argument has been waged here before several times. Every time, men with military experience find themselves attempting to impart some of their experience to those with none of it, and find themselves reviled for it.

You will find your posts pulled apart and one small inconsistency or verbal miscue seized upon as evidence that your entire line of reasoning is false, stupid, evil and hateful. Anything you post to clarify your position will be ignored. Experience will be tossed aside as prejudice.

In short, you are preaching either to the converted or unconvertible.

Semper Fidelis, shipmate.

You'll ALSO get the ladies ASSURING you they can be mean too.

[:D]

Thanks Guys.  Appreciate the info.  I guess I'll just sit back and watch the fireworks.

Jarhead...you are on the money.  You nailed it perfectly.

I gotta tell you though...I still just can't see it. [V]

mean doesn't even come close to describing it.  [:D]

FWIW, after discussing this briefly with my fiance, we've both come to the two following conclusions:  1) when presented with the scenario of enemy sighted, take him out, i wouldn't hesitate to kill.  2) i would likely be quicker to kill than he (fiance) as our personalities are very different in that manner.  i'm much quicker to resort to violence, while he practically avoids it at all costs.  course, i'm just one.  but aren't many of you guys basing your opinions on just one or a few females.  so i guess my logic is just as good.

granted, i know i'd fare poorly in hand-to-hand combat with a man based on physical prwoess alone.  i reckon i could outwit him easily enough.  (cunning female mind, doncha know?  [:D]) i think you guys forget the mental power of women to overcome the physical shortcomings.

NOOOOOOO. No, nope, no way. I REFUSE to beleive that.

[}:D]

BTW-

The various differences between you and your boyfriend have little to do with what is SMART for designing, fielding, training and equipping an army whose PRIMARY obejective is to fight the enemy, and kill them.

OK, time to pick this one apart piece by piece.



Unless you have actually done it, you HAVE NO IDEA what you would do when it came time to actually kill. Armchair warriors FREQUENTLY prove out to be too hesitant when the time to kill actually comes.




Personality is irrelevant. It was not found to be in their personality to wet their pants, but many soldiers did when REAL combat surrounded them. Arm chair warriors.....



Many of those most knowledgeable about REAL violence avoid it at all costs. Again, a poor indicator of real world combat. Audie Murphy didn't look the type to kill, but he sure did plenty of it.


Frankly, your bravado is a greater indicator of you unsuitability for combat, far as I am concerned.





Yup. And THAT is the ONLY thing that REALLY matters. Winning wars DEPENDS on it.



Cunning and "outwitting" have little use on the battlefield. They are only of value in the strategic positions. BRUTE FORCE wins on the battle field. And as you admitted above, you are lacking there.




Unless you strategy is to THINK the enemy to death, what in the #@!! has that got to do with anything????

REMEMBER: We are talking about the moment of truth, the Oppham scene on the second floor at the end of Saving Private Ryan, you and the enemy with a single bayonet, which one them is gonna plunge into the heart of the enemy.

having a "fighting chance" of winning that contest is a JOB REQUIREMENT of a combat soldier.

Those without a fighting chance need not apply. that would include ALL women. Sorry. That is teh way it is.

I served as a Security Policeman in the U.S. Air Force for five years, back when the field was divided into Law Enforcement specialists and Security (combat) specialists.  I was a K-9 handler, so I worked both sides of the street.  Women were allowed to be LE's, but security was considered a combat position, so they were excluded from it.

While stationed in Korea, the Air Force began allowing women to go into security, and I remember the ones who came to Kunsan AB.  Every night, the security troops would go out on patrol, and the women would go out with their field pack and rifle; and every morning they would come back in, with one man carrying their field pack and another man carrying their rifle.

I have met women during my military hitch that I would have absolutely no problem going into combat with, but I can count them on the fingers of one hand.  Twice.

If that makes me a chauvinist, then so be it.