That being said... I agree with those that say, Yes.... women 18 years of age should register with their Selective Service Draft Boards... just as the Males.
In case of a draft... which means we are at full blown declared war with China, Russia, Europe or Israel... then, the draft goes into affect. This time... NO FUCKING COLLEGE DEFERRMENTS and EVERYONE can be DRAFTED... even Bristol Palin and Paris Hilton.
If politicians had to send their kids (i.e. the G.W.Bush girls) to fucking Iraq... we'd never would have gone to fucking Iraq.
I felt this way even when there was a REAL draft, as long as it was done equitably. Women register and are subject to being drafted, no deferments that favor those who can "buy" their way out, AND there is an option of community service in a civilian setting. Whatever you want to call it, Job Corps, Works Progress Administration, blah blah woof woof--young people still have an option to spend 2 years working in a setting where they provide a useful service and learn job skills too. With an option like that, you'd have more people enlisting and less need for the draft.
Somewhere in doing away with the draft, we seem to have gotten away from that fact that serving one's country is a worthwhile thing to do and part of being a responsible citizen. It seems that people now view someone who enlists as either desperate or stupid.
No, of course women would not have to register for the draft. The fact is, most women would not be physically able to equal men on the battlefield, and them being able to match their male counterparts in terms of physical capability is requirement for them to be in combat. If women were drafted, they have to spend so much time weeding out the ones who weren't fit for combat it wouldn't be worth their while. Also, there is the small issue of families. If you draft both genders, what would become of the children of two parents who are drafted? That would have to be considered. Like it or not, women being mothers has an impact here when also considering that men are more physically suited for the job of soldier.
...
But, the thing is... women in the military are the ones who want combat positions. It is because that is the fastest way to get promoted up the ranks. They will boost a Lieutenant who has proven himself in combat up the ranks before a Lieutenant in charge of the mess hall... even if the mess hall kicks ass.
I believe that if all men and women were drafted EQUALLY... not 'Rich Kid' defferments... we'd be more carful in deploying them into dangerous environments. In today's environment, it is just too easy to follow the drums of War... when you have nothing to risk.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
No, of course women would not have to register for the draft. The fact is, most women would not be physically able to equal men on the battlefield, and them being able to match their male counterparts in terms of physical capability is requirement for them to be in combat. If women were drafted, they have to spend so much time weeding out the ones who weren't fit for combat it wouldn't be worth their while. Also, there is the small issue of families. If you draft both genders, what would become of the children of two parents who are drafted? That would have to be considered. Like it or not, women being mothers has an impact here when also considering that men are more physically suited for the job of soldier.
...
But, the thing is... women in the military are the ones who want combat positions. It is because that is the fastest way to get promoted up the ranks. They will boost a Lieutenant who has proven himself in combat up the ranks before a Lieutenant in charge of the mess hall... even if the mess hall kicks ass.
I believe that if all men and women were drafted EQUALLY... not 'Rich Kid' defferments... we'd be more carful in deploying them into dangerous environments. In today's environment, it is just too easy to follow the drums of War... when you have nothing to risk.
Yeah, a small number of women want combat because they want to be able to climb the ranks, which is the right thing to allow. But those are career military women; it's proper that they are afforded the opportunity to be promoted. That's not who we're talking about when we're talking about a draft.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Yeah, a small number of women want combat because they want to be able to climb the ranks, which is the right thing to allow. But those are career military women; it's proper that they are afforded the opportunity to be promoted. That's not who we're talking about when we're talking about a draft.
...
I understand that. It is a small number of ENLISTED women who are raising the issue of women in combat.
The question that was raised was, if women can serve in combat roles, should they have to register with the current Selective Service Draft Board, just as the male have to. In other words, in order to make the military equal... should it be equal in all aspects of the military? This would include current draft status.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Yeah, a small number of women want combat because they want to be able to climb the ranks, which is the right thing to allow. But those are career military women; it's proper that they are afforded the opportunity to be promoted. That's not who we're talking about when we're talking about a draft.
...
I understand that. It is a small number of ENLISTED women who are raising the issue of women in combat.
The question that was raised was, if women can serve in combat roles, should they have to register with the current Selective Service Draft Board, just as the male have to. In other words, in order to make the military equal... should it be equal in all aspects of the military? This would include current draft status.
No, for the common sense reasons I already mentioned.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Yeah, a small number of women want combat because they want to be able to climb the ranks, which is the right thing to allow. But those are career military women; it's proper that they are afforded the opportunity to be promoted. That's not who we're talking about when we're talking about a draft.
...
I understand that. It is a small number of ENLISTED women who are raising the issue of women in combat.
The question that was raised was, if women can serve in combat roles, should they have to register with the current Selective Service Draft Board, just as the male have to. In other words, in order to make the military equal... should it be equal in all aspects of the military? This would include current draft status.
No, for the common sense reasons I already mentioned.
...
Fair enough.
I am in the camp that believes if the sons AND DAUGHTERS of ALL Americans... kids of CEO and auto mechanics, Congressmen and teachers... then, we would be less likely to go to war unless it was unavoidably necessary. Iraq would never have happened if all of those people who chanted to go to war in 2003 had sons and daughters in combat uniforms.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
No, of course women would not have to register for the draft. The fact is, most women would not be physically able to equal men on the battlefield, and them being able to match their male counterparts in terms of physical capability is requirement for them to be in combat. If women were drafted, they have to spend so much time weeding out the ones who weren't fit for combat it wouldn't be worth their while. Also, there is the small issue of families. If you draft both genders, what would become of the children of two parents who are drafted? That would have to be considered. Like it or not, women being mothers has an impact here when also considering that men are more physically suited for the job of soldier.
...
But, the thing is... women in the military are the ones who want combat positions. It is because that is the fastest way to get promoted up the ranks. They will boost a Lieutenant who has proven himself in combat up the ranks before a Lieutenant in charge of the mess hall... even if the mess hall kicks ass.
I believe that if all men and women were drafted EQUALLY... not 'Rich Kid' defferments... we'd be more carful in deploying them into dangerous environments. In today's environment, it is just too easy to follow the drums of War... when you have nothing to risk.
I'd expect the same kind of qualifiers that were used during Vietnam, Korea, WWII--married people have a lower draft classification and people with children have an even lower category. That's how it was done for men and now it would apply to both genders. I've got no problem with deferments like that because they respect the reality of family life. Exempting people because they can afford to go to college was what was unfair during Vietnam.
And as for men being more physically suited to be soldiers, sheesh. Women firefighters and police officers have to meet the same requirements as their male counterparts. And it's already been pointed out that there are women serving in combat roles NOW and have been for years in Afghanistan and Iraq.
When we had the draft, not everyone drafted went to Vietnam. There are a bazillion kinds of jobs in the military that can be filled by men or women.
I'd expect the same kind of qualifiers that were used during Vietnam, Korea, WWII--married people have a lower draft classification and people with children have an even lower category. That's how it was done for men and now it would apply to both genders. I've got no problem with deferments like that because they respect the reality of family life. Exempting people because they can afford to go to college was what was unfair during Vietnam.
And as for men being more physically suited to be soldiers, sheesh. Women firefighters and police officers have to meet the same requirements as their male counterparts. And it's already been pointed out that there are women serving in combat roles NOW and have been for years in Afghanistan and Iraq.
When we had the draft, not everyone drafted went to Vietnam. There are a bazillion kinds of jobs in the military that can be filled by men or women.
..
I agree. For every combat soldier, there are tons of support personel.
I just think that rich people who can afford to shelter their kids with college deferrments, sending the kids whose parents cannot afford a college tuition is not fair. The kid of the CEO of Bank of America shouldn't be able to hide his kid at his Alma Mater while the guy that drives a bus cannot.
And I think former President Bush would have given a lot more thought into the decision to go into Iraq, if his two daughters might face the possibility of an assignment to drive a supply truck in a convoy through Fallujah in 2004.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
WASHINGTON -- The first two female lieutenants to volunteer for the Marine Corps’ Infantry Officer Course failed to complete the program, the Marine Corps said Tuesday.
The first woman did not finish the combat endurance test at the beginning for the course in late September. Twenty-six of the 107 male Marines also did not finish the endurance test.
The second woman could not complete two required training events “due to medical reasons,” said Capt. Eric Flanagan, a Marine spokesman.
She is receiving treatment and is in “good condition,” Flanagan said, though the Marine Corps is not releasing specifics about her medical condition or any identifying information about either of the women.
The women will now attend their primary military occupational specialty schools, Flanagan said.
The Corps decided earlier this year to allow female lieutenants to attend its school for infantry officers as part of a larger effort to gather data on how to expand the role of women in combat. Male infantry officers must complete the 10-week course after graduating from The Basic School.
In addition to allowing women to volunteer for IOC, the Marines will allow enlisted women to volunteer to train with the infantry training battalion for research purposes. The Corps will give men and women volunteers a strength test to see how they respond to heavy machine gun lift, casualty evacuation and “march under load” assessments, according to a service-wide message released in April.
As part of the assessment process, the Marine Corps will assign some active-duty female officers and high-ranking enlisted female Marines to certain jobs in combat-related battalions for the first time. The units -- including artillery, tank, combat engineer, combat assault, low altitude air defense and assault amphibious battalions -- are all in the women’s existing specialties. Female Navy medical officers, chaplains and corpsmen now may also be assigned to those battalions.
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos will use the information gathered in the test programs and initiatives to make recommendations about how to change the policies that currently bar women from combat.
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
WASHINGTON -- The first two female lieutenants to volunteer for the Marine Corps’ Infantry Officer Course failed to complete the program, the Marine Corps said Tuesday.
The first woman did not finish the combat endurance test at the beginning for the course in late September. Twenty-six of the 107 male Marines also did not finish the endurance test.
The second woman could not complete two required training events “due to medical reasons,” said Capt. Eric Flanagan, a Marine spokesman.
She is receiving treatment and is in “good condition,” Flanagan said, though the Marine Corps is not releasing specifics about her medical condition or any identifying information about either of the women.
The women will now attend their primary military occupational specialty schools, Flanagan said.
The Corps decided earlier this year to allow female lieutenants to attend its school for infantry officers as part of a larger effort to gather data on how to expand the role of women in combat. Male infantry officers must complete the 10-week course after graduating from The Basic School.
In addition to allowing women to volunteer for IOC, the Marines will allow enlisted women to volunteer to train with the infantry training battalion for research purposes. The Corps will give men and women volunteers a strength test to see how they respond to heavy machine gun lift, casualty evacuation and “march under load” assessments, according to a service-wide message released in April.
As part of the assessment process, the Marine Corps will assign some active-duty female officers and high-ranking enlisted female Marines to certain jobs in combat-related battalions for the first time. The units -- including artillery, tank, combat engineer, combat assault, low altitude air defense and assault amphibious battalions -- are all in the women’s existing specialties. Female Navy medical officers, chaplains and corpsmen now may also be assigned to those battalions.
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos will use the information gathered in the test programs and initiatives to make recommendations about how to change the policies that currently bar women from combat.
Well duh. Haven't you all seen G.I. Jane? (it's actually a pretty entertaining movie). Very few women will be able to qualify for combat. The point is they deserve the opportunity to try. And every once in a while a woman will manage it. Like, the ones who are physical freaks of nature.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
WASHINGTON -- The first two female lieutenants to volunteer for the Marine Corps’ Infantry Officer Course failed to complete the program, the Marine Corps said Tuesday.
The first woman did not finish the combat endurance test at the beginning for the course in late September. Twenty-six of the 107 male Marines also did not finish the endurance test.
The second woman could not complete two required training events “due to medical reasons,” said Capt. Eric Flanagan, a Marine spokesman.
She is receiving treatment and is in “good condition,” Flanagan said, though the Marine Corps is not releasing specifics about her medical condition or any identifying information about either of the women.
The women will now attend their primary military occupational specialty schools, Flanagan said.
The Corps decided earlier this year to allow female lieutenants to attend its school for infantry officers as part of a larger effort to gather data on how to expand the role of women in combat. Male infantry officers must complete the 10-week course after graduating from The Basic School.
In addition to allowing women to volunteer for IOC, the Marines will allow enlisted women to volunteer to train with the infantry training battalion for research purposes. The Corps will give men and women volunteers a strength test to see how they respond to heavy machine gun lift, casualty evacuation and “march under load” assessments, according to a service-wide message released in April.
As part of the assessment process, the Marine Corps will assign some active-duty female officers and high-ranking enlisted female Marines to certain jobs in combat-related battalions for the first time. The units -- including artillery, tank, combat engineer, combat assault, low altitude air defense and assault amphibious battalions -- are all in the women’s existing specialties. Female Navy medical officers, chaplains and corpsmen now may also be assigned to those battalions.
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos will use the information gathered in the test programs and initiatives to make recommendations about how to change the policies that currently bar women from combat.
Well duh. Haven't you all seen G.I. Jane? (it's actually a pretty entertaining movie). Very few women will be able to qualify for combat. The point is they deserve the opportunity to try. And every once in a while a woman will manage it. Like, the ones who are physical freaks of nature.
It then becomes a waste of time, money and space.
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
WASHINGTON -- The first two female lieutenants to volunteer for the Marine Corps’ Infantry Officer Course failed to complete the program, the Marine Corps said Tuesday.
The first woman did not finish the combat endurance test at the beginning for the course in late September. Twenty-six of the 107 male Marines also did not finish the endurance test.
The second woman could not complete two required training events “due to medical reasons,” said Capt. Eric Flanagan, a Marine spokesman.
She is receiving treatment and is in “good condition,” Flanagan said, though the Marine Corps is not releasing specifics about her medical condition or any identifying information about either of the women.
The women will now attend their primary military occupational specialty schools, Flanagan said.
The Corps decided earlier this year to allow female lieutenants to attend its school for infantry officers as part of a larger effort to gather data on how to expand the role of women in combat. Male infantry officers must complete the 10-week course after graduating from The Basic School.
In addition to allowing women to volunteer for IOC, the Marines will allow enlisted women to volunteer to train with the infantry training battalion for research purposes. The Corps will give men and women volunteers a strength test to see how they respond to heavy machine gun lift, casualty evacuation and “march under load” assessments, according to a service-wide message released in April.
As part of the assessment process, the Marine Corps will assign some active-duty female officers and high-ranking enlisted female Marines to certain jobs in combat-related battalions for the first time. The units -- including artillery, tank, combat engineer, combat assault, low altitude air defense and assault amphibious battalions -- are all in the women’s existing specialties. Female Navy medical officers, chaplains and corpsmen now may also be assigned to those battalions.
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos will use the information gathered in the test programs and initiatives to make recommendations about how to change the policies that currently bar women from combat.
Well duh. Haven't you all seen G.I. Jane? (it's actually a pretty entertaining movie). Very few women will be able to qualify for combat. The point is they deserve the opportunity to try. And every once in a while a woman will manage it. Like, the ones who are physical freaks of nature.
It then becomes a waste of time, money and space.
How so?? Why would it cost more money, time, or space to have a few women dropping out of combat training along with 25% of the men? It wouldn't. But if it did, it wouldn't matter. Women must have equal opportunity under the law. I'm surprised it took this long actually.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
So you agree they should have to register for the draft then. Cool.
Not really, but upon further thought the law would probably make it a necessity. The draft is a separate issue. But really, I don't care because there is no draft and there isn't going to be one, so I do 't really see the point of this conversation now that I think about it.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Great, tell that to the women who've been serving in combat during the last 10 years. :roll:
Not sure why people think we should exclude half the population who've already demonstrated they're willing to serve.
Great, tell that to the women who've been serving in combat during the last 10 years. :roll:
Not sure why people think we should exclude half the population who've already demonstrated they're willing to serve.
The women who have been serving do a extraordinary job. These jobs they are talking about is Infantry, Special Forces, Rangers, Artillery,etc. The women who are serving in AFG are in different MOSs. Maybe you should get your facts straight before commenting on what people are talking about. :roll:
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
Great, tell that to the women who've been serving in combat during the last 10 years. :roll:
Not sure why people think we should exclude half the population who've already demonstrated they're willing to serve.
The women who have been serving do a extraordinary job. These jobs they are talking about is Infantry, Special Forces, Rangers, Artillery,etc. The women who are serving in AFG are in different MOSs. Maybe you should get your facts straight before commenting on what people are talking about. :roll:
Get my facts straight, OK. Two women washed out of the marine infantry officer course and you call that the final word on women in combat.
20 years ago the military said women weren't able to fly fighter jets. Turned out to be wrong, imagine that. Plenty of men washed out of the officer course in your article yet I'm not making sweeping generalizations about men and their abilities. Nor about the attitudes that keep women from rising in the ranks.
And of course I'm sure I know NOTHING about being a women and facing stereotypes and discrimination.
Great, tell that to the women who've been serving in combat during the last 10 years. :roll:
Not sure why people think we should exclude half the population who've already demonstrated they're willing to serve.
The women who have been serving do a extraordinary job. These jobs they are talking about is Infantry, Special Forces, Rangers, Artillery,etc. The women who are serving in AFG are in different MOSs. Maybe you should get your facts straight before commenting on what people are talking about. :roll:[/quote]
Get my facts straight, OK. Two women washed out of the marine infantry officer course and you call that the final word on women in combat.
20 years ago the military said women weren't able to fly fighter jets. Turned out to be wrong, imagine that. Plenty of men washed out of the officer course in your article yet I'm not making sweeping generalizations about men and their abilities. Nor about the attitudes that keep women from rising in the ranks.
And of course I'm sure I know NOTHING about being a women and facing stereotypes and discrimination.[/quote]
The women wanted to do it. How much money and time are we going to waste, it is hard enough when 26 out of 100 men wash out. The facts are facts women and men are different. How many are going to be able to life the 155mm round on an artillery team, How many are going to be able to climb a mountain with a 90lb ruck sack on their back while going through Ranger School. I have been in the military and around it for the past 13 years. The only way this will work is if the reduce the standards for the women to compete in the jobs.
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
The women wanted to do it. How much money and time are we going to waste, it is hard enough when 26 out of 100 men wash out. The facts are facts women and men are different. How many are going to be able to life the 155mm round on an artillery team, How many are going to be able to climb a mountain with a 90lb ruck sack on their back while going through Ranger School. I have been in the military and around it for the past 13 years. The only way this will work is if the reduce the standards for the women to compete in the jobs.
I'm guessing those men who washed out wanted to do it too. Do you suggest reducing the standards so more men can participate? Somehow I doubt it.
I don't believe that standards should be reduced for women and I think it's insulting that you suggest that they'd need to be. I wouldn't expect every woman to make it but some will. My problem with your blanket statement is that it's based on an article on TWO women. Since the armed forces rely on volunteers, give more of those volunteers the opportunity.
How much time and money are we going to waste? I thought the military specializes in those kinds of things.
The women wanted to do it. How much money and time are we going to waste, it is hard enough when 26 out of 100 men wash out. The facts are facts women and men are different. How many are going to be able to life the 155mm round on an artillery team, How many are going to be able to climb a mountain with a 90lb ruck sack on their back while going through Ranger School. I have been in the military and around it for the past 13 years. The only way this will work is if the reduce the standards for the women to compete in the jobs.
I'm guessing those men who washed out wanted to do it too. Do you suggest reducing the standards so more men can participate? Somehow I doubt it.
I don't believe that standards should be reduced for women and I think it's insulting that you suggest that they'd need to be. I wouldn't expect every woman to make it but some will. My problem with your blanket statement is that it's based on an article on TWO women. Since the armed forces rely on volunteers, give more of those volunteers the opportunity.
How much time and money are we going to waste? I thought the military specializes in those kinds of things.
PT standards are already different between men and women. So I believe it will change.
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
Yesterday’s column on women in combat elicited a number of passionate responses from both sides. Some of them came from proponents of the move, frequently citing alternate motives on my part. These ranged from “trying to keep women pregnant in the kitchen” and “Republicans want to lock women in the 1950s” to whichever variant of the GOP’s “war on women” you’d care to name. Many others lent a more sympathetic ear. One in particular, though, caught my attention. It was from one of America’s female veterans who served in Iraq, delivered with a first hand, been there, done that background. The Marine in question – who for purposes of publication will go by the pseudonym of “Sentry” – had previously submitted this history and opinion as a comment at National Review, but her story was compelling enough that I checked into her background, contacted her and decided to republish it here in its entirety. I offer the following as a third party testimony to stand your scrutiny on its own merits.
I’m a female veteran. I deployed to Anbar Province, Iraq. When I was active duty, I was 5’6, 130 pounds, and scored nearly perfect on my PFTs. I naturally have a lot more upper body strength than the average woman: not only can I do pull-ups, I can meet the male standard. I would love to have been in the infantry. And I still think it will be an unmitigated disaster to incorporate women into combat roles. I am not interested in risking men’s lives so I can live my selfish dream.
We’re not just talking about watering down the standards to include the politically correct number of women into the unit. This isn’t an issue of “if a woman can meet the male standard, she should be able to go into combat.” The number of women that can meet the male standard will be miniscule–I’d have a decent shot according to my PFTs, but dragging a 190-pound man in full gear for 100 yards would DESTROY me–and that miniscule number that can physically make the grade AND has the desire to go into combat will be facing an impossible situation that will ruin the combat effectiveness of the unit. First, the close quarters of combat units make for a complete lack of privacy and EVERYTHING is exposed, to include intimate details of bodily functions. Second, until we succeed in completely reprogramming every man in the military to treat women just like men, those men are going to protect a woman at the expense of the mission. Third, women have physical limitations that no amount of training or conditioning can overcome. Fourth, until the media in this country is ready to treat a captured/raped/tortured/mutilated female soldier just like a man, women will be targeted by the enemy without fail and without mercy.
I saw the male combat units when I was in Iraq. They go outside the wire for days at a time. They eat, sleep, urinate and defecate in front of each other and often while on the move. There’s no potty break on the side of the road outside the wire. They urinate into bottles and defecate into MRE bags. I would like to hear a suggestion as to how a woman is going to urinate successfully into a bottle while cramped into a humvee wearing full body armor. And she gets to accomplish this feat with the male members of her combat unit twenty inches away. Volunteers to do that job? Do the men really want to see it? Should they be forced to?
Everyone wants to point to the IDF as a model for gender integration in the military. No, the IDF does not put women on the front lines. They ran into the same wall the US is about to smack into: very few women can meet the standards required to serve there. The few integrated units in the IDF suffered three times the casualties of the all-male units because the Israeli men, just like almost every other group of men on the planet, try to protect the women even at the expense of the mission. Political correctness doesn’t trump thousands of years of evolution and societal norms. Do we really WANT to deprogram that instinct from men?
Regarding physical limitations, not only will a tiny fraction of women be able to meet the male standard, the simple fact is that women tend to be shorter than men. I ran into situations when I was deployed where I simply could not reach something. I wasn’t tall enough. I had to ask a man to get it for me. I can’t train myself to be taller. Yes, there are small men…but not so nearly so many as small women. More, a military PFT doesn’t measure the ability to jump. Men, with more muscular legs and bones that carry more muscle mass than any woman can condition herself to carry, can jump higher and farther than women. That’s why we have a men’s standing jump and long jump event in the Olympics separate from women. When you’re going over a wall in Baghdad that’s ten feet high, you have to be able to be able to reach the top of it in full gear and haul yourself over. That’s not strength per se, that’s just height and the muscular explosive power to jump and reach the top. Having to get a boost from one of the men so you can get up and over could get that man killed.
Without pharmaceutical help, women just do not carry the muscle mass men do. That muscle mass is also a shock absorber. Whether it’s the concussion of a grenade going off, an IED, or just a punch in the face, a woman is more likely to go down because she can’t absorb the concussion as well as a man can. And I don’t care how the PC forces try to slice it, in hand-to-hand combat the average man is going to destroy the average woman because the average woman is smaller, period. Muscle equals force in any kind of strike you care to perform. That’s why we don’t let female boxers face male boxers.
Lastly, this country and our military are NOT prepared to see what the enemy will do to female POWs. The Taliban, AQ, insurgents, jihadis, whatever you want to call them, they don’t abide by the Geneva Conventions and treat women worse than livestock. Google Thomas Tucker and Kristian Menchaca if you want to see what they do to our men (and don’t google it unless you have a strong stomach) and then imagine a woman in their hands. How is our 24/7 news cycle going to cover a captured, raped, mutilated woman? After the first one, how are the men in the military going to treat their female comrades? ONE Thomasina Tucker is going to mean the men in the military will move heaven and earth to protect women, never mind what it does to the mission. I present you with Exhibit A: Jessica Lynch. Male lives will be lost trying to protect their female comrades. And the people of the US are NOT, based on the Jessica Lynch episode, prepared to treat a female POW the same way they do a man.
I say again, I would have loved to be in the infantry. I think I could have done it physically, I could’ve met almost all the male standards (jumping aside), and I think I’m mentally tough enough to handle whatever came. But I would never do that to the men. I would never sacrifice the mission for my own desires. And I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if someone died because of me.
- Sentry
I will close by noting that the picture on the front page of the site associated with this letter is not of the author. Also, the text has not been edited from the original in any way other than to remove some page breaks which make publication messy.
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
Comments
Somewhere in doing away with the draft, we seem to have gotten away from that fact that serving one's country is a worthwhile thing to do and part of being a responsible citizen. It seems that people now view someone who enlists as either desperate or stupid.
But, the thing is... women in the military are the ones who want combat positions. It is because that is the fastest way to get promoted up the ranks. They will boost a Lieutenant who has proven himself in combat up the ranks before a Lieutenant in charge of the mess hall... even if the mess hall kicks ass.
I believe that if all men and women were drafted EQUALLY... not 'Rich Kid' defferments... we'd be more carful in deploying them into dangerous environments. In today's environment, it is just too easy to follow the drums of War... when you have nothing to risk.
Hail, Hail!!!
I understand that. It is a small number of ENLISTED women who are raising the issue of women in combat.
The question that was raised was, if women can serve in combat roles, should they have to register with the current Selective Service Draft Board, just as the male have to. In other words, in order to make the military equal... should it be equal in all aspects of the military? This would include current draft status.
Hail, Hail!!!
Fair enough.
I am in the camp that believes if the sons AND DAUGHTERS of ALL Americans... kids of CEO and auto mechanics, Congressmen and teachers... then, we would be less likely to go to war unless it was unavoidably necessary. Iraq would never have happened if all of those people who chanted to go to war in 2003 had sons and daughters in combat uniforms.
Hail, Hail!!!
And as for men being more physically suited to be soldiers, sheesh. Women firefighters and police officers have to meet the same requirements as their male counterparts. And it's already been pointed out that there are women serving in combat roles NOW and have been for years in Afghanistan and Iraq.
When we had the draft, not everyone drafted went to Vietnam. There are a bazillion kinds of jobs in the military that can be filled by men or women.
I agree. For every combat soldier, there are tons of support personel.
I just think that rich people who can afford to shelter their kids with college deferrments, sending the kids whose parents cannot afford a college tuition is not fair. The kid of the CEO of Bank of America shouldn't be able to hide his kid at his Alma Mater while the guy that drives a bus cannot.
And I think former President Bush would have given a lot more thought into the decision to go into Iraq, if his two daughters might face the possibility of an assignment to drive a supply truck in a convoy through Fallujah in 2004.
Hail, Hail!!!
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012 ... ourse.html
WASHINGTON -- The first two female lieutenants to volunteer for the Marine Corps’ Infantry Officer Course failed to complete the program, the Marine Corps said Tuesday.
The first woman did not finish the combat endurance test at the beginning for the course in late September. Twenty-six of the 107 male Marines also did not finish the endurance test.
The second woman could not complete two required training events “due to medical reasons,” said Capt. Eric Flanagan, a Marine spokesman.
She is receiving treatment and is in “good condition,” Flanagan said, though the Marine Corps is not releasing specifics about her medical condition or any identifying information about either of the women.
The women will now attend their primary military occupational specialty schools, Flanagan said.
The Corps decided earlier this year to allow female lieutenants to attend its school for infantry officers as part of a larger effort to gather data on how to expand the role of women in combat. Male infantry officers must complete the 10-week course after graduating from The Basic School.
In addition to allowing women to volunteer for IOC, the Marines will allow enlisted women to volunteer to train with the infantry training battalion for research purposes. The Corps will give men and women volunteers a strength test to see how they respond to heavy machine gun lift, casualty evacuation and “march under load” assessments, according to a service-wide message released in April.
As part of the assessment process, the Marine Corps will assign some active-duty female officers and high-ranking enlisted female Marines to certain jobs in combat-related battalions for the first time. The units -- including artillery, tank, combat engineer, combat assault, low altitude air defense and assault amphibious battalions -- are all in the women’s existing specialties. Female Navy medical officers, chaplains and corpsmen now may also be assigned to those battalions.
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos will use the information gathered in the test programs and initiatives to make recommendations about how to change the policies that currently bar women from combat.
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
It then becomes a waste of time, money and space.
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
Not sure why people think we should exclude half the population who've already demonstrated they're willing to serve.
The women who have been serving do a extraordinary job. These jobs they are talking about is Infantry, Special Forces, Rangers, Artillery,etc. The women who are serving in AFG are in different MOSs. Maybe you should get your facts straight before commenting on what people are talking about. :roll:
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
20 years ago the military said women weren't able to fly fighter jets. Turned out to be wrong, imagine that. Plenty of men washed out of the officer course in your article yet I'm not making sweeping generalizations about men and their abilities. Nor about the attitudes that keep women from rising in the ranks.
And of course I'm sure I know NOTHING about being a women and facing stereotypes and discrimination.
The women who have been serving do a extraordinary job. These jobs they are talking about is Infantry, Special Forces, Rangers, Artillery,etc. The women who are serving in AFG are in different MOSs. Maybe you should get your facts straight before commenting on what people are talking about. :roll:[/quote]
Get my facts straight, OK. Two women washed out of the marine infantry officer course and you call that the final word on women in combat.
20 years ago the military said women weren't able to fly fighter jets. Turned out to be wrong, imagine that. Plenty of men washed out of the officer course in your article yet I'm not making sweeping generalizations about men and their abilities. Nor about the attitudes that keep women from rising in the ranks.
And of course I'm sure I know NOTHING about being a women and facing stereotypes and discrimination.[/quote]
The women wanted to do it. How much money and time are we going to waste, it is hard enough when 26 out of 100 men wash out. The facts are facts women and men are different. How many are going to be able to life the 155mm round on an artillery team, How many are going to be able to climb a mountain with a 90lb ruck sack on their back while going through Ranger School. I have been in the military and around it for the past 13 years. The only way this will work is if the reduce the standards for the women to compete in the jobs.
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
I don't believe that standards should be reduced for women and I think it's insulting that you suggest that they'd need to be. I wouldn't expect every woman to make it but some will. My problem with your blanket statement is that it's based on an article on TWO women. Since the armed forces rely on volunteers, give more of those volunteers the opportunity.
How much time and money are we going to waste? I thought the military specializes in those kinds of things.
PT standards are already different between men and women. So I believe it will change.
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
Yesterday’s column on women in combat elicited a number of passionate responses from both sides. Some of them came from proponents of the move, frequently citing alternate motives on my part. These ranged from “trying to keep women pregnant in the kitchen” and “Republicans want to lock women in the 1950s” to whichever variant of the GOP’s “war on women” you’d care to name. Many others lent a more sympathetic ear. One in particular, though, caught my attention. It was from one of America’s female veterans who served in Iraq, delivered with a first hand, been there, done that background. The Marine in question – who for purposes of publication will go by the pseudonym of “Sentry” – had previously submitted this history and opinion as a comment at National Review, but her story was compelling enough that I checked into her background, contacted her and decided to republish it here in its entirety. I offer the following as a third party testimony to stand your scrutiny on its own merits.
I’m a female veteran. I deployed to Anbar Province, Iraq. When I was active duty, I was 5’6, 130 pounds, and scored nearly perfect on my PFTs. I naturally have a lot more upper body strength than the average woman: not only can I do pull-ups, I can meet the male standard. I would love to have been in the infantry. And I still think it will be an unmitigated disaster to incorporate women into combat roles. I am not interested in risking men’s lives so I can live my selfish dream.
We’re not just talking about watering down the standards to include the politically correct number of women into the unit. This isn’t an issue of “if a woman can meet the male standard, she should be able to go into combat.” The number of women that can meet the male standard will be miniscule–I’d have a decent shot according to my PFTs, but dragging a 190-pound man in full gear for 100 yards would DESTROY me–and that miniscule number that can physically make the grade AND has the desire to go into combat will be facing an impossible situation that will ruin the combat effectiveness of the unit. First, the close quarters of combat units make for a complete lack of privacy and EVERYTHING is exposed, to include intimate details of bodily functions. Second, until we succeed in completely reprogramming every man in the military to treat women just like men, those men are going to protect a woman at the expense of the mission. Third, women have physical limitations that no amount of training or conditioning can overcome. Fourth, until the media in this country is ready to treat a captured/raped/tortured/mutilated female soldier just like a man, women will be targeted by the enemy without fail and without mercy.
I saw the male combat units when I was in Iraq. They go outside the wire for days at a time. They eat, sleep, urinate and defecate in front of each other and often while on the move. There’s no potty break on the side of the road outside the wire. They urinate into bottles and defecate into MRE bags. I would like to hear a suggestion as to how a woman is going to urinate successfully into a bottle while cramped into a humvee wearing full body armor. And she gets to accomplish this feat with the male members of her combat unit twenty inches away. Volunteers to do that job? Do the men really want to see it? Should they be forced to?
Everyone wants to point to the IDF as a model for gender integration in the military. No, the IDF does not put women on the front lines. They ran into the same wall the US is about to smack into: very few women can meet the standards required to serve there. The few integrated units in the IDF suffered three times the casualties of the all-male units because the Israeli men, just like almost every other group of men on the planet, try to protect the women even at the expense of the mission. Political correctness doesn’t trump thousands of years of evolution and societal norms. Do we really WANT to deprogram that instinct from men?
Regarding physical limitations, not only will a tiny fraction of women be able to meet the male standard, the simple fact is that women tend to be shorter than men. I ran into situations when I was deployed where I simply could not reach something. I wasn’t tall enough. I had to ask a man to get it for me. I can’t train myself to be taller. Yes, there are small men…but not so nearly so many as small women. More, a military PFT doesn’t measure the ability to jump. Men, with more muscular legs and bones that carry more muscle mass than any woman can condition herself to carry, can jump higher and farther than women. That’s why we have a men’s standing jump and long jump event in the Olympics separate from women. When you’re going over a wall in Baghdad that’s ten feet high, you have to be able to be able to reach the top of it in full gear and haul yourself over. That’s not strength per se, that’s just height and the muscular explosive power to jump and reach the top. Having to get a boost from one of the men so you can get up and over could get that man killed.
Without pharmaceutical help, women just do not carry the muscle mass men do. That muscle mass is also a shock absorber. Whether it’s the concussion of a grenade going off, an IED, or just a punch in the face, a woman is more likely to go down because she can’t absorb the concussion as well as a man can. And I don’t care how the PC forces try to slice it, in hand-to-hand combat the average man is going to destroy the average woman because the average woman is smaller, period. Muscle equals force in any kind of strike you care to perform. That’s why we don’t let female boxers face male boxers.
Lastly, this country and our military are NOT prepared to see what the enemy will do to female POWs. The Taliban, AQ, insurgents, jihadis, whatever you want to call them, they don’t abide by the Geneva Conventions and treat women worse than livestock. Google Thomas Tucker and Kristian Menchaca if you want to see what they do to our men (and don’t google it unless you have a strong stomach) and then imagine a woman in their hands. How is our 24/7 news cycle going to cover a captured, raped, mutilated woman? After the first one, how are the men in the military going to treat their female comrades? ONE Thomasina Tucker is going to mean the men in the military will move heaven and earth to protect women, never mind what it does to the mission. I present you with Exhibit A: Jessica Lynch. Male lives will be lost trying to protect their female comrades. And the people of the US are NOT, based on the Jessica Lynch episode, prepared to treat a female POW the same way they do a man.
I say again, I would have loved to be in the infantry. I think I could have done it physically, I could’ve met almost all the male standards (jumping aside), and I think I’m mentally tough enough to handle whatever came. But I would never do that to the men. I would never sacrifice the mission for my own desires. And I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if someone died because of me.
- Sentry
I will close by noting that the picture on the front page of the site associated with this letter is not of the author. Also, the text has not been edited from the original in any way other than to remove some page breaks which make publication messy.
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II