I have been on foreign soil in combat with women. I have seen a young man hunker down and cry when a young woman was brave enough to fire her weapon on the enemy.
If a young woman can perform on the combat Field as well as any man, then I welcome her.
Lastly:
An all female company would not have those problems, but how will an all female company fare against an all male enemy on the battlefield? And what happens when they're captured by the enemy? What happens in the news if their platoon are all slaughtered and pictures get out? What if their bodies are mutilated and hung from a bridge? What happens when we have hundreds of women coming home missing arms and legs?
equality people... if they prove themselves...then so be it. Js
They are FAR from short on personnel. Since midway through 09 they have been increasingly reducing forces and raising entrance standards.I'd still kind of like to send the politicians in FIRST, then the men and women. --But it's a volunteer force; if women want to be in combat and can pass the *same* tests as men, send 'em in. The .mil is short on personnel anyway.
But I don't think it's practical to have different physical standards for men and women who will serve in combat -- the tasks they have to do are the same.
I think I'd prefer hear from the men who have been in the places politicians want to put women rather than from the politicians who want to put them there.
For all the studies, all the research, all the speculation, nobody has any authority to talk about what it will be like in those situations to have women there other than the men who have been in those situations.
Politicians, civilians, and POGs (like me), would be best served to let the grunts tell us what works for them and what doesn't.
The Commandant of the Marine Corps said some occupations may ultimately remain closed if only a small number [of females are able to] qualify.
The Marines will not lower physical standards for certain specialties, Gen. James Amos told USA TODAY. "We can't afford to lower standards," he said. "We can't make adjustments on what's required on the battlefield.
First thought:
There was a shocking report recently about how many (non-combatant) females have being raped in the military. So it makes me wonder, now that they have approved women on the front lines, what will happen to those numbers?
Secondly:
I cannot help but think this will cause big distractions. How do you keep dozens of young men far from home, under the most stressful situations in their lives--who are peeing in a ditch--focused on their jobs, when there are women sleeping near them? It seems like a perfect storm for sex, pregnancy, fighting over the girl, depression from being dumped by the girl, jealousy, showing off, overprotective behavior focused on the female, and just too much drama overall.
The women had less disciplinary problems than the men. In administrative jobs, they were at least equal to men. But most could not carry their load physically – loading litters in choppers, carrying wounded to safety, even lifting tool chests. As a result the men covered for them, often causing us to use two people when one should have done the job – all of which effected readiness. They were not good in the field and became less functional when issues of hygiene, and feminine hygiene, literally knocked them out and we had to jerry-rig showers, wasting valuable time.
All in all, the women pose an insane burden on readiness.
My conclusion, which I passed to my division commander at his request, was that I would not want females with me working the battlefield let alone in direct combat. I told him I would not want my daughters in a unit of half women going bayonet to bayonet with an enemy unit 100 percent men. Those comments almost cost me my career because my immediate superior disagreed, which may explain some of the obsequiousness and cowering of military leaders today on this issue….
Did you read your link? According to it, less than half of the TSS cases are associated with menstrual bleeding?
Besides, they have this new-fangled thing called birth control that mimics the body's hormones during pregnancy, so women don't have to menstruate at all.