Opinion Section

"Women in Combat"

File #2

What's your opinion on this controversial issue?

Posted: 22 Dec 97:

I've thought very much over the subject of women in combat. I can tell you right now I know lots of women who have the right attitude, drive, concentration, moral flexibility, physical stamina, and confidence to match which would, given the proper training, make them ready for combat. We already have female MPs who have the necessary skills. As for women in The Teams. Well, there's just one problem. Sexist attitudes pervade. And if you think I don't know what it takes to be ready combat, trust me I do. I was a Seal Team Leader.

Posted: 19 Dec 97: "The Modern Military Woman"

I read and reread each and every last one of the opinions on the page about women in combat roles. I noticed the personal experiences, the emotions, and the facts that went into each and every letter. Some younger people weren't informed on the issue, but others made sure that they were up to speed. That's admirable, because everyone should look out for each other. The opinions expressed on this page are also valuable to me. Although a few only used their emotions to direct their thoughts, it shows me almost everyone that has posted an opinion on this page has thought over the issue, and at least investigated their theories.

I also have done quite a bit of thinking over the issue, and I will warn you my opinion is based on personal feelings, but I will try to be objective. I am a 19 year old female sophomore currently enrolled in the University of Kansas Naval Reserve Officer's Training Course as a Marine Option. I look forward to that day I will pin on those "butter bars" and can call myself a Marine and an officer of Marines. I have often thought of the career opportunities open to me, and those that aren't: infantry, artillery and armor. I personally would be willing to do anything that the Marine Corps assigned me to, especially combat roles.

What about women in combat, pregnancy, POW's, and other topics? The highest ideals of the military are taught through professionalism. Not everyone is professional, but almost all soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are. As a Gunnery Sergeant once expressed, "You will find 85-90% of people in the military are good, 10-15% are not so good". The bad part of the people in the military are the ones that are publicized 90% of the time, but that's only 10-15% of the military! They are usually weeded out through the first few years, so what is left? You have your hard workers, your motivated sailors, your dedicated Marines. In any situation, you will first have the men and women fraternize, but after a few months they get over it Most women realize that it could mean their career, and don't risk the career hazard. Since the release of the restriction of female pilots in combat, there have been less than 5 women that have been criticized for lack of expertise, or lack of morals. That should speak.

Posted: 2 Dec 97:

I am a 17 year old male who is planning to go to the University Of Tennessee and be in the Army ROTC program. After college I plan to enter the Army as a Rifle Platoon Leader. I have heard several opinions about women in combat and I would like to state mine. First.. Lets take into consideration the physical capabilities of a woman compared to that of a man.

LETS BREAK INTO THE FACTS
#1
Forces heard testimony from Army Lieutenant Colonel William Gregor, Chairman of the Department of Military Science at the University of Michigan, who conducted a test of Army officer candidates and found that: The top 20 percent of women at West Point achieved scores on the Army Physical Fitness Test equivalent to the bottom 20 percent of male cadets.Only seven percent of women can meet a score of 60 on the push-up test, while 78 percent of men exceed it. Only one woman out of 100 could meet a physical standard achieved by 60 out of 100 men. Gregor concluded that going through this process would mean that "I have just traded off 60 soldiers for the prospect of getting one. The cost considerations are prohibitive." (Lt. Col. William Gregor, USA, testimony before the Presidential Commission, September 12, 1992, cited in the Presidential Commission's Report to the President, November 15, 1992)

Soldiers under fire must have confidence in the physical abilities of their comrades. Before allowing women to face the stress of combat, Congress must hear from Lieutenant Colonel Gregor and other experts to determine whether women are physically suited for it.

#2
A lot of "extremist feminists" like to say that men and women are the same... That is the biggest cruk of bull I have ever heard. Men and Women are different. It is simply this.. Men have a penis and women have a vagina.... I feel very sorry for anybody who disagrees with me on this. The reality of women fighting side by side is absolutely wrong. Combat is a team activity which brings people closer together than any other profession. A small number of women may possess the physical and mental toughness to perform some combat duties; but teamwork matters more than individual capabilities in combat, and this teamwork generally is undermined by the presence of women. On one support ship during Operation Desert Storm, 36 of the 360 women on board -- ten percent -- became pregnant. (Alecia Swasy, "Shipboard Pregnancies Force the Manly Navy to Cope With Moms," The Wall Street Journal, October 3, 1991, p. 1.) In a Roper survey conducted during the Gulf War, 64 percent of military personnel surveyed reported that sexual activity had taken place in their unit. (The Roper Organization, "Attitudes Regarding the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces: The Military Perspective," September 1992.) Mixing men and women in military units invites sexual attraction and special relationships, and these relationships -- or even the perception that they exist -- destroy the morale and cohesion which any fighting force must have to win wars. If more women join combat units that become open to them as a result of the Administration's new policies, this problem will only worsen.

#3
Other countries have made the same mistake that the U.S. is making right now!!!! History shows that the presence of women has had a devastating impact on the effectiveness of men in battle. For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield. (Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, International Trip Report, September 14-27, 1992.) These findings will come as no surprise to most Americans; in a recent national survey, two-thirds of those who favored the current policy barring women from ground combat cited the potential loss of mens' effectiveness as a reason. (The Roper Organization, "Attitudes Regarding the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces: The Public Perspective," September 1992, p. 41.)

#4
All I can say is simply this. Our military is serves one purpose. To defend our country from foes foreign and domestic. Our military should not be used as leverage for women's rights. Our military should not be turned into to a big social experiment. The feminist population doesn't want equality. Instead they want to dominate and humiliate the male population for everything their worth. America needs to "wake up" and look at what is happening to our military which has won every war in which has been declared. The only reason nations fear us is because of our military might. Cold war or not we MUST remain a dominate military power if we expect to be recognized as a world power. For example Russia had no economy, corrupt leadership, and a sorry GNP and was still a world power just because of one thing.. Their military.

I hope that I made some sort of impact on whoever has read/or will read this posting. I got most of these facts from an article by John Luddy.

Posted: 18 Nov 97:

I am a vet and now a housewife. I have seen the rigors of military life and know the strain it can put on people. Women can do many things and our characteristics of sensitivity and emotionality are God given, God ordained parts of our make-up, it does not mean we are less than men because of it, it means we are different. The intrinsic value of a human being, male or female, is understood, and I am sure that most of us would defend our homes and families. If someone were threatening me or anyone in my family I would fight to the death if I had to. I also know that there are exceptions to every rule. Most women are strong, capable and intelligent persons who want an opportunity to be considered valuable... just like men. If what women do, no matter what it is, is done to the best of their abilities, there will be a place for us in the military. I personally believe that there are probably some women who would be good at combat, I am not one of them. I think it could be offered as an option for those who are interested and qualified, but not mandatory. I also believe that they should serve in an entirely female unit. There will always be sexual pressures. Until we "evolve" there is wisdom in keeping things somewhat separated in the military. Privacy is important to women, and we do have different needs and situations with our bodies. It does not make us weak. There are situations that afford the opportunity for women to be very useful in the military; we mustn't forget what women have done in wars before, and how well they served their country. Women held these United States together during the World Wars. Consider who you are, how you were made, and what is really important to you, and trust that God made us different for a reason and find yourself from that

Posted: 10 Nov 97:

Being on active duty in the Air Force since 1990, I would like to have my opinion posted. I'm a weapon's load crew chief who supervises two male crew members, (we are a three-man crew) on the F-16 and A-10 fighters. My career field was off-limits to women until the late 70's. Now, almost 20 year's later, there is still an air of male dominance on the flightline. Aircraft maintenance and armament do not entice our young women today, so those of us in are the silent minority. I love serving my country, and am challenged everyday with new horizon's to look forward to. I believe to allow women in combat would cause a crisis in our military ranks. People say, "let 'em in, as long as the standards already established are followed." I would like to agree, yet am more concerned with the utter breakdown of our inner structure. Maybe the time is not right. I've seen women use their femininity for gains on the job or for personal reasons. The classic, "I dropped my handkerchief--who will pick it up?" I believe when men and women learn to act like mature beings rather than flaunting their sexualism towards the other sex, on the job,....maybe there's a chance. I see allowing women in combat down the long road ahead of us,..but not now.

Posted: 6 Nov 97: "Response to 4 Nov 97 post by the Tank Crewmember"

This is for the Tank Crewmember-Nov 4, 97. Again, there are many pros and cons to this issue and much more intense than the ones that you bring up. Your girlfriend couldn't "work" the tank?? Well, I'd venture to bet that there are plenty of men that UNTIL they go thru the training and conditioning for that type of work would be hard pressed to be competent so quickly! I'm sure that there are plenty of women that if trained and conditioned in your job from day one would be able to do it with the same amount of competence. In my field we have 915's that plenty of women both mechanics and operators have to perform maintenance on. It is not our luxury to call upon a male counterpart when something is too "heavy" or difficult. You either do it or improvise. Could they live "in" a tank for 15 days?? Why not?? I doubt you'll find "large quantities" of men who want or could live in a tank for 15 days straight without some mental strain. But I doubt the next war will be only 15 days so that would be trial for any gender! Can women urinate in front of their male counterparts?? As disgusting as it may seem to most people--YES. I have been a Team Chief most of my career and typically am the only female on my team. I seek cover or at least distance or have even been known to use my poncho for cover BUT under dire and timely circumstances I wouldn't hesitate. They want to stare at me as much as I would want to watch them--Never. Somehow I think that when faced with the daily prospect of dying you tend to focus on bigger issues like keeping each other alive while doing your job. I do not think that women can do all combat jobs and I don't even think that as many women can do these jobs as men. But I also don't think that you can completely rule out or generalize based on just your experience. There's a toughness-both mental and physical-to the active duty woman that I truly believe most civilian women or even part-time military women don't have. It can over come a lot of issues--physical, mental, emotional, etc. Not all the time and not all women. It will take a long time for the US Military to even attempt this integration as present day's society's mothers and fathers aren't ready to see their daughters die on CNN. We've "come a long way baby" but not that far!

Posted: 4 Nov 97: "A Right?"

I find it interesting that many in this forum talk about the "rights" women have to serve in combat. In fact, the PC shaping of all the 14 year old girls who have posted here (and who will be voting in four years) frightens me. War is not an episode of 'Sailor Moon!'

PLEASE take this issue out of the 'social engineering' mind set. A military's job during wartime is to utterly KILL PEOPLE and BREAK THINGS! This mission is accomplished from a position of strength! People who find this truth 'Politically Incorrect' need a dose of reality. Talk to an Infantry puke from WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam (pre-PC military).

With the exception of the specially selected, trained, rated and motivated anomalies noted by J. Michael Bower, a policy of female COMBAT soldiers is folly. Wars are won by an outward force of strength, not by internal social engineering.

I doubt a victorious enemy would be respectful of ANY rights we hold dear, not to mention the 'right' women have to serve in combat.

Posted: 4 Nov 97: "Concerning women in the combat ground forces of the US. ARMY"

I am a M1ip Abrams main battle tank crew member. I have been in the national guard for a year and a half. I'm not a combat vet but I have lived in a tank for multiple days on end. A couple months ago we had a "family day" in the field. I am only 19 so I'm not married yet but I have a girlfriend so I brought her along just so she could see what I do when I go on my drill weekends. My girlfriend is five foot seven inches tall and a very good athlete and she can pass the women's standards for the APFT. I know this because she was in JROTC in high school. She can also keep up with me when we go jogging without much problem. So I consider her a model girl in the aspects of mental and physical ability.

We arrived at the place where our tanks were. I began to show her the things on the tank that I have to do maintenance on in and outside the tank. Instead of me opening the hatches and compartments I was having her do the work. Over the course of the afternoon I covered the whole tank with her but she was getting mad. She couldn't do the physical tasks assigned to me - like loading the main gun - I have to be able to do it in under five seconds, she couldn't lift the dummy round off the ground- she couldn't lift the M2 .50 cal. machine gun or handle the wrench used to open a armored side skirt to look at the road wheels. Nor could she lift a road wheel or do most of the other standard tasks assigned to me. I don't have a unusual job on the tank, I'm a driver - this she could do. I'm sure that with a little practice she could drive that tank just as good or better than me.

I guess my point in all of this is no matter what the job in the army - and not just because mine is a combat one. I just think that you won't be able to find women in large quantities that want to live in a tank for 15 days at a time without a shower and having to urinate in front of guys and vice versa. Who won't have relations (get pregnant) or fall in love. Who can perform all tasks assigned without physical help. And doesn't have a problem with the stress of front line combat - or with the fact that she might be captured and raped and tortured every day until the end of the war. The Army code of conduct says in article 4 " I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners" and in article 5 it states " I will evade answering questions to the utmost of my ability" that means you need a girl who can be questioned - not disclose information - while she watches someone from her tank crew be tortured or vise versa. If the Army can breed a great number of super women with no problems stated above then I think you could have a girl in my tank crew but I don't think it will happen.

Posted: 15 Oct 97: "Is it REALLY time for a change?"

I am a male. I am assigned to a Special Tactics Squadron. My career field has an inherent machismo and it is exclusively male. And I like it that way. I realize this is offensive to many out there. But I don't make DOD policy; I just agree with it.

I have never been in combat. I can only speculate on what it would be like. Likewise, I can only speculate on what life would be like if a woman were assigned to work side by side with me. Arguably there would be many hurdles to clear, as well as some definite positives.

I have had this same discussion many times with many people. Some male, some female, and I have heard the pros and cons from each sex. By and large, most opinions are not drawn from a base of knowledge but rather speculation. I do not exclude myself from this category. But what most people do have is a strong opinion, as they are fully entitled to.

After all the time I have spent on this topic, the only conclusion I can offer is that my opinion doesn't matter; no one's does. Whether you agree or disagree, consider the following facts:

1. The prime directive of any military is to protect the territories and interests of the nation it represents. This is not a trivial task, nor is it a forum for irresponsible experimentation.

2. The duty of a military commander is to avoid war through deterrence. It is his responsibility to manage personnel and assets responsibly, while maintaining 100% mission readiness, at all times. When confrontation becomes inevitable, the task before the commander--and each military unit--is to accomplish the mission at hand quickly and decisively, with as few casualties as possible.

3. Standards for physical fitness and competency are set for a reason: to do the job quicker and better than the enemy. Any waiver of those standards is counterproductive to accomplishing the objective of that job. Double standards for women not only place unqualified personnel in critical roles, they create dissension among the ranks.

4. Behavioral patterns of sexism, and the "Boy's Club" mentality are not in accordance with official DOD policy. Yet, they are undeniably present, nearly impossible to police, and extremely difficult to change. However, it would be unreasonable to say that these attitudes are set in stone. When the first "Colored" infantry units were introduced into the Army, black soldiers faced vast opposition, regardless of their ability.

5. The physical and mental abilities of men and women are different. Due to chemical reactions within the body, men generally score higher on physical stamina and strength tests than women. Statistically, men have less trouble being trained to remain calm under stress. Arguably, women possess certain mental attributes that could prove useful in a combat situation.

Yet, despite these facts, probability theories suggest the existence of a woman with the dedication and motivation to get the job done. She is the consummate professional, intelligent and assertive, and no stranger to sexism and bigotry. She is a true hard charger. She can fulfill every requirement of the job just as well as--if not better than--a man could. I know it sounds like I have had a sudden change of heart but let me finish... I've never met her. I don't know anyone who has. I don't know anyone who has heard of her, even second or third hand. I'm not saying she doesn't exist. I'm saying she is a statistical rarity.

In conclusion, it would seem that the concept of women in combat isn't so alien after all. One could even argue the feasibility an idea. If we spend enough time, money and effort on research it just might happen. We could devise special candidate selection courses. We could develop unique training programs to cater to specific needs, while fostering positive attributes. We could develop specialized equipment to counter inherent problems like strength deficiencies and physiological problems. We could institute programs to address the gambit of issues caused by putting men and women together in the same arena with unprecedented stress levels. We could, provide training and guidance on certain inevitable horrors, such as gang rape in captivity. We could begin information programs to help counter the massive public opposition to seeing women POW's on CNN, while watching scores more women come home in body bags. By God, we might just pull it off.

Just think; we would be the only military in the world, where men and women are truly on a level playing field. We would be the only society where, in all facets of life, the ability to succeed would not be dependent on gender. At the end of all these growing pains, the United States would be the proud owner of a small unit of competent, combat-ready soldiers who just happen to be women.

But is it worth it? Is it worth the lives of men and women soldiers? Is it worth the heart wrenching pain and morale loss caused when the people back home watch atrocities being committed against their mothers, wives and daughters? Is it worth the ten to one cost ratio to select at train each candidate? Is it worth all these negatives, when it would take a fraction of the resources to produce an equal number of competent, combat-ready soldiers who just happen to be men?

Posted: 3 Oct 97:

It just amazes me that every time I see debates that involve women in the military, such a small percentage of opinion is from women actually in the military!! While I may not agree with some of these opinions, I applaud the women who wrote that are actually IN the military. I have been in the Active Army for 15 years. I'm in a combat support MOS which is in between combat and combat service support. Men outnumber the women in my field but if you took the women out, the mission would not be successful. When in the field, my job requires that I be within 5k of the "front line". 7 of my 9(four in Korea) permanent duty stations have been tactical. My first unit was 2ID Korea and one of the biggest things I remember is the commander gathering all of the women in the company together and telling them that if we went to war, we women would go with our respective teams. That we would NOT be replaced with men from down south. Apparently, at the time, there were some women who thought they would just get shipped down south and be replaced by men. I was too young and inexperienced to be even aware of this debate. While that tour scared me, a part of me was amazed that anyone could think that the company would undergo a massive refitting in the midst of war.

Again, my MOS is not combat, I'm not infantry. Should we have the opportunity? I've thought about it at various times, I've discussed it with my peers, both male and female. There is as much debate within the military as out. The army could do it but it would take unbelievable work. Logistically it would be a nightmare (I'm talking garrison) to integrate women into the infantry units. I think they would have to start with female only units like the ranger mentioned in his May opinion [19 May 97]. And they would definitely have to keep the standards the same. I've met few women who can attain those standards (I'm thinking of the male APFT standards) but there are some and it would be the "cream of the crop". Of course, if a woman comes in to the military and is trained from the start to meet those standards then there would be many more women able to do the job. But, truly, for every pro to this issue there is a con. I have never been in war and don't know the pressures. (I don't believe that reading about war educates you to the real pressures and hardships) I do think women are stronger than most would think. There are exceptions of course-in both genders.

Then there is the point of being in the "field" and that women would get sick and create problems. Well, having done plenty of 30-day rotations to JRTC, NTC, and Team Spirit, I can say that seldom did I see a woman that had to be medivac'd. But then, 30 days does not make a war (we wish). Again, pro-con.

So, I think that my biggest opinion to this issue is that NO ONE can know if it will work until they try it. The military would have to give it a HONEST effort in the training environment with no special "rules" and see what happens.

Also, to the Ranger: The biggest reason I agree with your all-female unit idea is because I understand, know, and have experienced the "cohesion" you're talking about. Women will have to prove that they can do the job, gain the respect (that will take an unbelievable amount of time) of the men doing the same job before they can be integrated without losing the cohesion of those units.

I think the most horrifying con to this debate is the POW issue. During my first tour in Korea I was threatened with Korean jail (a long story and one that angers me even today! So gullible......). It scared me to death. The adding of rape to beating, starving, and humiliating treatment that can be experienced by a POW is not pretty. Of course, how do we know that some of the Vietnam POWs didn't experience it all? It's not something that men talk about or admit.

Again, all the studies, psych's, etc should not be the decision maker. Try it. Now, while we have a choice.

Posted: 22 Sep 97: "Undermining old taboos"

I'm a 30-year old, British, TA Infantry. (Equivalent to US NG). For what it's worth, women should be allowed to try for combat roles, on an equal-standards basis. Problems ? Of course there will be - I've seen them happening first-hand.

My first TA unit was an OTC - 30% female. That meant that the best person for the job, got it - male or female. I can say I have experience of a "correctly" handled, integrated, unit.

Since then, I've lived in shared accommodation, with shared ablution facilities; it worked, because adults acted in a mature fashion. I've told males and females to huddle for warmth in extreme conditions; it worked, because adults acted in a mature fashion.

The problems are there, but not insurmountable; most have been, to my mind, leadership / man-management problems. Inappropriate behaviour (by both sexes), by immature people would be my best summary of the root problems.

Part solution ? If males treat their female colleagues as sisters, rather than potential mates, you've solved half your problems before they happen.

Posted: 22 Sep 97:

I feel that woman have the right to particapate in combat. I am a 16 year old guy who feels that if a woman chooses to fight and die for her country then let her. Women have probed in them selves over the last 100 years so it's about time [win] respect.

Posted: 14 Sep 97:

I am an 18 year old female in the Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps and I would just like to comment that I think that women have the same rights as men when it comes to combat readiness and standards. I PT with the guys in my unit all the time and out PT half of them!!!! I am aspiring to be a fighter pilot and fly off carriers as a career. We are just as capable as men and I think that they are getting upset due to busted egos. I don't expect special treatment or the standard to be lowered just because of my sex.

Posted: 12 Sep 97: "Why Not?"

I'm tired of hearing people say that women shouldn't be allowed to go to combat! It's stupid! We are all equal. I'm 15 years old and I plan to join the army and go to combat. So, to everyone who thinks women shouldn't go to combat you had better get used to it cause I'm going to the army to fight for my country.

Posted: 12 Sep 97: From a U.S. Army JROTC, C:/Master Sergeant

I am a 16 year old high school student. My goal is to go into the NAVY after college. My two best friends (both guys) goal in life is to become a couple of Navy SEALS. Every time they mention this goal my only course of response is, well maybe I can get a good desk job. I have the same desires as them and I'm just as physically capable. I would love to be given the chance to fight for my country. In this opinion board I've heard many different arguments but what I feel has only been touched on is the desire to fight. Sure there are women who wouldn't want to be in combat but there are men who sure as hell wouldn't want to be there either. Truthfully ask yourself... who would you rather be in a foxhole with a draftee [who is] only there because his number came up and only worried about his own A** or a woman [who is] there to give it her all for her self, her team, her country, God and family. Yes, some women don't deserve to be given a gun...some don't deserve to be given a water pistol... but some do.

Posted: 12 Sep 97:

I'm a 15-yr old female from Johnson City, TN. My journalism class at school is doing an article on the contemporary issue and I'm covering it. I'm very interested in this because I'm VERY for women's rights. I feel women should be allowed to fight on the front line if they do it for the right reasons. If they just want to get attention or make a statement then it's wrong. But if they have lots of patriotism and care to fight for our country, then more power to them. They must be prepared to train hard and do strenuous physical activity, but it would be worth it if they really wanted it. So if you are fighting to do this, I back you up all the way! Thanks!

Posted: 4 Sep 97:

I am a 21 y/o male. I've just entered my 3rd year at the Air Force Academy (Gold will shine!!). The question of women in a combat role is a very difficult question. I for one, support women who want to fight in combat, however they must meet the same standards set for a male. To do otherwise would be detrimental to the mission at hand. The problem isn't whether they're strong enough or can stand it emotionally. (God knows that I've met some pretty burly and hard-core women here.) It's whether the military is ready for them. To refer back to the Navy Seal, he said that people wouldn't accept them. That's the problem. With that, you can not afford a break down in any organization like that. So, we're faced with a serious dilemma. Can the military afford to affect mission readiness to integrate women in a combat role? I for one, wouldn't care what sex my wing man was, as long as he/she wasn't a bone-head.

Posted: 4 Sep 97:

I am a female Marine with more than 5 years active duty. I can out-run, out-shoot and have more field time than plenty of my male counterparts. But, I don't have the operational and combat experience that my male counterparts have, making them more competitive. I have sat through ridiculous Equal Opportunity lectures and guided discussions and have only come to the conclusion that the fact that women are not given the opportunity to serve in combat is legal discrimination. I have heard ridiculous reasons such as "we'll be distracted by their smell", "we'll have to give them their own head" and "they have special hygiene needs" from males. I don't think that it has anything to do with physical strength, more like stereo typing and the leadership of this nation being male dominated. Why not just give it a shot? If it doesn't work out, the issue will be closed. Why put women through all this training such as MCT when it's not going to be used? Surely the reasons for initiating all this new training for women out weigh the reasons why more women aren't deploying on an amphibious ship. Men are always quick to point out women who fall out of runs, schools etc yet I have seen plenty male Marines fall out, be over weight, whine and even cry in my presence. Yet these same male Marines are racking up more experience, despite their whining, than more qualified, physically fit females. Final thoughts; get over it men, give us a chance and keep your pathetic excuses to yourself. -- Semper Fi

Posted: 2 Sep 97:

There are women who would like the opportunity to go into combat for their country. And they should be allowed to, IF they can meet the necessary mental and physical requirements. The same requirements that the men must deal with, not the gender norming scale that the military has issued. Thirty seconds on a training course and thirty seconds in a battle field are in an entire world apart. The gender norming also sets women apart as outsiders from males. How could a man possibly trust a woman with his life if he knows she is thirty seconds slower. I wouldn't if I were a man. It is the same with the "sensitivity" issues. If a woman can't take criticism in any form without considering it sexual harassment, she should not be in the military. Harassment cases, both in civilian and military life has gone way to far. There is a need for the "rough and rude" treatment. Americas soldiers need to be prepared to protect our country. When millions of dollars are spent changing an entire system that has worked well through several decades is changed because one woman is yelled at, and offended, something is terribly wrong. I would gladly give my life for my country in the front lines, but I am well aware of the fact that there are several positions in other fields where I can be more useful. Those women who are tough enough to do it, go for it ! Those that aren't don't even try it. Quit embarrassing your country, and women in general. We don't need the bra burners on the front lines !

Posted: 22 Aug 97:

I am surprised at how many Women and Men agree that maybe women should not be in combat. I think I agree with "Ranger" [refer to 19 May 97 post] that if they must do this, form a all-female battalion and compare them with the men. It would be dangerous to just open it up to women who can't hack it, just because this is what women want. And sex is a big issue look and how many female sailors became pregnant when they integrated the ships. Women are much more emotional and sensitive than men. Imagine all the sexual harassment cases the Army would have if we had women in the Infantry. My Gosh, the Army would have to shut-down just to handle the case load. I am a woman and always considered myself to be pretty tough. If I were 10 years younger I probably could of handled the physical training these guys go through, but emotionally probably not.

Men and Women are not equal in all areas and we were never meant to be.

Posted: 22 Aug 97: On the 13 Aug posting:

When it comes to running, women have the upper hand. Women are natural distance runners, having slow-twitch muscles, while men are better sprinters for short distances. As a cross-country runner in high school, I found it was the men trying to keep up with the women. We need to look at the science of survival and combat capabilities, not the culture of it. For instance, in cold environments, women will survive while men would be more likely to die from hypothermia. Women keep their heat at their core, keeping their blood pumping and their bodies viable, while men's heat is distributed throughout their extremities, which means an overall loss of body heat and possible death. Also, recent findings report that breast tissue acts as an excellent natural mount and buffer for the butt of a firearm, making aiming and shooting easier and more accurate. What better argument for QUALIFIED women, the few who want the opportunity, in combat than science and its facts? Who ever thought our anatomy would come in handy for something other than reproduction?

Posted: 13 Aug 97: Should Women be in Combat?

I am a 19 year old female in the army, I have been in the army a little over a year. I don't have the experience of some of the people who have retired from the military, but I do know the performance I've seen from females in the army. I have met very few females who could meet the standards it would take to be in the infantry, in fact I can honestly say I've only met one who I know could make. Women are physically born with less upper body strength than men and from what I've seen that has a lot to do with getting the job done not to mention most women can't keep up with the 6 mile or 8 mile PT runs. The army could make a women only infantry but I don't even know any women who would go out for it. Now about Cohesion I can speak from experience; I am assigned to a Special Forces Group, and they have only recently in the last three years allowed women into the Group. The women serve in the headquarters and in a support company, for the first two years there were only a handful of women and when I arrived I was one of three in the whole building. Some people were very friendly except for the special operations soldiers that are in teams all I get from them are dirty looks and I overhear comments like women shouldn't even be allowed here. I'm not sure I agree with it either but I'm here and I've tried damned hard to do everything the males do and keep up. One of the problems is the army doesn't make equipment to fit small females I weigh 110 and am 5'3. We did an 8 mile ruck march and my rucksack was way too big I added extra padding but it didn't help the back support was way below my waist I had to hunch over just to keep from falling backwards. 1/2 a mile was done in full mop gear which you bet didn't fit and we ran the last mile. I was smoked when we finished but my group finished 3rd out of five groups, I can honestly say that if I had to do that and then fight in combat I would not be able to do it.

Posted: 12 Aug 97: Male Assumptions

Many of the articles are assuming that if women were given combat roles in the forces that there would be an influx of women wanting to fight and possibly die for their country. What utter garbage.

Yes, there are women who have a desire to enter the armed forces. Yes, there are many who would like to face the excitement of putting their life on the line. Men with no fighting experience also don't have a clue what they may face so what's the difference? No man or woman has any idea of what a war really is until they are in it and see the horror and destruction etc and no doubt all would change their minds about their choice if they could.

BUT there are many women who would be happy to sit behind the desk, nurse and play a less physical roll if given the chance. Despite the many men who shudder at a woman competing for that promotion next to them there would not be the sudden influx of aggressive women they appear to be fighting against. Let those women who want to fight, fight just as they let those men who want to fight fight. Remember if a world war breaks out and a country has to fight for its life then those back home whether the pentagon, the frail, the physically disabled, women, children, elderly or draft dodgers would welcome any person fighting on the front be they male or female. As long as they get the job done.

So you men out there, stop fighting it. I certainly don't want to be a soldier but my sister does and believe me if you knew her you would welcome her fighting next to you. She would be more of a team member than many of the male soldiers I know. Many of them are mentally weak and in a tight corner I would trust my sister long before one of them.

Take each person on merit be they male or female. If they can do it then let them.

Posted: 12 Jun 97:

After serving for 12 years, I have become a firm believer in the necessity of training and conditioning to meet the demands of operations. Whatever element, in whatever role, all persons and organizations must be trained to respond in the correct manner.

The argument that the mere presence of women in ops distracts from the mission is overworn. I suggest that many police and other civil emergency forces have had similar anxieties, and that as women are progressively integrated into the team (i.e. less of an oddity), that gender becomes irrelevant, even in a crisis.

The protective behaviour discussed so far in this space appears to be simply based on cultural expectations. Does anyone else recall the arguments against racially mixed units? That was only 50 years ago, and my how things have changed.

The issue of physical equivalence will certainly remain contentious. But then, should we not simply dismiss all senior personnel who cannot meet the same standards at 50 as the 18 yr olds? The answer lies, I believe in the establishment of positive physical training regimens (i.e. a personalized strength training program with specific goals, with the support of the unit, rather than ineffective, irregular circuit training).

Most important is the support of the unit, and the recognition that time spent in the gym is not time goofing off. Too many times my units have supported the concept of physical training, only for us to be chided when we are not found at the desk, or properly primped (makeup, hair curled).

It is cultural attitudes not ability which hinders women from being effective combat personnel. Myself, I may not be able to punch out the 190 lb fellow, but neither could most of my superiors. These days, weapons are the ultimate equalizing factor. I'd rather be on the firing point firing the artillery, than sitting in HQ hoping it doesn't hit me.

Posted: 2 Jun 97:

As a female in the service I firmly believe that women have a vital role in the military and that they have earned the right to be respected for their hard work and dedication. But when I think about all the women I have served with, there are very few that I know that would be well suited to physical combat. Of course I am not in a branch of the service where those around me have been trained for combat so maybe there are more "tough guy" females in the Army or the Marines. The ones I serve with aren't and that includes me. They all do their best to perform as well as their male counterparts but even our best when it comes to the "physical strength required" positions falls short. I can out think many of the males I work with. I can reason as well as they can. I can turn wenches, repair aircraft, paint walls, clean the heads, put up with the bull, etc... right along side of my military brothers. But I'm afraid that put in the position of having to physically take down some 190lb male then blow out his brains is just shy of what I am capable of doing! And I don't know very many women I have met in my career that could claim otherwise. If their out there, more power to them. But I wouldn't want to have to entrust my life to one in order to find out.

Send in your comments to be posted for this opinion
Participate and give your comments on these opinion's. Select Here