Women in the military are filing lawsuits for equal opportunity to be in combat

Well, you cannot compare a black man or a gay man to a woman and if y'all don't understand that, I can understand why you don't understand mine and Hallmark's (and I think Pkr's?) position.

Running the military shouldn't be about giving women or anyone rights, it should be what is best for the mission.

Women are undeserving of equal rights and equal opportunities because they have uteri?

In part....because they cannot produce testosterone, they typically cannot attain the size and strength of many men. Where that strength is rationally tied to a combat assignment.....not one of these women are asking the standards to be changed. They are simply asking for review of classifications which are arbitrary and deny women opportunities, and do not allow the most qualified candidates to protect this country. They have discussed less qualified individuals getting promotions and opportunity when under any objective standard women who are clearly superior for a particular position are being denied that position by a blanket combat restrictions......yes, in some cases uteri....probably are not going to make the standards....but this blanket denial, or this attitude that somebody is suggesting folks who are unqualified should be advanced....simple prejudice....not a bit different than what faced black pilots and now being depicted in the HBO running of Redtails.

I wish the the people who are for a blanket ban could give one rational reason other than women have vaginas.......and we need to protect vaginas......this level of discussion might work in 1912.....but really it is 2012.

Author: Capt Katie Petronio

As a combat-experienced Marine officer, and a female, I am here to tell you that we are not all created equal, and attempting to place females in the infantry will not improve the Marine Corps as the Nation’s force-in-readiness or improve our national security.


As a company grade 1302 combat engineer officer with 5 years of active service and two combat deployments, one to Iraq and the other to Afghanistan, I was able to participate in and lead numerous combat operations. In Iraq as the II MEF Director, Lioness Program, I served as a subject matter expert for II MEF, assisting regimental and battalion commanders on ways to integrate female Marines into combat operations. I primarily focused on expanding the mission of the Lioness Program from searching females to engaging local nationals and information gathering, broadening the ways females were being used in a wide variety of combat operations from census patrols to raids. In Afghanistan I deployed as a 1302 and led a combat engineer platoon in direct support of Regimental Combat Team 8, specifically operating out of the Upper Sangin Valley. My platoon operated for months at a time, constructing patrol bases (PBs) in support of 3d Battalion, 5th Marines; 1st Battalion, 5th Marines; 2d Reconnaissance Battalion; and 3d Battalion, 4th Marines. This combat experience, in particular, compelled me to raise concern over the direction and overall reasoning behind opening the 03XX field.

Who is driving this agenda? I am not personally hearing female Marines, enlisted or officer, pounding on the doors of Congress claiming that their inability to serve in the infantry violates their right to equality. Shockingly, this isn’t even a congressional agenda. This issue is being pushed by several groups, one of which is a small committee of civilians appointed by the Secretary of Defense called the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS). Their mission is to advise the Department of Defense (DoD) on recommendations, as well as matters of policy, pertaining to the well-being of women in the Armed Services from recruiting to employment. Members are selected based on their prior military experience or experience with women’s workforce issues. I certainly applaud and appreciate DACOWITS’ mission; however, as it pertains to the issue of women in the infantry, it’s very surprising to see that none of the committee members are on active duty or have any recent combat or relevant operational experience relating to the issue they are attempting to change. I say this because, at the end of the day, it’s the active duty servicemember who will ultimately deal with the results of their initiatives, not those on the outside looking in. As of now, the Marine Corps hasn’t been directed to integrate, but perhaps the Corps is anticipating the inevitable—DoD pressuring the Corps to comply with DACOWITS’ agenda as the Army has already “rogered up” to full integration. Regardless of what the Army decides to do, it’s critical to emphasize that we are not the Army; our operational speed and tempo, along with our overall mission as the Nation’s amphibious force-in-readiness, are fundamentally different than that of our sister Service. By no means is this distinction intended as disrespectful to our incredible Army. My main point is simply to state that the Marine Corps and the Army are different; even if the Army ultimately does fully integrate all military occupational fields, that doesn’t mean the Corps should follow suit.

I understand that there are female servicemembers who have proven themselves to be physically, mentally, and morally capable of leading and executing combat-type operations; as a result, some of these Marines may feel qualified for the chance of taking on the role of 0302. In the end, my main concern is not whether women are capable of conducting combat operations, as we have already proven that we can hold our own in some very difficult combat situations; instead, my main concern is a question of longevity. Can women endure the physical and physiological rigors of sustained combat operations, and are we willing to accept the attrition and medical issues that go along with integration?

As a young lieutenant, I fit the mold of a female who would have had a shot at completing IOC, and I am sure there was a time in my life where I would have volunteered to be an infantryman. I was a star ice hockey player at Bowdoin College, a small elite college in Maine, with a major in government and law. At 5 feet 3 inches I was squatting 200 pounds and benching 145 pounds when I graduated in 2007. I completed Officer Candidates School (OCS) ranked 4 of 52 candidates, graduated 48 of 261 from TBS, and finished second at MOS school. I also repeatedly scored far above average in all female-based physical fitness tests (for example, earning a 292 out of 300 on the Marine physical fitness test). Five years later, I am physically not the woman I once was and my views have greatly changed on the possibility of women having successful long careers while serving in the infantry. I can say from firsthand experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not just emotion, that we haven’t even begun to analyze and comprehend the gender-specific medical issues and overall physical toll continuous combat operations will have on females.

I was a motivated, resilient second lieutenant when I deployed to Iraq for 10 months, traveling across the Marine area of operations (AO) and participating in numerous combat operations. Yet, due to the excessive amount of time I spent in full combat load, I was diagnosed with a severe case of restless leg syndrome. My spine had compressed on nerves in my lower back causing neuropathy which compounded the symptoms of restless leg syndrome. While this injury has certainly not been enjoyable, Iraq was a pleasant experience compared to the experiences I endured during my deployment to Afghanistan. At the beginning of my tour in Helmand Province, I was physically capable of conducting combat operations for weeks at a time, remaining in my gear for days if necessary and averaging 16-hour days of engineering operations in the heart of Sangin, one of the most kinetic and challenging AOs in the country. There were numerous occasions where I was sent to a grid coordinate and told to build a PB from the ground up, serving not only as the mission commander but also the base commander until the occupants (infantry units) arrived 5 days later. In most of these situations, I had a sergeant as my assistant commander, and the remainder of my platoon consisted of young, motivated NCOs. I was the senior Marine making the final decisions on construction concerns, along with 24-hour base defense and leading 30 Marines at any given time. The physical strain of enduring combat operations and the stress of being responsible for the lives and well-being of such a young group in an extremely kinetic environment were compounded by lack of sleep, which ultimately took a physical toll on my body that I couldn’t have foreseen.

By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change. My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions. At the end of the 7-month deployment, and the construction of 18 PBs later, I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment. Regardless of my deteriorating physical stature, I was extremely successful during both of my combat tours, serving beside my infantry brethren and gaining the respect of every unit I supported. Regardless, I can say with 100 percent assurance that despite my accomplishments, there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement. I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females.

There is a drastic shortage of historical data on female attrition or medical ailments of women who have executed sustained combat operations. This said, we need only to review the statistics from our entry-level schools to realize that there is a significant difference in the physical longevity between male and female Marines. At OCS the attrition rate for female candidates in 2011 was historically low at 40 percent, while the male candidates attrite at a much lower rate of 16 percent. Of candidates who were dropped from training because they were injured or not physically qualified, females were breaking at a much higher rate than males, 14 percent versus 4 percent. The same trends were seen at TBS in 2011; the attrition rate for females was 13 percent versus 5 percent for males, and 5 percent of females were found not physically qualified compared with 1 percent of males. Further, both of these training venues have physical fitness standards that are easier for females; at IOC there is one standard regardless of gender. The attrition rate for males attending IOC in 2011 was 17 percent. Should female Marines ultimately attend IOC, we can expect significantly higher attrition rates and long-term injuries for women.

There have been many working groups and formal discussions recently addressing what changes would be necessary to the current IOC period of instruction in order to accommodate both genders without producing an underdeveloped or incapable infantry officer. Not once was the word “lower” used, but let’s be honest, “modifying” a standard so that less physically or mentally capable individuals (male or female) can complete a task is called “lowering the standard”! The bottom line is that the enemy doesn’t discriminate, rounds will not slow down, and combat loads don’t get any lighter, regardless of gender or capability. Even more so, the burden of command does not diminish for a male or female; a leader must gain the respect and trust of his/her Marines in combat. Not being able to physically execute to the standards already established at IOC, which have been battle tested and proven, will produce a slower operational speed and tempo resulting in increased time of exposure to enemy forces and a higher risk of combat injury or death. For this reason alone, I would ask everyone to step back and ask themselves, does this integration solely benefit the individual or the Marine Corps as a whole, as every leader’s focus should be on the needs of the institution and the Nation, not the individual?

Which leads one to really wonder, what is the benefit of this potential change? The Marine Corps is not in a shortage of willing and capable young male second lieutenants who would gladly take on the role of infantry officers. In fact we have men fighting to be assigned to the coveted position of 0302. In 2011, 30 percent of graduating TBS lieutenants listed infantry in their top three requested MOSs. Of those 30 percent, only 47 percent were given the MOS. On the other hand, perhaps this integration is an effort to remove the glass ceiling that some observers feel exists for women when it comes to promotions to general officer ranks. Opening combat arms MOSs, particularly the infantry, such observers argue, allows women to gain the necessary exposure of leading Marines in combat, which will then arguably increase the chances for female Marines serving in strategic leadership assignments. As stated above, I have full faith that female Marines can successfully serve in just about every MOS aside from the infantry. Even if a female can meet the short-term physical, mental, and moral leadership requirements of an infantry officer, by the time that she is eligible to serve in a strategic leadership position, at the 20-year mark or beyond, there is a miniscule probability that she’ll be physically capable of serving at all. Again, it becomes a question of longevity.

Despite my personal opinion regarding the incorporation of females into the infantry community, I am not blind to the fact that females play a key role in countering the gender and cultural barriers we are facing at war, and we do have a place in combat operations. As such, a potential change that I do recommend considering strongly for female Marine officers is to designate a new secondary MOS (0305) for a Marine serving as female engagement team (FET) officer in charge (OIC). 0305s would be employed in the same way we employ drill instructors, as we do not need an enduring FET entity but an existing capability able to stand up based on operational requirements. Legitimizing a program that is already operational in the Corps would greatly benefit both the units utilizing FETs and the women who serve as FET OICs. Unfortunately, FET OICs today are not properly screened and trained for this mission. I propose that those being considered for FET OIC be prescreened and trained through a modified IOC with an appropriately adjusted physical expectation. FET OICs need to better understand the infantry culture and mindset and work with their 0302 brethren to incorporate FET assistance during specific phases of operations to properly prepare them to serve as the subject matter experts to a regimental- or battalion-level infantry commander. Through joint OIC training, both 0302s and FET OICs can start to learn how to integrate capabilities and accomplish their mission individually and collectively. This, in my mind, is a much more viable, cost-effective solution, with high reward for the Marine Corps and the Nation, and it will also directly improve the capabilities of FET OICs.

Finally, what are the Marine Corps standards, particularly physical fitness standards, based on—performance and capability or equality? We abide by numerous discriminators, such as height and weight standards. As multiple Marine Corps Gazette articles have highlighted, Marines who can run first-class physical fitness tests and who have superior MOS proficiency are separated from the Service if they do not meet the Marine Corps’ height and weight standards. Further, tall Marines are restricted from flying specific platforms, and color blind Marines are faced with similar restrictions. We recognize differences in mental capabilities of Marines when we administer the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery and use the results to eliminate/open specific fields. These standards are designed to ensure safety, quality, and the opportunity to be placed in a field in which one can sustain and succeed.

Which once again leads me, as a ground combat-experienced female Marine Corps officer, to ask, what are we trying to accomplish by attempting to fully integrate women into the infantry? For those who dictate policy, changing the current restrictions associated with women in the infantry may not seem significant to the way the Marine Corps operates. I vehemently disagree; this potential change will rock the foundation of our Corps for the worse and will weaken what has been since 1775 the world’s most lethal fighting force. In the end, for DACOWITS and any other individual or organization looking to increase opportunities for female Marines, I applaud your efforts and say thank you. However, for the long-term health of our female Marines, the Marine Corps, and U.S. national security, steer clear of the Marine infantry community when calling for more opportunities for females. Let’s embrace our differences to further hone in on the Corps’ success instead of dismantling who we are to achieve a political agenda. Regardless of the outcome, we will be “Semper Fidelis” and remain focused on our mission to protect and defend the United States of America.

Comments

2seaoat wrote:Women are undeserving of equal rights and equal opportunities because they have uteri?

In part....because they cannot produce testosterone, they typically cannot attain the size and strength of many men. Where that strength is rationally tied to a combat assignment.....not one of these women are asking the standards to be changed. They are simply asking for review of classifications which are arbitrary and deny women opportunities, and do not allow the most qualified candidates to protect this country. They have discussed less qualified individuals getting promotions and opportunity when under any objective standard women who are clearly superior for a particular position are being denied that position by a blanket combat restrictions......yes, in some cases uteri....probably are not going to make the standards....but this blanket denial, or this attitude that somebody is suggesting folks who are unqualified should be advanced....simple prejudice....not a bit different than what faced black pilots and now being depicted in the HBO running of Redtails.

I wish the the people who are for a blanket ban could give one rational reason other than women have vaginas.......and we need to protect vaginas......this level of discussion might work in 1912.....but really it is 2012.

There are more differences in men and women than just vaginas and penises and the article written by the young female Marine officer, and posted by Hallmark, discusses the differences. Women are NOT built and made like men!

During the 1968 Tet Offensive, then Captain Gordon Batcheller earned the Navy Cross when his unit, Company A, 1st Battalion Marines, engaged a numerically superior force of the North Vietnamese Army. Although injured by shrapnel, he aggressively led his men in a fierce assault against the enemy and was seriously wounded in both legs when the column began receiving heavy fire from both flanks. He supported himself with his elbows, resolutely continued to direct his men, and bravely encouraged those near him even as he lay receiving medical treatment. As a result of his determined efforts, the reaction force reached the embattled city of Hue.

Colonel Batcheller joined the Marine Corps in 1960 and retired in 1991. His assignments included rifle platoon commander, 81mm mortar platoon commander, rifle company executive officer, rifle company commander, landing support battalion commander, and infantry battalion commander. He is a National War College graduate, and was a professor of military and strategic studies for seven years at the Army Management Staff College.

Women in Combat

Why We Should Not Send Our Mothers, Wives
and Daughters to Fight Our Wars


Crusade Magazine: Do you think that the current operational effectiveness of our military is lacking because we refuse to allow women in combat?

Colonel Gordon Batcheller: For the last forty years we have deliberately increased the involvement of women in combat. They fly combat airplanes and helicopters, man navy ships, including nuclear submarines, and fill combat support and service positions that expose them to close combat. Just recently 14,000 positions in the combat zone were opened to women. Civilians are pressuring the military, primarily the Army and Marine Corps, to open the infantry and other combat arms positions to women.

The process started when the All Volunteer Force discovered it wasn’t getting enough men; rudely put, women weren’t better than men, but they were better than nothing, at least when restricted to assignments where their associated friction could be best managed. As their presence increased, so did substantial evidence of the difficulties the mix created. No one has sought more women to better the combat force or claimed that our current mixed force is more effective than an all male force would be; and no historian has held that a coed force would have fought any of our wars more effectively than they were fought. If women improved the force’s combat effectiveness, you would expect the military to pressure its civilian master to give it more women without restrictions. The pressure today is in the other direction; civilians are trying to impose a less effective force on the military.

Crusade: Would allowing women in combat positions lead to the loss of combat effectiveness? If so why and how?

Colonel Batcheller: Yes! I guess the basic reason is that women are not equal substitutes for men. They are different, and this causes a host of problems. It is not their “fault,” nor is it attributable to any inherent incompetence. Women are different, and men view and treat them as such. Our cultural values, distilled from our Judeo-Christian civilization affirm this truth and inform us on what is appropriate or acceptable.

Effectiveness in combat depends on trained individuals, bound by trust and confidence — a belief ultimately that we will do right by each other. I have never known any man who thought it right to expose women to the butchery he will accept for himself or his male colleagues. Our idea of manhood would hold such butchery as shameful. Shame is not an inspiring war-winning emotion.

The infantry lives and works in a violent, barbaric world where the most grotesque of Hollywood’s special effects is routine reality. There is no quality of life beyond staying alive: no comfort, no privacy, and no provisions for hygiene. Endurance — both physical and emotional — and raw strength are essential. The battlefield is a man’s world.

Crusade: Should we want our women to fight? Why not?

Colonel Batcheller: The values of our major religions, Western Civilization, and our culture say “no.” The values that sustain our military say “no.” Our idea of manhood says it would be shameful. The thought of sending wives, mothers, and daughters to fight our wars while their men drive the children to soccer practice is contemptible. It is not that women cannot fight and kill and help us repel an attack or invasion in a “last stand.” But our culture objects to enlisting them in a “first call” case, and operational effectiveness resists their involvement in any case. Ideally, the military would be a male operation. In our world the challenge is to find a sensible, cost-effective use of women in the military while keeping them where they would not have to fight, or be able to distract or disrupt those fighting.

Crusade: Back in 1993, surveys showed that an overwhelming majority of women said they did not want to be in a combat unit. Is there a purpose for women to be placed in infantry positions?

The military is created and structured to win wars, and its personnel policies are crafted to serve that end, not satisfy vocational whims.

Colonel Batcheller: Not on the basis of military merit. Militant feminists and diversity worshippers have their fatuous “purposes,” but no positive purpose motivates the military to put women in foxholes.

While some seek to radically change the United States by destroying our current values, others seek to weaken the military and humble our nation. One does not have to be a conspiracy nut to acknowledge that such people exist and are active, and that this destructive initiative fits their purposes.

Some advocates also insist it is a woman’s right to serve in the military if she wants. That, of course, is nonsense. The military is created and structured to win wars, and its personnel policies are crafted to serve that end, not satisfy vocational whims.

Crusade: Some claim women push for infantry positions because they want to achieve higher rank and advance their careers. Is this being forced on women or is it something they want?

Colonel Batcheller: It is fair to say that achieving high rank is dependent on having had the “right” jobs, and having done them well. Command assignments of combat units during combat are essential for professional credibility.

A female Marine communicator is not going to become commandant. But the military exists to win wars, not to provide successful career patterns. Personnel policies, and their derivative assignments, are for the good of the service, not the happiness of the individuals being assigned.

Crusade: Do mixed units favor the enemy when it comes to combat?

Colonel Batcheller: Yes. By weakening our side we help the enemies. You will hear of the success other countries have had with coed forces, with Israel usually mentioned as the ultimate proof. But it is my understanding that the Israelis have found the concept doesn’t work and have abandoned it. The male soldiers became too concerned, protective and distracted. Women help defend their kibbutz just like American women helped defend their wagon train or homestead; and they serve in the military, but not in coed combat formations.

Crusade: People have made this issue one about gender equality. How would you answer those who subscribe to this ideological egalitarianism?

Colonel Batcheller: Men and women may be equal in the Declaration of Independence, but how many women play in the National Football League? College football? High School football? Last time I looked, men and women are different. And even if the differences created no performance advantages, the inescapable sexual dynamics inflict seriously disruptive forces on our coed organizations. The military exists to win wars, not to serve as an equal opportunity employer.

Crusade: Could you comment on the physical requirements of combat and are women capable of enduring it?

Colonel Batcheller: My experience was as an infantryman. Our world was somewhat different than that of a tank crewman or artillery officer. We had to be half beast of burden and operate far off the beaten track and beyond reach of reliable mechanical support. Conditions were primitive, quality of life non-existent, exposure to the elements constant. What we had, we pretty much carried. Coverage of the wars of the last ten years has provided a good picture of the loads carried by individual soldiers during operations — loads increase when units have to relocate. Upper body strength and load-carrying ability are essential — the stronger and more enduring, the more valuable. We have never been able to reduce the individual soldier’s personal load — it frequently exceeds 75 pounds, before you add a wounded colleague. Women in such an environment quickly become liabilities. Nor would they function well in the miserable living conditions, lack of privacy, absence of hygiene and so forth. It’s a man’s world.

Crusade: Are there emotional issues that need to be addressed?

Colonel Batcheller: There would be emotional issues for both sexes, and for the nation as a whole. This is something alien to our national character and hostile to our concept of civilization. The butchery of our wives and daughters and mothers would generate a national mood of sadness and shame. There has been no coverage of the killed and disabled women in Iraq and Afghanistan, even as we “celebrate” the male wounded warriors. We’re proud of our fighting forces, but ashamed that they include women. Infantrymen would feel this shame tenfold — they can handle the butchery until it involves someone that reminds them of their kid sister.

During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, U.S. Army Pfc. Jessica D. Lynch was captured by enemy forces and raped repeatedly.

Crusade: What should we expect from the enemy should a woman combatant fall into their hands?

Colonel Batcheller: History has answered this question. Human nature hasn’t changed. Our enemies seldom start with our basic values, and combat is corrosive and de-humanizing. But, if we’re comfortable ordering our women and girls into the explosive violence of the battlefield, why should we be upset if they are violated?

Crusade: Based on your experience, do you think our young servicemen could, over time, be trained to treat women troops the same as men?

Colonel Batcheller: No. Nor would women accept being treated as men. This issue becomes especially significant in leader/led relationships. Most men have serious problems subordinating to women in a neutral environment. This would only get worse in a masculine environment. Thinking we can eliminate or tame sex reflects colossal arrogance, or stupidity.

Crusade: Because this is such a politically charged issue, do you think some are afraid to express their honest opinion? If so, do you feel that this limits our ability to make the best choice for our national security?

Colonel Batcheller: Yes. The military is properly subordinate to civilian authorities. The Commander-in-Chief is the President, the rule writers and check payers are Congress. Most of us have trouble “taking on the boss.” In the military there are additional concerns about disloyalty, disobedience, and insubordination. Additionally, the “pyramids” of these organizations are manned by ambitious individuals who generally want to keep their careers alive. Candor and honesty are dangerous, sometimes fatal. We have had four-star officers — generals and admirals, active duty and retired — publicly support the admission of homosexuals into the military, and the assignment of women into combat roles. None argued from military merit or advantage; it was the politically advantageous thing to do. Washington is a corrosive, disorienting environment. The major “players” are politicians, even if they wear a uniform. Very few leave Washington with more virtue than they brought in. Some go over to the dark side, most find reasons to justify not being contentious, or accept unsound policies after token opposition. Given the ignorance Congress and the President demonstrate about military matters, we should expect to observe respectful resistance from our military “leaders” with public examination of the objects of disagreement. For a host of reasons, we don’t. National security suffers as it ultimately depends upon an educated citizenry. Don’t believe anyone that says this is not a serious morale problem.

There is another major concern that is widespread, but difficult to isolate. Producing combat units — companies and battalions and squadrons and such — is a complex undertaking, and the primary business of the military. In the face of complexity the sacred tenet of KISS — Keep It Simple Stupid — is frequently invoked. Adding women to the mix creates frictions and burdens not only in the units where they mix, but in service-wide areas of personnel management, logistics, facilities, and administration; the more pervasive the mix, the more extensive the costs. All the Service academies have experienced sex-based scandals, and all services have been plagued with such misconduct, both in operational units and the support establishment. The cumulative cost of our coed military in time and effort is beyond calculation, but considerable.

We have had four-star officers — generals and admirals, active duty and retired — publicly support the admission of homosexuals into the military, and the assignment of women into combat roles.

They support it because the public supports it.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/supermajority-americans-support-increased-combat-role-women

Nobody is saying women and men are alike. I have played on many team sports with all men. I can tell you right now I have had to carry some of my teammates who could not play defense or cover the outfield......and that is the reality which you deny.....there is a great range between men. I laugh at the thought of the Wally Cox types who are warriors, and some woman I know who are police officers who could whip them in any competition....yet you listen to the same prejudice of senior officers who do not want the fraternity to be busted and who have gauged their entire lives in the realm of macho......sorry.....warfare is evolving, and intelligence, hand eye coordination, eye sight, and physical stamina are all evolving with modern weapon systems......and every senior officer argued that blacks were incapable of fighting.......and Old Abe sure showed something else than the good old boys club argued.......there are specific arguments which may be valid, but the blanket denial of woman in combat roles is going to be evolving, and I would rather the military make the decisions where this is going, and not the courts, but put the best people in positions to defend this country.....not a bunch of Wally Cox types pounding their chests that they need to protect women.....Yes Wally would not make a very good Navy Seal, and perhaps 99.9% of woman would not make one either......so a combat ban on Navy seals may make sense, but thousands of jobs do not require that you be a Navy seals.....and that same Wally Cox's fellow gets the job, and a more qualified woman gets the shaft......yep the times are changing....and yes we will have a viable volunteer military which will be even more effective in 10 years than it was 10 years ago....with women participating.

hallmarkgrad wrote:More that I would like.........a fact that brings me no joy................I can not change the past but I can voice my thoughts about the future. Unlike some, there are not many days that I dont think about it..................I am going to the VA hospital in Biloxi on Thursday. I will get the chance to see and talk with some of the young men with one arm, no legs, burned faces. It boggles my mind that people would wish this on women.

Why limit yourself to the VA hospital?

Why don't you go overseas to the countries war has touched and look at the women and children there then come back and tell us how women and children do not belong in combat?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tna0Mmu1XlI

I laugh at the thought of the Wally Cox types who are warriors, Not much of a comment for a guy putting his life on the line for you.

Nekochan wrote:I agree entirely with Hallmark but even if he and I are both wrong, he's entitled to his opinion and I don't know why y'all insult him because he has a different view than y'all do.

In what way was he insulted?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ljy6PTbX9I

Nekochan wrote:Well, you cannot compare a black man or a gay man to a woman and if y'all don't understand that, I can understand why you don't understand mine and Hallmark's (and I think Pkr's?) position.

Running the military shouldn't be about giving women or anyone rights, it should be what is best for the mission.

In what way is the rights of a citizen not intertwined and directly related to the responsibilities of a citizen?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tna0Mmu1XlI

Mr Eagle "Why limit yourself to the VA hospital?

Why don't you go overseas to the countries war has touched and look at the women and children there then come back and tell us how women and children do not belong in combat?



[img][/img]

I spent 34 months in the far east. When I was in Korea I had a girl friend that had walked with all the other refugees from Youndongpo to outside of Pusan. and back. Her mother was killed on the way and she took care of her 2 year old brother. I used to go visit some of the sites of the infamous battles. The war had only been over for about 13 years. Memories were still fresh in many of my Korean friends minds. I damn sure know first hand the effect war has on women and children. It is something i choose not to talk about very much but you asked.........

hallmarkgrad wrote:I spent 34 months in the far east. When I was in Korea I had a girl friend that had walked with all the other refugees from Youndongpo to outside of Pusan. and back. Her mother was killed on the way and she took care of her 2 year old brother. I used to go visit some of the sites of the infamous battles. The war had only been over for about 13 years. Memories were still fresh in many of my Korean friends minds. I damn sure know first hand the effect war has on women and children. It is something i choose not to talk about very much but you asked.........

And you still believe that you can protect women and children from the ravages of war... Interesting...

...And if war comes to our own homeland do you think our women will be any better prepared for it by you protecting and sheltering them from it?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

I laugh at the thought of the Wally Cox types who are warriors, Not much of a comment for a guy putting his life on the line for you.

Once again completely missing the conceptual point.....you fail to recognize that less than stellar males are getting some of the support jobs which are called combat which are denied to more qualified women....period. Again, you think because of your service I do not have a voice....sorry we still have a civilian government which controls our military, and I am sorry....I have spent a life around pretenders whether it is the military, police, or bullies.....the bottom line is that many males are weak, diminutive, mentally slow, with poor hand eye coordination.....they may have been picked near last in gym class, and yes they made it in the military....I have too many friends who fit this description .....but they are honest...they got drafted.....they hated every minute of it, and they were not very good combat soldiers. I think of Tammy Duckworth being attacked by her opponent in the election...she is missing both her legs and was a heroic women, yet her opponent attacked her as using her military service....when obviously everything about the woman screams service to her country....yet if I suggest that this woman who won her seat back to congress as a strong woman, can have a weasle who did not pay child support make her service something less than it was......nope.....those of us who argue equal opportunity for those who can perform.....we will win this argument....because my friend.....the Wally Cox characters who are not as qualified will actually make the army expand the classifications....not because I say so....not because you protest.....but because in the end some women are simply better, and make our armed services better.

Let me get this straight.. This is what you think of many of our Military people? "sorry we still have a civilian government which controls our military, and I am sorry....I have spent a life around pretenders whether it is the military, police, or bullies.....the bottom line is that many males are weak, diminutive, mentally slow, with poor hand eye coordination.....they may have been picked near last in gym class, and yes they made it in the military... And that is why we need women in combat because these guys are just too weak and sorry to do the job?

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1133&context=djglp

now maybe we can have an intelligent conversation.....read the article and get back to me.

still do not get it.....chew on this:

Policy discussions must consider the performance of women in recent
conflict. Women are displaying great courage and skill in ambushes, firefights,
and battles on the ground. They are not just surviving, but earning medals for
valor in combat. On March 20, 2005, Army Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester was in a
convoy of twenty-six vehicles that came under enemy ambush by fifty
insurgents.23 Sgt. Hester “led her team through the ‘kill zone’ and into a flanking
position, where she assaulted a trench line with grenades and M203 grenadelauncher
rounds. Sgt. Hester killed at least three insurgents”24 and was awarded
the Silver Star for her bravery under fire. In 2003, Army Airborne Capt. Kellie
McCoy earned a Bronze Star with a combat “V” for Valor for her actions in
Fallujah:25 “Leading a patrol that got ambushed and took casualties, she hopped
up into the Humvee’s machine gun turret, killed a couple of the attackers, then
led her men to safety.”26 As of December 18, 2006, the Army had awarded
women warriors one Silver Star, seven Bronze Stars with Valor, thirteen Air
Medals with Valor, and sixty-eight Army Commendation medals with Valor.27

..they may have been picked near last in gym class, and yes they made it in the military... And that is why we need women in combat because these guys are just too weak and sorry to do the job?

American women have fought and served in every U.S. war, beginning
with the Revolutionary War. Today, there are over 198,000 women in the active
duty military, constituting 14.5% of the active force.4 Women are integral
members of the armed forces, serving as Airmen, Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines,
and they are here to stay. Yet despite women’s accomplishments throughout
history, and most recently in the War on Terror, DoD policy still prohibits
women from serving in approximately 200,000 positions in the military.

Now we could have the dictatorship of macho buddies who perform a coup on America.....or we could bring back the draft.....and get our MASH folks....but until then you tell me how we replace 200k women serving their country.....and then tell me about the modern battlefield....I did not serve so I will defer to your knowledge....I know I am not worthy of this discussion....but I am curious when you are going to climb out of the bubble and realize brave women are risking their lives everyday....and you play the macho card.....the guilt card(women in body bags), the those dames are not as tough as us boyz card....but you have no solution how we keep our military fair, high performing, and keep those that serve safe.....sorry you need to work yourself out of that bubble.

Damaged Eagle wrote:

hallmarkgrad wrote:I spent 34 months in the far east. When I was in Korea I had a girl friend that had walked with all the other refugees from Youndongpo to outside of Pusan. and back. Her mother was killed on the way and she took care of her 2 year old brother. I used to go visit some of the sites of the infamous battles. The war had only been over for about 13 years. Memories were still fresh in many of my Korean friends minds. I damn sure know first hand the effect war has on women and children. It is something i choose not to talk about very much but you asked.........

And you still believe that you can protect women and children from the ravages of war... Interesting...

...And if war comes to our own homeland do you think our women will be any better prepared for it by you protecting and sheltering them from it?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

Still waiting for an answer to my last question there Mr Hallmark...

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHVeyo4W18U

hallmarkgrad wrote:I really dont need to be ordered to "read this and get back to me" But that was written my a Air force woman Pilot. Next time you are ridding by Corry field on your way to the Poker room and the troops are out their doing PT, feel free to spot the weak and diminutives ones and report back.
When was the last time you saw a a Marine that you would say was weak and slow witted?
Who are filling these positions right now? A bunch of little sissy's that can not do 10 push ups or carry a 5 gallon pail of water?

The Female Marine Captain nailed it. Not a A10 air Force pilot. In your quest to promote these women you are insulting the very men who are now doing the job . Can a woman do it any better? Who knows I doubt it. Just because they say they can dosent make it a fact.

Are they now!

In what way?

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ljy6PTbX9I

Since 9/11, seventy-five women have died in Iraq and Afghanistan,
167
an
unprecedented number of female combatant casualties. The American public is
showing distaste for the total number of deaths, including both men and
women, but there has been relatively little outrage regarding the number of
women casualties in particular. We are at war, and all of these losses are difficult
to accept. But a woman’s life is no more valuable than the life of a man.
Congresswoman Heather Wilson, the only female veteran in the U.S. House of
Representatives, stated that the war in Iraq has settled the issue of whether the
public will value the lives of fallen women soldiers over men. “There have been
casualties, men and women, and we grieve for them. But I think we have gotten
beyond the point where losing a daughter is somehow worse than losing a
son.”
168
As a Father I call BULL SHIT......