71 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
differnet says:
Oh yeah, and the comments from men who complain that women can't cut it are from guys who just don't want their boys club disturbed. They can't handle the fact that the world has changed on them and that women are earning more and holding jobs in authority over them today. I get it that it's hard having all your assumptions about life turned upside down. But the 21st century is here. We don't march 100 miles into combat. We take armoured vehicles and blackhawks into combat. We insert and then are extracted. When we do walk on patrol, you have no idea when you'll come under attack, but even then you aren't walking hundreds of miles. The truth is that there hasn't been a front line in 8 years. Women in combat is a reality and boys clubs have to give way for us as a country to fight effectively. So, you have 2 choices. Either give up the boys club or surrender to the enemy.
reply
formrusmcsgt replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
You've obviously spent all your time at N.O.W. rallies and have never seen a day of combat in your life.
differnet replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
formerusmcsgt... I see the boys club contingent tries to wrap itself up in only men serve in combat. Yeah, right. Well, look hun - it's good you're FORMER because you are a dinosaur. Your way of thinking is long gone in the military. Men like you aren't making policy, you are out to pasture.
formrusmcsgt replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
The differences between men and women did not begin nor will they end with your generation.

Men and women are different, whether you choose to accept the fact or not - I could really care less.

Insult and call names like a child because that's all you have in your quiver.....

Yeah...you're real capapable of ultimate emotional control in combat when it counts and can't even control yourself here....what a joke.
formrusmcsgt replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
formerusmcsgt... Men like you aren't making policy, you are out to pasture. - by differnet August 16, 2009 8:33 AM EDT

And the policy is what?

No women in combat.

And my position is what?

No women in combat.

Yeah....men like me sure aren't making policy.....

What a twit.
daffy64 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Haha. So the army is now a cakewalk? "WE don't march 100 miles into combat." But, er, shouldn't you be ABLE to? Seeing as you all male enemy is?

Try climbing a mountain in Afghanistan. Try patrolling the in heat in Iraq with a 100 pound load.

Yes, Ms. Grrrrrlpower, you know absolutely nothing about this (obviously. But keep living you feminist dream in an air conditioned room where women and men are the same, but with slightly different clothes.
bendg08 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Anyone who thinks that technology will solve problems hasn't read their history. If women need to depend on technology then they will fail. Women haven't done well in the history of warfare. We already know the answer to how well women will do in "direct combat." They don't do well at all. The Russians tried it, the Chinese tried it and the Israelis tried it. They stopped that experiment. As far as a war without borders. That's not a new thing. Anyone who says that this is a war that we've never seen before doesn't know what they are talking about. We have seen this type of fighting in every war ever fought. On a large scale! Just because women are in the same theater of battle as men doesn't mean that they fight the same fight. They used to call it indirect combat. Political correctness has homogenized this idea. Big mistake. I soldier knocking down doors in a small village and getting into hand to hand combat is a lot different than a woman who gets shot at in her armored personnel carrier. Remember our technology is greater than theirs. Bullets bounce off armored vehicles. But our technology won't solve our problems. It only means that that we will kill more of them then they of us. Technology won't win wars and it won't make us bullet proof. Technology as we can see throughout history just kills more people and prolongs conflicts. The enemy adapts. In the end it comes down to physical ability.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
formrusmcsgt says:
I would never wish to serve in a combat unit alongside women.

Men are warriors by nature and can hump half their body weight in gear all day long. And that's what is often required in combat.

The same can not be said for women.

Leave them in support roles.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
artorus says:
It's time to move past this chauvinist bs. The argument that women aren't as strong may have held some sway back when we were using swords but it doesn't take much strength to aim a rifle. Besides, some women are stronger than others. It should be judged on an individual basis instead of broad generalizations. It's time to step out of the past.
reply
daffy64 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Nonsense. It's not "chauvinist" to point out the physical differences between men and women. It's biology.

And you have to do a lot more in combat than "aim a rifle". In fact, a modern soldier carries as much extra weight (about 70 lbs.) as a medieval knight. Women are at a distinct disadvantage in anaerobic ability, strenth, endurance, and speed. Some women ARE stronger than others. But the overlap between the strongest women and the weakest men is very small. Men have an endless supply of a performance enhancing drug. It's called testosterone.

I am a martial artist and have sparred with many women. Even ones that are far more advanced than me (and I'm an average sized man) seem slow, weak, and non-agressive.

Not to mention women are at a huge risk for sexual abuse and torture when captured or wounded by the enemy and can become pregnant.

Of course, in the modern, air conditioned, nice smelling world that you inhabit, men and women are equals.

Pass the low calorie sweetener.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
differnet says:
Uh, people, WOMEN ARE ALREADY IN COMBAT. Maybe you missed it, but the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan do not have a traditional front line and as a result women are in combat. Their commanders and their fellow soldiers have found them to be quite capable. Yes, male soldiers get a bit more torn up about the women, but they want them there. We've had two women earn the Silver Star and many others win other medals for valor. It's happening and all the whining about it isn't going to change it.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
SitemanGuido says:
Depending on their physical stature, and strength, I support women on the front lines. They need to be able to physically handle the challenges that all front line troops face. Their presence should not endanger their fellow troops. Mentally and emotionally, I believe the women can hold up.
Regarding alimony, the time for it to end is long past. It is a state imposed form of slavery. The payor lives under incredible stress and threat of jail for non compliance, often for a lifetime. The receipient, OFTEN does not accept responsibiity for being a full fledged member of society....they are in a sense developmentally behind their peers.....always looking for the handout. When the alimony ends due to grand payoff, or death of payor, a payee is now unequipped to deal with life....they have lost valuable time to adjust while they were able. The divorce lawyer's fight to retain alimony laws because it fuels their practices, Most divorces are filed by women...upwards to 89%,.....the number would likely drop if no alimony were available.....somehow they would work harder to improve their marriages rather than run to the lawyer for the easier way out. Remember: Alimony = Slavery -and- it's continued existence is the life source of the family law/divorce law sub speciality in law practices.
reply
toldyouso29 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
What has alimony to do with combat in the military? That said, alimony is the price men pay for sticking their rods in stuff without thinking, making babies and then thinking they have no responsibilities later--the fact is alimony is to prevent the caregiver from supposedly using child support for basic needs and thereby depriving their kids. There'd be a lot less single parents and less children and a need for alimony if men had to PAY for sexxx every single time they had some. Men forget the net result of the nut is a potential child with whomever they happened to stupidly get involved with and it is RARELY the man's choice in whether a woman gets preggers or not. I taught my sons to consider the genetic contribution of any female they want to boink and to ask themselves would they want to combine with the woman to produce a child? Not just looks, but emotional, intellectual capabilities--because the fact is AFTER the child is here, married or not, the woman is responsible for that life. If she is an airhead, gorgeous or not--she will be an airhead with the life of your kids in her hands. If she is a hot momma--she will be "hot" and will have men in and out of her bed and her kid's lives indiscriminately doing god knows what to both her and her kids (think molestation or abuse) So there is a lot of responsibility that comes with poking that rod into unknown holes EVERY SINGLE TIME. And if you marry that hole--as a rule, because women earn much less than men--YOU have to face a fact--if most women had to depend on their sex to earn a living they'd starve and if most men did not have money and power as a bargaining tool to get a woman they'd never get any. Sex and marriage and sex and money are inextricably linked. LIke we have legal drugs and illegal drugs--we have legal sex for money and illegal sex for money--but money it to get stuff (the main one being sex) and sex is to get money. Most women --snobby or not parlay their attributes into money making ventures--from beauty pageants to talk show hosts to mistress or wives, it is all about owning that "hole" and men wanting to be the envy of others. If you don't like it, get yourself some corn oil and lots of latex gloves or a rubber doll and leave real women alone, because if you want to poke it you will pay for it, in some way and when you decide to leave it, the laws that be say you will still pay for it--the woman has to be compensated for you removing her money maker from commission all of those years, because while she was out of service and only serving you--she missed hella-opportunities to use her money maker to get even more money. LOL Stop whining, you KNEW men paid one way or another before you married her. Men have been complaining of alimony since divorces became acceptable. As for staying and working on a marriage--that takes two--what the blank did you do or not do that made the woman want to leave you in the first place? why should she stay if you are not handling your business? Four things that can definitely kill a marriage:

1. Boredom (intellectually, emotionally as well as physical boredom)
2. Lack of money/ambition (she is only there for what YOU can provide)
3. cheating
4. abuse

Face it, if you go into marriage with romantic blinders on, then you fail to see the PARTNERSHIP. It usually means that the man provides the bulk of the income, the woman makes a home, has babies and gives the husband continual access to her honey pot as well as try to look good so that he can be admired for his choice.

Not that it always works out that way--but there it is. Now, like most business PARTNERSHIPS when the business fails, there has to be a buyout--the more money in the business (marriage) the larger the buyout and if you don't like that--stop getting business partners who have contracts with you (marriage license) and stop thinking that women do not know the score. Most do. They have a limited amount of years to capitalize on their looks, their bodies and their prowess and for those who think brains is all there is--don't lie--look at Sarah Palin. If she looked like Margaret Thatcher or Hilary Clinton, there'd be no interest in her anymore. It is the sex, stupid. It always is, it always was and because it is the sex, we pay our sexy actresses, models, talk show hosts and airhead politicians, more than we pay most smart woman. Man up dude. You bought into the "Partnership" now that is dissolving, you have to buy the other partner out--the one with the "mostest" pays. Stop whining.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
longtree-2009 says:
females should be, and be required to be, in combat. females qualify for vet benefits, promotions to the highest rank within any branch of the military just like males. but the difference is females are considered special and not placed in combat. females should serve just like males, anywhere, anyplace, anytime.
reply
idcabouturproblems replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
correct
linkicon reporticon emailicon
paddyhayes says:
If the physical requirements were based on the demands of their MOS, many men would not qualify.

I'm all for this, so long as there is not a separate standard of physical fitness for men and women -- by MOS.

For AG personnel who are in the rear with the beer and the gear, make the PT test have some event like the typewriter lift.

For Engineers, let them hump a 40lb ruck full of C4 on top of their other combat gear for 10 miles in some specified amount of time.

Those who can pass their specific test, male or female, keep their MOS.

For all you "men only" folks, that means a lot of men would be away from the front line and a lot of women would be right up there in the mix. The whole "the men would have to help the women" argument is absolute BS.

I spent 23 years in the Army. I encountered a lot of women who were more fit to be Combat Engineers than some of the skinny little sniveling "mama's boys" I had to deal with.
reply
paddyhayes replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
... and keep in mind that the whole notion of "front line" has become somewhat archaic anyway ...
linkicon reporticon emailicon
voxpopulus says:
If they are in the military they should be full participants. Don't just talk the talk, walk the walk,
reply
differnet replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Read the story, women are walking the walk. It's here and has already happened.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
barbaram99 says:
Women wan't combat duty. I think it is sad. I don't have problem with the ladies on ship and flying artcraft. I do if on the front linrs. It is true we are not as strong as men. Men should fight men. Women service do the duties that free the men to do combat. Not every woman is able to fight as the men do. Women are not built for combat. Some jobs they can. As a rule there are issues that women have that men don't. If women wish to serve they should. If she is in combat than she will have to kill. I want to thank the vets. I could never serve. Yet I do think them. There are persons that are handicapped that can't serve. They should not. My late Dad was a vet. I am 54. Should the ladies have combat duties. It is up to her and command. Men should first go there. I say support rolds. Sorry ladies. Blindniss from birth. I am for them on catbat ships and flying combat aircraft.
reply
differnet replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Too late, the front line dissappeared in assymetrical warfare. We are 8 years into that kind of war. Women ARE doing combat. Wake up. I know men want to pretend that its still the 1950s, but as the saying goes, "lead, follow or get out of the way." Your thinking is that of dinosuars.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
mav547166 says:
Few women are capable of carrying what the average male infantryman can. Even fewer are capable of carrying that average load for miles at a time and having a better than even chance of killing their enemy with bare hands just like the average male. That would make women a liability and a danger to her male counterparts when the chips were really down in direct ground combat. When the GI Joe super suits are reality women might find a spot with the grunts.
reply
3/4