Battleland

The Cowardly Push to Get Women into Combat

  • Share
  • Read Later
Scott Olson / Getty Images

Female Marine recruits ready for pugil stick training earlier this year at Parris Island, S.C.

Earlier this year, the Pentagon lifted the ban on women serving in U.S. combat units – including elite special-operations units like the Navy’s SEALs – if they can clear the physical and mental hurdles. While official Washington has saluted and moved on to other matters, there remains a rumble of opposition, especially evident when chatting with soldiers and Marines. Some argue that the existing standards – which already have kept several women from passing the Marines’ grueling infantry officers course – will basically act as a bar to women in the more demanding kinds of combat.

But Robert Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and West Point graduate, fears that won’t happen. He spells out what he sees as the dangers of opening combat billets to women in his new book, Deadly Consequences: How Cowards Are Pushing Women into Combat. His key concern is that, under political pressure, the military will ease its standards, resulting in a less-capable force. Battleland recently conducted this email chat with him.

What’s the key thing you learned in writing Deadly Consequences: How Cowards Are Pushing Women into Combat?

Pentagon brass are kowtowing to their political masters and radical feminists to remove exemptions for women in ground combat in defiance of overwhelming scientific evidence and combat experience.

This craven behavior is terribly dangerous for our armed forces, our national security, and especially the young women who will be placed in harm’s way.

DeadlyConsequencesCover

Regnery

Pentagon officials insist they won’t lower standards to enable more women in combat units. Do you believe them?

I don’t believe them, and neither should the American people.

The Obama Administration and the Pentagon say they will maintain high standards “to ensure that the mission is met with the best-qualified and most capable people, regardless of gender,” in the words of former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

Personnel policy, however, is driven by the “diversity metrics” outlined in the 2011 Report of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission.

Diversity, not military readiness, is the highest priority.

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has admitted as much. In the press conference announcing the rescission of the 1994 rule excluding women from ground combat units, he said, “If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high?”

The proper question is “Do we have the personnel we need to meet the current high standards for combat units?”

The answer right now is yes.

There is no shortage of able-bodied male volunteers who meet the existing, battle-tested standards for ground combat positions.

So why ask the services to consider changing the standards? Because this has become more about politics than fielding the most capable fighting force.

What do you see as the three biggest risks to letting women serve in the combat arms?

There are a multitude of risks—far more than most people realize, especially those without military experience. Among the many risks I discuss in “Deadly Consequences” are these three:

— First, standards will be lowered. As a practical matter, there has to be a certain minimum number of women in combat units for the policy to succeed. That can be accomplished only by “gender norming” the standards for combat service. Lower standards will inevitably degrade combat effectiveness, and the nation will be less secure. There is also good evidence that the policy will harm military recruitment and retention.

— Second, women who serve as ground combatants, whether by choice or under compulsion, will suffer disproportionate physical and psychological harm.

— Third, the already serious problem of sexual assault in the military will get worse. Notwithstanding the Administration’s wishful thinking, this prediction is borne out by the statistics.

What do you think will happen, given the push to let women serve in combat, if the nation ever needs to reinstitute the draft?

Lifting all combat exclusions for women virtually guarantees that the Supreme Court will declare male-only conscription unconstitutional.

And a return to the draft is far more likely than most people realize. The unsustainably high cost of the all-volunteer force, especially with $17 trillion in national debt, and the expected requirements of future military operations will probably lead to a resumption of the draft, however politically unpopular it might be.

When that happens, women will be drafted and forced into ground combat roles.

Screen Shot 2013-07-24 at 1.39.59 PM

Drawn to the Light Photography

Robert Maginnis

The Joint Chiefs of Staff endorse the idea of women serving in combat. Are they the “cowards” you refer to in your subtitle?

They demonstrate a cowardice of silence because they know better. The scientific evidence and the lessons of combat experience are utterly one-sided: women are unsuited for ground combat service.

Congress has the constitutional responsibility to set the rules and regulations governing the armed forces (Article I, Section 8).

Unfortunately, Congress is as cowardly as the Joint Chiefs.

Putting women in combat is as historic a change of military policy as anything I can think of, yet neither house has held full hearings on the question in over 20 years.

The politicians are running scared.

You said letting openly gay men and women serve in uniform would be a disaster, and likely lead to problems with recruiting and retention. None of that has come to pass. So why should we pay attention to your arguments about women in combat?

It is much too early to assess the effects of open homosexuality in the military.

The Pentagon has not released any external or internal surveys on recruiting and retention since “don’t ask, don’t tell” was repealed. The Pentagon survey conducted prior to the repeal demonstrated substantial opposition within the ranks, which continues today.

What we do have is the Pentagon-sponsored 2013 Sexual Assault Prevention & Response Office survey, which found a giant increase in unwanted male-on-male sexual contact since the repeal.

According to the New York Times, 13,900 active-duty men and 12,100 active duty women said they had experienced unwanted sexual contact in 2012, the first full year after repeal of the homosexual ban.

The proportion of female victims is much higher, of course, but the Pentagon obviously has a serious problem with male-on-male sexual assaults.

Is there cause and effect here or merely correlation?

It is too early to say, but there is certainly no basis for declaring the new policy on homosexuality a success.

136 comments
PeterAndrewNolan
PeterAndrewNolan

LOL! Now giving women the equality they demanded is "cowardly" according to Time magazine.

Ladies....you demanded equality and us men are going to force that on you whether you like it or not.

And just remember...women have ALWAYS enjoyed the ability to commit crimes with near complete impunity.

THAT...is about to change. 

Equality....you demanded it...we will deliver it! 

TerriLynnSullivan
TerriLynnSullivan

The question should not be whether women should be in combat, any more than if men should be.  Why the gender discrimination, against men? We need to stop marginalizing boys & men's lives, .  As if somehow they can be put into harms way any more than girls/women.  Despite how we've been conditioned, the fact is men are no more physically or emotionally equipped for battle than women, and many women more so than many men.  The question should be more within morals, not gender.  Many of us are not raising our sons today to believe in war as a form of "service" to our nation.  We realize war is a business, nothing else.  USA is a war economy.  So if an 18 year old Barbie doll look alike from a 3 million dollar home has a parent that works in the so called "defense" sector, should there not be an accountability law that mandates she MUST report to "active duty" combat???? Many won't understand that this would be the best thing for our nation, because there are fundamental principles missing onto the naïve, misinformed populace.  Too buried within our war owned and controlled mainstream media keeping us all dumbed down.

For one, the only reason USA is a warmongering nation is money, nothing else. The US Military has never been about "defense". Like our founding fathers that became anti-war warned, we have millions working in the "defense" industry and have built up this massive military madness.  Its the same reason Italy does not stop its Mafia, its the economy driving our Hunger Games, a corrupt capital and connected business cronies at drivers seat.  So who cares if we toss in the girls or boys into the fighter ring, while the crowd "cheers" on for our "tributes" and "careers"? Just sing the anthem, wrap the flag around your daughters body and call her a hero! Put her on one of those commercials asking people to donate to "Help our Heroes"!

I have far too much human empathy to feel any more concern for any of us women having our legs blown off or killed in the so called "line of duty" than any man.  A life is a life, a limb a limb.  When we realize what its all about to begin with, no longer is gender a matter of concern.  Only morals.  So while the rest of you argue over whether we should victimize women any less than men with our war economy, I'll remain a bit healthier minded and fight for clean air, clean water, clean souls.

Eevee
Eevee

Women are equal to men. It is the men's choice to join the military, so it should also be a women's. They are the one fighting for their country, they decided to join! If it is their calling in life they should follow it. Neither men, nor women are superior, so if a women lays down her life for civilians back home, she has given her life for her nation. If a man lays down his life for civilians back home, he is giving his life for his nations. We need to face facts women WILL die in the army, men will too. Women aren't better than men and men aren't better than women. Whya re we saying that the lives of lady's that have been lain down shouldnt have selflessly been giving up? Women are giving up their all for you right now alongside of men, we shouldn't question them because they are the ones that are sacrificing everything they have!

DanaAllen
DanaAllen

@Eevee  


Eevee,  The object of a military is to win and protect men women and children from murder, rape and enslavement.  Think of what happens to the tens of thousands who have come under the control of the ISIS army after military defeat..


The reason combat soldiers are men is because they are much better at warfare.   The reason that there are women's and men's golf and tennis is that woman want a chance to win, they insist on it.   Warfare favors men even more than golf and tennis.    Think of a fist fight, if you randoming select 10 men and 10 women and have ten MMA fights, chances are 9 or 10 of the men will win or 10 out of 10.  Thus military defeat would happen with equal sized Armies.


There is not one weight class that the women's weight lifting record is even close to the men's record, even though the size if the same such as 150 pounds. 


Your entire comment ignores the the central question, can women kill men as well as men kill men?  Can an average women carry the insanely heavy packs and gear that the men do? (often 80 pounds) No they can not.  I have carried 80 pound packs, it is not fun.


If you have ever lost a war and suffered the penalty of a lost war (and were still alive), think you see this differently.

Andy1000
Andy1000

@Eevee


"Women are equal to men."


This had no basis in objective reality.  Insofar as personhood is concerned, yes, they are equal in a philosophical sense, but in a physical sense, which is what matters to the military, it is not even close.  Combat positions in the military require high levels of stamina and strength.  Men are much, much more likely to meet these needs.  Ground troops are analogous to modern professional athletes.  In fact, many pro athletes (eg Pat Tillman) remark how much more physically grueling military training is compared to athletic training.  If it is true military combat is more grueling than professional sports, why don't women compete in highly physical sports such as football, baseball, hockey, tennis...even golf?  Do women not care about making millions in sports contracts?  The Serena sisters, easily the most dominant women tennis players in the past 20 years, famously boasted the could beat any man ranked outside the top 200 in their sport (they weren't even boasting the could be the best men).  The were roundly defeated by a man ranked outside the top 200 (Karsten Braash) who had just come from playing a beer-drinking round of golf.  Anika Sorenstam, the Tiger Woods of the LPGA, failed to make the cut when she tried to join a PGA even (she finished 96 of 111).  These are monumentally talented women, but they simply can't compete with the strength and endurance required of the male game.  Look at swimming, track & field, weightlifting, etc.  Why do they compete separately?  Why do women play in the WNBA and not the NBA?  I'm not sure there is any cross-over all the way down to the junior college level, with the exception of an occasional football kicker. The answer which is abundantly clear evident to non-ideologues, is that you would see no women because none are competitive.


The rebuttal is ultimately, "well, what IF a women someday can do it, shouldn't she be allowed to serve?"  My answer is that the ideology of many in power is Diversity Uber Alles.  If the service is open to all, by God, we better have women in formerly male roles, even at the expense of lowered standards.  Even if they don't lower standards today (which they might, the USMC is already heading that way) they will tomorrow.  I never served in the military, but I was a police officer for 15 years.  There were about 20 men and 3 women in my academy class.  Same class, different standards to pass.  I had to complete 52 push ups in 2 minutes to pass.  The women had to do 8.  Of the 3 in our class, only one did 8 push ups, yet somehow all got their certificates.  


"we shouldn't question them because they are the ones that are sacrificing everything they have!"


What kind of argument is that?  If the DOD said tomorrow that combat was open to 5 year olds, 85 year olds and quadriplegics, wouldn't the same logic apply?  "You shouldn't say we shouldn't put 5 years olds on the front lines, because they're out there giving everything the have!" 


The "optics of diversity" has  replaced "defense of the nation" as the military's #1 priority.

mack7963
mack7963

i dont get it, why would women WANT to willingly go and Kill other people, maybe an over simplification but at the end of the day thats what i see, 

JaneBlacksmith
JaneBlacksmith

Natural next step: your little girls will be ordered to register for the draft. These radical feminists and leftist social engineers pushed and pushed for gender equality, so now all these little girly-girl types, who enjoy being girls, wearing jewelry, make up, and lace and who feel no compulsion to compete with men, who want to have children and raise them are inevitably going to be drafted into combat roles.
.

This is catastrophic.

Malikav
Malikav

To anyone that might think women should have to serve in combat jobs because it's not fair that only men do then you are looking at this from the completely wrong perspective. By sticking women in combat you aren't just forcing them to put their own lives at risk. As an infantry rifleman that has actually experienced combat, I can assure you that every person in combat relies on the other guys their next to them. It's not like call of duty, and combat is extremely strenuous both mentally and physically. 


It's scientific fact that on average women don't have the same muscle mass as men, and they also don't have the same level of aggression. This isn't a cultural issue or something that can be remediated through any amount of training, it's basic biology. The main hormone responsible for both muscle growth and aggression is testosterone. Men produce on average 10x more testosterone than women. This means we have more potential to grow muscle, we regrow it faster after breaking it down, and we have more aggression, on average. All of these factors are extremely important in a job where your life literally depends on your ability to aggressively physically pursue and destroy people that are trying to kill you.


It really doesn't matter how I explain it. There are a plethora of factors that add to the issue from additional logistical requirements, to sanitation, and even relationship issues created by introducing women to combat jobs. The simple fact is, if you haven't experienced it yourself you simply aren't going to understand. That's not me being arrogant, it's simply such an alien culture and experience that unless you go through it yourself you don't have the appropriate frame of reference or educational background to being to understand the issues.


Please take it from me, nobody in the infantry actually wants women to be forced (or allowed) to serve in combat roles. We all volunteered to do this, and we did so because we know that we will be in good hands with the guys we are serving with. Sticking women on the front lines will get people killed all in the name of diversity for diversities sake.

Jko
Jko

As a woman I agree with everything you said. We are not physically and mentally equal to men. It's a danger to their fellow soldiers due to our physical incapabilities. And also,there is and will be a lot more sexual assaults/rapes.

Homos shouldn't serve either because they will sexually harass other males and save their lover instead of their fellow soldiers

JimBritt
JimBritt

We are supposed to have equal rights.  If a male can be forced to die against his will so should females.

Jko
Jko

Nobody is being forced dickhead. You sign up, you know there is a possibility of dying :)

JanBoniface
JanBoniface

@RealisticPatriot @JimBritt - Uhhh, this discussion is about the draft. If initiated, the draft will mean  being forced. Registering for selective service is NOT optional for males.

SRR
SRR

Not allowing women into these combat positions without ever giving them a chance is truly cowardly.  This is such victim blaming when the author state's that we need to protect these young women from harms way without even giving them a chance to try to pass the requirements.  The problem isn't lowering the military standards, it's not even letting women try to meet said requirements that's the issue.  It may be necessary to have these standards but what isn't necessary is not giving half of the population to try and succeed or try and fail. 

ChelseaTornade-Hoe
ChelseaTornade-Hoe

Radical feminists would never join combat. We are against the male institution of war.
 And we don't want equality with murderers and rapists, we want liberation from them.
Duh.

c0011j
c0011j

@ChelseaTornade-Hoe

Except you are not serving and dying for 'men.' You go to war for your country. You server under men AND women. 

Antifeminist911
Antifeminist911

Let the radical feminists die for this country for a change! Awesome news. Now bitches like you can be drafted and have your limbs blown

ChelseaTornade-Hoe
ChelseaTornade-Hoe

"Oh please let me serve men and die for men,  may I? Please!" - said no Radical Feminist ever.

Jko
Jko

Women will never be drafted for war, so no radical feminists will die but you will dickhead lol.

mack7963
mack7963

@Jko youre not even a decent troll, go away and practice little boy

EyesFrontmen
EyesFrontmen

Feminists don't want women in combat. They want the illusion of women in combat through a few token women who "chose" to do what men must do. They need this illusion to keep people from noticing that feminism is about securing privilege for females and has nothing to do with equality. They know that if women were ever actually required to accept the equality they pretend to want, women would run from feminism as fast as they could.

It is time to call the feminist bluff. Draft the women. Do not enlist or re-enlist another man until all units, specialties, services are 50% female. Change the standards for men and women to female normed standards. Same for all military schools, ROTC that create officers.

That won't happen only because feminists are liars. They will never accept equality, it would kill the movement in a day. What you may see is the military staffing positions with a predominance of women where combat exposure is unlikely, but that are classed as "combat" positions, so that the feminists can indulge their illusion.

Females should be 50% of wounded and 50% of body bags. Men have been carrying the burden of the nations defense for too long. Likewise with all of the dangerous, dirty, difficult jobs we misogynistic patriarchal men have always done and continue to do even in this feminist dystopia.

Stop white knighting for feminists. Stop provisioning and protecting the feminist state.

Bacon_Industry
Bacon_Industry

@EyesFrontmen I don't necessarily agree with some of your statements but you have a point. The US Marine Corps itself demographically represents females by a little over 6% in the active duty ranks. They just so happen to have the worst gender gap than any other branch of service. 

It's not because the Marines are denying women combat roles either.

80% of the billets available in the Marine Corps are "non-combat" jobs. As in 80% of the Corps is made up of POGUES.

Women make up half the population of this country yet there is a gender gap in nearly all branches of services not just including the branch of service that espouses itself as being a dedicated infantry force. 

Not enough females are enlisting in the armed forces in the first place. So why is this even a debate?

Jko
Jko

Women are physically weaker than men and that is a fact so wanting women (feminist or not) to get drafted is retarded since they will die in 2.5 seconds. Men need to stop being cowards and trying to push women into combat.

Men complaining about doing dirty, difficult jobs when you have a choice NOT to do them like women choose.

RuthMance
RuthMance

I agree with my godfather, Thomas Charles Mance, a WWII Veteran and honorable man.  He served in the Battle of the Bulge, cleaned up fetid restrooms in the aftermath in France, and cleaned them up again after they were destroyed by the civilians.  He went above and beyond.  I was in ARMY ROTC, and after Rhonda Cornum's story came to light, a flight surgeon (I wanted to be a doctor), I was scared about the notion of women's roles in the military.  Other girls in my battalion were talking about being fighter pilots.  I wanted nothing like that--I wanted to be service and support.  A doctor, I thought about being a nurse (my college didn't have nursing), and eventually obtained my medical technology license.  MY BODY was anorexic and worn down from the physical training, and the guys were scared to death and told me to stop training and start eating--I was happy to oblige--the pressure to keep up was too much.  The women in my battalion took me to lunch in the cafeteria, and we had gal time and I laughed for the first time in months.  I agree with my Uncle Tom, and a lot of men who have served, lost limb, life, and went through things you wouldn't believe.  I can help the sick, I can be of service and support.  Uncle Tom is RIGHT.  My dad is right.  My Uncle Jim, (Ltc. James Mance), Uncle Dan Mance, Uncle Corky, Uncle Joe, Big Mike, Rich, Lee, and all the relatives I am forgetting--Jamie Hackamer, RIP--I LOVE YOU!!!--WOMEN DON'T BELONG IN COMBAT!!!!!!!


BTW, I did 51 pushups in 2 minutes, a 12-minute 2-mile, I couldn't do sit-ups.  All the time during the combat training parts of the exercises, the only thing I could think of was "I don't want to do this."  And I couldn't keep up.  It was part of training, to help me get to service and support.  When pressures got too high, I couldn't keep up with school anymore.  Yes, women CAN do service and support, I feel like I have been on the front lines at home for years, as an honorably discharged soldier, working in hospitals, and now soldiers to teachers.  I have more insight and knowledge of human nature, and gaining wisdom as I grow older.  Putting women in combat roles with the men is putting both in a moral quandary that the old-timers wanted to protect the women from, because there was honor.  


I think the ARMY let me go honorably because we didn't know what would happen if I ended up with the same position as Gen. Rhonda Cornum, and she deserves her honor.  I would still become a doctor, I idolize this women and her moral character and strength.  I idolize my Uncle Tom and Uncle Jim, but I also idolize women like my great aunt Sister Carmeline and Sister Karen Klimczak, both nuns who fought a type-of service and support position their whole lives, and lived saintly lives, and didn't feel the need as women to push for roles they knew they'd rather other's wouldn't like to have as women.  I don't think I'd be able to stop crying in a real gun fight, or get too emotional, and I'm not sure I'd be any good to the men in that position--and where does that put them?


KEEP WOMEN IN SERVICE AND SUPPORT!!!!!!!!  Even Sojourner Truth was a good example.  My great-great grandfather Bernard Williams served and died in Gettysburg.  Maybe Sojourner Truth nursed him there.

Shatto
Shatto

@RuthMance The hell? You can't do a sit up? I feel like this is a pure BS post

ChrisCurley
ChrisCurley

They don't allow women to be Navy Seals or Delta Force,as well as Army Rangers.They can however work in forwardly placed units.Perhaps a woman is superior to you DragonDude,but to most men they are simply physically inferior.I would bet my life savings a woman wouldn't last 2 minutes with me ,before I neutralized her.Women are however very intelligent and can do many things thay require high intellect and the ability to work quickly under pressure.Idf there is ever a draft,I would be ashamed if my country allowed our women to die.

Dave58
Dave58

Common' folks.  I know there may be a small number of women who can handle the rigors of combat.  It's the consequences.  Now we'll have to draft women into combat against their will.  Imagine drafting children's mothers into combat because of a small group of liberals who insist that men and women be identical even if they aren't.  What if women get captured and raped? People who say the consequences of this are the same for both sexes clearly don't care about anything but forcing this down our throats at any expense. It's not sensible. 

DragonDude9797
DragonDude9797

women have just as many rights as men and could probably do way more then us men. they deserve a chance

NguyenLegends
NguyenLegends

@DragonDude9797 I rather fight for the mothers and daughters of our nation than let them be forced to go through what men go through in war time.  

MartinAttroski
MartinAttroski

@NguyenLegends @DragonDude9797 No Sh1t, tell me what exactly I am fighting for if my wife and children can be sent to fight those evil (insert whatever culture stands in the way of the communists (*cough* jews *cough*) hate).

qleyland2000
qleyland2000

Women are not allowed in spec ops like the green beret or rangers check the website.

ChrisCurley
ChrisCurley

@qleyland2000 your forgetting the 2 most elite special forces elite units....Delta Force and the Navy Seals,which women are not permitted to even apply for.I may have an issue if I had to protect a woman,no woman is dying on my watch in my unit.

JohnKelly2
JohnKelly2

women don't compete very well physically with men and in some cases the don't even try, so how is integrating women into jobs where they have to compete with men physically suppose to work

jasonberry123900
jasonberry123900

allowing women in combat arms is a big mistake.. where is the common sense

JaiNW
JaiNW

Allowing women into combat is NOT a bad idea, but forcing them into it is. I myself as a female U.S. citizen would LOVE to join the special forces. I personally would be ecstatic to join Delta. I think we should make the choice available but we shouldn't force women to join.

ChrisCurley
ChrisCurley

@Albert @jasonberry123900 THE LEFT IS RUNNNG IT AFTER THE RIGHT RUINED IT.What unit are you in?Thats what I thought!!!!!

Albert
Albert

@jasonberry123900  


The Left Wing is running this country now.  That's a big warning sign about intentions.

jacobtheamerican
jacobtheamerican

@JaiNW  can you honestly say that you could meet the SAME physical requirements that a navy seal can. Because if you can not, then you have no business being in Spec ops anywhere.

MartinAttroski
MartinAttroski

@jacobtheamerican @ChrisCurley He is not a soldier, he's a troll. A paid liberal shill, pretending to be a man at that. This is so common it amazes me most people do not automatically, mentally, take note of who is typing in all caps like an emotional 10 year old. You think a guy that is serving in the US military, which forbids these type of political outbursts would paste his photo next to his friggin name, and spout this kind of garbage? These are communist trolls my frind, this is TIME magazine after all.

AleMadi
AleMadi

I must add that I'm extremely dissappointed by the fact that sexual assault increase would be listed as a reason to bar women entry. This does nothing but perpetuate the idea that men are just innate rapists. How about you stop covering up the attacks? How about making it a serious point not to equate rank with innocence? Mere proximity to men is not a rape wish. Social tolerance is the reason it's so widespread. 

komplex66
komplex66

@AleMadi This does not perpetuate the idea that men are rapists.  All it is doing is stating the fact that sexual harassment and sexual assault exist in the military and that putting women in a combat unit with the majority of males will not change that fact.  In almost all cases the victim knows the criminal who attacks them or harasses them.  That being said when you work in close proximity with a member of the opposite sex it is more than likely you will gain some sort of feelings for them.  

As for your "Rank with innocence" comment that is not true.  I was recently in Korea in 2011-2012 and there was a male officer who was incarcerated for sodomizing a male solider.  He got caught because the soldier immediately went to hospital and filed a report so proper DNA testing was possible.  What gets people of higher rank off the hook is the fear of the subordinate soldiers to come forward right away while the DNA samples can still be gathered.  More often than not they gather the courage too late and it becomes a game of "he said she said" and it is not possible to get the appropriate evidence in order to charge somebody.  So they usually force them into an early retirement.  

I am just letting you know from my personal experience.  I was an infantryman for seven years.

Jko
Jko

At least a grown man can fight of another grown man. Women will have no chance, and in my opinion that and the fact that women are physically weaker, is a good enough reason to bar them entry

AleMadi
AleMadi

Social pressures will keep most women from developing the upper body strength anyway but women should at least have the option. Don't bar women entry but don't lower the physical standards. End of story. 

JaiNW
JaiNW

I totally agree. The choice should be there but it shouldn't be forced on anyone.

Logger007
Logger007

As a man who served in the 82nd Airborne in the 1980s and who went to parachute school with some females I have some pretty big problems with men and women doing anything together in the military.  Mistakes get people injured or killed.  I remember being ordered to escort two female trainees once while I was in basic training.  When I returned to battalion headquaters it was if I drank a pint of wiskey.  I got a serious chewing out for the smile on my face and for saying "yeah" instead of "yes seargent".  Mixing men and women in the Army is not fair to men.  And it is abusive to both men and women.  Give women equal opportunities but keep them away from Men!  I'll reconsider mixing women with men in the infantry when the NFL is 50 percent women, nurses are 50 percent men, the Olympics no longer have seperate categories for women, and affirmative action for women is ended.  Sexual attractions in the military need to be avoided as much as possible.  Lives and the reputation of our country depend on it.  People do not think the same when they expect to die or their life is threatened over a long period of time.  They end up doing things they would not normally do.  Things that they would latter regret.

lostsociety
lostsociety

What this man says is true. The military is just following the rest of our countries downward curve in it's push that anything goes and if you do not agree, promote and join in, you are ostracized as a bigot!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,122 other followers