So When Are Women Joining the NFL?

  • Share
  • Read Later
ISAF photo

A member of a U.S. military female engagement team in Afghanistan.

Should the National Football League allow women on the playing field? After all, they can kick and carry a ball, and professional football is one industry in which women are sorely under-represented, to say the least.

It’s not that likely to happen, is it?

The reality is Americans would be horrified to see a 220-pound strong safety drive over a female wide receiver running toward the goal line. There’s simply too great a disparity in body mass and strength between NFL players and women, and the physical demands are too great.

Amazingly, what is common sense on the football field has now been completely abandoned on the battlefield.

With the Pentagon’s recent announcement that combat positions will be open to women, we see the latest misguided effort to achieve “equality” where it cannot be achieved—and it may cost military women in the long run.

Women have long served in support of combat missions, frequently near the front lines. As a woman and a 20-year veteran of the Marine Corps, I know first-hand how difficult combat field operations are.

I carried in excess of 100 pounds of gear over difficult terrain for 10-15 mile marches throughout my 20-year career. This was done only with an M-16 rifle or pistol, not with the additional ammunition or heavier weapons our ground units carry. The fatigue was extreme and it was difficult to imagine how an infantryman overcame the difficulty of field movement for weeks or months at a time.

Under current policy, women in the Marine Corps are held to a less-rigorous physical standard due to the obvious physical differences. It’s a physiological fact that women have less upper body strength compared to men—yet the physical demands of combat won’t change.

Currently, women have higher rates of discharge for medical disability that prevents them from finishing their enlistment, or re-enlistment. Stress and muscular deterioration in women comes on faster and harder due to the heavy gear and physical duress in the field environment.

Muscle atrophy, hip displacement, and arthritis in knees and joints are common ailments. Spinal compression occurs from long periods of heavy combat loads.

This is the hard reality of how extended field time and intense physical standards take their toll. Women’s bodies simply aren’t designed for the fatigue of field operations with heavy field gear and weapons on less muscular body frames. (For an example, read this eye-opening article by Captain Katie Petronio, who details the long-term physical damage she endured supporting Marine Corps infantry as a combat engineer).

Sure, a small number of women will meet the requirements and complete training. How will combat units adjust for these statistical outliers? What is reasonable accommodation when it comes to showering or relieving oneself?

Even our civilian society allows for non-compliance when an accommodation requires unreasonable demands upon the employer. (The elephant in the room in the question of sexual abuse, which is already a seriously and heavily-documented problem in the services; it’s hard to imagine how this new policy won’t exacerbate that problem.)

The bitter irony is that the long-term effect of this policy, which is intended to open up avenues for higher promotion to women, could result in fewer military opportunities for women.

If this is about promotional opportunity (and there are female generals in fields outside of combat arms, by the way), then each field should be evaluated to ensure promotional opportunity is balanced fairly for women. This is a more practical adjustment than to simply remove restrictions. Women are often promoted faster than men in the fields they are assigned.

Are we setting a woman up for failure by placing her into a field that will likely cause her body to deteriorate to a point where further service is impossible? Even if a female can get through Infantry Officers’ Course, which has a single physical standard for both men and women — and a 25% male drop-out rate — how long can her body meet the demands of the extreme training?

The odds are remote that any woman in a combat position will make it 20 years to see the opportunity to retire, let alone be considered for the rank of general officer.

Many of the advocates of this policy had support roles that never required them to sleep in mud, bathe without privacy and relieve themselves in the open.

It’s alarming that women from the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, former officers who flew planes, or a few females who supported infantry for a few months as Female Engagement Teams in Iraq, have adopted a shallow “You go, girl!” mindset. These advocates, to say nothing of the media cheerleaders and others who have never served and are now celebrating this policy; have never met the rigorous requirements of the infantry themselves.

There is zero evidence this new policy will enhance combat readiness. The attitude that all military opportunities must be equal — held by those who have misconceptions about the realities of long combat operations — demonstrates how few people understand what the mission of our infantry truly requires.

Gunnery Sergeant Jessie Jane Duff, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.), is a member of the Concerned Veterans for America’s organizing committee.

39 comments
catechumenlinus
catechumenlinus

So when are women joining the draft?

Thank you Jessie Jane Duff.

GloriaHiggs1
GloriaHiggs1

Aubrey. although Ann`s c0mment is unbelievable... on tuesday I bought a brand new Land Rover Defender from bringing in $5877 this - four weeks past and over ten-k lass-month. this is actually the most rewarding I have ever done. I actually started five months/ago and right away startad earning at least $81 per-hour. I went to this website, Fox76.comTAKE A LOOK

DeweySayenoff
DeweySayenoff

All of these folks here crying about women in the military and not one of them bother looking at the facts.  Man, if I were a woman, I'd be wondering what kind of sexist drug they're on!

What's the difference between a 150 LB woman and a 150 LB man in combat capability?  None.

How many nations have ever lost wars because of women in the military?  None.

How many wars have U.S. women fought in and died?  ALL OF THEM.

How many militaries have seen effectiveness and efficiency drops because of women in the combat ranks?  None.

In short, having women in combat will have no effect on the military's ability to carry out its assigned duties.

So what it boils down to is these people are saying that it's okay to send men off to fight and die but it's not okay to send women off to fight and die.  Men, therefore, are the disposable gender.  Considering almost all of the objections to women in the trenches with men come from the right-wing, one wonders if maybe they will think twice about starting unnecessary, ill-planned and badly executed wars with other countries.

UnclePhil
UnclePhil

Women in combat, giving fighter jets and tanks to Egypt as they imprison Christians, I just don't understand our military decision-making these days.  Perhaps sequestration and resulting DOD budget cuts will help.

OrpheliaEvony
OrpheliaEvony

OK, Here's the whole nut shell boiled down to one peanut.  Women have their own tees in golf.  Why is that?  Well to even out the game cause of the difference in physicality.  Women have their own competitions, like in the Olympics.  You dont see women competing with men in any track and field competitions.  Why is that?  Cause they will lose everytime.  They wouldnt ever medal.  Its not women's fault.  It's just the way nature made it.  Only one problem for women in combat.  There aren't women's tees.  End of debate.  So before yall want equal rights on the battlefield or Political correctness with bullets flying over your heads.  Elliminate the womens tees, start competing heads up with men in sports where there isnt a need for physical strength like bowling or billiards.  Even those non contact sports have women competing with their own sex.  I am 100% positive, if a woman was capable of throwing a 100MPH fastball and a 4 ft curve that broke across homeplate, she would be wearing a sports bra and pinstripes on the mound in Yankee Stadium.  So quit being stupid, no sane person wants to fight in combat and women wanting this just shows you how crazy yall have become.

USMCVet
USMCVet

The whole idea of adding young women to infantry units is ridiculous: combat is organized murder and it's hard enough to get our young men to reliably kill people (and then stop after they've begun) much less get women to do it. Combat is not like movies or video games or anything else people experience. War has not changed. Study what happened at Tarawa or Aachen, or Iwo Jima or Hue City and you'll get some idea. Adding young women will introduce the sexual dynamic as well and instead of teams of young men supporting each other in the fight, you'll have young couples worrying about each other at the expense of the team. You'll also have many more resentful men who don't have a partner. The result will be a corrosive environment for morale when things are already as bad as they can get. Warfare is not the environment for social experimentation or fantasies about how we have "evolved": it's about winning the war and getting back home. All of you who are so firmly for adding women to the battlefield do so because you are sure that these will be somebody eles's children, not your own.

gwpelham
gwpelham

When will they let white folk play in the NFL would be a more interesting question. Remember all the discussions regarding de facto discrimination back in the '60s? If my  recollections are correct, the second generation of civil rights leaders made their bones fighting de facto discrimination. It would be interesting if someone applied the same standards to the NFL. 

formerlyjames
formerlyjames

The right wing loves football analogies, which as here, make no sense.  My first thought reading of 220 lb. linebackers as similar to combat soldiers was the diminutive average Viet Cong and even the average 18-25 yr. old US grunt.  It might also be noted that the Soviet military throughout it's history had equal service by women, and that army defeated the Nazis.  Some interesting but arguable points were made, but the author lost credibility with me with the silly NFL comparison.  Marine JCS member James Amos recently also came out with the predictive right wing view against equal service for women, as he did against repeal of DADT.   The right wing is useless in analyzing any form of progress.

Don_Bacon
Don_Bacon

WSJ - Ryan Smith: The Reality That Awaits Women in Combat

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.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323539804578260132111473150.html

RobertMcMahon
RobertMcMahon

The overarching point is that the people who think this is a good idea - even the women combat pilots - have little to no experience living and breathing ground-combat operations as a "grunt". And I will go a step further and say that whoever the civilians are who are cheer-leading this dysfunctional idea, would never let their sons, much less their daughters serve in the US military under any circumstances!

GySgt. Duff makes several excellent points that anybody with a passing knowledge of infantry and Special Ops combat would appreciate, being a Grunt is putting yourself "out there". Anybody remember those scenes from "Saving Private Ryan" that Steven Spielberg filmed so meticulously - landing on a beach is not an "Outward-Bound" self-actualization day-trip of Team-building. Jumping from a plane at 500 feet is an adventure and takes courage! Jumping from that plane at 500 feet, landing hard, getting up to kill the man running at you in the dark requires a Jesuit's belief in one's self, a caveman's tolerance for pain, and the strength of an NFL defensive-back.

Ladies anytime you feel the need to volunteer for combat, go into your back-yard and dig, with a shovel, a 5x5 hole; ask a girlfriend to help you. Do it in less than 2 hours. Fill it quarter of the way with water and then prepare to sleep in it overnight without getting out of it - yeah, you heard me; without getting out of it. Around 3 in the morning have a neighbor shoot fireworks at you and then have their 2 teenage sons "attack" your fighting-hole. Your only job will be to stay in the hole; their job will be to pull you out. See how that goes. Welcome to an infantry expectation.


SarahConfran
SarahConfran

While I agree with this article I must point out that there is a difference between saying "you must meet x requirements to serve in combat positions" where x requirements cannot be met by 99.9999% of women then saying "only men who meet x requirements can serve in combat positions". I support the lift of the ban on women in combat but don't support a woman actually going to combat, however if a woman strong enough to meet the requirements wants to so be it. 

Jangocat
Jangocat

Thank you Ms Duff and thank you for your service. This is the first common sense article I've seen on this issue. You're NFL analogy is spot on. Taking it further there isn't a single physically demanding sport then women can compete with men. All you have to do is look at the Olympics. Comparing the same sports the men are always bigger, stronger and faster. All the political correctness in the world can't change 250,000 years of evolution. Men and women are different, that's just the fact of the matter.

That being said there are plenty of roles in the military women can be valuable and excel in. But if they insist they want to be front line grunts in combat then they need to pass the exact same physical tests as the men. No more dumbed down physical tests. Of course then as you point out, their bodies will break down early. I'm not sure that's good for the woman, or the insurers and taxpayers who will have to pay for their future medical costs.

VincentLovece
VincentLovece

While political equality is important, one cannot apply absolute equality where nature itself has made people different. If there is a complaint, it would have to be with nature itself. Men and women, and for that matter, most terrestrial male and female vertebrates have evolved differently. It isn't just humans: lions, cattle, gorillas, crocodiles, and countless other species have males simply be larger and stronger than the females. When it comes to 90% + of jobs, this makes no difference, especially in a knowledge-based economy. The problem is, the military requires tremendous physical prowess, not unlike professional sports. While there will always be a place for women in the military, putting them in front line combat on the ground is not the answer, especially when there are so many other jobs they can fill: pilots, drone operators, medics, drivers, etc.

This is going to lead to a large number of injured women, horrible abuses, and all sorts of other atrocities that will happen. The military operates on a different basis than civilian society does, and captured women prisoners will be subjected to things that males would not normally be, especially considering the nature of the enemies America goes up against. The point is this: while equal opportunity is important, that by no means gives equal results. If someone is not fit for something, they should not be given that position. While there might be a few women who are qualified physically for front-line combat, other considerations will make this problematic, not the least of which is privacy, morale, and the very real and unavoidable specter of abuse from both the enemy and sadly, her fellow soldiers.


Don_Bacon
Don_Bacon

Thank you Ms. Duff. Finally a breath of fresh air and truth in the fetid marsh of Political Correctness that many women have been sunk in, considering all the disadvantages to women of a rigorous male-dominated military life in units which would get along just fine without them, at least in combat units. I would certainly counsel any daughter of mine not to take such a course.

notLostInSpace
notLostInSpace

Everything evolves.  The military too.  More women would mean less of a lot of things (rapes, embarassing acts that men usually are involved in, torture perhaps).  Physicality is important, but so too are smarts, maturity, cool judgement.  And women are lighter, can fit in smaller spaces, make smaller targets!  I read last week that women are better suited to be jet pilots, I'm sure there are other places where they have advantages.  Time to move forward.  Standards do not have to be ruined, but they do have to make sense for the job.   As far as the Nfl, if there are any women who really could play I'm sure profit motivated owners will take them up on it eventually, if nothing else to sell tickets (Jets picked up Tebow it seems just to sell tickets).  I also like the absurdity of the argument that it will be bad for women to relieve themselves or bathe with men....I guess you never saw Starship Troopers to see how ridiculous that comment will be someday in the future.  The US is so hung up over nudity and sex.

Nick_F
Nick_F

this is stupid.


the NFL is private, not public. NFL can do whatever it wants. national defense is public, and any citizen should be able to volunteer to serve (or be considered for a wartime draft) in any position they're qualified for.

the pool of women who could be an infantryman is not nearly as small as the women who could play in the NFL. any CrossFit gym i've gone to has had at least one or two women who were stronger and faster than the majority of the infantrymen i've worked with over the last ten years.

just because she couldn't hang doesn't mean other women couldn't hang. and she keeps coming back to the idea that the necessary standards are going to be watered down, which CJCS (General Dempsey) has already said won't happen. if she's calling him a liar, that's fine, but otherwise she's ignoring the facts as they currently stand.

CJCS has also already said that they'll allow for noncompliance when the service can't reasonably accomodate. http://1.usa.gov/Wx1IHH and her saying it'll increase sexual assault is just her opinion -- plenty of people, including CJCS, who think it might help. http://bit.ly/Vrrv2K

>Many of the advocates of this policy had support roles that never required them to sleep in mud, bathe without privacy and relieve themselves in the open.

the two senior uniformed advocates -- CJCS and CSA (General Odierno) -- are both combat arms guys, who arguably know more about what it takes to be a combat arms guy than the author, who apparently served as a motor transport NCO and an Equal Opportunity rep. http://bit.ly/XiOyfA

DHMazur
DHMazur

Maybe the NFL comparison would be more useful if the only skill required in combat service was the ability to tackle.  But it's not.  In addition to physical strength and endurance, the job requires maturity, discipline, judgment, mental fortitude, and intelligence.  Opponents of this policy change don't seem to care if women might bring more of these qualities to the table.

Complaints about "standards" are also misleading.  Physical fitness standards now vary by sex (and age--does that mean older guys are not qualified for combat?), but there currently are no standards that actually measure what is necessary to do the job.  Until this point, the only standard in place was to be male.  Part of this policy process will be to determine what skills and strengths are necessary to do the job.

A former Air Force officer and author of "A More Perfect Military: How the Constitution Can Make Our Military Stronger" (Oxford University Press)

Fla4Me
Fla4Me

Women who can, and want, to pursue a combat role are free to do so.  Other countries apparently allow for this with success.  Are US women somehow different then women of other nationalities?  Me thinks not.  

MarineInfantryman
MarineInfantryman

You seriously think a 150lb woman is equal to a 150lb man?  Even with profesional athletes, the man has more muscle mass.  Men have 20% more upper body strength, 45% more muscle mass over all, and 20% more lung capacity.  The point of this article is: even if a woman can get in, she will break down quickly and fast.  She won't have a chance at a long term career.  So how is it responsible for DoD to just say, "Hey, if you can get through this training, go for it!" without evaluating the long term impact of combat loads on women.  Read the Capt's article that is linked.  She was the perfect candidate to be an infantry officer.  The long term damage to her body after spending 7 months in the field carrying the heavy combat gear broke her muscles down, caused her spine to compress, and ultimately caused her to become infertile.  Her body simply stopped producing estrogen.  So, is DoD ready to handle the attrition of women without looking at the impact this has on them?  The Army already did a study and women get pulled out of the field 3 X the rate of men.  It will only get worse when they are actually an infantry man and not in a support role. 

USMCVet
USMCVet

@DeweySayenoff  Spoken like the non-serving draft-dodger you really are. I'm sure you would have spouted the same drivel during the Second World War even when it was obvious as hell that we had to fight to survive. No, women except for a very small posrtion, can't fight and they will obstruct the rest of us who would have to carry the load. If you had served, you would have observed that the stragglers in the morning run were invariably the young lady members of the unit.

notLostInSpace
notLostInSpace

Wow, you made fun of my points and your major lead is freaking TEES?  You probably were never given much of a grade in school for imagination (or probably anything else for that matter).  You want to keep fighting wars like we did in 1863 (you and Mitt, he wants a navy like we had in 1914).  Wars are fought with strategy, electronics, surveillance, hardware, not hand to hand combat.  If it was all about hand to hand combat I'd freaking agree with you and we'd go about getting an army full of MMA school graduates.

formerlyjames
formerlyjames

@OrpheliaEvony

I have played golf with couples who logically should have exchanged tees because the wife played rings around the husband playing the "men's tees".   There are plenty of female track competitors who can run rings around men.  You present false markers for your argument.

One of the most deadly snipers of all time was Lyudmila Pavlichenko of the Soviet Army, WW2, with 309 confirmed kills in about 1 year.  She was one of about 2,000 women snipers in the Soviet Army; about 500 survived the war, including Pavlichenko who was pulled from combat after being wounded and because of her hero status.  She went on pr tours, including to the US where she reported being stunned by the stupid comments about her female status.  

VincentLovece
VincentLovece

@SarahConfran It's more than just strength. There are battlefield realities that are simply unkind to women by their very nature. A lot of very, VERY ugly things happen on the battlefield. It's bad enough for men, but women... it might as well be setting them up to be victims. Remember, most of women's rights and progress came about because of civilization, because of laws, because the powers that run a civilized society have seen fit to create a safe environment for women, whereas in a state of nature, women would be abused horribly.


In warfare, civilization breaks down. While there are rules of war and internal military codes (both legal and codes of honor), these rarely apply on the battlefield in practice,  no matter what the laws say. War is hell, after all. I'm not so naive as to think that soldiers on either side will have women's rights on their mind when they capture one, or that women will be fit for front-line duty simply because politicians wish it so, or that combat can be made to conform to some wonderful ideal. This isn't like a civilian job at all. It cannot be lowered to the level of an office job or something in which the standard ways of living apply. You should all listen to Ms. Duff; she's been in the military and knows better.

VincentLovece
VincentLovece

Plus, this won't make a difference for most women in the military, unless the army and marines (another other services) hold women to a drastically lower standard, or else drastically lower standards altogether. It doesn't take a genius to see how this will hurt.

OrpheliaEvony
OrpheliaEvony

@notLostInSpace this is by far the most ridiculous argument I have ever seen.  They are smaller so they make smaller targets.  Fock, you figured it out, Imagine if we had an army of midgets, maybe we wouldnt lose anybody.  Are ya out of ur flipping mind? And u now quantify ur argument by bringing an example based on a science fiction TV show on how men and women can unisex in the field.  Damn, how far separated from reality are you?

VincentLovece
VincentLovece

@notLostInSpace Starship Troopers is science fiction. It is not something you can reasonably base a real-life opinion on.

MarineInfantryman
MarineInfantryman

I served 8 years in Marine Corps infantry and completely agree with the article. Motor Transport works with the infantry - and they perform infantry operations and deploy to the field. More men and women in motor transport have lost their limbs in combat than any other field due to the explosive devices going off under the vehicles. The NFL was an analogy - not for you to call a fact or fiction - just a comparison to how people would feel to see a woman hit like that. The point is why is it ok for DoD to put women in a violent situation where their body mass works against them? As far as the infantrymen you worked with that a woman was stronger than, were they Marines who deploy rapidly? The physical fitness standards are higher for the Marines than any service. Also, did you read the link attached to the article written by a female Marine Captain? She documents how difficult it is for women and it will shorten their career. The point of the article was that this isn't a responsible thing to do - and after serving two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan, I agree 100%. This is a violent field and to think putting a female with a team of men isn't going to cause any issues or concerns is simply naive.

MarineInfantryman
MarineInfantryman

The NFL comparison was an ANALOGY. Don't over-analyze it. You think combat infantry doesn't get hit in hand to hand combat? If the idea of a woman being hit in the NFL makes Americans uncomfortable, why are so many people feeling a woman in combat wouldn't? Nobody is challenging women's intelligence or courage. GySgt Duff is making a valid point: no evidence this will enhance the mission, and, no one has looked at how the rapid deterioration of females will DECREASE their long term ability to make a career. The women who have made this about promotion aren't even looking at how an infantry position will burn any female out very quickly. For her to have to work harder and longer to just keep up, which there is no evidence women can, demonstrates how little consideration was put into this change. The mindset about this being a choice isn't an argument that demonstrates this is a good idea. No one has given a single reason that demonstrates women will make us more combat ready by being an infantryman. All I read is feel good words - she's smart, she's motivated, she offers other qualities. That isn't the argument. Women can't carry 120 lbs. of combat gear and think it won't cause them a greater depreciation than men. It's simply ignorant to say otherwise.

MarineInfantryman
MarineInfantryman

No woman fights on the front lines - don't say Israel does it becuase they stopped after 1948.  Not even Canada.  And please, the other nations don't have combat operations to the level the US has.

notLostInSpace
notLostInSpace

You seem to be taking up the argument for the "only men can do it bs".  Women have fought in combat, only not "officially" for the US.  Study Russia in WW2 for example, or Israel.  You concentrate soley on the attributes that men have over women as if those are the only important attributes.  Sure, if comes to a trench war of 50 guys versus 50 guys maybe, maybe, the men have an advantage if it comes down to hand to hand combat.  I think that war was pretty much last fought in 1865, but if you think that is the future of warfare then I cannot change your opinion.  As far as toughness, look up Rhonda Rousey, she can kick most guy's ass.

notLostInSpace
notLostInSpace

Stretching your mind doesn't happen.  Analogies don't seem to work.  I can't explain it to you because your mind will not grasp the simple fact that we don't really attach people with bayonets too often anymore.

notLostInSpace
notLostInSpace

Gee, I thought STroopers was real!  C'mon man, the point is that in the future we will have far more equality.  The guys sharing a shower in Starship Troopers were not busy staring at the females.  And, yes, actually I can base a "real life" opinion on any kind of fiction, if it makes any sense.  Ronald Reagan made less sense than most fiction.

Fla4Me
Fla4Me

@MarineInfantryman I guess that depends on what you call the "front lines".  NPR did a piece a few days ago where they interviewed members of an all female Israeli combat unit.  They're currently doing any insurgent missions in the desert.  They go into a border area and dissappear, not moving for days at a time wating for any hostile contact.  Beyond that I don't see your point.  Change is coming, embrace it.

notLostInSpace
notLostInSpace

yeah, men wage war, that is about the only intelligent comment you have made..."real s___ with real bullets"....man, you worked hard to come up with that line, like your golf tees proof that women are inferior to men.  You just do not quite understand that modern warfare is not circa 1863 or 1763 or whatever generation you think is so manly....women have served admirably from time immortal....but don't let facts interfere with your Mitt Rmoney world view.   While you sit in your fox hole with your manly buddies, big gun arms, shiny bayonets, etc. my chick army will blow your bunker (I know you were hoping for something else) with a rocket delivered from a drone piloted 9000 miles away.   Get that?

notLostInSpace
notLostInSpace

Women will be hurt.  When women asked for rights these are rights they got, like them or not.  Why is it ok that men are hurt?  Do men hurt less?  I am a guy, with three kids, so don't assume that I know personally the pain of childbirth, but just about any authority you can find says it trumps just about any other pain, point being women know a lot about taking pain.  I think that if a woman signs up knowing what is at stake that is her decision.  Who are you or I to say otherwise?

OrpheliaEvony
OrpheliaEvony

@notLostInSpace pull ur head out of ur coochie.  this aint a game out there.  This is real shit with real bullets in full metal jackets.  You have no clue what ur talking about.  Rhonda Who, u mean the chick who is fighting another chick in a ring that is timed with a stopwatch and has a ref.  That can be stopped with a tap out.  Sorry sweet cheeks but there is no ref in combat and there is no tapping.  Yeah sure women can fight in war, and women can die in war.  I can drive with my feet but that doesn't mean I should do it.  And BTW, reserve ur judgement on whether Rhonda Who can kick even 1 man's ass until she actually does.  Why don't you work on renmoving the ladies tees from golf or competing in unisex olympics before you think yall can move right ahead to wartime.  See, this is where ur head is so far up ur ass, this isnt about ur right, its about the other person in the foxhole's right to be able to count on and lean on their brother in arms.  And guess what sweet cheeks, Females don't wage war.  Men do.  So go make me a turkey pot pie and stfu.

VincentLovece
VincentLovece

@notLostInSpace I'm not saying women can't fight, but that men have a significant advantage when it comes to combat, and that pretending that this isn't so is going to hurt women very badly. The woman who wrote this article knows this to be so.