Opinion Section

"Women in Combat"

File #6

What's your opinion on this controversial issue?

Posted: 25 JUN 03:

Attached is a link where you can view an article I recently wrote called, "The Female Infantryman: A possibility?" This article appeared in print in the Nov-Dec 2002 edition of Military Review. This article proposes a methodology to "test the potential integration of females in to the Infantry." While many partisans have staunch views on this subject, there has never actually been a methodology presented that tests the ability of females to successfully integrate into the Infantry from a morale, physical and performance perspective. This article proposes such a methodology and can be successfully implemented given appropriate support. As a researcher, former enlisted engineer, and commissioned Infantry officer, I posses the unique skills, experience and knowledge to write such a proposal.

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/milrev/english/NovDec02/copolla.asp

Sincerely,

M. Nicholas Coppola, PhD (candidate), FACHE, FUSMI
Lieutenant Colonel, Medical Service US Army

Posted: 24 JUN 03:

I'm a 24 yr old American Indian Women who serves in the U.S. Navy. My job title is Hospital Corpsman. My father has always taught me to stand up for what I believe in. To do everything to the best of my knowledge and to the best of my ability. Never be to proud to ask for help from anybody. I've applied all of his teachings to my everyday life and job and have succeeded greatly. I've got down and dirty with the "guys" and still kept the respect from them as a women, as a shipmate, and as a "Doc". I've also had the chance to work with the intelligence department which I didn't take because I love my job. So to anyone who says women shouldn't be able to do or can't do the same job, even if it's in combat, as men because of physical or mental abilities are wrong. The only thing that men and women of the Armed Forces have to prove to anybody is having the best military. We are the best because we have the best working at our sides.

Posted: 24 JUN 03:

First of all, disregard all the comments of anyone who has not been in combat as a combat infantryman, they don't know what they are talking about, or even have a clue. Second it is not a right to serve it is an honor and a privilege. It has nothing what so ever to do with equality or equal opportunity. You can say that it's not fair and you'd be right. It's not suppose to be. No one deserves the opportunity to join an elite combat unit. You earn that by proving that you are qualified. Those who decide whether you are or are not qualified are not fat old men sitting behind a desk but are experienced highly trained and motivated professionals who have been there and done that. They are the ones who train and evaluate you.

Now, all that said, I believe there are jobs that women can do in a combat theater. Even in some combat units. If they want to fly a plane, a helicopter, drive a tank, operate a missile battery or artillery piece. Fine. If they want to serve on a battleship, cruiser or aircraft carrier, that's OK too, as long as they are qualified and can complete the same training and meet the same standard as their male counterpart. No exceptions. No exemptions. No special considerations. However, women do not belong in elite ground combat units. I don't want a seal team based on equal employment opportunity. I don't a ranger team that's just as good as. I don't want a Special Forces A team made up of just anybody but the best. These are our elite forces. They shouldn't be comprised of the best. They should be comprised of the best of the best. You don't win by being as good as, you win by being superior. There is no shame in not being able to meet this standard. It doesn't mean that if you can't do this, you can't do anything. It wasn't meant for everyone, that's why they are called elite. It requires not only special physical requirements but mental and psychological also.

I have heard the argument , albeit an argument made by women, that because women can withstand the pains of childbirth and that there is no great pain than childbirth, that women can withstand anything a man can. Well, as a graduate of the U.S. army intelligence and interrogation school, I can assure you ladies that there are far great things that can be inflicted on the human body, mind and soul than you can ever imagine. I assure you that there is not a soul alive that I can not turn into a quivering wimpering glob of jello, and that's the real world. So throw that argument out the window. You have to evaluate this question of women in combat in it's totality and not concentrate on individual objections or arguments either pro or con. I am sure that both sides of this issue can come up with a variety of points to support there stance. I base my position one and only one consideration and that is this. If there is even one reason, condition, deficiency or anything else that might place the life of a member of my team in jeopardy. then the individual under consideration does not belong on the team. The situations that these elite force face are extreme and extraordinary and require extraordinary personnel for their successful completion.

Finally, the ultimate decision as to who becomes a member of the team rests with the team. I was a team leader of a special ops HAWK team (Hunter/Killer Team) in SE Asia during the Viet Nam War for two years. It was imperative that each of us had complete confidence and trust in each other. If at any time any member of the team had objected to any one being a member of that team that individual would have been out, no questions asked or reason needed. We depended on each other for our very lives. I would never have allowed a woman on my team. Why you may rightly ask. The reason is a practical one. Woman menstruate every month. We lived just like our enemy. We ate what they ate. We washed like they washed. No smoking, shaving cream, cologne, deodorant. No soaps, bug sprays, or anything else that would give us away. If there was a VC, NVA or Pathet Loa within a half a click I would know. I could smell them. We did everything we could to blend in so they wouldn't smell us. Believe it or not, I could have smelled a woman menstrating a mile away - and so could they. At that time, next to the United States, the NVA was the finest light infantry in the world. They had thirty years of combat experience.

If you are considering attempting to enlist to join an elite combat unit or any military service there is only one question you really need to ask yourself. Why?
If your looking for educatioal opportunities, fine. Be a clerk or truck drive or something.
Leave combat to the professionals.
If your doing to prove something - forget it, not a good reason.
If doing for the thrill, excitement, glory, honor, pride etc. - forget it - wrong reason. These are aspects of combat not reasons to join.
There is only one reason to become a member of an elite combat unite. Because this is what your were meant to do. How will you know, you ask?
Well, I can't tell you that, you'll just know when you get there.

SFC "Sarg" DSC, SS, BS w/ V and oak leaf, PH- 3 oak leafs, VCG, AM, GCM, MSM, Masterblaster, Pathfinder, Ranger, SWS, I&I
The greatest tragedy in all the world is war, but so long as there is mankind, there will be war.
Thank God and God bless the Medics and Nurses

Posted: 24 JUN 03:

Hello. I am a 17 year old girl and I have been working on finding information for my debate on women in combat. after reviewing as much information as I have in the past 2 weeks, I am very certain that women should be able to participate in combat. Women go through the same rigorous training as men and they are very strong. Sexual harrassment should not keep women out of this field either. I don't believe women should have to be worrying about sexual harrassment, but if it is an issue, there needs to be a serious crack down by the authority on men (or women) who sexually harrass others so that it does not hinder their work or performance.

Posted: 24 APR 03:

Oh!!!! the battle of the sexes has gone on from the time of Adam and Eve.

I am an old soldier who served from 1959 to 1979.

I say first, disband the Army, Navy, Marines & Airforce and consolidate all military services into one force and let our service nametapes read "U. S. Armed Forces". Ouch!!! the AF wins as it will be abbreviated USAF. LOL. If Lineage and Honors is an issue, it is not. If a military unit floats, or moves under water give it a former naval unit designation. If it screws itself thru the air or beats the air into submission, give it a former USAF unit designation. If the units rides in a boat or ship to the vicinity of the shore and then goes ashore to do battle, give it a designation of a former marine unit. If it walks on land, rolls on land, rides on land, give it a designation of a former Army unit.

Now we come to servicemember occupations, go thru every occupation and classify a mental required level plus a physical required level. Then if a person meets or exceeds the required levels and desires that occupation (if vacancies exist in that occupation) then let that person have the occupation regardless of gender. That ends that issue.

Now to another major issue. Do like a lot of civilian firms do, when they put out a directive that no personal relationship will be condoned by the opposite sexs. The same can be issue for military units (Bn/Group levels and down). If it is discovered, then both parties are shipped to opposite sides of this world.

Now to a final problem. If two servicemembers marry and the female half becomes pregnant, then one of the two has to request discharge for the good of the service. The decision to be made by the couple. If the couple refuses to make the decision, then discharge both. Both parents with children do not need to subject their children with both parents being deployed and possibly killed during the same conflict. This will also reduce the funding requirements for child care centers and other such funds while the funding for military requirements are so scarce.

Posted: 24 APR 03:

I agree that women that can stand up to the PT requirements of the guys then they should be allowed in combat if that is what they truly want. But meet those requirements with no double standards and no special treatment. I am a 19 year old young woman and I think that women should be allowed in combat only if they can meet the same requirements. While we are on this subject, women should also have to register with the selective service. We want equality right? Then let's roll!! Equality in all areas not just areas of our choosing. Hooah.

Posted: 24 APR 03:

Some women can do better than men, while others cannot. I believe that if a woman is prepared to undergo the rigorous training she should be awarded the right. I as an Army Engineer would have loved to go to one of our most prestigious schools, THE SAPPER training course, and although I met the qualifications exceeding some of the men in my all male unit, I could not attend due to the fact that I was a woman. I believe that some women are mentally and physically prepared and the as men can be taught to fire and send artillery rounds. I think men are just a bit weak when it comes to us. They are the ones that are not prepared to see us die or kept in captivity. I too was guilty of that when Shoshana Johnson was taken prisoner Operation Iraqui Freedom. Although I wanted all the POW's to be rescued, I really wanted her to be rescued the most. I was not ready to hear about Shoshana's death. I will get over that, but the department of defense should also.

Posted: 8 FEB 02: These Boots Were Made For Marching"

It is blatantly obvious, when reading opinions on this topic, what sex the writer is. So I'll blast the suspense here and tell you I'm female. Probably this is around the time that male readers/writers will scroll down to the next female-bashing, chauvinistic post in order to keep their testicles from shriveling into dried apricots of self-pity. I can't say that anything I write is fact, but I have come to some incomplete conclusions that I would like to share. It seems that the greatest defenses a male has to say to argue against women in combat are flawed. A common one being that the natural sexual attraction between men and women would take over and ruin military concentration. It is true. In most instances men and women are attracted to each other. However, find me a male rape victim in a military circumstance. Please, I'm dying to know one. Please find me an example of when a male was "sexually harassed" in a military circumstance. In fact, there is a sector of the male population who would probably jump at the chance to be raped by a female. Yeah yeah, but that's not the issue. What I'm saying is, it seems like men feel that excuse is fully justifiable, when they are really attacking their own self-control. If they feel that it is dangerous for a women to live in the same barracks as a male unit because the women are at risk for sexual harrassment...hmm...well, I don't think that too many of the women are going to try to rape each other, therefore, where does the problem lie? With the men. Hey, if a woman is fully understanding that she will be surrounded by a bunch of down and dirty, horndog guys, and is

still even interested in the job, that's impressive. Prostitutes hang around military bases for a reason - they have their jobs, female military personnel

and officers have a different one.

Another ridiculous argument, women are not strong enough. OK, I absolutely HATE hearing that. OK, contend with me, fine, you're allowing me to have my opinion, I should allow you to have yours. (deeeeeep breath) All right, so why do guys keep insisting that a woman's goal for getting "women in the military" is to pollute the military with as many women as possible? Jeeez. Whoever came up with that idea just gave the male-ego a huge boost. Here's me, I think that the double standard should be eliminated. Yes, I said it!! Hoo-ah baby. But, don't misinterpret which one should be. The female standard for physical/and other requirements should be abolished. Then what? Open up all career opportunities in the military to anyone qualified. Too simple. Yes, I know, I guess it's just cause I'm a stupid girl. Hear me out. Do we want a strong military or a weak one? Is that vote unanimous? Good. So, if some the guys can do it, and SOME girls can do it, what the hell is the difference what's swinging between their thighs or bouncing on their torsos? I'm not proposing that we NEED millions of girls walking around military bases and softening up the soldier morale with their tears, giggles and girlish ways. And I'm not saying that Mandy Moore and the funky bunch belongs in uniform because "Camos are CUTE!" That's not what this is all about. I am talking about the hard-core athletic women that can physically meet "male" military requirements. I hated the double standard with such ferocity that when I took my Air Force Academy PAE this summer, I strove to Max then men's, and succeeded with energy to spare. Where there's a will there's a way, you can raise the requirements until even the men can't do it, and you'll find a determined and tenacious female willing to push her own human limits.

All right, final argument for this post because my little pinkie finger is bruised from being hit with a poolball. :) Men say, women do not belong in

combat because you need to kill people. First of all, you don't kill people, you kill the enemy. You're not premeditating the murder of your fellow man, you are a trained solider who is fulfilling orders to eliminate the problem. Those who think they are there to KILL may have a little something wrong upstairs, if you know what I mean. Killing is just a part of your job, it is not a perk or anything to get excited about. Shooting...that's a different story, shooting is fun as hell. But anyone who actually enjoys killing is odd. However, that is not to say that a woman is not capable of doing her duty, and if her duty includes taking a life, so be it. You go to war when you are willing to die for the soldier standing next to you.

Men say that the whole unit of guys will rush to a downed woman if she is shot in a combat zone. Screw that. I'm sorry, but that is just one more

instance where is a man is keeping a perfectly qualified woman out of combat because he is not sure how he will handle HIMSELF. I will drag your body off the battlefield and do what I can to save your life. Just as I hope you would do the same for me, however, if it is the choice between winning the war and singing me a lullaby while I bleed to death onto your matterhorns, honey, run along with your little buddies - once I'm incapacitated, I'm no longer useful to my country in that battle, game over. I'm not afraid, are you?

In MY conclusion, do women have the capacity of fighting in any military position? Absolutely. Does every woman has that capacity? Absolutely NOT. ....Does every man? ... Think about it. We don't need women in the military, just like we don't NEED more male ballet dancers or chefs or flight attendants. It's not about that. It's about the opportunity in this free world of ours to ride to the top on the integrity of meritocracy instead of

the corruption of gender segregation.

Thanks to all, sorry for the cynicism

Good luck girls, good luck guys

Justine

HS Senior (USAFA candidate)

- future Special Forces Pararescue Officer

Posted: 16 Nov 01:

My name is Brandi. I am 18 and a former "army brat". Recently an assignment came up in my college English course for an argumentative paper. One of the choices was whether or not women should be allowed to fight in combat and it really hit home. As I looked back on my childhood I don't recall any female officers, not one. I also remember how at one point I really wanted to follow my fathers foot steps. As I began to weigh each side of the argument i ended up more confused. I believe women should have the right to make their own choice but at the same time i see the difficulties women face. I know that i personally would have liked that choice to be mine if i had joined. While reading the comments from others on this site during the course of my research i have come to somewhat of a conclusion: even though women face more challenges there are women who can hack it and if they can meet the requirements set before them, then they have just as much right as any man. I know that the acceptance of women in combat is at the end of a very long road ahead of us, and that the average woman is not physically engineered to perform the same way a man's is, but some women are and if that's what they wish to do then no one should stop them. But at the same time the military should not lower it's requirements, and it would be best for all parties to keep women and men separate because....well, most of you should be able to figure that one out on your on. i would like to commend the women in the military who are trying to represent and defend their country in the most respectable way. i would also like to thank the men who were big enough to weigh the situation and give women the respect of a chance.

Posted: 9 Oct 01:

During war, serving is serving, in any capacity. I don't have to be on the front lines to be an instrument of warfare. I am a female, 4'11" and 100lbs. I recently enlisted because of our current situation. I know that I can outsmart and out-argue most men because I have done so, but I know my physical limitations. I don't want to "compete" with the

men; I want to serve in the capacity where I am best suited.

I signed up to be an army nurse. I don't find it silly. I find it essential. And any man that gets wounded will find it so too.

To put it simply: a man on the front lines gets hit. I end up sewing him up and getting him back out on the fields in a timely fashion. He is back out there to defend the country. That can't be done without my assistance. This makes me an instrument of warfare. Service is service. I get him taken care of. We all have our place, and in today's army, there is a place for every American that wants to serve. We can all PULL OUR WEIGHT in our own right.

I find it sad that there is so much division between the men and women. There isn't time for these civil disputes right now.

The truly despicable people are not the ones who WANT TO SERVE and fight for the right to serve, but those (men or women) WHO RUN AWAY WHEN THEIR COUNTRY IS SO OBVIOUSLY IN NEED OF THEIR SERVICE.

Posted: 9 Oct 01: "A 15-Year Old Writes..."

I'm yet another 15 year old girl giving all the "vets" my opinion. Of course, there is one notable difference: I have absolutely no interest in joining the military, whether for a desk job or a combat job or anything in-between. Not because I think I couldn't do it, but just because I wouldn't *want* to do it.

I believe women should be able to serve in combat. I also believe they should have to pass the same physical requirements as men; otherwise, what good is it? Gender norming doesn't do *anybody* any good, women included. That would greatly cut down on the number of women, but so what? At least the ones that remained would be *qualified* women.

I agree with Ranger about having same-sex teams. Not only is it imperative, what with all the sexual harrassment cases just waiting to happen, but it can actually be a confidence booster, both for men and women. It's proven that girls that go to an all-girls school have more self-confidence than those that go to a public school. Granted, I'm making a huge leap, but I think you're getting the point I'm trying to make.

Another reason for same-sex teams is training. Women would probably have to work twice as hard to reach the same physical capabilities as men, so the training and conditioning would probably have to be different, more intensed, and focused on developing different body areas. Then the integrating can begin, when women have a strong and *justified* opinion of their own self-worth.

Now I'm going to dazzle you with some psychological stuff. :-) This is from the article "Little Girls Don't Make Soldiers," I forget the author, sorry. It says that part of the reason women shy from "blowing people's brains out," as so eloquently stated by one of the posters (*g*), is because from birth, they've been raised to be the supporters, not the actual doers. For instance, guys are told to go out for the football team while girls are told to be cheerleaders.

But back to the combat issue. Truthfully, how many times in warfare now are people required to take part in actual hand-to-hand combat? Most of our wars now are from behind the sidelines with big powerful weapons. So would it

be correct to assume intelligence would be needed, not strength? (This is where my feminism comes out.) Well, in that case, women should definitely do it, because they're just smarter than men. Okay, there it is. I can already hear some of you arguing, But men score higher on the tests!

As with SATs, they're basically just prejudiced. My friend did a brilliant argument about how the SATs are prejudiced against women and minorities, but I'm getting off-track again, aren't I? My dad used to be in the Army. I was going through some of his material (and man, is there a lot of stuff you have to read!), and I, a random fifteen year old girl, took some of the tests he was required to take. Obviously not the ones on weaponry, since I know jack squat about that, but there were plenty of common sense ones.

According to the standards, I scored off the charts, both with right answers and in the amount of time it was taken in. Needless to say, I'm pretty impressed with myself right now, but that's beside the point. :-) Anyway, what I'm trying to say is, strength isn't everything. For instance, in some forms of martial arts, like taek won do, it's said the bigger they are, the harder they fall. Women also have strong points that always seem to be overshadowed by their weaknesses. For instance, sure, they're lacking in upper body strength, but the strength in their legs is pretty impressive.

I'm sure I had more to say, but I can't think of it right now, so I'll end this here, saying only, don't lower the standards. If women can still do it, God bless 'em.

Posted: 5 Sep 01: In Response to the 3 Sep 01 Post:

Congratulations on being a REAL WARRIOR, whatever that is. You are entitled to an opinion, no matter how gross, overstated, and stupid it may be. Combat is the last place I want to be, it's not glorious, it's not beautiful, and it's

not heroic. When you say each of us will say and do anything to advance ourselves-- you don't know me, you only judge me on because I lack an appendage. As far as getting in the way, how do I get in the way and cause trouble? I do my job, better than a lot of men, mind you. I have never reported gross sexual harassment that has happened, I have NEVER asked for a break because I'm a woman, or caused any WARRIOR any trouble. If you don't want any correspondence, you came to the wrong sight. Go back to your work area, hang your playboy posters, do whatever you do that makes you feel better about yourself. If you don't like where the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines

as far as women are concerned--then get the hell out. Your narrow-minded opinions are not welcome here.

Posted: 3 Sep 01:

Bill Clinton - a man who would not serve - given the honor of commanding the men he would not share danger with has done what he has always done in order to advance HIMSELF.

He appeases a group of CAREER minded women who only see combat as an opportunity.

Oh! How ignorant you are.

Each of you will say and do anything to advance yourselves.

Clinton to cover up his cowariness and the women "WARRIORS" who see only a shortcut to get their promotion.

The Waves and the WACs magnificently supported this military during WWII and Korea.

The current group of women in the military do nothing more than get in the way, cause trouble and make men do double duty.

They are, in brief, more trouble than they are worth on a balance scale.

Should this country be so ARROGANT as to send women into real combat (not Iraqui combat) the result shall be dead women, dead men and defeated military units.

All American.

The military men in that most horrible situation will trying desperately to do two things at one time.

Conduct the mission and defend their camp followers.

The ARROGANCE of this issue can germinate only from a group of effeminate men who dodged their RESPONSIBILITY and are constantly covering it up by seeking to destroy the entity which they hate.

You women "SAY" you want to QUALIFY and then you demand that the standards be lowered in order for you to not only compete but to LOOK like you excelled.

This is a STUPID and VERY DANGEROUS game.

And it MUST result in the defeat of the United States.

Further, it will actually serve to encourage aggression.

Every man who has seen actual infantry combat is TELLING you that this is absolutely UNWORKABLE.

What little women add to the military mission will be COMPLETELY OVERSHADOWED by the inevitable military defeat of this country.

The fore is my gut reaction.

Here now the practical.

Babies, babies everywhere. The military is being used as a nursing home. There are pregnancies and abortions and little babies all over the place and all this while units are trying to prepare for war.

Just YOU wait until there is a REAL foe to fight.

It will NOT take long for this experiment to fold like a deck of flimsy cards when the North Korean or Red Chinese Armies JUST KEEPS COMING even until we exhaust our supply of WONDER weapons and face them with guns and grenades and muscle.

You have a woman who can fight with the bayonet?

Show her to me.

That is a lie and you all know it.

Women don't bother me with your correspondance.

I have been in combat (real combat) and I have seen women "operate" in the NEW All-Volunteer Army.

And I know that if the tests are not rigged not one of you could MUSTER in combat.

So don't waste your breath.

Be a real hero. Be a mother.

Posted: 6 Jul 01: Women in Combat Situations -- My Opinion

Just to make it clear before I start, I'm not a super-feminist. I think some ideals of feminism are a little far-fetched. If this is disagreeable, keep in mind I have as much right to voice my opinions as everyone else does... and this goes for my entire post, for I have a few things to say about a highly controversial subject. I won't try to force my views on anyone, to make everyone think as I do, because I try to respect the rights of others as dictated in the Constitution/Bill of Rights.

For one thing, labeling women as being too emotional is stereotyping. That is not an opinion as I promised, but a fact. It would be the same thing as saying all Indians own casinos, all Southerners are racists, or all young African American men are gang members. There are many women who are strongly emotionally driven, and frankly much of the time this type drives me crazy, but they don't make up the entire picture. Each individual is different. It is true that there could be a good reason behind that stereotype, perhaps because women are more apt to reveal their emotions than men, even though they might feel the same emotion. I can understand how that can play a negative part in a woman's involvement in a combat situation. But it can also play a positive one. For one thing, I would not want to fight an angry woman. I've seen enough playing basketball when I was in high school. Many of the girls I played against had no mercy. They'd intentionally kick, scratch, slap, hit, try to trip an opponent, and even bite. I've seen some play-acting. I know this is the same with boys, but after watching and comparing the basketball games of boys and girls, I'm certain that girls do all this more than boys. I've also noticed that overall boys play a much cleaner game than girls. Where I'm going with this is that I'd rather have the little spitfires on my team than on the other team. In fact, if I had some boys on my team, I might want to replace a few of the boys with a few of those girls. Now I know combat situations are different from basketball games, but I needed the basketball scenario as an example. As for actual warfare, women's involvement in warfare did *not* begin in the 1800s or 1700s. Maybe in America it's true, but the US is a young nation. The ancient Celts found it quite acceptable to have women fight alongside men. The Romans marveled at Bouricca, a Briton queen who put up a fair fight against the Roman war machine. She did lose, and her end isn't very inspiring (she had to watch her daughters being raped, and then they were all slaughtered, including the queen) but it could have happened to any man, or woman. History seems to have forgotten the lady samurai, knight (called a "dame"), and certain African tribes that had most of its forces made up of women because too many of the men had already died in battle. There are even biblical references to women picking up arms and leading men into battle. The Monguls allowed their wives to fight beside them, as long as they were good with a weapon. If anyone wants proof of all this, then please do the research yourself, because I don't have a specific web addy or book title to give out. This is just information I have gleaned from my overall interest in history and culture.

About the POW camps... For one thing, rape happens anywhere, at anytime. A woman can walk down a street in her own neighborhood, even in her own home, and still get raped. As far as becoming pregnant after being raped in a POW camp is concerned, that most likely would not happen because of a woman's physiology. Women require at least 10% body fat in order to become pregnant and/or stay pregnant, otherwise they wouldn't even menstruate. That is why both anorexics and some athletes alike aren't likely to have periods. I say all this because most POW camps are not known for their four-star, seven-course meals. But if a woman did become pregnant and have a child in such circumstances, I'm thinking the government would allow her the choice to keep her baby or to give it up for adoption, though what they'd do about the father I don't know.

As for sexual interest between a man and a woman in the same unit, I'm thinking it's also possible to think of each other just as teammates and not as male and female. There are some exceptions of course, but that's to the faults of the individuals themselves. A man or woman can easily have an affair or a one-night stand when they're on TDY or for whatever other reasons they'd be overseas or at a different location than home. It all depends on the integrity and self-control of the individuals.

My overall opinion is this: I don't mind having women in combat. It's their choice to defend their country in this way, just like it's a man's choice to serve in combat. I've heard that the AF is looking for more women fighter pilots because women can overall handle G-forces better than men because we're smaller and our lower bodies are stronger than our upper bodies. There are a few things that I don't understand, like how or why the government assigns one or two women to a ship that can be offshore (or away from home shores) for months at a time with hundreds of men, which I think is a very bad idea. Personally, I'd volunteer for combat duty if my country calls. In other words, if it's a necessity. I've heard accounts of combat situations and I've also reasoned it out that I would not want to enter combat. I'm not sure how I, a *human being*, can handle all that goes on. But I'd be willing to volunteer if my country calls, because if I don't, then who will?

Anyway, that's my spiel. Rip apart as you wish, as I might not return. I only apologize that it's probably too long.

Respectfully,

a female soon-to-be AFA Zoomie

Posted: 22 Jun 01: "The Real Story"

To those of you who say that women cannot handle the stress or rigors of combat mentally, I disagree. I have never questioned the intelligence, or mental cunning of women; I have sat through too many classes in college and military schools to think women any less intelligent than I. Can woman shoot as straight as I can on a range? Yes! Can women set up and fire any weapons system in the U.S. Military? Yes! Rarely do I see women doing 70+ push ups and 100+ sit ups and running two miles in 13 minutes (as I have to do in order to be considered in shape) but does it happen? YES! Granted, those are all defining factors in the proficiency of being a soldier, but the debate of women in direct combat roles is deeper than that.

I don't care how many pull ups, push ups, or sit ups a 140lb (avg) woman can do, its a simple matter of physics. How long would it take for a female loader in a Abrams to give out under 100degree heat lifting 50+ pound shells into place hour after hour? I don't want to be the tank crew who finds out. With an infantry combat load being 80+lbs, and where

every man has to give 100%- could a 140lb woman carry this load for days? No. Can combat units stand to have the men carry more than their share of their already heavy combat loads in order to make up for the very "hooah" women who just couldn't make it? NO! With all of the adrenaline pumping in the world, with bullets flying, could that same

women pull my 210lb frame out of combat any distance? NO! Suddenly there are two casualties instead of one, that is a tragedy. The Navy realized this as soon as they desegregated flight decks-the role of stretcher bearers had been designed for two men. When women came on board ship they found out that two women couldn't carry a 180lb man the same distance so stretchers were redesigned for FOUR people. So what does this mean?

Sorry ladies, men and women are built differently. You can think with the best of them, shoot with the best of them, but there are some things that the fight for "equality" should be left out of. The defense of a nation is one of them. For all of you women who say that women and men should serve side by side, be allowed in the same units to face the same

stress of combat I have but one thing to say. If you want real equality, let's do it! I want you to have to conform to the same height and weight standards as I do, conform to the same uniform standards as I do, have to do the same amount of push-ups, sit-ups, and run as fast as I do on the two mile run! Men get no sick days for PMS, or time off for pregnancy, we don't get time out in the field for hot showers and specialized personal hygiene.. How can you justify leaving your unit shorthanded for personal issues? Especially in the Army, as has been stated so many times in letters before, the new state of combat will put any unit on the front line with constantly changing fronts. In light of this, even the simple supply SGT. leaving could be a matter of life and death; one less rifle pointed down range when the firing starts. In our "leaner meaner" military, there is no room for people not pulling their weight.

I salute wholeheartedly any person who is willing to give their life for their country, women included. In my humble opinion women make fine pilots, fine intelligence officers, great logisticians, great leaders and great followers. Realistically though ladies, talk about equality when you really want it-try to be held to the same standards as the men

you want to serve beside. It's not as fun that way is it? To say that when the promotion board comes around and you have a 250 on the 17-21male PT chart (instead of your standard 330 on the 17-21 female chart on a PT test) and the man you are going up against has a 300. In the Army in theory we are ALL grunts first and our MOS second. Suddenly physical differences make a difference. I don't remember the quote exactly but an Israeli general when asked to speak about the current state of women in the US military said something to the effect of "The simple fact that you can have the debate of women in combat roles means that you do not take this debate seriously. Since your Civil War you

really have never been threatened; you chose to fight when and where you want. Our military is set up for the simple ability to defend our people against attack." Israel's army is segregated with women generally filling men's jobs in the rear when the men are deployed. Maybe we need to look closer at their system, they are widely respected as one of the most proficient military's in the world, and one with very high morale.

Posted: 22 Jun 01: In Response to the 8 Jun 01 Post, Responding to the 14 May 01 Post:

This in in response to the post 8 Jun 01: In response to the 8 Jun 01 post, responding to the 14 May 01 post, and anyone else who thinks women shouldn't be "fighting." When are the lazy women out there going to STOP depending on men to fight their battles for them? I hear a lot of men ask, Why don't women have to register with the draft? And I must say I ask the same question. As adult citizens of this country we ALL have the responsibility to defend our country. We ALL enjoy the rights provided to us, so we should ALL be required to defend those rights. But, no, some of you think it's perfectly fine for your fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons to go off to fight and DIE for you and your freedom. Reverse sexism??? Also, why do some of you think it's just SO terrible that when a woman gets captured by the enemy in combat she is going to be raped and killed? The MEN who get captured by the enemy are going to be tortured and killed as well, and those enemies may just decide to sexually assault the men as well! But just as another poster says, America has already accepted their mothers, daughters, wives, and sisters going off to combat; some have even been prisoners of war. There have been many admirable women in our military, since it's very beginnings. Every woman in the military has been a volunteer, none have ever been drafted. But every woman who is okay with letting a man go in her place degrades herself. I'm not saying that all women should go out and enlist tomorrow, I'm just saying stop ASSUMING that men should do your work for you. Also, I don't blame women that so far only men have to register for the draft, because it was an all male government (at the time) that made up that law. Just saying please stop being so dependent on others, stand on your own two feet! It can be very empowering. - From a proud female volunteer in the Army!!! P.S. Oh, yes, for the 13 Jun 01 poster: in my experience the infantry guys complain more than every other MOS combined! They truly hate life it seems (can't be from the evil influence of women in their units). But maybe it's just on my base...

Posted: 13 Jun 01: In response to the 19 Aug 00 Post (see File #5):

In response to the august 19, 2000 post about the female soldier who kept bragging about completing air assault training or whatever the hell she did..... I think a lot of your posting was BS. I'd like to know when and to whom in armor or artillery who talked to who actually said that, and if they did say that they were probably teasing you. and what's this about an infantryman who was whining and complaining the whole time?? and you weren't?? and then what happened, you woke up? I highly doubt that happened too, otherwise he wouldn't have been in the infantry in the first place. and for you to say all this and at the same time say you are feminine is the biggest laugh at all? what is being feminine? its certainly not bragging about doing what you did, its not even wanting to do that.

Posted: 8 Jun 01: In response to the 8 Jun 01 post, responding to the 14 May 01 post:

If you are intent is to confuse, you are doing a good job. Just because someone doesn't agree with you and the others that want to fight, no big deal ! I just don't want to. Pure and simple. Yes I can argue all I want to because like everyone else I have that right. I have no problem going back and forth with you on this issue, because the fact remains (1) I do not want to fight (2) What glory do you and the feminist have to be "one of the boys" ; what thrill do you derive from it (3) As far as I know it women aren't allowed in combat, probably you forgot that trying to make a weak point about brother in law whatever. I could care less if you want to fight , I do not. And if you feminists have it your way then we all have to fight just because you want to make a point. Oh and next time which I am sure of; there will facts and figures to demonstrate. P. S. What was your answer about when a female solider get caught on enemy line and is brutally raped before her head is blown off. If you can't take the heat......................................

Posted: 8 Jun 01: By the Submitter of the 14 May 01 Post

The point that I made earlier is that (1) the U.S. has already accepted their mothers, daughters, sisters going off to combat. They did and are. (2) There was no outpouring of the American public to pull them out of service and keep them home before they were sent off to the desert. (3) There have already been captives. (4) Where are all the letters to the Congressmen and Senators? (5) Where are the headlines for a grassroot effort to keep them home? What about the detainees in China? Argue all you want, but you can't go back to 1965 when women received no weapons training or combat training. I have a 5'4" brother-in-law that might not hold up to the brute strength test and stamina for the positions described, but the military had a spot for him and they wouldn't hesitate to send him into combat. Keep on arguing and stop all wars and then the discussion will be a non-issue. Semper Fi

Posted: 8 Jun 01:

I do not dispute that women may react the same way as men under fire just look at the police force and FBI etc. What people are failing to understand is that an infantry mans job is extremely arduous and if training is to be realistic to ensure minimum battle casualties training must remain extremely physical and demanding. If women are allowed to act in the infantry role it will dumb down training. FACT. In peace time its no big deal unfortunately should there be a real conflict a real and realistic assessment will be made on losses and not the fashionable thing.

Posted: 7 Jun 01: "An Honest Perspective in a Somewhat Dishonest World"

Women in Combat Units?

I have read this recent discussion about women in combat, allowing women to go to Ranger or SEAL school with great interest. I have carefully weighed the opinions ranging from reservists to active duty. From non combat arms to combat arms. When it comes to letting women in Combat Units. I have a few opinions. Let me first say that I believe that some women can perform well in combat, however, if we are to extend this on a broader scale or even make case by case exceptions. WE FIRST MUST RETURN TO SOME STANDARDS. The remainder of this opinion explains:

Last time I checked. . . we still have a volunteer army?

In 1984 I volunteered for an Army ROTC scholarship. I volunteered for Airborne school in 1986. Then in 1988 I volunteered to be an officer in the United States Army Infantry, Ranger School, Mortar Platoon Leaders Course, AGOS etc..etc.. Later I volunteered for SFAS, the Q course...etc...etc.

I also volunteered to put myself in harms way, from Honduras, Panama, South America, Africa and Bosnia.

I believe that I have the right to say what I am about to say, because I've lived it.

Across America it happens on a daily basis, at a social venue or sidewalk cafe we learn that someone has been to combat, or is a member of an elite fighting force..without fail these two comments are made:

(1) The first is by those who exercise a natural tendency to justify their belief that they could have...BUT. I don't know how many times I've heard the "I could have if I wanted to BUT" story. Ugghh. Everyone wants to think that they can be a Ranger, a SEAL an Infantryman.

(2) The second is that Women could be in Combat, they boast that they can fire a weapon, conduct road marches, conduct a battle drill or even fall out of an airplane.

Let me make this very clear: There are MEN who don't belong in combat. There are MEN who don't belong in the Rangers, SEALS, Infantry or Combat Arms.

Firing your weapon, walking to a range with a rucksack on your back, or even falling out of an airplane are merely tasks. Accomplished independently, almost any man or woman can do them. The key is doing it every day for MONTHS on end, in triple canopy black palm infested jungle in Panama, in high altitudes in Peru, in blistering prickly heat humidity in central Africa and in bone cold and damp Bosnia. It means dumping out your supposed MRE allotment making room for ammunition, the M60 T&E mechanism /barrel, extra radio batteries, and extra socks. It means carrying extra LAWS, Claymores, smoke, star clusters. It means throwing out little niceties to carry a 60mm or 81 mm round in your rucksack. It means that the sleeping bag and ground mat you see in training manuals are left behind. It means being able to survive on skills that aren't reliant upon lithium batteries and portable ovens. It means getting primordial while carrying a rucksack that weighs up to 180 pounds (yes this has been validated by Army analysis teams, just hardly repeated). It means doing something that is not easy to do and very few have done. Oh yes, one more thing, it means doing them while someone is shooting at you.

Stop fooling ourselves, its easy to be a warrior when we do it for a weekend. It's even easier when we are at the ever growing politically correct TRADOC school. It is easier when there are separate standards for men and separate standards for women. Don't forget the fact there are disparate Physical Training test standards for men and women.

I say, if a woman wants to go to combat and we are at peace.. then let them volunteer. BUT they MUST be held accountable to a common standard. The same as men. This means not reducing the qualifications and difficulty by a circuitous policy change or training plan. This means not dropping requirements because it might embarrass the policy makers or making them easier for others. This means not sending "quiet reminders" to instructors that ensure numbers are met.

I understand that this is not a politically correct statement, I know, but it is true. In many cases the term chauvinist may be used to describe this rhetoric. I submit to you that many times it is done by those who use fear and hateful words to attack those who disagree with them. It is easier to hide behind labeling words and stereotypes than facing the facts. We are not the first generation to deal with this mentality. What's the old children's story? The Emperor's new clothes?

In the case of today's political correctness, when the emperor is wearing nothing, it cannot be the innocent child who yells it, much to the embarrassment of the "PC" adults. It must be all involved in making this decision. This means recognizing that everything from reclassifying equipment to the "two man lift," to the women's chin up bars only a few feet off the ground at Ft. Benning, reduced upper body strength requirements etc etc..etc. It means hurting some peoples feelings in the interest of saving lives.

If we allow women to go to combat, then in times of war, ALL women must register for the draft. You can't have your cake and eat it too. It is wrong to give a woman the right to select duty as a rear echelon mechanic, placing a male who may have more experience working in that capacity to the front lines because he is a male. If, as a whole, women want to go to Combat, I agree. . . let them. BUT on your 18th birthday, drive your merry butt down to the post office and sign up for the draft.

In the meantime stop reducing the standards, stop sending "fact finding" teams from Washington to Fort Benning to put women in the driver's seat of a Bradley. Only to find that one of the Mission Essential tasks is to load a TOW missile that is heavy and cumbersome, disqualifying many women. Stop going back to defense contractors to redesign equipment to prove a political point and endanger soldiers in the line of duty.

Stop making schools easier from Airborne, Ranger etc..etc. by lowering the standards across the board. We only fool ourselves... We will never fool Mother nature, the horrors of battle, and the determination of an adversary. Combat is not an equal opportunity employer! Combat is Darwinian -only the strong survive. While it is perplexing in that the randomness of the environment may take the lives of the more physically fit, in the aggregate, it will find the less physical, degrade their decision making skills, wear them down and kill them.

Women and men are equal...BUT different. Embrace this fact! Don't ignore it. Face the facts in front of us and don't hypothesize on what it should be. Deal with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. America is suffering from this very dillusion across the nation. The military illustrates the symptoms of pretending and ignoring reality because of the nature of its function. As a civilian now, I see it now as a CEO of a software company in my peers who submit financial proformas showing tremendous revenue potential and incredible operations, sales and marketing effectiveness. Then fail miserably, shattering the lives of those they must send to the ranks of the unemployed. Combat takes more than a paycheck.

Like the teacher we had in school that made us work, with rigorous testing and hours of homework, refusing to buckle to the whining of their students....so must we remain true to standards. As a nation we must not get caught up in the rhetoric of a lot of "I think I can," and "kumbaya" politically correct verbiage.

Are there women that can perform in Combat? I'm sure there are. Just like our great grandmothers who endured the frontier, American women are tough. But just like those Americans who waited until railroads and convenience made the trek west easier...fooling themselves that they are pioneers, we cannot make the same mistake when it comes to Combat. There are very few conveniences in the trenches.

Men and women have something to contribute to the defense of our nation, its principles, ideas and vision. Lets just be pragmatic in the decision me make about women in Combat. You cannot have it both ways. If the answer is to let them in these units, then it must be done so equally across the board, political correctness and delusionary "equal standards" must go away. We then must face the facts and the impact it will have on our very value system. Quite frankly, America is not ready for that change.

Posted: 21 May 01:

There are many reasons why women should be in combat alongside men and there are many reasons against it. Yes, many women can "hang" right along with the men and carry there weight and then some. As I was glancing at some of

the other articles many had valid points for women fighting in combat but there are some issues that have been overlooked. Number one, America is not ready for their daughters, mothers, sisters to fight in combat nor do I get the feeling they will budge on that issue. If you remember the horrible image of the soldier that was drug to his death after being captured by the enemy, could you imagine your wife, daughter, sister, aunt in that situation? Not that it wasn't bad enough to see a male soldier but psychologically WE as a society are not ready to handle that. Or if captured by the enemy could you just imagine what they would do to their female prisoner? How horrible a thought and if she survives what scars will be left? A unwanted child? Disease? As a female serving her country I am not one to jump on the women in combat bandwagon. Society is not ready to send women to the front lines but when they do call for me I'll be there to support all the way.

Posted: 19 May 01: "Comments from a South African Reserve NCO"

I am a Reserve NCO with a Mechanised infantry regiment here in South Africa. We have a constitutional clause which specifically forbids discrimination on a range of criteria, one of which is gender. This means that any woman who wants to is entitled under our constitution to insist on being part of whatever unit she wishes. I have no objection to this in principle, but I have some questions that I believe should be answered. My job as a "Section Leader" (sorta like a US Squad leader) is when we are in combat, I have to debus my troops from the vehicle. This is supposed to happen in the face of enemy fire. If you think about it, this is not a natural situation and the Army spends many hours, months, years conditioning it's soldiers to follow orders so that when this happens they will obey. Built into this process is a long history of how men are motivated so that junior leaders can convince them to perform this (and similar) task which flies in the face of natural instinct. I have been doing this job for a long time now (I have 16 years service and this job for the last ten or so years), so I KNOW my job and I know how to motivate troops and even manipulate them into obeying this kind of order. There are many reasons why men will obey this kind of order, not least of which is the fact that men are generally more scared of being seen to be cowardly than they are of the possibility of dieing. In my opinion, the crux of this argument has nothing to do with upper body strength, or any of the other arguments which I have seen posted here, but rather with the very practical question for me of HOW do I motivate women in this situation? I am not saying that it can't be done, I am just saying that I do not have the skills or the information about this..

It is my feeling that a single gendered small unit is the best under our current situation, with men leading men, and possibly women leading women.. I am not sure.. but I am definitely convinced that I don't want women in my squad until I have got some handle on how to motivate them.. never mind the difficulties that mixing the the genders brings to the group dynamics..

I will choose a woman driver for my APC over a man any time as I will a women gunner on the 20 mil cannon, but not in the actual squad..

Just my feeling

John

Lance-Sgt, Cape Town Highlanders.

Posted: 19 May 01: "Australian Airfield Defence Guard"

Female's have never conducted Airfield Defence Guard duties. Anywhere at any period in Australia's history. Just because you carried a rifle and opened a boom gate at Komoro East Timor does not mean you have carried out a task normally conducted by ADG's. It just goes to show that you do not even have a clue to what is involved in being an ADG. A female ADG would of course have to be just as capable as the male members and as such how many women do you know that can carry 40-50Kgs on their backs while dehydrated and exhausted through sleep deprivation, for 48hrs up and down hills while having from time to time engage special forces recon teams in fast moving firefights with the possibility of have to carry a wounded colleague tens of kilometers to an extraction point. I am sure there are women who could. Not alot to be seen though. And why would a women want to be an ADG when there are much better jobs to had in the RAAF. Is the forbidden fruit the sweetest.

Posted: 14 May 01:

Well, Ladies & Gentlemen, it is now the year 2001 and this sounds no different than 1971--the year I left active duty as a Woman Marine. In short, I am appalled by what I have read. Supposedly these words of wisdom come from an enlightened generation of women who have benefited immensely from the women's movement. Do you really think that the career opportunities in and out of the military would be available to you if there had been no women's movement? Do you really think that the availability of education, jobs and advancements in the sports programs down to the middle schools would have been there? I played women's basketball, where you played on half a court. "Gym" programs with inadequate equipment. Schools with locked facilities. A time when women were only allowed to be secretaries, nurses and teachers. When the average woman worked five years. If she worked after that, she was a pitied "old maid". A time when women lost her identity and credit cards as soon as she got married. When women were told to get "daddy's" signature as a cosigner to buy a new car. A time when there was no maternity leave. Three months pregnant and you lost your job. Pregnant--married or not--you were out of the military. No maternity uniforms. When did "feminist" become a dirty word? With these advances which increased a woman's income level, status in society as more than a breeder, came responsibility. Rest assured that you can and will be in the male domain, but you will never be one of them. And you don't have to throw in the slurs to your fellow women who want to achieve more than most of the others. That's called a competitive spirit. A trait admired in men. Criticized at the very least in women. I can't believe that in 2001 these denigrating tactics are still being used to keep women in their place and that other women are buying into it!

When the all volunteer military was being created -- mainly due to the criticism of the draft and backlash of VN -- it was projected that in 20 years there was to be a shortage of men and that they would have to turn to women to fill voids. Thanks to the pill us baby boomers weren't having as many children. Blame those nasty feminists again. Then there was a push to open new fields and training to women in the military. This brings us to the issue of women in combat. Quite frankly, I don't want my sons in combat. But once you sign the contract, take the oath, and earn the right to wear that uniform, that is part of the package. All of this discussion of what happens is moot. It already happened to a limited degree in Desert Storm. I remember seeing those women reservists who benefited from the educational packages, reserve pay, career opportunities and who thought they would never be activated or deployed crying as they left their husbands, children and families. The American public got the first look at their daughters going off. I did not hear an enormous public outcry against it. The older generations with the attitudes barring women from combat or combat related positions are dying off. I wouldn't bet my money that the ban would never be lifted. They sent them off once, they'll do it again. The precedence has been set.

It's time to wake up. All the arguments of women not being as strong as men, equipped to do the job, mentally stable, having PMS, miscarrying, juggling work and families and the list goes on has been argued for the last 30 years--at least. I know because I have heard it and I have lived it. We now have record numbers of women becoming pilots, astronauts, biophysicists, doctors, lawyers, and three-star generals. When I served the top woman was a Colonel -- no generals in any of the services! It's time one was 4-stars and on the joint chiefs.

Finally, if I were in the young lady's shoes joining the Army today, I would aim for the stars because the opportunities are there for the taking. Why settle for less when you don't have to -- thanks to those nasty feminists. I suggest that your generation should talk to their grandmothers to find out how things really were.

Posted: 11 May 01: "In Response to the 11 Apr 01 Post"

First and foremost the whole point in my comment/suggestion (original post on 21 Mar 01), if one women wants to do it ( fight in a war/combat) then they all have to fight. My position is and will remain , I like the fact that we as women don't have to. I am not stupid to think that Basic Training is going to be a girl scout camp where we sit around and look at each other silly. Please I have enough sense to know that. My concerns are legitimate and really no concern of yours if I feel this way. Again you feminist/hell raisers DO NOT speak for me. And lastly I feel as though I can be what ever and when ever and if I want to be in / on the sidelines that is too my choice. I am not trying to be some butched g.i. jane that I can cut with the boys. Congress sign this issue for a reason, and by that I am all the way to stand by that decision.

Posted: 11 APR 01: In Response to the 21 Mar 01 Post:

I don't want to argue whether or not women should be in combat as much as I want to address some points that the poster made. She said, "Or if you are in a fox hole and all of the sudden you are hemorrhage in the middle of the war fighting for your country and if you make back alive only to find out that you miscarried a pregnancy , then what?" A miscarriage is indeed a tragic loss. But if you knew you were pregnant it is your responsibility to tell your chain of command, so that you may be excluded from combat. If you didn't know you were pregnant it is still a great loss but NOT the Army's fault. Once you raise your right hand and take the oath you know that some sacrifices will have to be made, maybe even the ultimate sacrifice of dying for your country. If you aren't willing to take those risks then DON'T join the military. It's not a just a job, this is life and death.

Another point the poster made: "And lastly if I and another female solider are trying to make it back to area only to find out that I been injured really bad , and get this the female solider is 5 ' 2 and 100 lbs and me at 5'10 at 170 ; Do you really think she would be able to carry me to safety? I think not." Well, I think so. Every medic that goes through EFMB has to lift and carry a 250 pound man across a field, even the ones who are female, 5'2" or shorter. If they can do it, we can do it. If you don't think you can, then again, DON'T join the military! And you don't have to be in the infantry to get attacked. Support units get attacked as well, some would say even more so than infantry units. You may just find yourself dragging your best friend to safety one day.

Yet another well-thought out point from the previous poster: "Besides most women are mothers and the thought of fighting in a actual war could and will strike up the possibility that if you are gone and aren't married to someone , who will raise the children? Just something to think about." The Army is one step ahead of you here. All single parents and dual-military couples are required to have a family care plan which outlines who will take care of the children when you get deployed or should anything happen to you, in combat or otherwise. If you can't find someone who's willing to take in your kids should you get shipped off somewhere then the Army chapters you out, good-bye, end of career. Another thing to think about, what if a single mother is driving along one day and is killed tragically in a car accident? Who will take care of her kids then? A single mother is much more likely to die in a car accident than in combat, since most of them drive but there isn't any war going on right now. Just something to think about!!!

You write that you are joining the Army later this year. I take it from your post that you are going to try for an administrative/support position. If you think that being a paper pusher means that you will never set up tents, go out to the field, dig a foxhole, pull guard duty while lying in the dirt at 3 AM, take care of vehicles in the motor pool, or be deployed to a third world country than you are sadly mistaken. I was an admin specialist for four years and I did all that and more. I would say only half my time in the military was actually spent pushing papers, and that is because you are a soldier first and an admin spec second! I would ask yourself why you think women should be held back based on their gender. Why do you limit yourself? You can do anything you want as long as you get over the psychological barriers in your mind and stop limiting yourself to gender stereotypes. Good luck at basic training, the drill sergeant's aren't going to buy into the old excuse, "I'm a girl! So I don't have to do anything that I don't want to, like all the men do! But you'd better give me my enlistment bonus/G.I.Bill/Army College Fund!"

Posted: 21 MAR 01:

What I want to know is what women want to be on the front line fighting with the men in the first place. I am planning to join the Army later this year, and it is all right by me if we (women) don't do anything but be behind a desk and push paper. Let's get to the nitty gritty on this issue once and for all. First , we aren't men , I repeat we are not men, meaning they don't have menstrual periods, they don't get pregnant well not at the receiving end anyway, and they are physically stronger than us women. Congress knew this and signing it into law because of one: What happens if you are caught on enemy territory and right before they decide to blow your brains out they want to get it on (rape) with a female solider because they been with a woman in such a long time. Or if you are in a fox hole and all of the sudden you are hemorrhage in the middle of the war fighting for your country and if you make back alive only to find out that you miscarried a pregnancy , then what? Bet 'ya want to sue the U. S. Army because they made you fight while being pregnant. And lastly if I and another female solider are trying to make it back to area only to find out that I been injured really bad , and get this the female solider is 5 ' 2 and 100 lbs and me at 5'10 at 170 ; Do you really think she would be able to carry me to safety? I think not. You G..I. Janes do not speak for me. And I know that there is alot of women that think the same way and don't want to say or speak up. Besides most women are mothers and the thought of fighting in a actual war could and will strike up the possibility that if you are gone and aren't married to someone , who will raise the children? Just something to think about.

Posted: 9 MAR 01: The Perspective From an Israeli Army Soldier

Well I'm not a U.S. citizen and I've never have been in the U.S. Army but I was in the Israeli Army. I'm a 22 year old male and I have been serving in the Israeli Army for 3 years. I was in South Lebanon before Israel went out from there and I was also was in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, which the fighting there continues. Well I served in the Israeli infantry corps in South Lebanon and I saw and felt the feeling of real combat. In Israel, it's a duty to serve in the army and every male when he comes to the age of 18 must join the army for 3 years and big part of the women (women don't have to serve but most of the women serve) join the army for 1 year and 9 month. The role in Israel for women serving are desk jobs, as instructors, as doctors and nurses and some serve in the the air force and the navy with machines. In Lebanon the roles were like that. No women were allowed to enter there even in the bases (in Lebanon) and even in the borders. Women weren't allowed to join any combat troops except as pilots (as navigators). After I was there my opinion is simple: Women can't be in places like that because:

1)the enemy can kidnap them and it's too dangerous.

2)when we were touring and looking for enemy troops all the soldiers put their lives in every single soldier in the unit and if women were there it would change the motivation of the soldier and the soldiers could make mistakes (women always make men crazy).

3) in the year 1948, women were serving in the frontline with men and it's was until the first war and it was too hard for them and a lot of them got because of "combat shakes."

4)most of the women are weak and when we were in Lebanon we were walking with 50 kilo equipment for 10 kilometer and very few women can do it.

5)women and men together for days and sleep together on the ground it's just impossible.

It will do only bad for men and women as one if America will have be in place like Lebanon and will have to send their tanks and infantry. No women will be sent to the front line. It's all crap. They will probably will stay in the base and will work on telescope and give information to the soldiers in the front line.

Women can't be equal in the army -- it's all crap.

Maybe one day the world won't need Armies and we won't have this problem.

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