women in combat

[Anonymous]

I have kept myself anonymous because I am a serving soldier and I do not want the army's sexual- harrassment thought-police to hassle me.**I have read all the postings on this page and I have to ask: WHAT KIND OF LAND OF FANTASIA ARE YOU PEOPLE LIVING IN?**It isn't about PT scores (wherein females get higher points for lower performance than their male counterparts in every branch of service), it's about muscle mass.**I weigh roughly 200 pounds and none of the four females in the medical unit I serve with could even lift me if I were injured much less carry me 1000 yards or more to an aid station, in fact I doubt that few if any of the females I have served with could.**So if was up to them, and in the infantry it is usually up to your battle buddy, I would just die.**Yes it is true that women are training with men in the army now and I tell you it is a disaster.**When I was at Ft. Sam Houston the females could not manuver themselves or the litters they were carrying over walls or under wire around the obstacle course.**We consistently had to stop and help them along wasting time that might have been the difference between life and death in combat.**Combat is serious business, it is kill or be killed, and the enemy is not going to be any great respecter of "equality" or "rights" or any of the other issues that have been used to justify a greater role for women in combat .**Those terms are a reflection of civil society and in combat none of that applies.** Combat is not the time to conduct social expreiments.**Have none of you heard about the navy study where 100% of males could preform a two-person stretcher carry with 170 lbs. of weight 100 yards but only 30% of females could.**The navy said no problem and redefined the task as a four person carry, then 100% of females were able to meet the standards.**Another study I have heard of invloved the marines who found that a high percent of its female recruits could not throw a hand grenade outside its blast radius.**In other words they could not throw it far enough not to get injured by the explosion.**It is true that some females could meet the physical standards to serve in the combat arms (although I think it would have a deleterious effect on morale by undermining the machismo of the combat arms-which I believe is a serious consideration).**But even so how might the military go about selecting females who might qualify for combat training?**Eventually if one female were let into the combat arms the military would have to let all who wanted in and reduce standards in the process.**It is said that the more you sweat on maneuvers the less you bleed in war.**We already sweat too little in the army, if females were allowed into the combat arms we would sweat a lot less and bleed a lot more.



<hr size=7 width=75%>




nobody@www.army.mil

[Anonymous]

: I have kept myself anonymous because I am a serving soldier and I do not want the army's sexual- harrassment thought-police to hassle me.That's unfortunate.**I weigh roughly 200 pounds and none of the four females in the medical unit I serve with could even lift me if I were injured much less carry me 1000 yards or more to an aid station, in fact I doubt that few if any of the females I have served with could.*Agreed.**I couldn't carry you very far.**I am five feet tall 135.**I can pick up my six foot tall 165 poung boyfriend, but two-hundred pounds would be a bit much.*So if was up to them, and in the infantry it is usually up to your battle buddy, I would just die.**Yes it is true that women are training with men in the army now and I tell you it is a disaster.**When I was at Ft. Sam Houston the females could not manuver themselves or the litters they were carrying over walls or under wire around the obstacle course.**We consistently had to stop and help them along wasting time that might have been the difference between life and death in combat.**Combat is serious business, it is kill or be killed, and the enemy is not going to be any great respecter of &quot;equality&quot; or &quot;rights&quot; or any of the other issues that have been used to justify a greater role for women in combat .Okay I can go with that I guess.**I am in a noncombat MOS, but one that requires quite a bit of heavy lifting.**I am not small for my height and I have a fair amount of muscle mass for a woman of my size.**I manage okay, but it is more of a struggle for me than it would be for a taller, stronger man.**I also know my limits.**There are some things that I know I just can't do, so I ask for help. I am not sure women should be in combat MOS's.**I know I wouldn't attempt to be in a combat MOS, but I am darn glad that I have had a chance to serve in a non-combat one.**I have learned a lot.**Should women be in combat? That is a stupid question, because women are in combat all the time.**If you are in the Army in any MOS you have to be prepared for combat. The front line can realistically be anywhere.**Can women hold up?**Well it is the responsibility of the Army to make sure they do.**If not they should be booted on out.**We should definitly make the standards higher for women. When I was in AIT I was with mostly males and therefore held more to male standars.**I was in much better shape when I left AIT (with mostly men) than when I left Basic (with half and half men and women).**That right there should tell you that there is a problem with the way the Army trains soldiers.Combat is not the time to conduct social expreiments.**Have none of you heard about the navy study where 100% of males could preform a two-person stretcher carry with 170 lbs. of weight 100 yards but only 30% of females could.Agreed. So my solution if we must let women into combat MOS's let in the 30%.**Let the others wash out and do something else with themselves.**I know this is not nessecarily realistic given the politics of the situation, but this is the way it should be.**I know my limits...**Another thing to consider is that many small-men are let into the military.**Some men can be very small compared to women.**I know I have known men that I could have tossed over my shoulder without blinking.**What is our policy on them? Are they let into combat.**I know they are let into the military.** What about the choice between a**5'8 140 pound musclar woman and and a 5'3 130 lb slender man?**I think I would take the side of that particular woman in a fight. **




<hr size=7 width=75%>




jminor@vt.edu

[Anonymous]

: I agree totally with the letter sent in by the anonymous soilder. I think that there are a few select women that could perform and meet the standard of a combat situation. I am doing a research paper on this conserversial issue and i would appreciate it if anyone had any information on this issue and would email me with it.




<hr size=7 width=75%>




mkw17@hotmail.com

[Anonymous]

: *Dear J, hi.**Why do you think it is unfortunate that I remain anonymous?*I just meant that it is unfortunate that this sexual harassment thing has gotten this far. I don't think it detracts from what you say I am currently a serving reservist. You don't see me plastering my name all over the place either.**I don't know if I agree that the frontline can be anywhere.**The front line is where you close with and destroy the enemy.**The technological and highly mobile nature of modern war can leave pockets of the enemy isolated in your rear, but there he is isolated without support and can be contained.**At the front the enemy can bring all of his resources to bear.**Of course missiles or air power can bring devestation to your rear but the enemy will not be able to follow up without breaking through your front lines.**Okay.**I guess the difference is that in the infantry you go actively looking for a fight while in the rear you just have to know how to defend yourself.**However I do believe there was a case in Vietnam where a whole section of an administrative outpost was over run by the enemy.**It can happen. I guess the distinction is that if you're in the rear you are trying to prevent it from happening, not activly seeking it out.**But we all should be prepared.**Hence Common skills**training.**Basic training teaches everyone to use an M-16, an AT4, to throw a grenade and breifly to use an M-60 and a claymore.**As a part of the Army we all must be able to defend ourselves.*Well but how do you select and allocate resource to that 30%?**So if you have a high attrition rate for females in the training environment you have traded yourself 100 soldiers for 30.**That does not deny a legitimate role for females in support positions where physical strength is not as important.**Well its not realistic.**I didn't say women should be in combat.**I don't think that women should be in combat MOS's.**I don't think that muscle mas has all that much to do with it though.**I think it is mostly a social thing.**But women do have their place in the rear. And the Army should hold them to a higher standard than they are currently impossing on them.**The Army is not doing itself a favor by making it easier for women.**Even if you never get shot at, whether male or female you need to be prepared. **PT at forts Benning, Sill and Knox (where combat MOSs are trained-I know you know this but other readers might not) is VERY intense for just this reason.**There is no doubt that PT at these places is more intense.**But my MOS is not a combat MOS and we had a pretty rigorous training schedule in AIT, but only because they were training mostly males (at least a ten to one ratio). I am a truck mechanic and most woman do not find this an attractive MOS.**Why can't we raise the stadards for everyone in the non-combat MOS's?**Even in my case as a mechanic if I am not in shape I am at risk.**Should a convey I am in be attacked I would be at a disadvantage if I were not prepared to deal with the situation.**Not to mention I would be putting those around me at a greater risk of being wounded because they would have to pick up the slack.**Does the Army do me a favor by only requiring me to do 18 pushups in two minutes? *Even small men on average have more muscle mass potential than large women.*You obviously do not know some of the women that I know.**Also I hate to sound racist, but there are some people of particular races that happen to be smaller than others.**I know some women that could snap some of those men like twigs.**** * Still I might prefer the muscular woman as well.**But what about the unit cohesion question?**Both Israel and Russia let women into combat roles when their nations were at risk of destruction from without.**But both abandoned*the policy soon afterward because of the effect it had on the morale of the men.**I know this may seem a chauvinist attitude, but machismo includes bravery and aggressiveness which are useful qualities in combat.**By definition women cannot be macho.**People may laugh at this, but many young men are attracted to the military, and especially the combat arms, because it is a test of their manhood.**Take this away and the service loses a lot of ts appeal to young men.*Yes I am familiar with this attitude, my husband is a Marine (Pleas no offense is meant to any Marines out there).**This is a very good point and one for which I have no solution.**Accept making a whole company of women, but there wouldn't be enough women to make up even one company of a &quot;women&quot; infantry.**So I have no solution.**This is why I as weel do not believe that women should be in combat.**It has taken a while for me to accept this, but we are talking about what is best for the unit, the Army and our country.**This shouldn't become a social experiment.*****There is quite a bit in my original message that you did not respond to.**I would be very interested in hearing your opinion.**Just because I don't think women shouldn't serve in combat doesn't mean that I think they have no military role and nothing to say about this topic.*I didn't respond to it because I agreed with it. I probably should have made that clear. Just because I didn't agree with everything you said does not mean that I don't agree with some of what you said.**I guess I want to try to make a the point that women should be prepared for combat and although they are not at the front lines they could be engaged in &quot;combat&quot;, at any time.**Of course if the front lines do a good job we won't ever have to worry about it.




<hr size=7 width=75%>




jminor@vt.edu

[Anonymous]

: *Dear J, hi.**Why do you think it is unfortunate that I remain anonymous?**It doesn't detract from the merit of what I have to say.**I have read your response and you seem not to disagree with much of what I say*: : I have kept myself anonymous because I am a serving soldier and I do not want the army's sexual- harrassment thought-police to hassle me.That's unfortunate.**I weigh roughly 200 pounds and none of the four females in the medical unit I serve with could even lift me if I were injured much less carry me 1000 yards or more to an aid station, in fact I doubt that few if any of the females I have served with could.*Agreed.**I couldn't carry you very far.**I am five feet tall 135.**I can pick up my six foot tall 165 poung boyfriend, but two-hundred pounds would be a bit much.*So if was up to them, and in the infantry it is usually up to your battle buddy, I would just die.**Yes it is true that women are training with men in the army now and I tell you it is a disaster.**When I was at Ft. Sam Hou




<hr size=7 width=75%>




MGoulet297@aol.com

[Anonymous]

: *Dear J, hi.I am a lesbian. People discriminate me.**Why do you think it is unfortunate that I remain anonymous?**It doesn't detract from the merit of what I have to say.**I have read your response and you seem not to disagree with much of what I say*: : I have kept myself anonymous because I am a serving soldier and I do not want the army's sexual- harrassment thought-police to hassle me.That's unfortunate.**I weigh roughly 200 pounds and none of the four females in the medical unit I serve with could even lift me if I were injured much less carry me 1000 yards or more to an aid station, in fact I doubt that few if any of the females I have served with could.*Agreed.**I couldn't carry you very far.**I am five feet tall 135.**I can pick up my six foot tall 165 poung girlfriend, but two-hundred pounds would be a bit much.*So if was up to them, and in the infantry it is usually up to your battle buddy, I would just die.**Yes it is true that women are training with men in the army now and I tell you it is a disaster.**When I was at Ft. Sam Houston the females could not manuver themselves or the litters they were carrying over walls or under wire around the obstacle course.**We consistently had to stop and help them along wasting time that might have been the difference between life and death in combat.**Combat is serious business, it is kill or be killed, and the enemy is not going to be any great respecter of &quot;equality&quot; or &quot;rights&quot; or any of the other issues that have been used to justify a greater role for women in combat .Okay I can go with that I guess.**I am in a noncombat MOS, but one that requires quite a bit of heavy lifting.**I am not small for my height and I have a fair amount of muscle mass for a woman of my size.**I manage okay, but it is more of a struggle for me than it would be for a taller, stronger man.**I also know my limits.**There are some things that I know I just can't do, so I ask for help. I am not sure women should be in combat MOS's.**I know I wouldn't attempt to be in a combat MOS, but I am darn glad that I have had a chance to serve in a non-combat one.**I have learned a lot.**Should women be in combat? That is a stupid question, because women are in combat all the time.**If you are in the Army in any MOS you have to be prepared for combat. The front line can realistically be anywhere.***I don't know if I agree that the frontline can be anywhere.**The front line is where you close with and destroy the enemy.**The technological and highly mobile nature of modern war can leave pockets of the enemy isolated in your rear, but there he is isolated without support and can be contained.**At the front the enemy can bring all of his resources to bear.**Of course missiles or air power can bring devestation to your rear but the enemy will not be able to follow up without breaking through your front lines.***Can women hold up?**Well it is the responsibility of the Army to make sure they do.**If not they should be booted on out.*Yes but the Army might be pressured by outside interests to make the standards more &quot;fair&quot;.**We should definitly make the standards higher for women. When I was in AIT I was with mostly males and therefore held more to male standars.**I was in much better shape when I left AIT (with mostly men) than when I left Basic (with half and half men and women).**That right there should tell you that there is a problem with the way the Army trains soldiers.Combat is not the time to conduct social expreiments.**Have none of you heard about the navy study where 100% of males could preform a two-person stretcher carry with 170 lbs. of weight 100 yards but only 30% of females could.Agreed. So my solution if we must let women into combat MOS's let in the 30%.*Well but how do you select and allocate resource to that 30%?**So if you have a high attrition rate for females in the training environment you have traded yourself 100 soldiers for 30.**That does not deny a legitimate role for females in support positions where physical strength is not as important.**PT at forts Benning, Sill and Knox (where combat MOSs are trained-I know you know this but other readers might not) is VERY intense for just this reason.***Let the others wash out and do something else with themselves.**I know this is not nessecarily realistic given the politics of the situation, but this is the way it should be.**I know my limits...**Another thing to consider is that many small-men are let into the military.**Some men can be very small compared to women.**I know I have known men that I could have tossed over my shoulder without blinking.**What is our policy on them? Are they let into combat.*Even small men on average have more muscle mass potential than large women. Still I might prefer the muscular woman as well.**But what about the unit cohesion question?**Both Israel and Russia let women into combat roles when their nations were at risk of destruction from without.**But both abandoned*the policy soon afterward because of the effect it had on the morale of the men.**I know this may seem a chauvinist attitude, but machismo includes bravery and aggressiveness which are useful qualities in combat.**By definition women cannot be macho.**People may laugh at this, but many young men are attracted to the military, and especially the combat arms, because it is a test of their manhood.**Take this away and the service loses a lot of ts appeal to young men.**I know they are let into the military.** What about the choice between a**5'8 140 pound musclar woman and and a 5'3 130 lb slender man?**I think I would take the side of that particular woman in a fight. ***There is quite a bit in my original message that you did not respond to.**I would be very interested in hearing your opinion.**Just because I don't think women shouldn't serve in combat doesn't mean that I think they have no military role and nothing to say about this topic.*




<hr size=7 width=75%>




sconne@bynet.bysu.edu

[Anonymous]

*Dear J, hi.**Why do you think it is unfortunate that I remain anonymous?**It doesn't detract from the merit of what I have to say.**I have read your response and you seem not to disagree with much of what I say*: : I have kept myself anonymous because I am a serving soldier and I do not want the army's sexual- harrassment thought-police to hassle me.That's unfortunate.**I weigh roughly 200 pounds and none of the four females in the medical unit I serve with could even lift me if I were injured much less carry me 1000 yards or more to an aid station, in fact I doubt that few if any of the females I have served with could.*Agreed.**I couldn't carry you very far.**I am five feet tall 135.**I can pick up my six foot tall 165 poung boyfriend, but two-hundred pounds would be a bit much.*So if was up to them, and in the infantry it is usually up to your battle buddy, I would just die.**Yes it is true that women are training with men in the army now and I tell you it is a disaster.**When I was at Ft. Sam Houston the females could not manuver themselves or the litters they were carrying over walls or under wire around the obstacle course.**We consistently had to stop and help them along wasting time that might have been the difference between life and death in combat.**Combat is serious business, it is kill or be killed, and the enemy is not going to be any great respecter of &quot;equality&quot; or &quot;rights&quot; or any of the other issues that have been used to justify a greater role for women in combat .Okay I can go with that I guess.**I am in a noncombat MOS, but one that requires quite a bit of heavy lifting.**I am not small for my height and I have a fair amount of muscle mass for a woman of my size.**I manage okay, but it is more of a struggle for me than it would be for a taller, stronger man.**I also know my limits.**There are some things that I know I just can't do, so I ask for help. I am not sure women should be in combat MOS's.**I know I wouldn't attempt to be in a combat MOS, but I am darn glad that I have had a chance to serve in a non-combat one.**I have learned a lot.**Should women be in combat? That is a stupid question, because women are in combat all the time.**If you are in the Army in any MOS you have to be prepared for combat. The front line can realistically be anywhere.***I don't know if I agree that the frontline can be anywhere.**The front line is where you close with and destroy the enemy.**The technological and highly mobile nature of modern war can leave pockets of the enemy isolated in your rear, but there he is isolated without support and can be contained.**At the front the enemy can bring all of his resources to bear.**Of course missiles or air power can bring devestation to your rear but the enemy will not be able to follow up without breaking through your front lines.***Can women hold up?**Well it is the responsibility of the Army to make sure they do.**If not they should be booted on out.*Yes but the Army might be pressured by outside interests to make the standards more &quot;fair&quot;.**We should definitly make the standards higher for women. When I was in AIT I was with mostly males and therefore held more to male standars.**I was in much better shape when I left AIT (with mostly men) than when I left Basic (with half and half men and women).**That right there should tell you that there is a problem with the way the Army trains soldiers.Combat is not the time to conduct social expreiments.**Have none of you heard about the navy study where 100% of males could preform a two-person stretcher carry with 170 lbs. of weight 100 yards but only 30% of females could.Agreed. So my solution if we must let women into combat MOS's let in the 30%.*Well but how do you select and allocate resource to that 30%?**So if you have a high attrition rate for females in the training environment you have traded yourself 100 soldiers for 30.**That does not deny a legitimate role for females in support positions where physical strength is not as important.**PT at forts Benning, Sill and Knox (where combat MOSs are trained-I know you know this but other readers might not) is VERY intense for just this reason.***Let the others wash out and do something else with themselves.**I know this is not nessecarily realistic given the politics of the situation, but this is the way it should be.**I know my limits...**Another thing to consider is that many small-men are let into the military.**Some men can be very small compared to women.**I know I have known men that I could have tossed over my shoulder without blinking.**What is our policy on them? Are they let into combat.*Even small men on average have more muscle mass potential than large women. Still I might prefer the muscular woman as well.**But what about the unit cohesion question?**Both Israel and Russia let women into combat roles when their nations were at risk of destruction from without.**But both abandoned*the policy soon afterward because of the effect it had on the morale of the men.**I know this may seem a chauvinist attitude, but machismo includes bravery and aggressiveness which are useful qualities in combat.**By definition women cannot be macho.**People may laugh at this, but many young men are attracted to the military, and especially the combat arms, because it is a test of their manhood.**Take this away and the service loses a lot of ts appeal to young men.**I know they are let into the military.** What about the choice between a**5'8 140 pound musclar woman and and a 5'3 130 lb slender man?**I think I would take the side of that particular woman in a fight. ***There is quite a bit in my original message that you did not respond to.**I would be very interested in hearing your opinion.**Just because I don't think women shouldn't serve in combat doesn't mean that I think they have no military role and nothing to say about this topic.*



<hr size=7 width=75%>




nobody@www.army.mil

[Anonymous]

: I am also doing research on this topic and I'd appreciate it if you could e-mail me your thoughts and/or personal experiences.THANKS 4 YOUR TIME &amp; EFFORT!---ZEKE




<hr size=7 width=75%>




KEDUCATION@AOL.COM

[Anonymous]

Wow, way late response, just so well written I could not resist! I agree with Mr. Anonymous soldier on most points because the whole point of all this is to protect our country with minimal lives lost! So this is not a question of fairness I don't think as much as reality. I'm all for all you smart gals in all other roles, plan to come aboard as well myself -- but don't believe the lines should be crossed to put women in combat. I even agree with the morale issue (in combat instances only, keep in mind.) I think it should be realized there are certain limits dealt by genetics to each of the sexes. Most of us ladies are not built like men, and you know what? Thank goodness. The only reason I'm not fighting for &quot;equality&quot; here which I might argue relentlessly in another case, is because we are talking about life and death here...bloodshed... and carrying your dying comrade's heavy frame on your shoulders with the greatest skill and accuracy possible in a quick, hot, risky moment, bullets flying. I'm sure there are physically exceptional women, not doubting that, but the larger picture must be kept in mind to save lives. Don't want any more men (or supporting women) to die than necessary!!!! For all the other MOS's, you take the ball and run with it, ladies! Remember, this is just one opinion. -Natalie

nataliet@ccess.net