Women in combat...

[username]

So Obama is going to open up more combat positions for women...thoughts?

http://www.nola.com/military/index.ssf/2...nd_ba.html

He certainly is attempting to make his legacy very liberal progressive. I think Boehmer made a recent comment that Obama is attempting to annihilate the Republican Party with his catering to immigrants, gay groups, women etc.

[Duchess]

I think it's fine, I don't have any problem with it, more power to 'em. It's not my scene, I have no desire to fight on the front lines, I'd be scared spitless...

...and besides, I'm not willing to risk my life for a bunch of ingrates.

[username]

I'm okay with it as well. I just listened to one argument against it (not sure who the talking head was) but his points were as follows:

1) Standards would degrade (i.e., to bring women in to these combat positions, we'd start lowering our standards). I learned an interesting tidbit in there that to qualify to be a marine, the following is the minimum height/weight standards for men. There are a lot of women way bigger/taller than that.

Height Minimum: 58"

Maximum Weight: 132lbs.

Minimum Weight: 91lbs.

2) Women are subject to being raped.

3) It would cause more stress in military families if both parents were deployed to combat.

On the 1^st point, I think you either qualify for the job or not. If it's a position that requires strength or endurance that you don't possess, you're not qualified. Period.

Second, men can get raped too. Give women some credit; they know (or ought to know) the risks they face in combat.

Third, the military shouldn't deploy married couples (especially parents) at the same time. Easy peasy.

[ramseycat]

Well if we want to be equal in all things, BE equal in all things.

[username]

Well if we want to be equal in all things, BE equal in all things.

Yeah, but I don't want/expect them to do some type of affirmative action for Navy Seals (for example). Either you can meet the rigorous physical demands or not. I would heartily disagree with changing the standards in some effort to bring more women in to combat positions. Best person for the job.

[Jimbone]

I'm okay with it as well. I just listened to one argument against it (not sure who the talking head was) but his points were as follows:

1) the following is the minimum height/weight standards for men.

Height Minimum: 58"

Maximum Weight: 132lbs.

Minimum Weight: 91lbs.

That can't be right... that has to be for women. A Marine maximum weight of 132lbs, minimum of 91lbs?

Women in front line combat is a bad idea. Imagine the maximum 132 lbs. woman having to drag a wounded 250 lbs crippled buddy out of a situation.

I don't doubt they can be great shots, that they can fight as tough and as hard, and be even better than men sometimes... but when it comes to physical strength there is just a genetic difference that would come into play at precisely the moment you wouldn't want it to.

[username]

I'm okay with it as well. I just listened to one argument against it (not sure who the talking head was) but his points were as follows:

1) the following is the minimum height/weight standards for men.

Height Minimum: 58"

Maximum Weight: 132lbs.

Minimum Weight: 91lbs.

That can't be right... that has to be for women. A Marine maximum weight of 132lbs, minimum

Please double check me. I heard that on the news and then found some info online that seemed to back those numbers for men but I didn't spend a lot of time looking.

[Jimbone]

Please double check me. I heard that on the news and then found some info online that seemed to back those numbers for men but I didn't spend a lot of time looking.

Ah, I see in looking up the chart. Those weight requirements are for someone 58 inches tall. It goes up as the height increases... both charts for men and women here:

http://www.military.com/join-armed-force...rules.html

[username]

Please double check me. I heard that on the news and then found some info online that seemed to back those numbers for men but I didn't spend a lot of time looking.

Ah, I see in looking up the chart. Those weight requirements are for someone 58 inches tall. It goes up as the height increases... both charts for men and women here:

http://www.military.com/join-armed-force...rules.html

So it's true for both sexes, right? As it should be.

[Jimbone]

So it's true for both sexes, right? As it should be.

Insofar as they both have height and weight requirements... the requirements are different for both though.

[OnBendedKnee]

Should the requirements be different?
I honestly don't know.
My instinct is no, but reality sets in and I go back to being unsure.

[Duchess]

I don't think just any female is going to go to the front lines. Those that do will be as capable as any man out there. There are plenty of woman who can bench press twice (or more) their own weight so I'm not concerned that they couldn't drag a man to safety.

[Duchess]

The WSJ profiled this subject & I'm reading some of the comments that readers have posted. They are almost all negative & many of them are in regards to the Prez sending his daughters into combat. Do they not get that the military is filled with those that volunteer? No one is making these people join. Jeezus.

[Misguided]

This will be a issue women will regret being successfull in winning.Men serving with them will also have severe difficulities and will probly unfornuatly die because of it.This is not a good thing and the issue of equalitity is such a foolish way to look at it.This is not a trophy women have won.This is by no means a prize to be treasured.Combat is nightmare from which women have been safe from up until now and now you have placed yourself in harms way,on your own accord, thinking you have made some sort of milestone achivement.
Again,..women will regret this.They bought it upon themselves also.

[Duchess]

Women are on the front line in support roles right now. I very much doubt women who are unqualified to fight side by side with men will be ordered into combat.

[Duchess]

This was written by someone who experienced it & every woman who is interested in volunteering should be made to read it -

Many articles have been written regarding the relative strength of women and the possible effects on morale of introducing women into all-male units. Less attention has been paid to another aspect: the absolutely dreadful conditions under which grunts live during war.

Most people seem to believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have merely involved driving out of a forward operating base, patrolling the streets, maybe getting in a quick firefight, and then returning to the forward operating base and its separate shower facilities and chow hall. The reality of modern infantry combat, at least the portion I saw, bore little resemblance to this sanitized view.

I served in the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a Marine infantry squad leader. We rode into war crammed in the back of amphibious assault vehicles. They are designed to hold roughly 15 Marines snugly; due to maintenance issues, by the end of the invasion we had as many as 25 men stuffed into the back. Marines were forced to sit, in full gear, on each other's laps and in contorted positions for hours on end. That was the least of our problems.

The invasion was a blitzkrieg. The goal was to move as fast to Baghdad as possible. The column would not stop for a lance corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, or even a company commander to go to the restroom. Sometimes we spent over 48 hours on the move without exiting the vehicles. We were forced to urinate in empty water bottles inches from our comrades.

Many Marines developed dysentery from the complete lack of sanitary conditions. When an uncontrollable urge hit a Marine, he would be forced to stand, as best he could, hold an MRE bag up to his rear, and defecate inches from his seated comrade's face.

During the invasion, we wore chemical protective suits because of the fear of chemical or biological weapon attack. These are equivalent to a ski jumpsuit and hold in the heat. We also had to wear black rubber boots over our desert boots. On the occasions the column did stop, we would quickly peel off our rubber boots, desert boots and socks to let our feet air out.

Due to the heat and sweat, layers of our skin would peel off our feet. However, we rarely had time to remove our suits or perform even the most basic hygiene. We quickly developed sores on our bodies.

When we did reach Baghdad, we were in shambles. We had not showered in well over a month and our chemical protective suits were covered in a mixture of filth and dried blood. We were told to strip and place our suits in pits to be burned immediately. My unit stood there in a walled-in compound in Baghdad, naked, sores dotted all over our bodies, feet peeling, watching our suits burn. Later, they lined us up naked and washed us off with pressure washers.

Yes, a woman is as capable as a man of pulling a trigger. But the goal of our nation's military is to fight and win wars. Before taking the drastic step of allowing women to serve in combat units, has the government considered whether introducing women into the above-described situation would have made my unit more or less combat effective?

Societal norms are a reality, and their maintenance is important to most members of a society. It is humiliating enough to relieve yourself in front of your male comrades; one can only imagine the humiliation of being forced to relieve yourself in front of the opposite sex.

Despite the professionalism of Marines, it would be distracting and potentially traumatizing to be forced to be naked in front of the opposite sex, particularly when your body has been ravaged by lack of hygiene. In the reverse, it would be painful to witness a member of the opposite sex in such an uncomfortable and awkward position. Combat effectiveness is based in large part on unit cohesion. The relationships among members of a unit can be irreparably harmed by forcing them to violate societal norms.

Story

[Misguided]

Support roles are so different than the issues faced on the front lines.They are in harms way,in ways,yes, but not like they are in the trenches,so to speak.
The point of being qualified is very vague.Once "qualified" is defined by a specific set of guidelines and expectations,we would be able to enter into a definate and coherent discussion of those differences between the sexes.
Military women are tough,no doubt and I hold them in high regard,yet they are women and that brings into the conversation points that cannot be overlooked.By first look,this comment may be taken out of context,so let me clarify.My point is women are more emotional and compassionate.Leave it at for now as I am sure the chance will come to dwell more on that as the conversation continues.
I need to make it known,I have not known combat personally but I have served with many that have and spent many days and hours in close quarters during lengthy graphic conservations,drunk nights,relived nightmares while they spoke of their demons..
I am trying to give a different outlook which may or may not be accepted or considered and that is fine, but for those of you that think the concerns many have are due to being "qualified" or "capable" or women's need to know they are being treated equal...
Well,the words may be the same to those of each side of the fence and women can definatly fall into those catagories by both sides yet the criteria that we are using to place women within those catagories are so different.
When you understand about why those who have negative concerns,..have those concerns,you will come to a better understanding as to why this is much more intense than simple word classifications.

[Misguided]

That story touches upon some points but is nowhere near the issues more seriously revelant to the points I would make.

[Duchess]

I understand your concerns, Misguided.

[username]

I heard there were roughly 130 female military personnel killed in Iraq/Afghanistan and over 800 injured. They're kind of already there in those wars; there isn't a traditional (advancing) front line so to speak. The enemy is everywhere.