bilde

Women in the Infantry: A common sense analysis

In its latest push to insert women into combat roles, the Marine Corps is instituting an experimental infantry unit composed of 25% women.  The proposed unit, which will mirror a scaled down Marine Air Ground Task Force, will be composed of 460 Marines, 120 of which will be women.  Marine leadership along with college researchers will spend months analyzing the experimental unit’s success in what will look a lot like a pre-deployment workup.  The goal is to find a “magic number” which will be the ideal ratio of males to females in a combat unit.  My question is this: Instead of expending time and limited resources on this “experiment”, why don’t we just apply some logic and common sense to this issue?

            I want to first address the issue of this “magic number”.  We know men are fit for combat right?  There’s no “magic number” for the amount of men needed for a combat effective unit.  I know that I can form a unit comprised of 100% men and it has the potential to be combat effective.  So if women really are fit for combat, shouldn’t I be able to make a unit composed of 100% women and have the potential for combat effectiveness?  If I’m trying to find a golden ratio of women in a unit before it’s no longer combat effective, aren’t I admitting from the start that having women in a unit will degrade its combat effectiveness?  If the goal of the military is still to fight and win wars, isn’t pushing women into combat units counterproductive to this goal?

The arguments against women in combat roles that get the most discussion center around the physiological differences between men and women, so let’s talk about that for a minute.  It’s hard to explain to the uninitiated the physical rigors of combat, so I’ll use sports as a parallel.  We separate genders in sports because we know that men are naturally bigger, stronger, and faster than women.  Sure, there are rare occasions when women find their way onto men’s sports teams at the high school, and even more rarely, at the collegiate level.  But what would happen if a high school boy wanted to play softball?  He’d be denied right?  Why would he be denied?  Well that’s easy.  He’d be denied because softball is a woman’s sport and the fact that he’s a man would give him a gross advantage over everyone else on the field.

 

When we look at the elite levels of sports, professional and Olympic, there are no examples of women competing with men.  I saw a lot of national pride when the US Men’s Hockey team defeated Russia in the winter Olympics.  We were proud because as a nation, we assembled the best we had in competition against a foreign adversary and came out victorious.  No one cared that there weren’t any women on the team because the stakes were high and we love to win.  In what sick and perverted parallel universe are we living, where we place more importance on winning sporting events than we do on winning battles?  If we lose an Olympic hockey game, another country gets bragging rights over us.  If we lose battles, Americans die. 

 

There’s a lot more to be said about the physiological differences between men and women, but I’m going to forgo those things because they’re not even the best argument against women in combat roles.  Surprised?  If so, it’s probably because you’ve never experienced combat.  Men in combat live like animals.  They spend months on end with no showers, no toilets, no electricity.  Every day they wake up to the reality of kill or be killed.  This intense hardship forges bonds of brotherhood that can’t be explained and can’t be replicated.  At times, the relationships these men have with their brothers in arms are quite literally the only thing they have to drive them forward.  So what happens to these men who are living at the basest levels of human existence and instinct, when you insert a woman into the fold?  What happens to those bonds of brotherhood?   Is it realistic to expect them to live and die by their animal instincts, but completely turn off the most powerful instinct that human beings possess?  When all the men in a unit are sex deprived they can turn that aggression and frustration towards more productive things like killing.

It sucks, but they’re all in it together and they have better things to worry about anyway.  Now what happens if one or two men in a platoon are in a sexual relationship with the women in the platoon?  Jealousy? Anger? Envy?  Spite?  Hate?  What does that do to the fabric of that platoon?  What does it do to the brotherhood?  Infantrymen are about as alpha as men get.  They love to kill and they love women.  When as a whole, a group of men like this is saying that they want to spend years at a time with no women, they’re saying it for a reason.

 

I want to end this discussion with a simple thought experiment.  I want you to picture the person you love most in the world.  Now I want you to picture that person bleeding to death in an Afghan poppy field.  You get to pick one of two people to rush into gunfire and pull them to safety.  You know nothing about the fitness level, courage level, or experience level of those two people.  All you get to know is that one is a man and one is a woman.  Which one do you choose to go after the person you love most?  Those people who are laying on Afghan poppy fields, bleeding to death.  Those are the people I love most.  Their lives are too important and too valuable to play social experiments and games with.

-Nocer


style=”display:inline-block;width:300px;height:250px”
data-ad-client=”ca-pub-5907245883257047″
data-ad-slot=”4171048816″>
//

Comments (670)

  1. I saw first hand what happens when Coalition Forces and friendly personnel were captured by the enemy. They would beat them, cut their heads off and display their corpses in the open. When a female would get captured, they would be gang raped and then receive the same treatment. Which is more psychologically devastating? How can we continue in war when we are brought up that women are to be protected, but continuously be exposed to watching them be tortured, raped, and murdered? Times have to change, but the standards for physicality have to be closer, because they will never be the same. The standards in Special Programs are all the same. Why don’t we change the way we do business and then allow women to be set up for success at the fundamental level instead of endangering them and the men they serve with? Remember that every war will be a war of public opinion.

    1. Literally hundreds of women are raped every day in America. To act like we’re concerned with that so much that we would keep them out of the military is absurd. A woman with a rifle and grenades seem like a less likely target than your prototypical (one who needs to be protected) woman at home. No one is protecting women by denying them equal opportunity, or by lowering the standards to make it "fair" for them.

    2. Literally hundreds of women are raped every day in America. To act like we’re concerned with that so much that we would keep them out of the military is absurd. A woman with a rifle and grenades seem like a less likely target than your prototypical (one who needs to be protected) woman at home. No one is protecting women by denying them equal opportunity, or by lowering the standards to make it "fair" for them.

    3. What if the women were given anti-rape condoms? It would be mainly for combat where there is a chance of capture, but it could also be used for the men who continue to rape women on their team. I know people think the anti-rape condom is "medieval" but so is war. It’s gross and brutal, so why not use them?

  2. Steven has obviously never been in combat! Unless you have been to a forward operating base oversees your educated idiotic comment has no validity. Sit behind a computer and pretend like you know the dynamics you speak about on the opinion you formed sitting in a college class taught by a liberal left wing nut.

    1. To say that the situation will never effect me is ignorant. I have a wife. I have a mother, a sister, a niece, and may one day have a daughter. I’m definitely not ignorant to the situation because the situation is not about averaging the strengths of men and women, it’s about inequality. I speak up because the idea that we’re protecting women by keeping them out implies that only a man is able to keep women safe, and that automatically subjugates them and lowers their social worth. For you to assume that because you defend your loved ones as a soldier and I defend my loved ones with my voice grants you some level of understanding of gender dynamics that I simply can’t grasp is ludicrous!

      1. If I or nearly any other man was in combat I know that we would do anything, including risking our lives meaninglessly, just to protect a woman. It’s ingrained in our being.

      2. Good. Now imagine those women scared and torn up in combat. Because that is what you are advocating.

      3. You make a valid point that the threat of women being raped is an incredibly weak argument to stand on. One which the author did not use. You bring up inequality for allowing to serve in combat. Women are physically unequal to men. #fact I would say there is a place for women in combative roles ie pilots but the infantry is not one of them. If for no other reason then the culture of the infantry. Which is to Kill plain and simple. Instead of trying tro figure out how to put more people into combat for the sake of equality. How about we figure out a better foreign policy

  3. Lets talk about a serious issue. How many veterans on here had a mascot dildo in their unit? Well I know I sure did, and I thought that it was awesome. It was a massive double headed monster that brought laughter and joy to the entire platoon. I know that sounds gay but. Yea it is pretty gay. Regardless. When women start showing up, we will be forced to disband our mascot dildos, and morale will drop to an all time low. Let’s think about this people

  4. There are a lot of reasons why the country needs to take a different approach to this problem set but yours just isn’t it- there are females getting blown up with IEDs, kicking in doors on raids, and living in shitty COP conditions, just like dudes, for the last 12 years. And although I agree with you completely on the notion of non-related relationships impacting the mission, the answer is to come up with solutions (like all female PLTS, etc), not intimate that if you had females in your unit the bond would be any less stronger or important. Its an insult. And if you want to stay in military I suggest you grow up a little because someday that person coming to give you buddy aid after contact, might be a chick. If you want her to care for you like your "brothers" you damn well ought to treat her like one.

  5. I find this column to be very weak. I will admit, I have my reservations about women being in the infantry, mostly based on the biological reasons (i.e. not built to hold as much muscle as men). However, throwing in other arguments like sexuality and brotherhood…weak. That’s an argument made from a system of oppression. If a few women beat out men with training standards and etc, then I say let them serve their country how they please. However, I do not think standards should be bent or relaxed just to let women in the military.

  6. Has anyone worked with Canadian, New Zealand, or Australian female operators? If so, Id be interested to know how that worked out.

    1. There isn’t any. Recently, we have just allowed a women to attempt SF selection. She could do the run, the heaves, the chin-ups etc, however, she struggles with carrying 50 kg pack, that was coming from a currently serving member. As well as this, On one of my tours in Afghanistan we had a female engagement team that we had to take out on a patrol. So the do-gooders could legitimise women can do combat roles. A little insight, we chose a simple drive up to a FOB and back. It was a bullshit patrol, however, it was enforced by the higher chain of command. The women also had to man the weapons. After the PR photos were taken, we commenced the patrol. We were just coming out of winter, and after a short time in the patrol, maybe 1or 2 km up the road, all the women wanted to come down from behind the weapons…. All the women….they all said it was too cold. Like I said, it was a bullshit patrol. However, the problem now, is because of this PR stunt, the politicians seem to think that women can do the job the same as men.

  7. What a well written piece. I will always believe if women want to be in combat they need to have their own unit. A 100% female unit.

  8. The Yo Yo man about 3 hours ago No but my grandfather who fought and damn near gave his life in Korea seems to think that they belong. So does his son who was a captain in the army during the 80’s. BTW my grandfather was "a malnourished 130lb skeleton" (his words) and managed to be able to carry his stuff himself and perform the tasks of a good soldier.I also wasn’t comparing men to women I was using the fact that if a 10 year old boy can fight on the front lines and help win a bloody African civil war against grown men. Its logical to think that a well fed adult female could do the same.Also, I would like your thought on how and why they can serve in combat roles in Israel, Canada, all of Scandinavia, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Poland, & Romania. Funny thing about most of these countries is that they pretty much all helped us in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, thoughts?In regards to your women in combat positions in Australia, unfortunately you are wrong. Women in Australia do not serve in combat roles.On one of my tours in Afghanistan we had a female engagement team that we had to take out on a patrol. So the do-gooders could legitimise women can do combat roles. A little insight, we chose a simple drive up to a FOB and back. It was a bullshit patrol, however, it was enforced by the higher chain of command. The women also had to man the weapons. After the PR photos were taken, we commenced the patrol. We were just coming out of winter, and after a short time in the patrol, maybe 1or 2 km up the road, all the women wanted to come down from behind the weapons…. All the women….they all said it was too cold. Like I said, it was a bullshit patrol. However, the problem now, is because of this PR stunt, the politicians seem to think that women can do the job the same as men. I’ve read a few comments, the sex thing will always get in the way. Boy likes girl and girl likes boy. You can’t stop nature/lust, whatever you want to call it. Another point, if you tell a team of guys, or any man, that he’s fighting a woman, then I’ve already won that battle in my head. I’m naturally more stronger and aggressive. You can’t argue thousands of years….it just is. Recently, we have just allowed a women to attempt SF selection. She could do the run, the heaves, the chin-ups etc, however, she struggles with carrying 50 kg pack. She is just not physically capable of carrying that weight. Be happy with being a women. Be happy you don’t have to shit next to your mate. Be happy you don’t have to piss your pants when your in an ambush. Embrace being a women. Embrace being able to give birth to children. Embrace being different.A good mate of mine, his grandfather fought the Russians in WW2, yes he was SS. He fought battalions of Russian women. He didn’t know until he was fighting hand to hand that they were women. And his words…he caved in so many faces of the Russian women attacking. He explained that he and his mates were never going to get beat by women. Right or wrong as that sounds, it’s how men are. Combat is not pretty, and death is ugly. Why the hell do women want to be part of that.

    1. That’s a pretty sexist remark that they should be happy being a woman. (Be happy with gender inequality.)The biggest problem with women in the military = They don’t fit into our preconceived notion of "femininity" and are either lesbian or too independent or strong to control, both of which are absolutely terrifying.

      1. Steven stop being such a omg this may offend some people omg its terrible omg political correctness omg. You are someone who will never know battle and you still insist to push your oh god gender inequality. Death is no stupid fucking political correctness game.

  9. Steven.. You were making sense up until that last part.. Please explain how women being smarter converts to them also being physically stronger? If anything the only thing you truly pointed out just then is that women are clearly more suited for Army office jobs? no hate.

    1. It doesn’t make them stronger. I implied that intelligent soldiers are better soldiers. Let me be clear. There is always going to be more men than women in combat as the law of averages will dictate. Biologically, men have evolved to be stronger on average. That doesn’t preclude a woman from being as strong if not stronger than many men.That being said, not only will we not win wars, we’ll lose many of them if we value strength over intelligence 100% of the time on the front lines.

      1. A soldier needs only a certain level of intelligence to be an effective soldier in a unit. They need to be able to follow orders, not do trigonometry. You ensure that the male leadership is smart and they can give orders to the Privates. Though in order to be respected by enlisted soldiers, leaders have to prove that they are as strong as if not stronger than the soldiers they command.Yes, Evolution has precluded women from being naturally as strong as or stronger than a man.

  10. So basically women shouldn’t go into combat because of men and their "brotherhood"? … -.- men can bond with women, i’ve seen it it’s not hard. the more we get sexism and all of that shit out of the way the better the world will be like seriously… grow up.

    1. Getting shot at and having to carry people who aren’t on the same standard as you is what gets people killed. Introducing women adds a lot more variety of stresses and dynamics within a group. Men can bond with women, yes. Most of my friends are female. I would rather have a male with me in a firefight, and I’d rather be a little bit sexist than dead. Why complicate something that’s already proven and effective? It’s only going to get more people killed.

    2. So basically you don’t care if people die because you would prefer everyone to grow up. The op presents the one idea that is all he needed, full unit of only women. If it doesn’t work than any mix of men and women would not work.

    3. Yes, when everyone is equal the world will be a perfect place….. and the unicorns will fly down on a rainbow and everyone will high on love. Give me a break this isn’t about sexism it’s about lives. As one poster said above war isn’t fair and I wasn’t willing to gamble my life because someone with a vagina wants to pout in the corner because they can’t play with the boys.

  11. I guess I’m sitting in an odd spot as a reader – is there anyone else that doesn’t necessarily have an issue with the "men are stronger than women" argument, but DOES take issue with the wording/reasoning of the article itself? I don’t disagree with the presented argument at its core 100% (but I do have a couple questions), but I just take issue with the article as a piece of literature. So I find it offensive…but not for the reasons everyone else seems to?I’m a young woman, I’ve never been in combat, I’m not going to pretend I know anything about it. My dad served in Desert Storm, but he was Air Force, so again…I’m not going to pretend I know anything about anything. So I’m just going to approach this with a list of thoughts/questions…-I don’t really get the sports analogy. I understand the attempted point, but it seemed irrelevant in its execution. Girls aren’t on male sports teams in high school and college…because there are boys teams and girls teams. It isn’t because schools go into their recruitment with co-ed teams in mind with fair tryouts for males and females and everyone gets accepted or rejected based on ability alone. It’s because there are segregated teams and that’s the way it has always been, at least, since women have been allowed to play. Also, "softball is a woman’s sport and the fact that he’s a man would give him a gross advantage over everyone else on the field." I just found that humorous and it’s probably a direct product of where I was raised, but that just isn’t a true statement, haha. And we continue into the Olympic example…I guess Americans just aren’t excited when our female athletes win? It’s only when our males win that we’re proud to be an American? We definitely like to win – but I wasn’t aware that the definition of victory changed depending on gender?–"In what sick and perverted parallel universe are we living, where we place more importance on winning sporting events than we do on winning battles?" This is an appeal to emotion it seems like…but even if it isn’t, where is this point implied? If anything, America has a reputation for obnoxious patriotism and sticking our nose in affairs that don’t concern us because ‘Merica. Just because we’re happy for our Olympic athletes, all the sudden we could care less about losing lives in battle? Where is the correlation there?-I seem to take the opposite view as some in that I think women could definitely handle the emotional, "living like animals" thing, whereas I completely AGREE with the idea that physically, a woman might not be up to scratch. Mentally, women are strong. Women can handle a lot of nasty things, a lot of pain, both physical and mental. We are protectors of our families, we grit our teeth and step up to the plate when the people we love are sick or wounded or in need of "maternal" attention. When people think maternal, they often think soft, fuzzy, lovable, protective, yes – but that also translates to the fierceness of the "mama bear" mindset. A woman can handle dirt and blood and sadness and hardship – but maybe she can’t physically, literally carry the load she needs to. I agree with that.-As far as sex goes…that’s another rant for another time, but I will say that I’m a big fan of the "control yourself" bandwagon. And I didn’t used to be necessarily; I thought blame was equal or maybe even sat on the women that dressed like hookers and contributed to the problem. But in my working experience, just one example: I was a waitress. Every day to work I deliberately, intentionally wore boots, loose jeans, and loose, long-sleeved, high-necked shirts, because unfortunately I EXPECTED a little trouble. And yet, I still dealt with some appalling behavior from men. If I’ve done everything I can do and people can still find room to sexualize me, it is not ME that has a problem. It is not MY fault that nearly every part of the female body is sexualized, from knees to necks to shoulders. Should I walk around in layers with every inch of skin covered because people can’t control themselves? Next are you going to tell me to cover my face because my eyes do it for you? Are you going to tell me to wear a medical mask because my mouth makes you think about blowjobs? I’m not a slut for wearing appropriate shorts. You shouldn’t see an inch or two past my knees and lose control of yourself. And for that matter, it’s okay for ripped guys to run around with the guns out with no criticism? Oh, maybe they get no criticism because I, as a woman, can control myself. And don’t even try to tell me women aren’t physical creatures, bull. I stare way too long and think inappropriate thoughts too – but it doesn’t keep me from performing basic everyday tasks. Self-control.-And for that matter, "When all the men in a unit are sex deprived they can turn that aggression and frustration towards more productive things like killing." Yeah, well, why can’t women do that too? If everyone would control themselves, we’d all be sex-deprived…together.-"Infantrymen are about as alpha as men get. The love to kill and they love women."If you’re going to write an article about women and how they can’t do things that men can and they don’t need to be in infantry positions, I can’t think of a worse way to approach it than this quote. You’d think in an article concerning women, you’d want to be as sensitive as possible considering your entire argument is that women are too sensitive to be involved – and yet we continue to treat them like this. This is like talking about a woman to all of your buddies in front of her like she isn’t even there. "Alpha as men get"? "they love to kill and they love women"? It sounds exactly like something Stephen Colbert would say, and he’s a brilliant SATIRIST. Who just admits they love to kill things and they love women? "I like killing and I like sex, but I don’t like my women to get in the way of my killing. I like to kill things, and then come home to a woman I love to have sex with, because I can’t control myself otherwise." Moreover this degrades men too, it paints them as animals that only exist to kill and have sex. I don’t think of men that way; well, I don’t want to, but if you just openly admit it…And it also assumes that there are no homosexuals in the military – both men and women. This is yet another proponent of the ‘Merica vibe going on here. Regardless of anyone’s views on homosexuality, it is a law that you are allowed in the military despite your sexual orientation and that is completely ignored here.-And as for that last "thought", the bleeding people in the poppy field, it wouldn’t matter who you picked because you know nothing about either of them! He’s assuming you’d pick the man simply because it’s a man and he thinks he has you trapped there, but he just admitted that you know nothing about the abilities of either of them, so there is literally no logical advantage to picking the man over the woman except that he assumes everyone will think men are better than women in this aspect. What if the man is paraplegic? What if the man is injured himself? What if the man just simply isn’t very strong, or is very small? What if the woman is an experienced medic? The scenario doesn’t even make sense. He just thinks you’ll assume in your head that the man is big and fit and brave like all men are "supposed" to be and you’ll pick him over the tiny, frail, meek woman. He ends with another appeal to emotion – "Their lives are too important and too valuable to play social experiments and games with." He’s speaking of the very beginning, the point of the article – the research done with the "magic number" ratio of men and women. But by giving us this stupid "thought experiment" to end with is he not doing the same thing?

    1. So instead of addressing the core of the article’s argument you feel the need to share 1. how it makes you feel, 2. your stylistic concerns, and then 3. a series of non-sequiturs?Exactly what the Infantry doesn’t need.

  12. I don’t entirely disagree with the author’s point, but, he makes it sound like every infantryman is straight. There are lots of stories of man on man sexual assault, for example, so I think that supports the notion that women would solely be responsible for men succumbing to their most powerful drive. That has happened even if women are not present.

  13. steven you talk about equality just as ignorantly as you do IQ testing and standardized testing. Intelligence is to hard to scale. That is why a farmer in Iraq may not be able to read but he can grow food in a place where you, with all you " educated " ignorance would die before you have the chance to learn how. As a marine and combat vet myself, I can tell you I would not want a woman next to me in combat. I wouldn’t want most American man boys next to me either. There is a good reason why military training and standers are so high a specially in the good old green weenie. It is to weed out the weak ( that goes for the heart and mind as well ) steven I want you to sit back and enjoy the fact that omega’s like you can even live because of ALPHA’s like my brothers and me. As for the rest of the people that have never served and even more so never been in combat ( not just to Iraq or Afgan ) please keep talking about shit you know nothing about. Oh one last thing for the omega steven. Yes Israel has female combat units but they are not front line units. You also didn’t explain how women by the authors logic are better in combat. Because they are smarter what is smarter?

    1. To start, smarter is knowing that your post is riddled with spelling errors, factual errors, and just plain stupid (beta…. you want to call me a beta, not an omega). Thank you for your combat service. Perhaps that field of of operation is more suited for your skillset than a computer.

  14. Truly, the article is dead-on. I was one of those chicks who always wanted to outdo the guys, be tougher & be at the front lines. In my non-combat arms Army branch, I definitely got close to the action & danger. To say it’s awkward trying to find a place to pee & clean & have a monthly "occurrence" without being constantly watched is an understatement (I truly appreciate a good poncho). Men who come out of the closet in combat/combat arms units have found themselves sodomized. Women had to always have a battle buddy system to protect against rape on deployments.The Army asked me to fill out a survey on what I thought of women in special forces and despite what I thought at the beginning of my career, I have definitely changed my position. If women are to be put in combat, they need to be exclusively female units. Not coed. I can still hold my own in combatives (1 guy told me I was "too violent" – I thought that was the idea) & certainly more fit than many "average" guys & am a more accurate marksman than the majority (competitive shooter), but these guys are real athletes (yes, comparing them to the Olympics is an accurate comparison). Women will hold the team back – physically. In much the same way that men hold women back mentally & emotionally (who will win in a game of multi-tasking & understanding a situation from more than 1 perspective?) Men & women are different on so many levels, no sex change operation or chemical supplementation (ie. estrogen or testosterone) can truly change these things. We each have our own strengths & weaknesses. There are roles in the Military for each which can best capitalize on their respective strengths. Combat may work fine for females – but they can be a "Band of Sisters" & stay separate from the males.By the way, skin color/ethnicity is not a factor. The muscular & chemical makeup – overall physiology – boils down to gender differences. Change color & distinguishing facial features & men will be the same, no matter their heritage. Same with women. Put 2 men of any color or 2 women of any color together, you will never make another human being. Put 1 male & 1 female of any background & you will have fertile offspring. Ethnicity & gender can never be grouped together in the same argument.

  15. I see people posting on this and by reading it I assume that most have never picked up a rifle and buddy rushed under fire. That being said I will lead off with I have a Marine Infantryman for the past 11 years with 6 combat tours under my belt. So when I speak it is from experience, Men are stronger faster and quicker than women period. Are there some women who are stronger than some men? Yes. Will the strongest or fastest woman ever be stronger or faster than the strongest/fastest man? No. Are there a handful of women who could hack the Infantry? Yes. But lets be real people will the military open an MOS to women and then not have any make it in? No. They will come up with some retarded quota system and lower the standards or have dual standards because dumb fucks will be like it’s too hard for women but you have to let them in cuz it’s fair. WAKE THE FUCK UP WAR AINT FAIR and that’s what it is about people war and killing the enemy’s of this country. I’m tired of this debate lets look at IOC for the Marine Corps. A bunch of women have tried to it only one made it past the first fucking day and that one dropped for an injury within two weeks. Which leads to another point biologically men’s bones and tendons etc are stronger and can take the pounding even then we are broken by the time we hit our retirement. Let women in the Infantry and you will see a spike in medical discharges which the government will have to pay for all for a fucking social experiment. Why? Are we running out of guys to do the job? NOPE the military is downsizing as it is. Why pay more money for shit we don’t need and it wont work anyway?

  16. I am a woman and I couldn’t agree more. While I agree with the argument that there are plenty of physically/mentally competent women (and let’s face it, a little manly) that could probably handle the intense physicality and poor living conditions of combat, the dynamics between infantrymen is the most important factor to consider in this whole argument. My man, is currently a deployed marine and although I don’t claim to know the inner dynamics that form the bonds of brotherhood on the battle field, I know how they treat each other, how they speak to each other, and how incredibly different those interactions would be if women were added to the equation. Those interactions shape how these men perceive their fellow comrades as teammates and brothers. It makes them more protective, cohesive, hardworking, and more successful in high pressure situations. To be blunt, adding women to a platoon would not only weaken its physical capability, but it would weaken the ties between the men. And if you can accept damaging platoon dynamics, ties of brotherhood, and creating weakness in the most important combat element in U.S., then frankly you don’t have the troops best interest at heart and probably shouldn’t be asserting your opinion.And lastly, as girlfriends and wives I don’t think any of us worry about the ridiculousness of sexual interactions on deployment, especially in strong/mature relationships. What we worry about is our men coming home safe. I find it hard to imagine any situation where I would prefer his life to be in the hands of a woman in his platoon over a man.

  17. The day female’s PFT is the same as the male’s PFT, hair regulations are the same, then we can talk about females being competent enough to fight wars alongside men. Other than that, stay in the US, support us by doing your job at IPAC, stop messing up our damn pay, and if you get deployed, stay your asses at camp leatherneck and enjoy the good meal you deserve for supporting the dogs of war.

  18. This article does not add all the points. All men are not combat ready and comprising a team of 100 men does not necessarily mean they are all good and fit for combat. There are women who want to fight and are just as physically fit as men. In any unit, infantry included, there are shammers and sh$@bags that have no business in the Army. For females that are like this, infantry is not for them. But for all those females that fight and make it through Civil Affairs, Female Engagement Teams and Special Missions selections, these will be your same fighting Soldier’s in a tactical unit. There are females that are running 12 minute two miles, doing 20-30 pullups, level 3 and 4 combatives certified and rucking with 50 lbs are more. Men get grouped as a whole as being strong which anyone in the military knows is not true just like grouping all females as weak is not true.

    1. Yeah but those women are the select few; also just remember all the women who want nothing to do with this will now get to do what every male 18 has to; Sign-up for selective service. If you are a women you probably have no idea what I am talking about…go ask a male he will tell you what it is; then when you hear what it is know that your darling daughter wearing pink ribbons in her pig-tails will get to do it too.

    2. I am a woman I am not an idiot so I know selective service. Since no one is being forced to sign this is not an issue. These select few as you state will be the ones signing up for infantry units. The problem will come with recruiters who will push through weak females into an infantry job for numbers instead of trying to find them a good fit. Is every women a good fit for infantry, of course not. But there are fatty horrible male soldiers in these units as well. The female who really wants to do infantry is the female that is physically and mentally strong and working hard to stay competitive with her male peers.

      1. I have the utmost respect for women that can and do make it through all the requirements from some of the military’s toughest and most demanding positions. Hell GI Jane was one of my favorite movies of its time because I did have so much respect for that character. BUT your physical capability argument is flawed. 20-30 pull ups? That’s a body weight exercise, unless you strap some weights to her waist it says nothing for her physical capabilities in combat. 12 minute 2 miles? That’s a good run time, but again it says nothing for her physical capabilities in a combat situation. Rucking with 50 lbs? Again, that’s great, it shows a high degree of muscular and cardiovascular endurance depending on how far and fast they move, but it is yet another SMALL portion the physical capabilities needed to perform in combat. All of these physical capabilities you mentioned can be performed by a fairly large number of women out there, but if you asked a group of women who can do all of those things to quickly drag a 210 lb man..and I say 210 because that is pretty average..with all of his gear on out of the line of fire how fast do you think they’re going to do it? Get the job done fast or 2 dead soldiers instead of 1 fast? Women can do incredibly amazing things, if women weren’t putting their skills to use behind the scenes of WW2 who knows how that would have turned out? The gentle touch of a female doctor and the genuine sense of care that I feel when under their needle is miles above any male doctor. Mentally speaking women can do things most men can’t, like multi tasking for example. I am really nervous for the women going into this experiment because I know how the infantry guys act. Hell my sister was in the 82nd Airborne, she was one of those women who could do anything her male counterparts could, but having experienced that kind of environment herself she would be the first person to object to this experiment.

  19. Good to see you’ve had bullets snapped over your head. Let’s not get into a pissing contest. However, my dick is bigger than your dick. The original paper was a bit out there in saying that men are deprived sex maniacs. However, you and I both know ( because you’ve explained you’ve been under fire) that when being deployed there is ample time back in the FOB to get up to bumping uglies. Of course during a TIC your not going to be thinking about sex. I think that that statement is fairly pathetic. However, like stated, back in base, plenty of time. I have worked with the Dutch before they withdrew, and I will say that they were unique in their attitude towards the Afghani. And also the way they took the fight to the insurgents. The documentary you watched is somewhat biased in your argument as you’d know ( because you’ve been under fire) that the CO is not in the teams, and the women CO will probably not decide to sleep with the cute private. I may also add, that the Dutch are extremely liberal in their Military process, in what you can and can’t do. From my understanding there is no drug testing. And I do know that a few. Dutch women got sent home for pregnancy, and also one was sent back for working as a "lady of the night" I don’t care.Your comment on physical standards. I will explain it this way. I have been involved with certain international and national sport teams wanting a "Military experience "for a few days. We ran these teams through various components, and all found it challenging. Granted none had Military experience, however, all were on the bones of their arse. Physically and mentally exhausted. These men are physically and mentally at the peak of their chosen sport. A few were world champions wining teams However, what enforced even more in my understanding is that infantry is an extremely hard punishing job, and any compromise is pure disgusting.

  20. What makes me laugh and pisses me off at the same time is when people who have never served in the infantry try and claim they know a better way to do my job. At this point people like this are arguing their opinion over my experience. Infantrymen don’t want women in our ranks. It has nothing to do with being sexist, and frankly put we shouldn’t be obligated to explain it. Whatever happened to the focus being on combat effectiveness and mission accomplishment? Why should we have to sacrifice our way of life so some feminist who’s stuck on her high horse can pat herself on the back and think she’s doing America good? Those in favor of this are also in favor of killing the infantry unit as we know it. End of story.

  21. The only reason they’re doing ratios is for appeasement. Separating schools into black-only and white-only didn’t last because we realized (finally!) that black people are perfectly equal to white people. However, when it comes to men vs. women, you HAVE to integrate them. A great point was made about the natural sex drive. I foresee a lot of sexual harassment and assault if platoons are gender-mixed. However, then the question becomes: "What do we do with these all-female platoons?" We know the all-male platoons can get the job done just as well as females, if not more so. Would the females be there as back-up? Support? Would we send them in first? Another instinct to mention: Men have the prehistoric need to protect women at all costs. We might be able to ignore that to an extent, but if you were a male commander, and you had combat-ready male AND female units, and you had to send one platoon out on an extremely risky and inherently deadly mission, would you send the females first? If you do, you get flak from the public. If you don’t, you get flak from the females. Having females in the infantry is simply a lose-lose situation.

  22. Israel already tried this and it was an utter failure. A smart man learns from his mistakes, a wise man learns from other’s mistakes.

  23. This is simple: Women are not invited in the infantry. Your presence is offensive to the men. Men have feelings on the matter and their feelings are important. Women, imagine being forced to work with a habitual sexual harasser and then being told by your staff that "sexual harassers deserve tolerance and equality too." If a man tells an offensive joke EEO will define "offensive" as whatever a woman says is "offensive." That is the literal EEO training regs on harassment. Whatever she says is harassment is harassment. And women go off their rockers, depending on the time of month or what they had for dinner or how someone treated them on Facebook and will claim that calling them "Bossy" or some shit is "offensive." (wwwbanbossy.com for proof)Women are harassing men with their stupid demands to be in the infantry. Just go away. They don’t even go into the asset column as a POG- This is simple: Women are not invited in the infantry. You presence is offensive to them. It’s like being forced to work with a habitual sexual harasser and being told that sexual harassers deserve tolerance and equality. If a man tells an offensive joke EEO will define "offensive" as whatever a woman says is "offensive." That is the literal EEO training regs on harassment. Whatever she says is harassment is harassment.Women are harassing men with their stupid demands to be in the infantry. Just go away.As a POG NCO my females went right into the liability column. Whenever I was scheduling PT, work loads, car wash, you name it- I never ever put a female’s name down on my list. They don’t show up and when they do are not likely to put in effort. They’re just a total nuisance in the military, even in the freaking office.

  24. Do a few HEAT trainer roll-over drills with mixed genders. Women in full kit have a VERY difficult time pulling a man in full kit out of a vehicle, if they’re capable of doing it at all. Sorry, thee world isn’t fair. If it’s any consolation, I suck at making sammiches.

  25. What female joins the military to be left behind.. We all want our chance to prove we have what it takes! We didnt join to stand by and watch our brothers do the killing, we joined to stand right beside them !

  26. Great editorial. A lot has been said about this subject, yet you managed to inject a non-bias view into this, but rather you proceed to explain in a way that hopefully those other than the warrior mentality can understand. Although, I feel it would be lost among them. Only those who have to truly walked in that valley and know what it means to share that bond only a warrior can forge will truly understand. It is indicative of this new wave of equality that has brought this issue forward. The Israelis have tried it and found it didn’t work, and we have yet to learn. How much more will we sacrifice good men in order to appease the hunger of the liberalism mindset? How many more warriors must die in order to show them this is fruitless and dangerous?

  27. First off, great article. Second, I would like to offer my personal experience to this situation. I spent 13 years with the best artillery unit the Army has to offer, the 2/123. We, for a long time, were a male unit. We deployed to Iraq in 2005 serving multiple missions, including a tier 1 PSD. That experience was the best experience of my life. The brotherhood bond was strong, and we were deadly and dangerous adversary to any foe who crossed our path. We were 100% male. Fast forward to 2010. We start prep for another deployment, this time to Egypt. At this time, we had a few women in the ranks, and so far it wasn’t all bad. Some were even outperforming the men in similar jobs.We are in country now. Our year in Egypt was turning out to be an easy one (personally, I thought this deployment was a waste of time, but that is another conversation). Shortly after first boots on ground, my battery learns we are receiving a few more women into the ranks. No problem we thought. It was going to be a challenge, again we were a bunch of salty cannoncockers, but we’d manage.That’s when things started going south. In a hurry.The men were starting to forge relationships with the women, and men were getting jealous. Women were cheating, and therefore causing even more heartache and jealousy, further degrading our mission capability. Some of the relationships were great. In fact, one of them involving one of my mentors led to them getting married just last week, but that’s not the real point. The real point is that I am thankful that our unit wasn’t sent to Iraq again, or to that Afghan poppy field. Because while some were literally matches made in heaven, the bad ones were bad in the worst way. It put teammates at odds with each other. It put strain on very capable leadership that was unnecessary. We lost our focus.Not the 1SG, or CDR, or LTs, but the guys on the ground doing work. It was BS work, but work that needed to be done nonetheless. And it cost us our brotherhood. It was never the same until we got back stateside.If we were to be in a fight while all this wax going on, well, I don’t think I’d be standing here.

  28. This whole article is a thought experiment. The Marines are conducting a real experiment. If you’re right then their experiment will bear out that result. If you’re wrong, then we’ll see that instead. Why not just let them conduct the experiment?

    1. John, in the world of science what they are doing would not be considered an experiment. A single pass/fail attribute test with a total lack of control measures tells a scientist next to nothing. That being said, you when you have leadership at the highest levels of the DOD demanding that the "experiment" succeed, and you will have success. Think of it this way: if I gave you a stick and told you to measure it once and tell me if it was exactly 101.54mm and that if you didn’t find that it was exactly 101.54mm your career was likely over, what do you think you would measure.

    2. Because he can write an article expressing a logical argument that is his opinion. Also so you could ask stupid questions.

  29. I was literally having this exact same discussion with a female friend of mine not more than a week ago. Obviously she was arguing for women in combat roles, and I for women not in combat roles. I had tried to convey the points you make but my words came up short in explaining exactly what you have just stated. Excellently stated, great article, no non-sense point of view. Well done.

  30. Equal? Right now it’s very selective as to what equal looks like.Let’s FIRST open the draft up to our Country’s sisters and daughters and also do away with 2 standards for the APFT.Then we’ll talk about their combat effectivness.

  31. Absolutely agree. This is bringing pushed for political reasons and so Amos can say he did something.

  32. This is very well said. Hopefully the brass will get wind of this and realize that our lives are too vulnerable to be playing these games with.

  33. These are my thoughts exactly thank you for speaking out against this we may never get any one to see our point; however, it’s still worth fighting over if they bring women into the infantry why not make them 100% female units

  34. Wow,This is the most direct, well thought out argument against having women on the battlefield I have heard.

  35. My question is when are women going to have to register with the selective service. That will get the attention of American females everywhere.

  36. Being a woman I agree with everything he said. There are just certain places women don’t belong and in the infantry is one of them.

    1. To add to your point, which I agree with, I will say that I don’t believe a civilized country should send women into a war zone, something about that doesn’t sit well with me. My wife is a wonderful and fully capable person who is extremely strong physically and emotionally, why the heck would I want her to go through something like this whether she was capable or not. Seems… off. Sorry for rambling but a terrific article that has great comments.

  37. I am an Infantryman. I was a PSG on my last deployment and we had nine female medics attached to our Company for what I can only assume are political reasons. We lived on a Company level COP and had no showers or electricity for the first 8 months. So we had to take the females to the nearest FOB, 25 klicks away, twice a month so they could "clean up". They had there own private tent and private female time. When we did get showers at the 9th month, each man got 2 minutes of "Navy" shower time, whereas the females got 10 minutes of full water time. The senior female medic was having an affair with another PSG and he received a Letter of Reprimand. One got pregnant and a few slept with numerous guys.The unit that sent us the medics, sent their most physically fit females. Only one was able to even coming close to hanging with us on 20 klick movements through the mountains and high desert. We had to have many of them Casevac’ed back during our movements or after firefights.A very select few females may be able to physically hang, but psychologically… I don’t have time to comfort a woman crying in the middle of a firefight and physically drag her from one position to the next, while we are closing with the enemy.This experiment is ridiculous and will endanger Soldiers and Marines needlessly. The standards will be dropped to allow them to pass and furthermore, doing well on a PT test doesn’t mean you can climb to 13,500 feet and stay engaged in a firefight for several days. There are men that can’t do this. Every time I speak out against this, I am called sexist. I have seen what women can and can’t do in combat at the Infantry level. But hey let’s make everyone feel good, never mind the risk. You were right on with this post and I would love to be proven wrong, but I doubt I will see that in my lifetime.

  38. Great article… I needed a good laugh. Women are already serving along side with the most elite special operations forces and some in operator roles. They are overqualified to be in infantry units. But seriously, it’s going to happen… either get with it or leave the military.

    1. Alongside? LOL no women deploy into a hot combat situation with "elite special operation units" work along side is twisting words. They do not do or go through what the elite have done, so they are not allowed to do what the elite do.

    2. There are no such things as female DELTA operators, SEALs, MARSOC, green berets, rangers, recon marines etc. because they haven’t even successfully put them through infantry schools in any level of consistency or by the same standards as men. So I highly doubt that they serve in positions as an operator. you really have no clue what you are talking about. That’s like saying if someone couldn’t get through community college they will succeed in West Point or Annapolis. There are women in support roles to ops teams. But thats in roles like admin/logistics, data, flight crew, or maybe FET (female engagement team because as men we aren’t allowed to talk to the women in those countries so the FET do it) but they are not kicking and breaching doors with any special forces/spec ops team.

  39. You guys are doing great work on these articles. I hate reading but I find myself sucked in feeling that the way I feel is being portrayed and explained clearer but what you say in these articles. Thank you for giving me a voice.

  40. What I find funny about all this is, they think that a bunch of young male Marines are going to volunteer for this experiment. No self respecting Infantryman is going to do a 6 month work up, and then not have a deployment to look forward to. So after 6-12 months of searching for people to volunteer, they are going to voluntell some dudes to go to this unit. They will all be unhappy and will want to be back with their Brothers. Their SNCO’s will not be top notch, because no 0369 wants to deal with this mess of a proposal. In the end, both the men and the women will fail do to apathy and weak leaders.

    1. There have already been similar experiments conducted like this in the past and they have failed miserably. It’s probably just another PR stunt to see " See, we tried but it still doesn’t work".

  41. This is the most ridiculous and sexist thing I have read in a while. The military has a long history of refusing people service roles because of these so called ‘psychological or contextual problems’. Black, Hispanic people were not allowed to serve with Caucasian counterparts for similar fears of contamination. Are you also suggesting that gay men cannot serve in these roles because they may become so sex deprived that they will attempt to sexually assault a fellow member of their "brotherhood"? Perhaps your bigoted position also precludes the inclusion of these men too. I am thankful that it is not you making the policy decisions. Men made EXACTLY the same arguments to prevent women for physical acts (e.g. marathon running – they believed their uteruses would fall out) and so called boys clubs (e.g. law firms, Wall Street etc). Your out dated opinion belongs in the 1960s. I’m glad that on this occasion, I’m on the winning side of this battle.

    1. You are not helping your argument. So I would stop before you make a fool out of yourself and your "cause". Do your research, blacks were not allowed in same units for a completely different reason not your "contamination" theory, not even sure where you got that.

    2. Actually, while I was in Iraq there were multiple cases of sexual assaults being reported by men. To help you comprehend men were raping other men. So with that being said yes, gay men have sexually assaulted their own brothers while deployed. Also, men have a natural instinct to protect women. With that being said it causes mission conflict if the men are constantly worried about protecting the women. If you’re so keen on risking American lives because you think everyone is sexist and prejudice sign the fucking contract.

    3. I believe the first point made was physiological, not psychological differences. Anyway, the truth is we live in cruel unfair world. You can sit here and argue about how sexist or arrogant the author’s standpoint is but the fact’s still stand in place. Those being first and foremost, physiological capability differences. I assume that you stand on a platform of ignorance and lack of experience as far as combat is concerned. It’s nice to be a human rights activist, but it doesn’t change reality.

    4. Really? You had to go there? How did this become a race discrimination thing? How are you on the winning side of this battle? Guess what, with these changes, more people will die. If that is what you call winning, then you are a twisted fuck.

    5. Kim, your ignorance shows with the majority of the words you speak in your statement on this issue. Yes the military does have a history of refusing people services in certain roles that I do agree on, but not for the reason you assume (contamination). Politically put to refrain from certain punishment may be why that reason you assume is correct. Though back then really racism was still an issue and majorly to reason for that refusal or separation of people back then. Ideally yes the idea of a gay man was of that but not to the extent that you exaggerated to. No one thought they would be sexually assaulted/raped by a gay man or man with homosexual tendencies, they believed that those individuals would create distractions and issues amongst the unit and take away from the mission. If you were well informed or educated though youd understand that the policy for allowing gays in the military had nothing to do with what their job is or which job they so choose to want, but to allowed to be open about their sexuality without reprimand or consequences. They already were in the military, and yes they also where in combat arms already. Being an Infantryman myself for the better part of a decade with multiple combat tours I can tell you just that. There a lot of different kinds or personnel in the military with different backgrounds, interests, and sexualities or sexual interests we all know of this and there are no secrets about it. The only difference is that those in those areas do not bring their personal life to business which is where an issue creates when one is unable to separate personal from professional. Before you decide to assume anothers position on a subject is bigot you first need to understand from another view instead of your own selfish petty mindset. Have you yourself ever served in the military and if so have you ever experience combat? By combat I mean front line fire fights, days on battles, and so on. Not that concept of just being in that country 50 miles away safe and sound from where the battle is actually taking place. By assumption anyone with half a brain would already assume that you are nothing short of a sexist yourself or a feminist, whether you are or are not is not my discussion though it does raise question of if you even understand any psychological aspects between the man and women both past and present? Media and general public view was women belong in the house while men worked and made the money which obviously that isnt the case today. Now lets break that down to the psychological basics, a woman by nature generally has a more motherly (protective/caring) nature to them. Examples being they bring life to this world (child) they nurture and feed, they are supportive, and can be more generally calm and less passive which majority of the time helps them think a bit more logically hence the supportive nature of them. Also to add to that same statement, maturity plays a huge role in their psychology as well as anyone else. Physically, they generally were not the stronger of the two roles. A man by nature was a protector and provider, providing well obviously the ability to have things, a home, clothes, the food, and other necessities for his family. He also felt the need that he would have to protect is family (wife and kids/ siblings and parents) from anything that may harm. On that same matter there is a famous terminology used with the psychology of the human mind which is fight or flight. I will elaborate more for your better understanding, fight or flight simply meant that the human mind would naturally react one or two ways when in a situation whether it be a verbal or physical conflict. The fight or flight concept was not a sexist one but nearly human reaction of what a person would do in a certain situation. Naturally a man would enter fight mode while female would enter flight, and thats not to say that the roles werent switched as a female can also enter flight mode. The idea though was to figure out what the ratio between men and women, higher percentage lead towards the man as naturally was to be expected. Now and days the same mentality is still present but not as strong as in the past and nor should it be. A lot more women are capable of the fight mode/mentality when place in a scenario thats need than in the past. Hence women carrying pepper spray, or a knife, or other form of weapon to protect themselves or to hinder their attacker to either get to safety or until help comes. Though still today men tend to be physically and psychologically stronger than women on average, but those same attributes from the past are still present till this day of the psychological roles between man and women. So it is not so much that woman cant or should not be in combat job, its the simple fact of it may be a dangerous impact to a group. What youve failed to understand is both men and women have common simple wants and desires regardless of where they are. Both may/want affection and attention from the opposite sex, it is as simple as that. It is not about being unprofessional or professional its simple basic human desire and sociology. Women are more compassionate than men on average as men are more aggressive than women. Why do you think that back during the world wars majority of medical staff was made up of woman? They were more compassionate to treat and tend to the wounded they in a sense would nurture the wounded to good health while the men on the front line were continuously pushing for each other to move forward. When we were wounded our aggression grew, our adrenaline increased, and actions of violence raised in war. It was the ideal position of each sex and each sex was suited quite well. Now back to the present time, women today are stronger than they were back then and by no way am I saying that women were weak in the past before you make that assumption. You have to understand that even today on average men are still stronger psychology and physically than women, on AVERAGE. When tragic events happen to a women, and to no fault on them a number of them psychology break down and it affects for the better part of their lives in a negative way till they find a way to cope with it and find a way to better and strengthen themselves. Man is subject to this very same outcome, though the numbers are not as high. Majority of men will have more anger or vengeance like mentality which is both cases for men and women result in a lost of trust in society and even those around them. Now there are those like myself, both male and female that believe in equality, though also believe in facts and survivability. I do believe a woman should training herself to be both mentally and physically stronger, to seek training both with weapons and hand to hand. I believe a woman should properly prepare herself in self defense properly and just with a gadget (taser, spray, baton, and etc). I strong believe that regardless of the size or strength of her adversary that she needs to have the proper tools to survive and come out on top. Though just because she is capable of taken on a single rapist or criminal doesnt automatically justify shes mentally or physically fit for combat, as more men than you would think are fit for combat. The rigors of combat force the body to subject the mind and body past them limits of a normal human being. Less than or around 1% of citizens serve in the military at a given time and even a much more smaller fraction of them will engage in a physical combat. There are tons of young men who go into combat first time and hesitate or freeze (fight or flight mode) either getting themselves or someone else around them seriously injured or killed. Those also are generally subject to mental issues for the rest of their lives, will have coping issues and lack self confidence in themselves. Now just think on average what do you think the number will be with women put in that same situation? Has there been plenty of women to prove themselves in a situation like that and being normal? Absolutely, though the question really is what is the percentage of those women who didnt break down mentally as to those did? I will not deny that in the past the mentality of man towards the abilities of woman havent been obscured or ignorant as with your example with the marathon runners, though I will acknowledge your lack of maturity on this subject. You may well be amongst the stronger aspect of the average woman, for that Ill congratulate you if such is true statement. Though you fail to understand is that not everyone is built the same as anyone else in this world. This goes to say to anyone of any race and sex, before you argue and automatically assume sexism or racism plays any part if any to a subject first understand what all is at stake and to understand from both sides of the matter not just your personal opinion or those who share your same views. Instead prove opposition wrong, now you may only prove that you yourself were judged incorrectly, but isnt that a step in the right direction instead of just simply accusing another of being something they may not be? What makes you a better person if you act as such when all you are doing as just judging them though in another fashion? In the end your thoughts being towards everyone having an out dated opinion is not short of you having an out dated mentality. You have to prove you are capable before you will be allowed to go where you want, otherwise there would be those who are put in positions they have no experience in, and that the only reason of there so being is because they believed that it would be racist or sexist if any opposed the idea. Also note that while reading an article in a military newspaper about women being in combat jobs, that a number who were fighting for the right didnt simply want to be in a combat job but just wanted nothing more than recognition for it. Simply put when push came to shove it was nothing short of attention seeking. I have seen and witness a lot of women physically and mentally tougher than man if you could put them on even scale to be graded on, on the same note I have also a high number of woman who have created issue for those in combat jobs not all necessarily being military themselves but the spouses or girlfriends of soldiers and how they can affect them mentally from across the world. Now imagine how they can affect them and vice versa within the same unit. Some soldiers were raised well throughout their lives while others were not or did not have the privilege to have decent parents. While to an extent you may not want to blame them for their actions there comes a time in everyones life where they become old enough and mature enough to know right from wrong. No human is perfect, if that was the case than both men and women would be equally in every aspect in every physical, mental, and psychology feature. There would either be no disease or everyone would have the same disease but that is obviously not the case and the physical and mental structure of the human body both man and woman are different. Before you create an argument have structure and support to it or just like it seems, you are probably laughed and looked down upon by others who have read and/or commented as Ive seen. I will tell you that I am doing neither, I respect and understand your views and you are completely entitled to them. I only suggest that you simply respond less sexist as you did in the first half of your statement and be more intellectual as you seem in the last half of your statement.Men in combat live like animals. They spend months on end with no showers, no toilets, and no electricity. Every day they wake up to the reality of kill or be killed. This intense hardship forges bonds of brotherhood that cant be explained and cant be replicated. At times, the relationships these men have with their brothers in arms are quite literally the only thing they have to drive them forward.I took that quote out of the whole message as it best describes the lifestyle and in no ways sexist. Most women do not want to experience that kind of lifestyle or ever live that way. They enjoy a comfortable living area naturally which is no problem. Most men who join into combat arms generally know already that they may have to experience just that and have accepted.

  42. This is extremely ignorant. It isn’t about the physical being of a woman, men are completely capable of being equally as "weak" as woman are considered to be. It is the training that the military offers that turns the boys into men, and the girls into women. Women are completely capable of performing the exact same tasks, going on the exact same mission, and (even though this is not the main point of a military) killing individuals. It isn’t a woman’s fault if a man cannot control his sexual hormones around her, and that is something that you should reevaluate when deciding who is better in combat. To be a great leader and a great soldier you must make difficult decisions and face conflict much greater than pulling a trigger on a gun- if you make the point that with a woman around men they aren’t able to preform to their full capability then maybe we should reevaluate the ‘men’ we send out their and recruit individuals who are able to maintain professional and in-control under any circumstance, gender label not included.

    1. Are you daft? It’s ignorance to claim you know what being a great soldier is. I would trust the vast majority of people on here and the author to know what being a solider is like and what is like being on the front-lines.

    2. "then maybe we should reevaluate the ‘men’ we send out their and recruit individuals (monks?)who are able to maintain professional and in-control under any circumstance, gender label not included."i have over 19 yrs experience as an Infantryman, i have served in Bosnia, Kosovo and spent 27 months in Iraq with little involvment with women and because of this i may be a bit biased or maybe a bit more knowledgable or just experienced. it wont work. i have slept 10 soldiers nut to butt in a 5 man tent because thats all we had. now throw 2 female soldiers in there… accident waiting to happen.

    3. I find it ironic that in your first sentence you voice the fact that something is extremely ignorant and the words that followed were also extremely ignorant. Was that your thesis statement for your entire post?

    4. How is ‘killing individuals’ not the ‘main point of the military’? How the fuck else does someone win a war? By handing out fucking lollipops and free unicorn rides?

    5. This is one of the most absurd rebuttals I’ve seen on this subject. I’ve been in the Army and have viewed women in the military. You talk about women being able to complete a task, during a military leadership school all of the women would fall out of the runs in our company. There were about 7, at the end of the 3 mile runs in the morning there would be no women in the formation. 1 or 2 should have made it none did. On a training exercise in Louisiana we had to take a woman back to the FOB because she mentally broke, being part of a female search team was to much in the humidity of the South during the summer. She just started crying and sat there. It’s not just men that are the problem in respect to their sexual drive. Some women would love to be at the attention of all 40 men in an infantry platoon. Some women like to have sex with many different men and there is nothing wrong with that. The context of small unit of men prosecuting a war is different and to introduce a situation, women, into that where both parties will be a factor is absurd and is ideologically driven, we are not equal.The entire post is seriously lacking any substantive claim this sounds good in a woman and gender studies class but when rounds are cracking next to me I want another man near me and we will boldly confront death together.

  43. They might as well start experimenting with putting men in sororities. Put 25% men in a sorority and see how that works out.

  44. Kim,Have you served in the military? Have you watched your Brothers die in combat? Do you have any idea of the mindset that is necessary to survive and succeed in war? If you cannot answer Yes to 2 out of 3 of those questions, then maybe you need to raise your right hand, and swear to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.This is not a sexist or segregation discussion. The true discussion here is putting the finest forces on the battlefield to enforce the foreign policy decisions of the United States of America. If the experiment can prove that the combat effectiveness, of the finest Infantry fighting force in the World, will not be effected. Then great bring women to the Infantry. The reality is that in a world that is predominantly 18-25 year old men and women, there is going to be social problems caused by mixed gender platoons, companies or battalions. If allowing women to serve in combat arms causes even one more casualty or distraction for the Marines, or the Marines leading them, then it needs to be called a failure. We have buried enough warriors over time, we do not need to further complicate their already difficult task.

  45. I dont know too many women who can carry my heavy ass to safety once I’ve been shot. This article makes a lot of sense, and some females just can’t handle the truth.

  46. It is worth looking at Israeli experiences – they were extremely innovative and the first modern force to develop psychological studies on unit cohesion and combat effectiveness. They did have women in the infantry, in combat. Rigorous evaluation showed those units to be less combat effective than 100% male equivalents. The main reason – loss of unit cohesion and will to fight after female platoon members were killed or injured. I don’t have links to hand but Dave Grossman examined this in some depth in ‘On Killing’

    1. Israel "tried it" for a short time. After discovering it severely hindered the unit they removed women from combat arms positions. However’ like the U.S., they are still allowed in roles similar to our Military Police positions. Many people try to use Israel an example and they couldn’t be further from the truth. It’s nice to know that there are people reading this article that have already done their homework.

  47. If this article offends you, then maybe you should realize how ignorant of the situation you really are. Unless you’ve been in an infantry unit on a combat tour, you have no right to tell anyone what it right and what is wrong about how they conduct their operations. I spent 5 years as an infantryman, and every single time there was a female attached to us, there were needless problems with infidelity, drama, and bullshit.

  48. ‘if you make the point that with a woman around men they aren’t able to preform to their full capability then maybe we should reevaluate the ‘men’ we send out there’So you want to remove their Y chromosome then? Men act differently when women are around, even when their not in life and death situations. Just like women act differently when men are around. It’s not the woman’s fault and it’s not the man’s fault. It’s nature. There a differences between men and women. There is no way around that fact. And, there is no way around the fact that those differences impact us. Men tend to have more brute strength then women. Women tend to have faster reaction times then men. Why? Because of our genetic make-up. It’s not anyone trying to be sexist, its just nature.

  49. Very intelligible analysis. All gender-biased aside, however elaborate these "experiments" are, even the most experienced combat vets know that training is one thing; but the experience itself is another. Training only serves to harness and maintain ones skill set (be it marksmanship, mortaring, land navigation, so on and so forth) but does little to prepare the combatant psychologically. Regardless of how elaborate these trials may be, you cannot simulate the psychological effects of combat one experiences before, during, and after battle. My argument isn’t that women cannot withstand the stresses of combat: Quite the opposite, as a vast majority of ER nurses are female. Even in more recent combat theaters, there are hundreds, if not, thousands of women who have proven themselves in the battlefield in support roles. My argument is that the "combat effectiveness" of any infantry unit (be it male or female) cannot be truly measured until it has actually withstood the test of combat. Thus, the conduct of such an experiment in search of an appropriate male-to-female ratio, this sole-called "magic number", is not only costly but futile. If there is to be a full integration, to what end does the implementation of a magic number serve? Surely the powers that be can find more justifiable explanations for the consumption of billions of tax dollars than a "magic number". Shouldn’t their focus be aimed at addressing more logical and ethical issues that a fully integrated infantry extends to commanding officers, namely hygiene, pregnancy, fraternization, and sexual assault? In the case of hygiene, how does the discomfort and fatigue one experiences during menstruation effect the combat effectiveness of a unit compromised of 50-100% females? Moreover, how is that effectiveness further burdened when a female becomes pregnant and cannot attend training? How does it effect morale? Can men and women operate in close proximity for extended periods of heightened stress? How does that present a problem in terms of fraternization and sexual assault related issues? Moreover, how does it affect society after the battle is over? How does it a affect the countless generations that will be mothered into this world? Those are the reaches of which even the most liberal of minds have yet to grasp.

    1. I don’t know if you read my post , but the book I mentioned (Co-ed Combat) covers everything you mentioned and more. I have pissed off several people due to their lack of ability to process conflicting information. Some of those people have later read the book and told me they now understand where I was coming from. It’s a good read.

  50. As crude as this sounds to some, these are all valid points. I was Light Infantry and served two tours in Iraq and saw first hand the troubles that come from having women near the battle field. I read a book a few years ago titled "Co-ed Combat" written by Kingsley Browne. This book dissects the issue of women on the battle field and I think it is a must read for anyone with an opinion on this issue. Now before people fly off of the handle and say "Oh, you read a book written by a woman hating blah blah blah", just know that this guy spent the better part of a decade working with scholars and governments all over the world to gather and analyze this research and he has two daughters in the military. Don’t judge the book by it’s cover, give it a chance and you might learn something.

  51. the main argument here is that women will never compete with men in physical means. if a woman isn’t fit to fight, she shouldn’t fight. just like if a man isn’t fit to fight, he shouldn’t fight. but if a woman can kick a man’s ass, she should probably fight over him. it’s about finding the best people for the job. i agree there is no "magic number," but that doesn’t mean it’s "magic number" or no number.2. one of the arguments is seriously that men have a bromance and women can’t impede on that? are you kidding me? maybe we should start looking at people as humans instead of men and female, and focus on the camaraderie between human beings instead of saying that bromances are more beneficial than any other form of human connection. that’s just breeding sexism for years to come.3. the argument that men will be sexually distracted with a woman in front of them is actually disgusting. if men are so weak that they can’t control their pants and do their mission when a human being is in front of them trying to carry out the same mission, i don’t think women are the problem there.4. all the closing paragraph does is try to be emotionally manipulative.

    1. Once again, until you have spent time on the front-lines and have experienced a 9 or 12 month, you sound like a moron. So you are saying that a man and woman on the front-lines can obtain the same bond as two brothers who have forged it through blood, sweat, and tears? That they can have the exact same camraderie and there will be no other attachments? So you are now defying nature and the basic process of human life… you are a genius. Read below educate yourself.

    2. Taylor – afraid you have no idea what you are talking about. Having a female in a group, anywhere, changes the construct of the group. Put that group in a war zone, where concentration is needed elsewhere, and you get problems. Is it right, maybe not, should men just suck it up and adapt, maybe, in a politically perfect world. But its not. its a world where people are dying, being blown up, getting shot, bleeding to death in your comrades arms. To have to train soldiers to do anything other than be soldiers in a war zone, like suppressing naturally existing emotions or feelings, will be to the detriment of the men, soldier, unit. In the office, fine, mix as much as you want, enforce what ever rules you need. I disagree with the original post about women getting pregnant and costing more – guess what, your mum was pregnant at some point, and if she didn’t know who your dad was, then maybe thats an indication of the low standards and poor judgement of your dad. Men have a role in getting women pregnant too, last time I checked.

  52. For those of you upset with what was written. Stop putting hypothetical and equality questions and arguments into the mix. They mean nothing. Absolutely nothing in this situation. You can claim whatever you wish to make yourself feel better, but as the author already stated, if you haven’t experienced it, if you haven’t lived it you cannot look at it objectively at all. I spent 3 tours in combat as an infantryman in Iraq. I am still loosing friends today and I left the Army over 5 years ago. It is the most physically demanding Job I have ever had. I was never more exhausted, more angry, more hungry, more dirty, more ready to jump at anything that was a threat to my safety and the safety of my platoon than I was at that time. And I wasn’t the only one. Every single point this guy made is absolute concrete truth. Even in non infantry units before the war we saw men having to pick up the equipment of women and carry it for them because they were not physically strong enough and damn sure not emotionally strong enough to do it themselves. Magnify that by 10 fold with combat. There are plenty of times you want to quit, just go home and leave it. But you cant. You deal with it because its what you have to do. And the man next to you helped you through sheer determination.Though some of you put it into the most idiotic sense of a "bromance" if that’s how you have to explain it to yourself then use that to understand that yes its true. That bond you make is deeper than that. When someone saves your life and you save theirs on a regular basis you will never find a more powerful bond. And you will never experience more loss when the day comes you cant save them. Nothing will ever come close to that feeling. Ever. Your ideas and merits server not other purpose than to satisfy your own needs. If you are so willing to make this happen, go and swear in yourself and lead from the front, or have your daughters or wives do it for you. Has that put a little hesitation into your step? Because its what you should picture every single time you open your mouth to speak about it. You’ve never don’t it, you’ve never seen it but you damn sure want it for someone you will never meet or know. You are hypocrites without the spinal fortitude to actually stand up and lead the charge yourselves. But you damn sure willing to let someone else go for you and in all your backwards thought think its a moral victory. Your moral high ground stands for jack and squat on a field of battle. Your ideological thinking stands for the body bags of dead men and now women in your race for an equality that will never be simply because we are made physically unequal as men and women.

  53. Taylor I absolutely agree with you. I think if they can pass the tests they should be allowed to fight. How strong and disciplined can you really say you are if the moment a woman shows up you lose your shit?

    1. You would have had to have gone through a trying situation to understand that the first moment you meet has little to do with the bond developed through time and trust. There are no super soldiers, we are the meek willing to do what must be done for fair compensation and stability for our families. Few men are immune to the effects of the presence of a woman, and over time sentiments of many natures will form. It is truly a representation of the understanding that humans are at their very core, beings of instinct and community.

  54. @Taylor. Based off or your comments it is obvious that you have not experienced combat. I am not sexist and I believe in many instances woman are actually better than men. However, very few women are fit for combat, and not because of some facist or sexist reason, it is because of biology. Women are not built with the same physical abilities as men, there are a few exceptions of women who may be, but it is rare. In order to be part of an infantry unit, it is essential that you can pick up 300lbs, throw it over your shoulders, and run a good distance at a very quick speed. The reason I say this is, my resting and current weight is 180lbs, when you add the 120 lbs of combat gear that I wore over seas, that totals up to 300lbs. If I were to get immobalized in combat, I need to be sure that the people I’m with can get me out of the danger zone.I also dealt with units (not combative units) that had women in them during my time over seas. It was not rare for there to be fraternization among the men and women, which falls on the fault of the woman just as much as it does the man by the way, and there were even cases in which women would get sent home because they ended up becoming pregnant while deployed. Also to argue that "men can’t control themselves around women" is not a very fair arguement, because it is simple biology. The desire to reproduce will not just fall on the men in the unit, but the women as well. When your in a combat zone, you form close bonds with everyone in your unit, which is likely to lead to sexual relations with people of the same sex. I say this because it is exactly what I saw with "co-ed" units while deployed.A common misconception is that equality and fairness are the same thing, I hate to break it to you, but they’re not. If women want to have the same MOS (Military Occupational Specialties) options as men, they need to be held to the same physical standard, which they currently are not. The physical fitness test in the Marines does not require women to peform the same amount of sit ups, running speed/time, and upper body strength tests such as pullups and pushups. I would bet a large sum of money that if the women’s physical fitness test required the same standards as the men’s, there would be very few women, or at least a large decrease in the percentage of women, in the Marines.So my arguement to you would be; fine, you want to let women into combative units, then all soldiers, Marines, ect. need to be treated equally and every single one of them (no matter the gender) need to pass the current physical fitness test to the standard that all men do.

  55. A) Most women cannot compete on the level of most men. But the military is not looking for "most" women. They are looking for those who can meet the standard. Training IS different from combat, but that can be applied to men as well which makes it a moot point. Women have been shown to handle stress better than men. B) One of the core tenets of a soldier is discipline, self control. A woman that you respect as a soldier should not be a hindrance to unit cohesion. If she is, you have shown a real weakness. This also applies to sexual attraction. ALL soldiers (male and female) have the tendency to basically be busy bodies. It is almost inevitable that there will be hookups. I’ve only seen one or two women downrange that didn’t get with someone. And those I’m not sure of. It doesn’t matter. Discipline. If you are able to find a way to hookup with a female battle buddy under the combat conditions you described then you are not doing your job. Under those conditions, you don’t have the time or energy to go play those games. If you decided to, then you are opening up the unit’s vulnerabilities. And let’s put it out there. There are some soldiers who are not gay but have messed around with their battle buddies because they haven’t seen women in however long. C) Yup, if I knew nothing else about them I would choose the man. But that is not even a realistic scenario. If I ran into another unit while under attack I would see what my choices were. I could see if the man was stronger than the woman. I could see if either was cowering in a corner trying to hide from the gunfire. And it is not always appropriate to run into gunfire to save a comrade. Sometimes it’s better that they stay low and the element gain fire superiority. If not then you’ll just be dealing with 2 wounded or worse. And if it’s someone I love so much, why would I choose someone else to save them. I would prefer to do it myself. My experience has showed me I have a pretty good chance that I myself would be a better choice.

  56. Taylor, whether you are disgusted or not the fact is there would be allot of problems mixing men and women in an combat role. Ok, so there is that 1 women out of who knows maybe a 1000 who can perform up to an average mans physical standard. Do you really think that all of the women that will fill these combat rolls will be in that kind of shape? No, the majority of the women who will fill those roles will be physically weaker than the average man filling the same roll. A unit is only as strong as the weakest link. I do not see how anyone can think that this is a good idea. Are you a female? Are you even in the military? If this is a sexist issue with you then it is quite clear that you have no idea of how delicate this kind of issue is. Though I agree with allot of this article, I do see how that the article was written with a little bit of a sexist mind set. I was a grunt and I understand how grunts think and how grunts work. Letting women into a combat arms roll will be the coffin nail that completes the pussification of America.

  57. I was an 0311 in the Marine Corps. If women want to be in the Infantry fine, but make an entire company of grunts female and see how they do compared to their male counterparts. Let them play war by themselves. That way when things go bad and they will, the men cannot be blamed. There is your social experiment right there.

  58. Dustin Mike Esco. Brilliant post! You summed up exactly what I felt but could not put into words…

  59. @ThatJustHappened You can say the word DISCIPLINE until you’re blue in the face. There’s another word I like to throw around. REALITY. There’s no amount of discipline that will stop Marines or soldiers from getting jealous when the girl they are crushin’ on hooks up with their buddy. There is no special anti-sex training they can go through. And quite frankly, when you live your life not knowing whether you are coming back after you leave the wire, discipline is the last thing you think about when you are not on patrol. Discipline. Yeah. Because infantrymen should have the discipline to not get so drunk in the states that they piss themselves and pass out in alleyways right? Well, maybe I agree, but I can guarantee you… I’ve soiled some britches and woke up behind dumpsters on several occasions, and my buddies along side of me. We used to say, you can trust a Marine with your car or your life, but not your money or your wife.

    1. @0351 I also enjoy the word weakness. Get rid of yours. Getting jealous is different from letting that jealousy distract you. And actually, yes, I can/have/ and will. Do you and your buddies get so drunk that you all pass out drunk in a canyon in Afghanistan…nope. The author was not discussing the problems presented in garrison where it’s ok for you to fight it out and see who wins because you’re probably not going to be ambushed in base housing by 30 freaking Taliban. We are talking about out there doing what you do. Nobody has time for childish distractions there. And you said it right. When you’re NOT on patrol. You can whatever you damn well please when you’re on a secure fob where you are essentially in garrison. But when you ARE on patrol, on an OP, doing whatever your job is…do your job. And that job is not concerning yourself with what that female is doing unless it has something to do with your AO or sector of fire.

  60. Well written. Woman do not belong in combat regardless the branch of service. The author is correct in saying combat Marines live like animals and they have too to be effective killers. They survive on comradery, testosterone and the knowledge that their buddy will die to protect them. Adding a woman to that environment will compromise the combat effectiveness of the team.

  61. @0351 I also enjoy the word weakness. Get rid of yours. Getting jealous is different from letting that jealousy distract you. And actually, yes, I can/have/ and will. Do you and your buddies get so drunk that you all pass out drunk in a canyon in Afghanistan…nope. The author was not discussing the problems presented in garrison where it’s ok for you to fight it out and see who wins because you’re probably not going to be ambushed in base housing by 30 freaking Taliban. We are talking about out there doing what you do. Nobody has time for childish distractions there. And you said it right. When you’re NOT on patrol. You can whatever you damn well please when you’re on a secure fob where you are essentially in garrison. But when you ARE on patrol, on an OP, doing whatever your job is…do your job. And that job is not concerning yourself with what that female is doing unless it has something to do with your AO or sector of fire.

  62. @0351 I also enjoy the word weakness. Get rid of yours. Getting jealous is different from letting that jealousy distract you. And actually, yes, I can/have/ and will. Do you and your buddies get so drunk that you all pass out drunk in a canyon in Afghanistan…nope. The author was not discussing the problems presented in garrison where it’s ok for you to fight it out and see who wins because you’re probably not going to be ambushed in base housing by 30 freaking Taliban. We are talking about out there doing what you do. Nobody has time for childish distractions there. And you said it right. When you’re NOT on patrol. You can whatever you damn well please when you’re on a secure fob where you are essentially in garrison. But when you ARE on patrol, on an OP, doing whatever your job is…do your job. And that job is not concerning yourself with what that female is doing unless it has something to do with your AO or sector of fire.

  63. Jesse Low, thank you sir. You are a gentleman and scholar. The rest of you fucks make me sick! Lol jk

  64. I enjoyed this article plain and simple! I joined a combat unit for many reasons and I can agree with all the points made in this article. All this equality bullshit is how you get people killed! Bottom line is it is knowing that someone has your back no matter what. Just think about if your squad is out on a recon and gets ambushed and half of them get injured…is she going to be able to drag your wounded to safety? Will she crack when this happens? Men have been battled tested for 100’s of years.

  65. It is important to understand that if a woman is in trouble a man will "irrationally" do anything including give his life to protect her. Notice the word irrationally. It is hard wired into us as animals. In my opinion a woman in peril will cost lives. A man in a similar position will get a reasoned, calculated response from his brothers.

  66. Mixed feelings on this–How men perceive women in their unit is not a woman’s fault nor problem not responsibility. That "band of brothers" mentality is old and rusty at this point and shows the lack of female integration into individual military experiences. It’s not rocket science. Men will adapt, women will learn. Growing pains will be part of the curve undoubtedly. If the chick manages to survive the infantry training and wants to continue down the part, I highly doubt she’ll be the type taking offense to everything said around her and one day, the guys will accept her as one of them. No different than any other new guy who shows up to the unit, takes some time to adjust. Horror stories and references to female supply clerks fucking around and causing interpersonal mayhem are just getting silly and outlandish. You all act like you never hated someone in your unit before and never had to put on your big boy panties and suck it up.There are some very bad ass chicks. There are some very bad ass chicks who get selected to do very bad ass things that some of you may know about if there’s any credence to half these war stories. Bad ass chicks, however, are few and far in between. I don’t know how any male-dominant unit can accommodate onesies or twosies, but, that’s also a key point the Marines are looking into as well. It seems not worth the effort in the long run, but my opinion doesn’t constitute policy. -That said, the "magic number" is taking a lot more into account than physical capabilities. You can compare and contrast all day long, but BLUF is, if these chicks pass a man’s standard –which I pray they keep to– then any argument about physical capabilities is moot. No one’s body is meant to endure such stress, and after our past international endeavors, there’s good reason for the spike in disability claims… and not just because someone figured out the magical words of "sleep apnea". We’re all suffering. We all will continue to and inevitably break. Who it happens to faster is not a disqualifier, and is sheer speculation on a case-by-case basis.And, for the love of Christ, please save the war stories for the VFW. This late in the game, there are none that are special nor unique, they’re just yours and yours alone. Write it down on paper and submit yourself for a Medal of Honor, then look around for those who are silently suffering and about to implode because of their memories. I’ve read a lot of "HAVE YOU EVEN DEPLOYED, BRO?" comments being thrown around. Crossfit is less douche-y than that.-Female vet

    1. Your totally right. Those of us that have been in the infantry, know the requirements and have actually put our skills to use in the real world have no idea what we are talking about and are complete douche bags. We should just not point out any of the problems and issues that women will face and just let it happen. Nor should we say "Told you." when all of our warnings and pleas turn out to be completely true. Because again, those of us that have done it are simply biased and don’t really know. Because we are just being douches. One more thing, your are going off of exactly what he stated. The IF factor. Not what is.

  67. My main issue with all this is how the military is attempting to complete this task. The fact is that we for some reason want to start this within the elite forces first without beginning at the basics. How about first and foremost, we begin this in a phased approach. How about we consider creating a single set of standards for the required physical tests (PRT, PFT, APFT etc) to me it is that simple. If women can do the required amount of push ups, sit ups, pull ups, and finally run times that a man is required why should we consider progressing this program any further. Why can’t we look at the programs that have already tried this and see what they conclude instead of forcing women into Ranger selection as a litmus test. It just doesn’t make sense to me at all. Another issue I have with this goes right in line with where we are fiscally. What is the cost to spend extra dollars recruiting, special training and then the extra money it will cost in the field, for women to be able to survive the same standards (god forbid they don’t drop them). Sure you can call me a male pig as lord knows I have been called worse at times by the opposite sex. Yet prove me wrong, is the juice worth the squeeze so to speak. At what cost are we willing to spend in order to retain a single female within the SOF, and how many men could have been trained at that?If we aren’t willing to create equal across the board you can not and will never be able to do it selectively.

    1. The Marine Corps tried to push towards a single standard with pull-ups. If has thus far been an epic fail. Our bodies just are not built the same.

  68. As I have posted elsewhere, this is and always will be a math question. If M=F, then M X 100 = F x 100 and it should be axiomatic that F50 platoons and F750 battalions are just as good as M50’s and M750’s. So, is the supremacy of an all female force self evident to the planet or not? How many combat victorious F750 battalions exist worldwide?? WHAT? Zero? Do tell. I guess the rest of the planet is so caught up in the worldwide conspiracy of male dominance that they will sacrifice their own respective national securities in order to maintain the conspiracy. Viva el penis, comrade dudes. And what is the BS new math that requires me to believe M=F but a some kind of revolutionary, synergistic increase is found in an M75+F25 unit such that it exceeds the value of M100? I couldn’t produce a stinkier turd with the old MRE oatmeal bar. The anecdotal evidence against this is so big. only the terminally stupid continue to ignore it. The actual data (how about mean total cost versus mean total days of full duty in an initial 4 year enlistment for males vs females in currently co-ed MOS’s) is so condemning that it is being actively suppressed. The little bit of data that is getting out (like the staggering unplanned pregnancy rates to single mothers in the Navy with Navy fathers – nothing like having the taxpayer cover the lost days at work, the medical expenses and the legal fees for 3 people) isn’t even being discussed in this context. Instead, the Navy is still trying to get all their women who drive warships to say "Pretty please" when Mr. Crackerjack balks on wearing his raincoat in the rack. But, otherwise they are steely-eyed killers.yeah, right.I’d wax poetic on the problems caused in a unit when the Saturday morning walk of shame is between barracks or the sadness when two guys from the same unit as the momma, sit in a waiting room patiently awaiting the birth so they can see the color of the child and thereby determine which is the father faster than a paternity testand then return to the unit to serve as SNCO and NCO in the same chain of command. I could discuss my inability to conceive of a female who would tolerate me taking a dump in our fighting position or my request to pop the boil on my ass after 6 weeks in the sticks. Yeah, I could do all that, but if you don’t understand the math, what’s the point?Latent Infantry NCO (LINCO)

  69. If you allow women in the infantry then you must require all women to sign up for selective service. Otherwise, your equality argument is broken. I’m sure support will decline by the majority of women if they lose amnesty in a draft scenario. The marine minimal physical standards are a joke. Only a handful of women can barely meet those. Do you think she is going to get promoted to NCO doing 3 pull-ups with infantry cutting scores? In all my time in 2/1 I never saw an NCO that could ONLY meet the minimal standards. So obviously they will promote women to NCO to build a mentor program for other women. Now I just lost respect for my NCO that is a woman was promoted just because they needed female NCO’s not because she earned it. When our junior marines no longer respect our NCO’s breakdown is going to happen. If you want to see the effectiveness of women then make a whole infantry unit of 100% women and compare them against the men. War isn’t fair neither is life.

  70. lots of generalizations in this article. "common sense" and anaalysis severely juxtapose each other in the title.

  71. There is one more issue not covered, which is cost.Let’s pretend the test boot cycles which included enlisted women were run to the same exact standard as normal infantry school cycles (in my experience <Army>, this assumption is hugely suspect, but we’ll just go with it). Men, taken off the street with a just a MEPS physical are passing at about a 95% rate. Women, who are put through a special selection process before being allowed to attempt the training, are passing at about 20%. Since costs are factored when the training billet is locked in (I doubt very much that the variable costs such as food and training ammo supply lines are very sensitive), AND the billets are unavailable to anybody else as soon as a person starts training, this makes the specially selected women infantry about five times as expensive on a per unit basis as normal dudes. Additionally, once a infantryman gets to their unit there are additional costs for the women, such as increased medical costs and lower availability to work over a career. MUCH more expensive to train. More expensive to maintain. On average and lower useful lifecycle. If we accept that infantrymen are assets, as well as actual people, this is horrible decision making.

    1. This sir, is the best argument I have heard against it. Kudos. Although these costs are already incurred by the military which almost makes it a moot point. And also since it will be a small minority of females who attempt these endeavors. But still…the argument is the most cogent so far.

  72. At this point, my comment for these types of things is copy and paste… Here it is:Anyone who supports this disgusts me. Our young women attempting this infantry lifestyle will suffer life-altering injuries trying to provide analysis to a study that achieves what in the end? A foolish liberal agenda. I support women in the military, they serve vital roles, and I’ve met several who are intelligent and consistently exhibit sound judgment; and I encourage their continued service. But why would we, as a society, ever think it could be a good idea to load a teenage girl with well over their body weight of weaponry and gear, then drop them into a living hell? And in that hell they may be responsible for carrying a wounded man, weighing 250 pounds or more with equipment, out of the line of fire. Just think about this for a second, because these ladies will be required to carry 60-150 pounds of gear depending on the situation. If you doubt me, have a grown man put on 65 pounds of gear (typical combat load), then have a woman try and drag him by the pack strap or his arms/legs, while she is also wearing 65 pounds of gear. You do this, then tell me if this is a good idea.Marine Captain who saw everything he needed to legitimize the above comment.

  73. After a year or two of this debate, my comment for this topic is cut and paste. Here it is:Anyone who supports this disgusts me. Our young women attempting this infantry lifestyle will suffer life-altering injuries trying to provide analysis to a study that achieves what in the end? A foolish liberal agenda. I support women in the military, they serve vital roles, and I’ve met several who are intelligent and consistently exhibit sound judgment; and I encourage their continued service. But why would we, as a society, ever think it could be a good idea to load a teenage girl with well over their body weight of weaponry and gear, then drop them into a living hell? And in that hell they may be responsible for carrying a wounded man, weighing 250 pounds or more with equipment, out of the line of fire. Just think about this for a second, because these ladies will be required to carry 60-150 pounds of gear depending on the situation. If you doubt me, have a grown man put on 65 pounds of gear (typical combat load), then have a woman try and drag him by the pack strap or his arms/legs, while she is also wearing 65 pounds of gear. You do this, then tell me if this is a good idea.-Marine Captain who saw all he needed to legitimize the above comment.

  74. Thanks Marine Captain who thinks he’s seen everything he needs to know. Your personal opinion is noted. Army Major who has seen enough to know that your personal opinion discounts the capabilities of thousands who shouldn’t be disqualified because their presence is something you don’t want.

  75. Okay. Why NOT try a 100% female unit? If my tax dollars have to pay for this disgusting war, why not do an experiment I actually support? Women who have each other to lean on, who don’t have to worry about being sexually assaulted by their compadres, can make amazing things happen. Give it a shot. You’ll be astounded. Until then, quit dissing the woman.

  76. Dont even have to go to a combat zone to see how weak women are. Go to WLC and LOL at the girls they put in charge of those sham ass patrols they lead there. As soon as a mortar sim goes off they do not know what to do. Same with anything else in that environment. The girl in my sqaud couldnt even carry her 240 for half a mile before I had to take it from her. Even with nothing, she was still falling out. GG America GG

    1. I’ve seen a woman weighing under 100lbs carry a 240 through a full ruck march…with her gear. You should have trained her better. Also many squads switch out heavy weapons and ammo. Yup..usually a longer interval than a half mile.

    2. Also, those women who don’t know what to do…are support. You can train react to indirect fire.

  77. i might also like to add that any woman that thinks we are worried about them infringing on our "bromance" is ignorant inexperienced and uninformed! there is no such thing as bromance in the military thats for faggot frat boys! we are brothers. but we develop a closenes that we never could with a woman in our unit for the simple reason of proximity.Men shower together Men sleep in the same room/ tent/ fox holeMen talk straight with each other and our words strike alot closer to home but with a woman we dress it u and sugar coat and put it through PC filters so we can’t even have real talk.so when we spend all our time together in so many ways and have no secrets and nothing unsaid we have a trust that that many have.But when a female hits the unit and everything is stay out, stay away, don’t say, don’t do… There are so many fences and boundaries around women that it shouldn’t be any wonder why we trust our brothers that have shared their lives, proven them selves, and why we don’t trust the women we walk on eggshells around that don’t merit or deserve such a respect or trust. that our brothers EARNED. once we get past fair and feelings and get to what is right i think most people will see: "we men, we grunts, men of war and its experiences, we band of brothers might have known what we were talking about all along

  78. Keep the women out of combat. They are a distraction. They will get hurt from the enemy and they will get raped from their own troops. They will get their fellow troops killed. Read the reports about females getting pregnant and sexually assaulted. Off the charts. This issue is destroying our military and I am against it.

  79. The whole conversation of "minimum standards" whether they be the same for both genders is crazy. In a line unit, the minimum standard is grounds for punishment. If you could only do 3 pull-ups, you bet you NCO had you doing pull-ups every day and making you pay for it until your pull-up count was at a reasonable level. All those weak people who just met the "minimum standards" are pushed in non-combat rolls anyway. So maybe we could have female clerks and armorers?

  80. Nobody lives or dies by their animal instinct, that’s silly. Points of domination, minimum safe distances, round counts and estimations; these are not animal instincts, but they are important to survival. Don’t trivialize this stuff and turn it into a bunch of buffoons lugging around heavy weights and beating their chest in anger. The best war fighters are pretty scientific about the process. Fix them with fire and kill them with HE is not an animal instinct. It’s a technique developed from the analysis of empirical data gained from past combat experiences. Running away is an animal instinct. By this notion, rape should not be an issue unless the unit in question is full of rapists. So stop lumping everyone into your misogynistic view by implying that if you insert women into combat units they will be raped. This is a subtle way of placing the blame on the woman. It’s lame. Knock it off. I have a penis (a big one at that), and it only goes where I want it to. It does not rape because I have some instinctive rape quality.

    1. Seriously, rape wasn’t even brought up. And clearly you missed the point. If you have research that refutes it, by all means submit it.

      1. My bad, there is a rape comment. I didn’t realize you were pandering to the least intelligent comment in this entire thread.

        1. "Is it realistic to expect them to live and die by their animal instincts, but completely turn off the most powerful instinct that human beings possess? When all the men in a unit are sex deprived they can turn that aggression and frustration towards more productive things like killing."This refers to either rape or consensual sex, as if either are just a foregone conclusion. I hadn’t even read the rape comment yet.

  81. I don’t see why we need to do an experiment, Army MP’s are COED and serve in a combat support capacity and sometimes do foot patrols. The military has already seen what happens, its seen it doesn’t work.

  82. All humans engage in economy of labor assessment a cognitive estimate of how to maximize work at the minimum of expenditure. The ELA is not a moral or ethical issue. It is what intelligent human beings do.From the first day of work you are already conducting ELA Who expects the most of me? Who is on my side to help me? How can I do the least for and still be rewarded, or at least not punished?Humans arent just tool users, we are also incredibly social animals.Is sexuality (not necessarily sex, per se, but favoritism due to attractiveness) part of the ELA? Research suggests ABSOLUTELY!A synopsis of the research indicates that sexuality is a major consideration within ELA in mixed sex groups, particularly work and study environments. This varies from culture to culture, and here within the United States from industry to industry.Males may assume the beneficiary role, but in many industries assume the benefactor role in ELA of sexuality. Females generally assume the beneficiary role in ELA of sexuality.Specifically within the context of US military combat arms units, this means that women include sexuality as part of their ELA. Unintentional or not, the womans sexuality then pits the males in competition for access to her, or the perceived access to the female as part of the males ELA. Males compete for attention from females regardless of whether or not the females want the attention or not! And to be certain, at least when the mix is closer to 50/50, women then compete for the attention of males regardless of whether the males want the attention or not.(By now youre probably saying, Well, DUH! Young healthy men and women are attracted to each other. No kidding!)Heres the problem. Fact: The effectiveness of any combat arms unit is directly proportionate to the level of bonding between the homogeneous genders.Dont like that fact? So what? Your opinion of that fact, or my opinion of that fact, does not change the fact a repeatedly proven hypothesis.An all male infantry unit is quite capable. An all female infantry unit is at least theoretically quite capable. Mixed gender infantry units are ineffective and incapable.This has been proven time and time again through both quantitative empirical testing and qualitative empirical observation of actual units in wartime battle. It is an historical fact.The causal mechanism is perceived sexual access as conducted through the ELA.

  83. Well friends, let me put it to you like this; the bottom line is that no matter what you or I personally think, this is going to get pushed through. That is the nature of the world we live in. Now, I want to go on and say that about a year or so ago when the Army announced they were going to start looking into integration into Combat Arms MOS’s, I went on Facebook and did something I shouldn’t have; I gave my opinion. A few things came from that, some good and some bad. The good was put to me by one of my very close female friends. She said, "For the most part woman want to be said equal and not counter equal." I thought about that for a while and it made sense. It made even more sense when I read an article in the Army Times about the (I believe it was the SECDEF, don’t lynch me if I’m wrong) asking females in the Marine Corps what they thought about it. The NCO’s answer was pretty much spot on. She said, "You can’t change society. This isn’t going to work." (That wasn’t verbatim, just recalling from memory here.) It ties in to what I had been told by my friend. The bottom line is the the author said, we’re wasting a lot and putting even more on line just to try and please people. Forget everything you thought. This is going to happen, for the time being and I can guarantee that a lot of blood is going to be shed for this. I wouldn’t risk the possibility of my brother’s lives for a social experiment gone bad. Flame away, internet trolls. This is my $0.02.

  84. If you have ever seen any survival shows, women seem to handle themselves just fine and even in some cases better than their male ex military counterparts. They do it in Israel and they have little issue. Also as messed up as this may sound, to say they aren’t physically capable when they have children on the front lines winning civil wars in Africa is crazy to me. A mature woman is bigger, faster, and stonger than a malnourished 10 year old. Warfare today isn’t holding a 15 pound shield and swinging a 20 pound sword, its following your training, aim, and shoot. I think its time to move toward equality as a country.

    1. A mature woman is bigger, faster, and stronger than a child? Pretty solid point there, not sure why you are comparing the two when we are talking about men and women. Warfare isn’t holding a 15 pound shield and swinging a 20 pound sword? Again accurate, today we have M-4s which weigh 7.5 pounds with a 30 round magazine but that doesn’t take into account accessories such as sight, grip, and laser variants. They also wear bulletproof armor, with 7 fully loaded magazines, a first aid kit, a belt cutter, and depending on their role, various grenades. This doesn’t count the backpack that various members must wear or the radio that each team has. This is also assuming that they only have an M-4 without a 203, and that they are not carrying one of the crew-served weapons such as the 249. Without any of the extra crap, the bare minimum of excess weight (not counting their weapon) is 70-75 pounds. But hey, I’m sure you’re totally familiar and experienced with modern combat in current theaters of operation.

      1. No but my grandfather who fought and damn near gave his life in Korea seems to think that they belong. So does his son who was a captain in the army during the 80’s. BTW my grandfather was "a malnourished 130lb skeleton" (his words) and managed to be able to carry his stuff himself and perform the tasks of a good soldier.I also wasn’t comparing men to women I was using the fact that if a 10 year old boy can fight on the front lines and help win a bloody African civil war against grown men. Its logical to think that a well fed adult female could do the same.Also, I would like your thought on how and why they can serve in combat roles in Israel, Canada, all of Scandinavia, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Poland, & Romania. Funny thing about most of these countries is that they pretty much all helped us in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, thoughts?

          1. Also don’t women perform tactical mission as swat members in most major cities? Don’t they wear body armor and carry shotguns and or assault rifles? This misogynistic way you all think needs to just go away.

          2. Most of you on here are saying that I have never seen combat or have military experience so I therefore don’t know anything. However, none of you have seen women in combat. By your own logic don’t you need to see and experience something to really know? You can’t use that logic on me then sit here and say well it can’t happen until it is actually put into practice. As I have pointed out many countries have done this and some for 20+ years so it obviously works.

          3. Apples to oranges yoyoman. The difference in your stupid comparison that you think legitimizes you to argue your point is that we are subject matter experts on the matter. You aren’t a subject matter expert.

          4. Actually you know what? I take that back. You just plainly don’t know what the hell you’re taking about. So stupid…

          5. Here’s a fun little fact that you may not realize. There are no front lines in our current theaters of operation. Regardless of their MOS everyone is experiencing combat. That includes women. This is especially true for MOSs such as cooks and supply who get ambushed while transporting food and supplies. The point that you are missing is that we aren’t interested in something that just "works". We only go for what excels. I could use a weed eater to mow my lawn, but a lawnmower would just be "better". Here’s where the defining line is for me. Equal should actually be equal. If the women that want to go into the Combat MOSs are held to the EXACT same standards as the men – this specifically is in regards to Physical Training and even more so the PT Test, then I would stop caring. I still wouldn’t be all that happy about it, but that would pass so long as they prove themselves just as every single new guy who has ever reported to a new unit has to. For a 20 yr old male to get 60 points on push-ups, he must complete 42 push-ups to standard. A female of the same age must only complete 19. 19 push-ups and now she is given the same grade as the guy who did 42. That’s fine outside of combat because lives are unlikely to depend on their physical ability. In combat, it is not. Or even better, the 2-mile run. The same male has 15:54 to get the minimum 60 points. The same female has another 3 minutes to complete it for the same points. Again, outside of combat I don’t care. When you start talking about Combat MOSs though, it is completely unacceptable. This is the kind of thing that will cost lives.

          6. I was a Grunt of 10 years and I have seen women in combat – You know what she did? She ran into the armored bunker while the rest of us "manned the wall" and returned fire. I have also seen a patrol fail as the equipment that a female member was carrying, had to be shouldered by the other 4 men of that patrol… It was ONLY a length of 1.6km to go set up an over watch. I have served with women in a combat "area" and this was fine, as they came and went with the resupply to our small little PB of 40 men. We had great comradarie and it was refreshing to see a women every once and a while. We also had to protect a women from another soldier (from a different countries military) who was practically trying to rape her… So actually having experienced it, 1 could say that I am a SME on this subject. I will say this, women DO have a place in the military, they DO NOT have a place in the Infantry.BTW, your remark about Israel… There are women in their Infantry, but they ARE NOT front line Infantry. They are merely piquet "bitches". I know this because I once took home an Israelie soldier and they were the EXACT words that came out of her mouth!

          7. Dude, you don’t get it. Being on a SWAT team 15 minutes from a hospital and 20 minutes from home every night has nothing to do with being in a foreign country for months or up to over a year. You ever been told "know what you’re talking about?" Here it’s obvious you don’t know what you’re talking about. So why are you still talking?

        1. Hey YoYo man, Get down to the recruiting station and enlist for the Infantry. Get your butt out front on the point of the spear and then you will have earned the right to say who stands shoulder to shoulder with the rest of us. Ini the mean time I recommend that you stage a protest in front of the local US Post Office demanding the requirement for ALL 18 year old women to register with the Selective Service (draft). Yes, I have known one or two women soldiers whom I would choose over some men soldiers, but not for every mission. I married a WAC – who was later re-classified a soldier. My statements above agree with hers.

        2. That’s great that your grandfather and his son served. I flew on a plane once, and have talked to pilots. You know what I don’t know anything about? Flying planes. The woman would be more than a match for the child and a man would be more than a match for the woman. Again, there are exceptions, but I’m talking about them. I’m referring to the average. Also, with that logic, since a well fed adult female could do the same as the 10 year old, and you say send the female, who not send the 10 year old as well? Many armies have helped us out. Then they left or reduced their force support once they saw significant casualty numbers. My little brother also made a similar argument when he was a child. He would get a piece of candy and be happy, but then see some other kid with two pieces of candy and his one piece of candy was no longer good enough. When you have the number one military in the world; and you can compare it by any standard you want to, we still come out on top with the exception of sheer numbers; you don’t really compare yourself to them. Why doesn’t a Ferrari have a 4-door model? General Motors has 4-door models and they sell just fine.

    2. What a stupid argument.You’re right there’s no 15 pound shield and 20 point sword… There’s a 20 pound ballistic vest, 15 pound webbing with ammo in it, a 10 point rifle, 5 pound helmet, and all the other stuff they have to carry. There is PLENTY of hard physical stuff they have to do.

    3. You should really cite some sources when you pull information out of your butt yoyoman. Instead of just masquerading information about Israel like a fact I would love to see something that backs your lie up. You clearly haven’t been in combat either. I also would assume you’ve never served in a combat branch (Army or Marines) since you naively explain war isn’t about swinging a 20 pound sword (M249 SAW) and holding a 15 pound shield (Try 25-30+ lb Body Armor). War absolutely is just like the middle ages.

    4. "Most" women cannot handle the physical and mental stressors and in fact, some men cannot. Either way, the author of this article pointed that out and focused more on the living condition and way of life you have in combat. I can point out that when the Navy went to putting females on ships, the amount of women having babies sky rocketed. It was a failure on both the men and women as neither could keep in their pants. Also, women in special forces would be a terrible mistake. I personally have not been to buds but I know people who have and having them explain (not even talking about women) that during buds, they would get so cold that they would pray their buddies next to them huddled up on the beach in the freezing surf would pee on them just for that brief warmth. You just can’t get that close when having women around and its a sad but cold hard fact.

    5. You are right. It is not carrying a 15lbs shield and 20lbs sword. It is carrying 25-30lbs of body armor, 5lb helmet, 12-27lb weapon, ammo, radios, litters, and alot of other things. There is nothing light about light infantry. Keep equality out of this fight, this is about peoples lives not some BS I want every one to feel good on the inside. Yes, some women can hack it, but most can not. When you join the army you lose some rights, this is one of them.

  85. Speaking only about the physiological difference; it’s funny to see so many people quick to point out that women can do everything that men can. If women can do everything that a man can do, why are there different PT standards for men and women? Not only does this spit in the face of the "women can do everything men can" argument, it also gives the few women that are actually physically capable of doing everything that a man can do a significant advantage over them, promotion-wise. By simply performing equally to a man on a PT test, they score much higher. A higher PT score translates to higher promotion points. Why hasn’t anyone directed attention to "creating equality" for the PT test? I only see two possible reasons. Either they are accepting that women cannot perform a physical test on an equal level as men; which to me which to me invalidates any argument of equality for them to be in a combat role, OR they just don’t want to change something that gives a clear advantage to women for performing at an equal level to men.I was an artilleryman on 155 howitzers, I never worked on the smaller one (M119). The lightest round we had weighed 96 pounds. It is the job of 1 man to bring the round from the ready rack to the howitzer. We once had a 27 round "expend all ammo" fire mission. The guy humping those rounds to the gun was sucking the whole way through, but at no point did he ever drop a round or fail to pick it up on the first try. Fortunately, since he was physically able to do his job, none of the rest of us had to leave our position to go do it for him. While I’m sure that there are women out there that would be able to do the same thing equally, they are the exception and not the standard; especially again considering that the physical standards for women would not have them anywhere near physically capable of completing such a mission.

  86. Nocer great job. It’s a shame though that you can’t logically talk somebody out of an idea that they never logically got themselves into.

  87. What about making all female infantry units? There wouldn’t be any issues there because women would be carrying women, and women would be "living like animals" with other women…commanded by women, led by women, fought side-by-side with other women. No one has thought about how this would "logically" work. Why can’t we do something like this? If we can have "all male" infantry units and it not be an equal opportunity violation, why not have all female units just the same? It would keep a level playing field all the way around. While I don’t propose that women can do everything a man can do, I do believe that there are women out there who are physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually tough enough to handle combat. There are definitely women out there who are smart enough. This solution would keep from stepping on anyone’s precious little toes too…damaging pride…or having to take orders from an inferior sex….because after all women can’t possibly understand what it means to fight for their homes, protect their families, fight for their lives, survive in a very ugly, brutal way. While there is this belief out there that women and men can’t do battle together, and that women are incapable of handling the rigors, the bloodshed, that they can’t be depended upon to save other soldier’s lives because they aren’t physically strong enough, because men can’t possibly sleep and live in the same battle-ridden, battle-weary, it’s-all-about-survival atmosphere with women, that somehow women ruin and complicate the "brotherhood" of battle…history says otherwise. I challenge each of you to read "Women Warriors: A History" by David E. Jones. This book illustrates throughout all of time women have fought battles (both in hiding and out in the open) of all kinds. They’ve commanded battalions of all female soldiers, they’ve commanded battalions of all men soldiers, they’ve fought side-by-side, they’ve lived with men, they’ve saved their lives, and a lot of men in history would prefer to go to battle with some of these women, then other men in their units. History proves that women have been, can be, and are capable of both leading men in battle, saving their lives, and fighting and living with them side-by-side for lengths of time that only our close-minded selves can only begin to imagine. I challenge anyone to read the book I suggested and still make a solid, intelligent argument about women in combat.

    1. Shelli, you said:" This solution would keep from stepping on anyone’s precious little toes too…damaging pride…or having to take orders from an inferior sex….because after all women can’t possibly understand what it means to fight"Gah, and this is why it’s impossible to logically talk you people out of your illogical ideas. Because no matter what, you think that it’s about pride being damaged, or men thinking women are an "inferior sex." You are so wrong! You just don’t get it, and you can’t get it. Because you are working with an illogical mind.Also, your idea of making all women combat teams? I totally agree! Go ahead and do it! DO IT! Have a team of women, and an equal team of men, and then measure the cost and effectiveness between the two of them and see which ones work out better. Hey maybe the all woman team will work better! But you know what? I’ve been there and I know it won’t.

  88. Women Do Not Belong in the InfantryPosted on May 24, 2012Women do not belong in the infantry.Its a simple statement and one that, until recently, nearly every civilized culture seemed to accept as a truism. For reasons as multitudinous as they are apparent and profound, in time of war men have shouldered arms and marched to the clash of legions or the sound of the guns. Women as a rule have not. Even in those scattered and wretched societies whose women prowled the battlefields to torture the wounded and desecrate the dead, no woman was thrown into offensive action against the massed ranks of the enemy. Show me an exception and Ill show you savages.Yet now, in the bosom of modern democracy and in the heart of its most disciplined warrior elite, the prohibition against employing women in the infantry appears about to change. The Marine Corps announced recently that it plans to send women to the brutal, 11-week Infantry Officer Course in Quantico, Virginia. Simultaneously, the Corps plans to enroll women into the enlisted infantry schools at Camp Lejeune and Camp Pendleton.Frankly, I am astonished.Marines step off for a combat patrol in Helmand Province, Afghanistan.If the enrollment of women into previously all-male infantry schools is designed as an experiment, with the results to be examined and the suitability of women for combat arms assignments then debated, determined, and declared, I could save the Marine Corps significant expense and ferocious opposition by predicting the inevitable result. They will find that women are different from men and those differences severely prejudice the value of women to the infantry.Wait. Women and men are different? Cant we just gender-norm the infantry standards, modify the equipment, and make the barracks coed? Dont women deserve the same opportunity that men have to fight and die for their country?The answer is no. Let me explain.PhysiologySince the obvious has apparently escaped social reformers and military planners, I will restate it: there are fundamental physical differences between men and women. I could quote facts and figures about the difference in average body weight of men and women, the distribution of muscle mass, and the capacity for heavy lifting and muscular endurance. But since facts and figures havent deterred those who argue for women in the infantry, Ill just use a real world example.Marine Second Lieutenants at The Basic School just across the street from the Infantry Officer Course conduct at least a half-dozen conditioning hikes during their six months of basic officer training. The hikes range from 3 miles to 12 or more, and are conducted with full packs, body armor, personal weapons, and the machine guns and mortars organic to an infantry battalion. Since Every Marine is a Rifleman, all lieutenants male and female learn the basics of infantry leadership. The hike pace is 3 miles every 50 minutes, followed by a ten minute break. Forever. Or so it seems.Infantry Marines in Afghanistan prepare to move. The shouldered M240 machine gun weighs 30 pounds.Most service members will admit that conditioning hikes are grueling exercises in physical and mental endurance. I personally despised them, especially when it was my turn to shoulder a 25 pound machine gun or a 45 pound, .50-caliber receiver. Each hike took all of my effort and physical fitness to complete. Unsurprisingly, during my time at The Basic School no female lieutenant completed a hike of greater than 6 miles with the rest of the 180 or so male lieutenants. Not one. And thats with the male lieutenants carrying all of the radios and heavy weapons.A hike only gets you to the fight.Am I disparaging my fellow lieutenants simply because they were women? Of course not. Many of them were smart, fit, and exceptionally disciplined and dedicated. Hell, they chose to lead Marines. Im certain that the majority of them went on to serve bravely in the stinking streets of Iraq and the austere mountain valleys of Afghanistan. But not with the infantry.The fact is that an infantrymans job is a mix between professional athlete, police officer, mechanic, and construction worker. It is a physical job. Infantrymen are affectionately and accurately known as grunts because of the sound made when shifting a 120-pound pack closer against ones agonized shoulders. It isnt good enough to survive the physical requirements of a 12 mile mountain ruck march if at the end of it an infantryman cannot fling down his pack and sprint in short bursts of speed across an undulating farm field while delivering effective and disciplined fire against a concealed enemy who is desperately trying to kill him.Sergeant Leigh Ann Hester was awarded the Silver Star for actions against the enemy near Salman Pak, Iraq in 2005. She was the first female soldier since World War II so awarded.It would be the rare woman that could meet such an exacting physical standard. Yet, undoubtedly some could. A 73 year old Japanese woman summited Mount Everest this past weekend. There must be a few 20 year old, female athletes that could excel in the infantry. So why not keep the standard the same and allow women who pass it to enlist in the infantry? This brings me to my next obvious point.SexThere are sexual differences between men and women. Im surprised that this point needs elaboration, but unfortunately it has been downplayed in official circles and formal reports, leading to an underestimation of the negative effects it can have on mixed-gender military units and an overly sanguine view of young military members self-control. Good order and discipline are just words to the armchair feminist or social reformer, but to military leaders they are the ether in which healthy, disciplined units function and accomplish the Nations difficult business.With mixed gender units inevitably comes sexual tension and relational drama. Such hormone-induced activity is often no more than an unfortunate distraction in non-combat units. But in the strict world of, say, nuclear weapon security, where I commanded platoons of infantry Marines alongside female Masters-at-Arms, the distractions resulted in potentially serious security breaches. In the rigidly controlled environment of a Stateside submarine base I was still so disgusted with the sexual antics between security professionals that I christened the barracks and berthing areas Bangor Junior High. Were the Marines and female Sailors good service members? They were some of the best in the world. Did that stop them from acting on impulse during long hours of boring duty and close proximity to members of the opposite sex? Not always.When the US Navy assigned female sailors to the formerly all male aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower and sent them overseas, the leaders and planners did not anticipate that 15 sailors would have to be reassigned due to pregnancies. Forever after, the Eisenhower would be known throughout the Navy as The Love Boat. Less humorous were the scuffles and stabbings that resulted from jealous lovers quarreling in the close environs of a warship underway.If the largest warship in the world is too small of an environment to diffuse the hormonal impulses of its clean, comfortable sailors quartered in separate male and female berthingMarines clear a village in Helmand Province after receiving enemy fire.areas, imagine the result of infantry men and women sharing a squalid fighting hole or passing the time during a midnight watch in a machine gun tower in Afghanistan. Good order and discipline is essential to the effective performance of an infantry unit during the dirty, dangerous deployments to the cesspools of the world. I cannot foresee a reason strong enough to justify the damage to unit esprit, discipline, and morale if women are integrated into male infantry units.Of course, such good order and discipline issues become moot if infantry women are formed into separate, all-female units. I imagine this is the direction intended by the Marine Corps. Admittedly, all-female search teams gained notoriety in Iraq as the Lionesses, where they bravely contributed to mission accomplishment of combat units outside the wire. Nevertheless, the Lionesses were escorted by regular infantrymen, shielding them from the overt responsibility to engage and destroy the enemy. This brings me to my last point.Psychology Americans do not want their women hunting and killing the enemy, nor are their young men psychologically equipped to accept with stoicism the violent, gruesome deaths of female comrades in arms. This is not a pervasive, sexist sentiment birthed in our Puritan past and nurtured into maturity by Victorian prohibitions. It is an honorable mantle of respect and protection bestowed upon the gentler, softer sex by a culture grounded in Judeo-Christian ethics and fundamentally aware of the distinct roles that naturally fall to men and women.Whether religious or irreligious, Americans cannot but admit a natural separation of responsibility between men and women. An infant without a mother cannot be equally succored by a father, in spite of a love that runs just as deep. A man can never be a mother, just as a woman can never be a father. This, despite a centurys worth of neutering and gender-norming, is as much a fact today as it was 2,000 years ago.Its Not FairI can hear the plaintive cry of the social reformers: But thats not fair! That is correct. Combat is not fair. During one assault in Iraq, we shot at a lone enemy gunman with a tank.With. A. Tank. Heres the photo.An M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank engages a lone enemy gunman in Karabilah, Iraq during the first day of Operation SPEAR. June 17, 2005I imagine he thought that was pretty unequal, too. Then we dropped a bomb on him. Thats why we win.There are fundamental differences between men and women that make them better suited for different roles. These differences do not make women less courageous, less honorable, or less patriotic than men. The Silver Stars, Bronze Stars, and Purple Hearts awarded to women in Iraq and Afghanistan emphatically declare otherwise. But there are differences nonetheless. Women do not belong in the infantry. But they do belong in the military. We cannot simultaneously honor their service and dishonor the vast majority of men and women who serve in combat support roles by inferring that non-infantry service is less valued than that of the infantry.-Reposted from Unknown

    1. Traditionally women have been kept away from battle because they are more evolutionarily valuable for the growth of society.

  89. There is a reason that as far back as cave paintings men have been the ones in defense roles

  90. as a former 3 tour 0311, i am firmly against women on the front lines. the notion that we as a country are willing to risk the lives of men, and these women, just to become more politically correct is disgusting. rounds do not discriminate, and both men and women will die in greater numbers due to this policy, all for the sake of gender equality. i wish all that support this notion would gladly volunteer to fill the male % in these units.

  91. fine,fine. I understand the idea of women in grunt units is fashionable. But when the shit hits the fan get the fuck out of the way.

  92. fine,fine. I understand the idea of women in grunt units is fashionable. But when the shit hits the fan get the fuck out of the way.

  93. Your Facebook site is hilarious and this is blog is intelligent. But if you want to go next level, invest some time in grammar or have someone edit your writing brother. Just friendly advice from a fan.

  94. No matter what your stance on this subject…what’s more disgusting to me are those of you commenting that feel like you have some type of right to speak about the opposite gender the way you do just because you have a penis between your legs. Please, tell your mother how WEAK she was while she sat for who knows how many hours delivering this sad excuse for a human into this world…have some respect! I truly do not care whether or not you feel women should be included but have some respect. To verbally reduce women to mere beings put on this earth to ‘distract’ men from their ‘duties’ that THEY AND ONLY THEY can perform and as beings solely here to get impregnated or serve as a lustful object…that thinking is not only ARCHAIC and WRONG..but it’s revolting and sad.

    1. Did you even read the article? There are good reasons for it, you can’t just select the ones you like and use those for the basis of your tantrums. The points mentioned in this article only scratch the surface of the issue. Do some homework and quit making yourself a victim.

  95. I will say this as a female combat veteran, the point of having women in infantry is moot. It already happens. For those of you who doubt this, ask an infantryman that female medics have patrolled with or done air assault missions with, just as a couple of examples. Being on an outpost in middle of nowhere Afghanistan with mortars and gunfire everyday, puts all of us in danger. Bullets and RPG’s don’t aim for gender. They aim for the soldier and all other military. I don’t believe in having all female infantry platoons. I wore the same gear as the male. I was expected to do my job. I was a soldier first, medic second, and female third. This talk about training together is just stupid. Its not real environment. I am not saying that sex does not happen outside of training, I have seen plenty of it, but when shit gets real (like the bullets flying past your head or having to ration water because the place where you are is too dangerous to drop supplies to) I am pretty sure sex is the last thing on someones mind. The general public is pretty blind when it comes to a lot of things that happen during deployment, just as blind as the people deciding that they need to do research about women in an infantry unit. I have watched grown men cry and have break downs and freeze up, so no one can tell me that psychologically its a reason to keep women out, most men are bigger and stronger. I do think that it would be easier to keep women out of infantry units. But I just want to make EVERYONE aware that some female soldiers, have stood shoulder to shoulder in combat with our brothers in arms!!!

    1. Jessica, you are lying. You never served in an infantry squad. People will believe the words your write, stop misleading them to support your naive agenda.

  96. Gender equality is a joke, we will never be equal get over it. We have hardwired into us roles/activities/motor skills that each sex was designed to perform better at by God or mother nature herself (whichever you believe). Women should not be allowed to fight alongside men unless the battle is brought to our shores and there is no other option.

  97. Weren’t the same arguments used against letting blacks in the military? They were dumber, not as strong, would get singled out, would distract the white soldiers, etc. We see how that worked out…

    1. Really? Your going to throw that comparison out there. When one is based off natural physical and psychological limitations and the other was racially driven. Go find a real argument.

      1. They thought they were making arguments against physical limitations at time! And just because blacks fought in warts doesn’t mean that everyone was happy about it. People had severe problems fighting alongside blacks, but you know what happened? Nothing. They sucked it up like big boys, didn’t let their bigotry affect their duty, and now it’s a non-issue.

        1. Are you a historian? Do you have any supporting fact to back up anything you’re saying? A minute ago you threw out a blurp almost as if you "could remember back when…" Now you’re trying to pretend you know the psychological progress of men in the 17 and 1800’s in regards to accepting black into the ranks.

          1. I did learn a lot about it in college. Want me to post an entire scholarly essay on this board? Or do you really think that people in the US were never racist? Watch any protest from the civil rights movement and look at the sheer hatred in the eyes of people protesting integration. They didn’t consider blacks human.

          2. Yes, typically when you argue a point, and there are supporting facts, you back them up. You won’t do that. Because you’re uneducated.

    2. Dude, are you kidding me? This is straight from Wikipedia:"There has been no war fought by or within the United States in which African Americans did not participate, including the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, the Spanish American War, the World Wars, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as other minor conflicts."Do you typically just make up bull shit to sway peoples opinions to your own? stfu

  98. I’m torn. There are a lot of silly and outdated notions that kept women from doing a lot of jobs for a long time simply because of gender. I was born only a few years before combat aviation restrictions were lifted for women and I’m glad to have grown up not being told "you can’t do that because you’re a girl." I am opposed to exclusion based on immutable characteristics such as race and gender. However, I can see merit in some of the points you bring up. Unfortunately whenever something related to diversity or inclusion is considered it often becomes bastardized and undermines the quality and integrity of the institution. I think there are two key areas to consider: physical requirements and bonding/unit cohesion issues. IF (rather large if) physical standards remain unchanged I support letting those who are qualified join, as the bonding/unit cohesion arguments are somewhat less compelling post DADT.

  99. Your Common Sense is denseThis article was brought to my attention earlier today. I have defended womens rights to fight in combat zones in the military and I will continue to do so. So here ya go.Tell me when, in the military, we have not seen change. We are told to adapt and overcome. Change is inevitableespecially in the military. These changes do not occur randomly; instead they are deliberately thought upon. Many forms are filled – ts are crossed and is are dotted. (A lovely bureaucracy really). With that being said, this experiment is being implemented to prepare our military for change. We dont just go out on the battlefield without training our troops, just as we would not train our troops without much thought going into the training process. We implement basic training in order to weed out the weak. For this reason, it is crucial to do this experiment in order to do the exact same thing – weed out the weak (men and women alike will go through vigorous training and many will fail). It is crucial to do the research, just as we would with anything else in the military before we take action. Our nation is evolving and so is our military. So no, I do not see this research as a disgrace to the military. Secondly, ohhh boy here we go again with the sexual tension. Who is to say that one of these men in battle, if not many are homosexual? The tension is there for them just as it would be for a heterosexual having a female fight in the combat zones. Do we just brush that thought off? And if so, why should females have to pay for the sexual tension of males? This issue is unjust and therefore should not be deliberated on. Maybe we should just kick men out of the combat zones due to their lack of self-control in the presence of females (assuming they are heterosexual of course). Thirdly, women are expected to give birth. Enough said. True, females are not as physically strong as men by nature; however, they are born to be able to withhold more pain than men can. Let that sink in and tell me again why females are not up to par to fight in combat zones.The military is nothing like the Olympics or sports in general. To compare these two is utterly ridiculous and a slap in the face to our military. The effectiveness of the military is based on MUCH more than physical endurance. Critical thinking, mental strength and stamina, courage, problem solving, flexibility, quick thinking skillsthese are all just as important as physical strength in the military. I guarantee you, any female given the opportunity to serve in these combat zones in the military will have all of these qualities; otherwise it would not be justified for them (just as for males) to be given the opportunity.Sorry to rain on your parade, but your brotherhood has less to do with the mission than the skills it takes to fight an effective battle. And if your brotherhood is that important, maybe it is time to make some changes. Why discourage a woman fully capable of fighting in combat because it will inconvenience you?

    1. Hey Rachael, Your argument is so irrelevant and chauvinistic it’s difficult to reply to you. Maybe I should start with where you claim women are stronger than men because of a pain threshold? Or maybe I should bring up the part where you try to throw all of the valid arguments away and claim that us men don’t want our "brotherhood" infringed? Gah, I think I’ll just settle for the part where you try villainize men by saying it’s "sexual tension of men." Wait you’re other point about gays being in the ranks is a good one too. I can admit that there probably was a gay guy in my unit. But he damn sure never let that secret out. He was forced to embrace the straight alpha male society he was in, and be just the same. This is something a woman cannot do.

        1. This "brotherhood" I am referring to is the one that the author decided to state was important to the effectiveness of the mission and how allowing women into these combat zones would effect this brotherhood, thus the mission itself. There ya go Curtis.

          1. The point escaped you Rachael. My argument was that all you were doing was bitching and being chauvinistic in your own way, whilst claiming all us infantry are being chauvinistic. Everything you bring up is about how oppressive men are, and that we just don’t want our brotherhood infringed. You’re so wrong. And you aren’t capable of thinking another way. You’re just too stubborn to understand that we base our reasons off of experience, not some down played chauvinistic reasons like you think.

        2. Oh and if you read correctly, you will see that I stated specifically that females are BY NATURE not as physically strong as males. They do, however, have a higher pain tolerance than males.

      1. Curtis, What is your argument really? All I see is sarcastic remarks about my argument I do not see any valid points in your comment…

    2. Rachael, a few points to consider: 1: You have every right to post your thoughts and feelings on whatever site you choose. This is one of the many rights that those who came before us fought and died to preserve. 2: With that being said, the ultimate goal of the Infantry is to close with, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United Stated in close combat. This is the only way these freedoms will continue to be preserved. 3: The Infantry is not meant to be all inclusive. The many men who have washed out of Bennings school for boys can attest to that. 4: As far as the social experiment thing goes, when Israel instituted mixed gender units their casualty rates went up from 60-80%. The experiment has already been done. 5: My wife, a soldier, calls this issue the single greatest threat to national security. Most of us infantrymen tend to agree with this assessment.

      1. Matt,I too am in the military, so what makes your wife’s point more valid over mine? That’s all I have to say. And I do agree that our country is founded on freedom. This too includes stating how we feel. We are not Israel I think we have proven that time and time again.

        1. Rachael, 1: Of course your opinion is just as my wife’s or any other female soldiers. However, don’t you think an Infantryman’s opinion should hold slightly more weight when it comes to this argument? We are the one who bear the bunt of the consequences from decisions like these. 2: Yes, we are not Israel, just like we were not Greece when the Federalist Papers were written. Bur, Madison used them as an example in his writing so that we could learn from their mistakes. Israel’s military utilizes American TTP’s, and equipment, albeit not exclusively. What is wrong with learning from their mistakes so that we don’t have to repeat them ourselves? 3: "We implement basic training in order to weed out the weak. For this reason, it is crucial to do this experiment in order to do the exact same thing – weed out the weak (men and women alike will go through vigorous training and many will fail)."This is quoted from your original post. Historically, the US Army has responded to these experiments not by "weeding out" soldiers, but by lowering standards. Airborne School is a prime example of this. I am not a Ranger, but my understanding is that Ranger school is already being transformed to make it "easier" for when women are permitted to attend (I am getting this from someone in my platoon who is a Ranger. Anyone feel free to correct me if I am wrong.)

          1. Matt,My argument states that the training needs to do exactly what it is meant to do – weed out the weak. If the infantry decides to lower their standards, well, that is another discussion for another time.

          2. Rachael,I couldn’t help but notice that you failed to refute the majority of my argument. I will say one more thing on this and then move on. I theory, Women in the Infantry would not be a huge detriment because the standards would stay the same and the few that managed to survive Infantry school would be outstanding soldiers. In practice however, this is not how things work in this country. As soon as women start failing in higher numbers than men, congressmen are written, hearings are held, and standards are lowered. This is the difference between theory and reality. The reality of combat has and always will we better suited to men than women.

  100. As an Infantryman there is really just one part that i disagree with…that we love to kill. It isn’t glorifying and if you actually "love" to do it then you might want to go see your nearest Mental Health Clinic as soon as possible. Just don’t think that people should be so pro-killing.

  101. Rachiel, your a Pog and something tells me even if you could have joined the infantry, you wouldn’t be able to hack it. So there you sit at your desk in your clean cammies, commenting on things you know nothing about. But we are sapposed to believe you the the female equivalent to john Bastilone because you say you have been "fighting" for females in combat for years? What are your credentials? What have you done? Who are you to make such accusations about combat when females have proven time and time again that they can’t not be a liability on the battle feild. Sure they preform well in SOI (not so much IOC). But anyone who knows anything about the infantry knows that SOI is no indication of how a marine will preform in combat conditions. As icky what I’m trying to say is you don’t rate and shut up and fix my paychecks!

  102. Rachael, victory and results matter far more than gender equality when it comes to waging war. The issue of homosexuality is a fair point, but it is an incredibly small percentage of people in combat jobs.No one ever said men are better at women when it comes to dealing with pain. I think the issue is more physical capabilities. Can a 150 lb woman pull a 200+ lb man with combat load out of harms way?Also the author was not comparing war to sports in an effort to trivialize it, however they are both competitions only the cost of losing is a lot steeper in war. We would never put a female on a men’s team at the Olympic level because it would decrease our chances of winning. Why would we do it when the stakes are so much higher in a war?

    1. Men and women are different, mentally and physically, but the point is that it doesn’t matter. Can a woman use sheer upper body strength and brute force to move someone? Probably not, but maybe she could push him with her legs (women have more lower body strength), or create camouflage, or avert enemy fire away from her fallen soldier. Women think outside the box and can get the same jobs done.

      1. Oh my god you’re an idiot. No Women do not have more lower body strength. You have a NASTY habit of lying in order to make people side with you. Women think outside the box, but men don’t? lol you’re so crazy.

        1. Oh my god, you’re a mindless prick. Yes, women have a lower center of gravity because (in case you’ve never seen a woman) they have more weight and strength in their lower bodies, i.e. why we have bigger hips. According to this article me do not think outside the box, they think with their dicks, fists, and their guns.

          1. If women have a structural advantage for lower body strength, why doesn’t a woman hold the record for Squats?World recordsOn October 8, 2011, Jonas Rantanen of Finland performed a squat with a weight of 575 kg (1268 lb), beating the previous record by Donnie Thompson (USA) of 573 kg (1265 lb).[14]The heaviest single-ply squat in the IPF, is held by Carl Yngvar Christensen (NOR) at 475 kg (1047 lb).[15]Isn’t the reason for a woman’s wider hips and pelvic structure in general more related to the ability to carry and deliver a baby with such a proportionately large birth weight compared to most other species? Do you have any quantitative research to support your theory about having more strength in the lower body than a comparable weight male, or do you mean more of the individual woman’s strength is in her legs. If it’s the latter, doesn’t that still mean that the rest of the team is better off with a male in that position, whether it’s a lineman on the football field or a rifleman on a battlefield?

      2. I literally laughed out loud at the your comment. What the hell is creating camouflage going to do when you’re already under fire? Are you going to lay on the ground next to him to push him with your legs, possibly exacerbate his injury and most probably push yourself along the ground? Are you going to create another dangerous situation in which we could have another fallen soldier by averting fire away from him? After which he would just be a target once more? You clearly haven’t thought your argument out, and I beg you to use your critical thinking skills before responding.

  103. I’m a female and I agree with this. I am not in the military but I know a lot about it. My husband is a Marine and has been for 10 years. His last deployment, 15 woman got sent home early because they had sex during the deployment and got knocked up some by MARRIED men. So please explain how this is equal? My good friend had her baby on this same deployment and her husband wasn’t sent home early to see the birth of their child. All you feminist who believe that your no different from your male counter part obviously forgot you still have a VAGINA! Woman will be sent to war for one reason, pure entertainment.

  104. Ah but you see…this isn’t about winning, which we haven’t done since 1945 anyway. This dear hearts is <b>Religion</b>. And in America the Daughters of Salem bring the witch hunt wherever they go. You’re not getting any saner by the way oh Progressives for throwing down your God in the 60s. [if you don’t know what I mean, Progressvism was a Protestant movement until the 1960s]. One does not argue with god, one obeys her. Logic is a sexist construct.I think this is a good idea. "Maybe we should just kick men out of the combat zones due to their lack of self-control in the presence of females (assuming they are heterosexual of course). " This is a very good idea, for you see if you don’t sign off on the PT and other fittness reports you’re going to be accused of sexual harassment or worse, as you are when you attempt – attempt – to apply military discipline and UCMJ. Not all of them will play the false accusation card, just enough to gravely undermine your unit when the witchunt, oh excuse me investigations become your fulltime job. There have been worse things to sort out in history, and look on the bright side. This increases our warrior stock, as girl warrior+boy warrior=baby warrior. The armies mentioned as putting women in the Infantry either haven’t won a war since Gustavas Adolphus or did women in frontline combat <i> exactly once and never again</i>, I mean the Israelis and the Russians in WW2. See you at the next party, Ukraine perhaps.

  105. Rachel….I think you are mistaken with your role in our Military. It is to be a sexual release for the Men. Now go wait at that port for the next ship to come home and give our boys a welcome home kiss. With your vagina.

  106. Collin, I will not even give you the time of day. I will not respond to your disrespectful comments considering they are more just jabs at me than an argument on any real basis. Dietrich, I go back to my original argument. Comparing the Olympics to war is ridiculous. There is so much more to winning a battle than winning a game in the Olympics, and for this reason, there is more credibility in allowing women in these combat zones due to the abilities they possess other than the physical characteristics. I think that men and women working together allows both weaknesses and positive traits to even out between the two in order to be successful in battle.

    1. Oh but you’ve got nothing to say to me Rachael? Is it because you don’t argue with people when you know they are right? Or because I’m so good at getting under your skin?

  107. I am a wife of an Infantryman who has served 16 years thus far. I am as feminist as they come yet I agree that women do not belong in male infantry units. It has nothing to do with sex or the "oh no, my husband is going to cheat!" Infantry wives who disagree are accused of this too often and it is an ignorant remark. Those who have been around long enough, get to know the units, the job, and what these soldiers do know it has to do with the atmosphere, environment, and demands of the job. Infantrymen are often crude, but they have to be at times to deal with the reality of the job at hand. This crudeness will have to be curtailed due to the sexual harassment issue. How can soldiers train if they are constantly battling accusations of sexual harassment because he told a dirty joke that he would normally tell among his peers? Knowing the Army like I do this happens more than what the civilian sector sees. Just the two words "sexual harassment" being mentioned causes a costly investigation. Granted, it does happen but there have been plenty of times it was because a woman was offended or she was trying to take advantage of the system and make a show of power. The author makes a very valid point with the comparison between sporting teams and winning wars over winning games. I hope some higher leadership takes note of this manuscript.

  108. I think there are some folks here talking out of there ass. If you’re so confident women can do just as good in the infantry as men, put your money where your mouth is and sign up. I served in the Marine Corps for 8 years (infantry), and I’ve seen plenty of weak bodied men that had no business being there. I think what really needs to be done here is increase the level of difficulty in infantry training and have only one physical fitness standard for men and women. Weed them all out so to speak. Men and women act differently under extreme levels of stress. It’s very ignorant to say that men should just control themselves when women are around in that type of environment. This isn’t an office job at some bullshit place of business. I’m not going to make excuses for anybody, but it really isn’t wise to put all that on somebody. People do stupid shit under that kind of stress, and there isn’t anything you or I can do about that except plan accordingly. Bottom line, if a woman can hack it, great, if a fag can hack it, that’s also great. Stop making this shit all about sexuality and lets focus on what matters, making effective warfighters.

  109. Well said Dietrich. Rachael, please share with us how you know what is important in combat. Your arguments sound like they came from academia, not experience.

    1. I did share what I thought was important in combat Maybe you should read my comment again? Just a thought.

      1. Maybe YOU should read MY comment again"Rachael, please share with us HOW you know what is important in combat." i.e. what’s your background/credibility on this matter?

  110. More on this topic at: http://www.militaryvalues.org/…/standards-for-combat…/MilitaryValues is an organization I and some friends have put together and are just about to start a national roll out on the messaging about the awful damage of social engineering, political correctness, and other misuse of the US military.

  111. I love how the women fighting so hard for their fellow women to infiltrate the ranks of the Infantry are not really trying to join the Infantry themselves. They just want someone else to do it for them.

  112. Curtis,I did not see your comment prior, and I have not read it yet. It seems that there are a lot of people responding to my comment and I am not getting them right away. No worries, if your argument is valid, it deserves a response. Give me some time.

  113. I’m sorry but when my man was in combat, all 260lbs of muscle that he is… I wanted someone who’s capable of carrying his big butt out of harms way if/when he gets hurt. And lucky for him those on his team were able to do that when he was hurt in an ambush. I believe that women can do just about anything they put their mind to, but there are some things women just shouldn’t be doing.

  114. If you believe women should be in the Infantry, you obviously have never been in the shit with a bunch of hard hitting, soul dislocating Grunts!So you should just go on and be on your way, cause you won’t understand! Kill!

  115. opinion here but I would agree with this. Saying that I don’t think that putting it all down to physical strength is really a good reason to say that women shouldn’t be out there… Sure guys are stronger and faster. I would agree that having SAS and frontline positions filled with women is probably not putting the strongest at the front but what a bout the mental? It was said that men have to live like animals and that women couldn’t do that… Sure some can’t but I’ve meet and working with quite a few men that wouldn’t be able to either. Maybe we should just forget the whole male/ female roles and just starting putting the people that are willing to work hard and get in and do the job that needs to be done?

  116. I agree with Rachel. Well said! The notion that men are automatically stronger than all women is simply ignorant. The notion that men and women "react differently in situations" is so misleading and full of outdated stereotypes. It’s like saying, "men from Jersey and men from Kentucky respond differently, and I don’t want a city boy helping me in the woods!" Not to mention the argument of "think about it," is filled with as many facts as a KKK rally or an anti suffrage meeting.On average, are men stronger than women? Yes.Are there women that can lift a 200 pound man over their head? Also yes.Are there women that could beat 95% of men in arm wrestling contests? Yes… This game can go on.There are many reasons why people protest having women in historically male roles, and they all stem from the same reason. Men enjoy a sense of dominance over women and have for centuries in this nation. To give a woman equal position (or pay, for that matter) would mean that our current value system is challenged, and this is frightening. So we, as men, react in fear and ignorance and proclaim that it is "common sense," or, "it doesn’t feel right," or, "think about it," as justification. When, in fact, there are many women out there more than qualified to do everything that men can do, and perhaps instead of resisting this change, we should seek to maximize the opportunity because according to this same logic, women are smarter and better suited for combat then men, as they (on average) have higher IQ scores, test higher, are more prevalent in higher education, and have higher emotional IQ scores.Ask Israel how they feel about women in combat… such a stupid argument.

    1. Steven,Here’s my beef with the whole argument that uses a relatively few exceptional women as proof that women can physically compete against men (the "competition" in this argument being a fight to the death.) Yes, there is no doubt whatsoever that there are a relatively small number of women that can outfight, outun, or out ruck the average man. Big Army (and the USMC) are in the business of producing thousands of infantrymen every year, they don’t have the luxury of finding the exceptional few. From that viewpoint, I actually believe that some of the higher end SOF units are actually better postured for the inclusion of women: they already have a built-in and accepted accession and selection process that is very rigorous, and if you don’t make the standards you don’t get in; they only produce a very small number of new operators every year; and they have the ability to conduct very specialized, well-resourced training that focuses on narrower mission sets than does an infantry unit. Back to my main point, in my opinion, attempts to shoehorn in a very small number of females into line infantry units in the interests of "fairness" will create more problems than they solve. At the end of the day, I believe the Army MUST be most concerned about what will make it the most combat effective. That is our job. My opinions have been shaped through 25 years of active duty experience as an infantryman. I state this fully knowing that some will choose to use it as ammunition that I’m simply a company man arguing for the status quo. So be it.

    2. You’re arguing the exceptions to the rules because you know how hard and fast the rules are. 99% of men are stronger than 99% of women. Go to a gym sometime. See who can bench more than their body weight. You know what? Women enjoy men having dominance over them as well. 30million copies sold of 50 Shades of Grey confirms just this. Women do get equal pay when career choice is factored in. Your entire screed is based on stupid Feminist Tropes which are founded on lies. Women are not smarter on average, the smartest people in the world are men. The distribution for IQ scores for men is very wide, while it is much more clustered to the median for women. They are more prevalent in higher education due to massive changes in the school system to accommodate them. And then they major mostly in worthless Liberal Arts degrees. Meanwhile boys are falling behind because they are being medicated and expelled for behaving like boys. Israel doesn’t think they do very well either. That’s why they don’t have integrated units anymore and the female unit they do have hasn’t done anything of importance and never will.

  117. I love the debate on this subject, but this article should not be included. It’s written on a 10th grade level and doesn’t support any of its claims with facts. Everyone’s argument to support it is, "You have to have seen combat to understand." Ridiculous.

  118. If all these things are such big deals…..how come women have been in combat roles in the Israeli Defense Force for decades? The IDF I might add, is considered one of the finest fighting force a in the world. Are you trying to tell me American women are less capable than Israeli women? Nope. Sorry. If a woman wants to be in the infantry and can meet the infantry standard, quit bring sexist and let her join.

    1. I apologize for the apparent lack of grammar on my post. I have no idea how to edit the comment from my mobile phone.

    2. Women make up 3% of the IDF combat soldiers, and they are a 100% female infantry battalion. Know your information before you post something stupid.

  119. I agree in general with the sentiment but that thought experiment is very poorly thought out and contradicts the arguments you raised. In fact it’s the only part of this whole (mostly) well written entry that relies on sexism to make sense. If I don’t know anything about the two people I’m deciding between to save my love one, then it’s literally a damn coin flip. I’m not gonna assume that the man isn’t one of the disgusting slobs of lard that Americans tend to be just because he’s a man.

  120. Steve I see where you are coming from and I will not say you are wrong on a lot of your points. Do remember that we are not Israel this is America. I say that because if you have ever been outside of America lets say over to Europe you would know that they have a different culture and upbringing. So yes integrating females into a combat situation may be easier. In America and the military our socialization and the culture is going to be the determining factor on how well men and women work in the Infantry. Don’t forget what some of the big issues truly are in this situation. Hygiene, standards, equality, and moral. Females have to shower and clean more and I am sorry but we will not be fighting like we have in OIF and OEF. One day we will go back to a war like Korea, Vietnam or Europe. When that happens then what will you do. Standards will never be set the same in the military. As a male in the Army at the age of 17-21 you only have 15:54 "that is 60% and the minimum" to complete a 2 mile run and 1300 to get 100%. A female same age has 18:54 again 60% min standard and to max it she would have to run 15:36. I am not sure if you have ever been in the military but most females are not in the best of shape. Yes I know I just said a very open statement. There are females that can pass the male standard but that is not many. Last is moral and this is what makes a unit function. If you take away an Infantrymen’s ability to mess around, joke, crack on each other, vent, or as stated take away the brotherhood and primal instinct. Your unit will not function. Not to mention the amount of extra classes the Soldiers will be forced to go through on top of the training we already have to endure on sexual harassment, equal op, Prevention of sexual harassment, resiliency, and all the others. Lets not forget that most of the non-combat arms units have many issues with fratinization, sex with coworkers or acusations of rape or harassment that come from anger over one thing or another because lets not forget. Females have so much more power over males because a female in American culture is more likely thought of as a victim. Lets be honest about that though. Females know how much power they have been given and abuse it to there advantage. I have said my piece on this and until you have served as an Infantry Soldier in combat and worked around females you may never understand or get it.

  121. So basically only men are physically strong enough to serve in combat roles but they aren’t psychologically strong enough to separate petty base feelings of sex and jealousy because they’re just too "alpha"… okay, sounds right enough based on the military men I’ve met.

  122. I am currently serving as an Infantry Platoon Sergeant in the Marine Corps. Don’t judge me on my grammar and puntuation, for although I have taken a couple of English courses and Spelling and grammar MCI’s since I’ve been in, it’s been years since I’ve had to put this into functional use. I have alot of experience in this area, going on 14 years worth, so I feel compelled to put in my own 2 cents.First, I’m going to address the simple fact of gender bias and discrimination plagueing our society right now. It is being perpetuated more so by the female class that has for years been discriminate towards the male gender for the roles we play in our society. Sorry you weren’t born with a penis, but that isn’t my fault so stop blaming me for all your failures because I was. Female empowerment (as much as I hate it) and equal oppurtunity are real goals in which we can achieved, but not at the cost of breaking and remolding one class (the male class) to better fit or work in line with the other (female class). Whether your born with a Vagina or a Penis doesn’t matter, last time I checked one does work properly without the other. It is a team effeort. The question of equality is only an issue because we as a society have made it one. Enough on that.Secondly, females in the infantry. All this seems to me is another area in which females feel they have a right to participate in so it’s an issue. So yet again a male has bent to the will of a woman, for appeasement, so he can continue to live in happiness. Happy wife a happy life right. 50, 20, even 10 years ago, this wasn’t even an issue. But now all of a sudden it’s everywhere. I don’t know why in the hell a female would want to join the infantry, it is the worst possible job for anyone to ever do. But enough with my ranting lets get on with it.I have served with many females since my time in the Corps and there a few in which I would of gladly served with over some of their male counter parts. When I was a infatry squad leader in Iraq, I had the privledge of working with some female Marines in the Lioness program. On a professional level, for the most part, it was worth having them their, because they served a function we needed. But on the good order and discipline level it was a harder task keeping all parties in line. I had to control the immaturity levels of both sexes from flirting and jackassary that degraded my ability to do my job ensuring the safety of all in my charge. I couldn’t tell you all the times I had to stop what I was doing to stop a male and female Marine form trying to sneak off post for a little R&R. More often then not it wasn’t the male who initited it. Because contary to popular belief from woman who think they are far superior; in those auster conditions of combat it is you all, the females, who are seeking the comfort of a man and not the man seeking the comfort of a woman. Thirdly, the issue on performance and strength. The reality of the situation is that Men, through natural selection or the will of God, are more superior in this category then woman, but again ladies let’s not blame them for this. It’s biological not personal. Now, there are a select few woman out there who are, whether naturally or through the use of supplementation, who can match on par with their male counter parts, but they are few and far between. As well there has never or will there be in the near future the long term effects of the rigors of infantry life on the female body. I know for me, after 14 years, which is on par with most of the men in my field, I suffer from arthritis in the anckles, knees, hips, lower back and shoulders. I’ve a multitude of other ailemnts and displeasures I never wish on anyone. I’ve been in locals and places where we barely had enough drinking water, nevermind any for hygiene for months on end. I think I went 3 1/2 months with out a shower when in Iraq, and baby wipes only do so much. I read a report or an article a while back written by a female Marine officer stating her misfortunes as she served a year long term in a combat unit. Although she had only been in a couple engagements and performed admirably, what it did to the breakdown of her body had terrible reprocussions. Biologically our bodies (male and female) utilize differemt chemicals, hormones and enzymes to ensure bodily process for the survival of our race. Again natural selection. It’s science, do your research.Foruthly, the all female units, you feministas are in an uproar for. It would not be cost effective for this to happen. Not only would we have to build more and seperate barracks for these new units, but field costs would be staggering. When men go out to the field, we simply dig a hole in the ground do our deed and fill it in when we’re done. Now it’s not private either. It’s literally a trench you squat over and other guys are doing the same at the same time. For females do to health considerations they need porta potties and they need to be cleaned regularly, that costs money, also I remember in Iraq, they flew in shower units for the females to use, which used up space we didn’t have and forced more patrol hors to run security for the water to be trucked in. And no the males weren’t allowed to use the showers. Also unless you want to put females into rooms with men, because remember it’s equality, their going to have to be segregated to their own room another slap to good order and discipline. Now in the Marine Corps for deploying untis, we barely have enough room to house the Marines we have, in the barracks we have at 3-4 in a room. We would literally have to spend millions of dollars to build new barracks just so we can provide proper berthing arrangements for them. It is not cost effective.I welcome the day when woman come in and report to my unit, I will treat them with firmness, fairness, and dignity, the same as I do my current male Marines. I will also not change who I am or how I talk or act to better appease them. I do what I do for a reason and that’s because it works. If when they do end up coming to the Infantry it should be because she had the ability to meet every standard the male Marine had, not because someone in poilitics dumbed it down and told us she had to be. Just like with everything else, this job is earned not given. If woman can respect that, then lets go and get on with the fight.

  123. True equality should be holding everyone to the same equal standards. So let’s make the pft equal across the board. Already 50% of female Marines are not able to meet the minimum standards of the male pft. That means that the rest of you idiots will have to compete with males for promotions under the same pft standard. Yeah right, good luck with that–the female attrition rate would be insane. So should only females in the infantry have to take the male pft and the rest keeps on doing the famle one? No, you cannot have it both ways. Anyways, back to this article–the author is 100% correct. However, I believe they will eventually integrate females into the infantry. The funny thing is that most women in the military, specially the ones who have been in for awhile, do not want to be in the infantry. Furthermore, most of the push is coming from folks outside of the services. Considering the small amount of women who would do it, and the ones who can actually hack it, I would be surprised if after 1-2 years of infantry, you see more than 1 female per line company. I think it would actually be hilarious. Not only will they have to do it mentally and physically, they will have to learn that animal behavior, which does not come natural to them, that men exhibit while in combat. No man will have to come near these women after a deployment, acting the way they will have to learn to act in that enviornment, lol. We need to be disgusting, filthy animals while we are out there–it’s part of our morale and coping mechanism.Combat is not nice, not gentle or pretty–there is nothing a female will bring to the table that will enhance our combat effectiveness. It’s only about combat effectiveness at the end of the day–not a social or political statement. It’s not good for the infantry, and to tie it back to my first paragraph, it will not be good for female’s careers in the military.

  124. Omega steven, you haven’t brought any facts to the table either and yes, it is easy to sit back and say it is ridiculous argument. But have you been there? NNNNNNNoooooooo!!!!! so you don’t know, just like I couldn’t explain the feelings of PTSD to you omega steven. I bet a great and educated mind like yours, would brake down in combat and yet you sit here and argue for others to get a chance to go.

  125. Separate platoons by gender. Let the women have their sisterhood built up just like the brotherhood in the men’s platoon. If they can’t meet the basic physical standards that the men go by, they have no right to be on the battlefield. None of that shit like boot camp where they can weasel through and pass. They should be graded more rigorously in all actuality, because ITB is cake compared to what actual grunts have to go through on deployment.

  126. Or we can take a female Marines POVhttp://warfighterfoundation.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/lets-be-real-women-in-combat/

    1. She deleted my post because I asked her " And what happens when a woman DOES meet the same standards as an average male infantryman?"

      1. It isn’t worth the administrative and requirement headache of bringing her on. It’s much easier to just get 10 males for the cost of 1 female.

  127. Although I agree with you to some extent, your still close minded, bias, and sexist. A lot of those "issues" you brought up are social constructions of gender role. There are women who can out due men physically, and don’t compare infantry men to professional athletes because a lot of infantry men are not as physically fit or gifted as a professional athlete. Maybe a Navy Seal, Ranger, or Special forces, but all infantry men are not that physically fit. Ive seen some shlubs who didn’t belong in infantry. As long as a women can pass the same physical fitness and mental evaluation as a man, than she has a right to be there. Everything else about morals and instincts are social constructions and should be dealt with by educating. You "instincts" are not an excuse to what you were trying to lean toward as rape bc your instincts take over in combat….If your an animal its because you choose to be. I will fight, bleed, and die for my country, I will never however go against my morals and be a "beast" no matter the circumstance. That is a choice, not an uncontrollable urge. You choose to let yourself go in that situation. So don’t use it as some ignorant narrow minded position to not allow a women the right to fight and die for her country. Other than the physical limitation, everything else is learned, so unlearn it would be the right thing to do. Again, with our current views on gender roles everything you say is true, but that does not make it right. And down to the core of any patriot or any person who truly believes what that flag stands for, we defend what is right, not what is easy. Educate yourself because somewhere there is a women who is reading this that has a fire ignited within her to prove everything you just said wrong and cram it down your throat…oh, and I am a guy, and I served ten years Infantry. But unlike you I’m also educated which is obvious from your narrow minded bias views and inability to use critical thinking skills to solve a problem instead of thinking your better than someone else because of your biological makeup.

    1. So physical capabilities are the only things that set up apart? I understand behaviors are learned, but are those not also influenced by the chemical differences in our bodies? Please help me understand, as one of the things I understood from your post is that the only difference between men and women is our physical capabilities. Does are real questions–not trying to be disrespectful–help me doc.

    2. Then you should know that the physical tests aren’t the same nor will they be, as it is now women have a completely different set of standards on their physical readiness test. I’ve watched many times where males pull the slack of the females during ammo on loads and offloads etc. Also, as a majority, they always finish close to last during pt. Also, it is blatantly obvious how their mere presence deteriorates a units cohesion. Yes, there are exceptions, but the minority of females who could hack and not create a rift in the men do not justify integrating them into the units. It’s bullshit actually.

    3. Dear Fellow PhD,Your reliance on social construction of gender as the counterargument is lazy and unoriginal. While it is generally accepted by military sociologists that the military in any given time period is a reflection of the civilian population it serves, there are unquestionable differences that exist in regard to gender roles in both the civilian and military communities. Your suggestion that the military should somehow "re-educate" itself to be in alignment with what academia believes to be acceptable gender roles, or the construction thereof, is absurd. The common held notion within the academic community that social construction is somehow false or not accurate is problematic. If the society is constructing the gender roles then obviously they are in line with the demands of society. For the society, and subsequently the military entrusted with its safety and security, to ignore biological differences between the sexes would be grossly irresponsible (and quite frankly embarrassing on a global scale…essentially demonstrating an unwillingness to place our faith in science, and instead, be subject to the whims of political correctness). The author is completely correct in his logic; if the sexes are equal and women have a place in combat, then a unit/group made up of 100% women wouldn’t be an issue. Please stop jumping on board the academic bandwagon of blind faith in whichever trendy thought happens to be dominating that day. The author is absolutely correct, this is a common sense issue best addressed by a logical analysis employing basic common sense to solve (not us academics). Don’t get me wrong, I’ll be the first to say that women are FAR superior in many areas; our brains are biologically structured to be able to think quicker, we can coordinate the two sides of our brain better (I’d make the argument we’re smarter but we can table that one), we have higher pain tolerances, better intuition/gut reactions, and there is research to support that we have steadier nerves (and therefore are better shots ;) We can do just about everything as well as or better than men. But mixing the sexes in combat is the worst idea in the history of bad ideas. It’s such a DUH moment that I almost don’t have words to describe it. Further, if you’re going to knock on someone for not being as "educated" as you, you sure as shit better be able to use "your" and "you’re" correctly (otherwise all you’re doing is making yourself look like an idiot while devaluing PhDs everywhere).

      1. An attraction to a female should not be an excuse for failing your mission. Social constructs are currently changing and the military will, as you stated reflect this.

      2. You’ve stated a number of things about women that are factually inaccurate. Your brains are structured to think more quickly between the lobes, which means faster communication perception of social factors. It does not mean women can think quicker regarding math and spatial factors. Women are not smarter on the whole, just a distribution that is more central to the median rather than a wider distribution, IQ tests prove this. Secondly, the pain tolerance is during labor when a woman’s body is flooded with a huge amount of feel-good hormones that will not be present on a battle field. Men have a far higher pain tolerance on a day-to-day basis for the occupations they endure.Thirdly, the reaction intuition is social intuition, not physical reaction. If you’ve ever sparred with a woman compared to a man in any combat sport (boxing, MMA) you’d have noticed that their reflexes are far slower than a man’s. The steady nerve/better shot advantage is only played out non-combat scenarios, so it is mute.

    4. I used to feel the way you feel… until my deployment. I used to think it was just a matter of physiological differences, and I used to figure that if they held females to the same physical standards, that there wouldn’t be any problems. However, after living a for a year on various patrol bases, I learned that the truth is that the psychological impacts that the author talks about here are real and cannot just be ‘ignored’ or ‘re-trained’. If that was the key than Sexual Harassement/Sexual Assault would have been eliminated in the DoD years ago.

  128. I spent 5 years in the ADF as both infantry and transport and have served with female counterparts in the units i was posted in i know alot of females that would do well but at the same time they would not be able to handle the initial training for infantry.knowing how feminists are going in the world and trying to prove that females can do what males do i find very annoying, you would prob find that the feminist that are pushing for this to happen have not served a single day in there life or are COD Warriors (pun intended).i know alot of females are not happy with my train of thought and im always in arguements with many of them.

  129. If you have not served in the infantry your comments on this topic are invalid. Academia has no place in making assessments about the mechanics of the infantry, unless said scholar has served as an infantryman. You CANNOT truly understand. Laypersons should consider the nature of their position, as someone uninitiated by the severe nature of infantry training and combat, your opinion toward the profession of arms is redundant and unproductive. Also, consider that what you say as someone whose understandings of the military sphere have been constructed through scholarly pursuit might be offensive to those whom are subject matter experts through practical experience.Royston out.

  130. I don’t care. If it means no more EO briefs, sweet. Be prepared to be called a semen soaked cum dumpster. Just like every other boot private. Your not special. If you can pick up your 110lbs pack and walk 8 clicks to mission AND be ready to fight when you get there, welcome aboard. 3 day mission turns into 3 weeks? No showers, minimal food and water? Suck it up cupcake and drive on. Offended by this? I do’t give a shit but you should stay in whatever POG ass MOS or air-conditioned cube farm your in. Thats just for starters. It’s worse in person. That goes for men and women alike. Met plenty of men that can’t hack it. And there is prolly some women who can. If you can, then welcome to the suck.

  131. "Sorry to rain on your parade, but your brotherhood has less to do with the mission than the skills it takes to fight an effective battle. And if your brotherhood is that important, maybe it is time to make some changes. Why discourage a woman fully capable of fighting in combat because it will inconvenience you?"First off, who are you to tell him anything about his experience in the infantry? Secondly, if you did know anything about the infantry and combat, you’d know that it’s about a hell of a lot more than skills, knowledge, and even physical strength. Morale is at least as important, as is the brotherhood you seem to mock. Having women in a platoon will degrade both those, and more men and women will die needlessly as a result. Do you contest that? Because that matters far more than breaking down barriers for women. Do you honestly think that integrating women will make the infantry more effective? Do you honestly think it won’t make any difference? Here’s a good question for someone with your view. What effects do you think integration would have? Do you really think no one will be having sex or getting pregnant? Do you really think that when they do it won’t affect unit cohesion? Do you really not think that those effects won’t matter downrange? Really? What world do you live in? And by the way, homosexuality in the infantry… that’s kind of an apples and oranges thing.

    1. You are right, this is much more than just women’s rights. With that being said, allowing females into combat zones can have an effective impact. Who am I to tell him about his experience? That wasn’t what I was trying to do. Sorry you mistook it. It is unjust and ignorant for you to say that the morale will be effected negatively with females around.

      1. Tell me about this effective impact? Our infantry and other combat elements have always done their jobs better than all the other countries. Fact: we kill more of the enemy than they do us. How is having a woman enhancing our effectiveness? Whatever little tiny impact you might think they could have, is not worth it. The arrangements alone, which will need to be made for a single female, is not worth it or practical in that situation. Let me paint this picture to you–back in 2003, when things were not set up in Iraq, we used an e-tool to dig a hole in order to take shits–then we would sit on the actual e-tool to chat as we were shitting because there was no cover anywhere around. Or how about when we finally got "some" running water to wash up after a month, however we still did not have any cover and we literally washed in the open for us and the public to see. Can we eventually adapt? Who knows–I just know that it would come at the expense of the very little comfort we can have under already very stressful situations. Who the hell wants the added stress while in combat? You know what is unfair, the fact the men and women have to compete for the same promotion slots while taking a different physical fitness test. If you and everyone else want to scream equality, first take the male pft and be rated under the same standards I am. Last week the first female Sgt. Major was appointed as the 24th MEU Sgt Mj–great accomplishment and congrats–however, would she have lasted 20+ years in the USMC if she had to take the male pft and compete under the same standards? Probably not. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. It would completely screw up the careers of many females serving already. I cannot see a scenario where it benefits the infantry or females in general.

      2. Actually, just stop talking about what would be effective in a combat zone–you’re not qualified to do so.

  132. There is nothing sexist, bias, or close minded about this, it’s just whole lot of truth and some of you can’t stomach it. However valid points like this will be overlooked and women will die the same gruesome deaths we infantryman do and witness. And these images will make on the Internet and go viral then they will start calling for pulling women out of these roles they are pushing them so hard to be in…. But does it really need to come to that?

  133. As a former Marine and one who served as a grunt all that matters to me is, and this is the same for both genders; Are you trained, can you put accurate rounds down ranage, can you hold your own and pull your weight? I served with a lot of good dudes, guys that were cool and fun to party with but most of these dudes were sporting pizza boxs and when the shit hit were too busy pissing them selves or bitching about no support.I don’t care if you have tits or don’t as long as you have my back, pull your share of the load and fucking put rounds down range when needed.Semper Fi

  134. There are a lot of people throwing up the IDF (Israeli) as an example of women serving in combat rolls. A little perspective! The only infantry unit that has females is the Caracal Battalion formed in 2000. The units permanent task is patrolling the Israeli-Egyptian border in vehicles from set bases with all the amenities. It is composed of 70% females and has seen action only once, in 2012, when it engaged some terrorists that had crossed the border. It is not part of any regular infantry or combined arms formations.As an ex infantryman I would have loved this easy assignment.

  135. Call me old fashioned, simple minded, or whatever but to be honest this country has had only men in the combat roles for a long time and it has not cost us a war or anything. So I do not see any reason to try and fix something that is not broken.

  136. the boys on the front lines could use a good blow job. thats about all the women will be good for that end up infantry.

  137. Steven stop commenting please. I respect your opinion and kudos to equality but this isn’t an equality issue. I’m a firm believer in women being allowed to do the same thing as men but this is on another level. Bottom line its not about what’s right or wrong, its about what increases our chances for success in combat. If you can honestly say that adding women to the infantry gives us an advantage than I’m 100% for it as long as they pass the same exact standard no if ands or buts. But if adding women to the infantry is just to satisfy some feminest movement with no regards to the females ability to perform or the repercussions thaythat may come from it, than guess what, go scew yourself.

  138. How about we all agree to disagree? As a former Marine grunt who has served in combat I personally would not like to see females in the infantry but that is not up to me. I would hate to see any lives lost as well, but the ultimate test for these women to be in the infantry is to actually go out in a combat zone and engage the enemy effectively. If they can’t hold up to the rigors of combat then women in the infantry simply will not work out. This experiment with putting the women through training means nothing because I can promise anyone that soon as you start getting shot at, especially for the first time, all training goes out the window and instincts kick in. We all should just keep our own opinions to ourselves and watch how the woman perform in combat, then we can start to share our thoughts.-Nick

  139. Hygiene, infections, crawling through stagnant water, not having any way of bathing for weeks… maybe longer? If you want to do the same job as a man, maybe you should seal off your yeast factory before you head out on mission.

  140. Articles like this kill me. I am a Navy EOD tech, I have a combat related job. I have run point for NSW and ODA teams. I have slept in the field for weeks without showers, my pack is usually one of the heaviest with all the explosives and ECM. I have disarmed over 500 IEDs keeping our troops alive, do you seriously care if I have tits when I’m disarming the bomb in that doorway or navigating the team though a mine field?!

    1. I call bullshit, on this. I have never met a team guy that would let their tech walk point on anything. To valuable an asset to the team to waste on that. Nor have I ever heard of a female tech being attached to a SOF team.

  141. Brilliant logic. I can only assume the author believes black military men are inferior to white military men given as how the Union Army experimented with black enlistees rather than simply giving them the same roles from the get go. One of the major reasons they’re probably going with 25% is because of neanderthals like you who no doubt will do everythingin your power to see them fail. Hats off to the Marine who cares only about skill and competency.

  142. I have asked many woman in the army if they would like to be in the infantry over (100) and none of them said yes so I dont think we have much to worry about.

  143. Skills and competency are all that matters when your job is killing. Nothing else. If you want to insert politics Ricky, do it somewhere else.

  144. @ricky spanish, where does this logic of associating or even inditing what the author "believes". Let me expand, never assume anything… easy right? So lets get on with the real talk, women in infantry. Ive been in units both with and without, having a male and female living close and working together is fine if your ready to prevent the two from having sex. this ultimitly creates a seperated unit and a combat unit cant have that. they need the strongest bond possible, cause lives are at stake. I find making a entire female unit fit for combat SHOULD be tried, go ahead find enough females that can fit the male standard. After that let them go and perform there duties without any man. If a all male unit can do it let them do the same no ifs or buts, no special missions for the females… equality. and if they perform then so be it. I dont care what you are really in consideration for gender, color, race, preference… it doesnt matter if they can work and live together without special considerations just because of one of these things… all of this spoken from a Sgt who just wants mission accomplishment and trrop welfare to be maintained at the highest levels for 100% combat success.

  145. I have not been into "battle" but I have been in Law Enforcement for sixteen years. I am well educated and I grew up in what some would call the "hood. I believe my experience gives me somewhat of a perspective that research, experiments and education may not. I have fought, trained, bled and cried alongside my brothers in blue. I work in a male dominated career field. I am the youngest of five children and the only girl. I have three biological sons. I am literally submersed in testosterone. If I was younger I would be more idealistic and demand that I could perform any job/mission/duty assignment as a male counterpart. However, if you were to ask me if I wanted a female or male partner, the answer will always be male. There should never be a compromise or a lessening of the standards to allow anyone a job. I had a serious issue with females having a different physical test in Law Enforcement. If you are a female and you want to do a certain job, you better be able to pass the same tests as your male partner. My husband is retired Special Forces and two of my sons want to follow in his footsteps. Should there be females in my sons units? Only if they can pass the same shit my sons will have to pass. I will be pissed if my sons safety is compromised because someone wanted to play fair in the sandbox. I want my sons to come home. There may be other females that will argue their case. Unless you are working out like Demi Moore in G.I. Jane.. Youre fucking kidding yourself! War is not about being fair. And males and females were not created equal. Otherwise, my husband would have down loaded one of the babies while I was working in the yard.

  146. I absolutely agree with the points raised in this article. In times of war certain action must be taken to keep yourself and your mates alive. As hard as it is it can be done and is done. Regardless of gender if someone is put into a situation of kill or be killed they will try their hardest to survive. Of course there are physical and mental differences between males and females that make this act easier for males ie. strength, speed, instinct etc.That being said strength and speed can be gained and instinct can be honed regardless of gender. Take the ancient Scandinavians (vikings) for example. In their culture you were a warrior first farmer etc. second. If you could carry a weapon you were trained how to use it. Of course males were the primary soldiers, but if women were capable and willing they were encouraged to fight alongside the men as ‘shield maidens’. So theres an example in history that women are perfectly capable of holding their own in combat. It all comes down to training and a readiness to participate. If a woman or man for that matter doesn’t have what it takes instructors will identify that in basic before they even experience any sort of combat and either help to overcome the issues or move them on to something that suits them better. On the point of women not melding with the brotherhood of the unit I have a counter argument. Take the ‘FNG’ for example. He is not your brother until he proves himself. That could be said for women in combat roles. Of course they will not have the respect of the unit until they earn it. That being said, a woman would never be a brother. She would be a sister or even a daughter to the men of the unit. Someone the men would feel they must protect over everyone else. Therefore in a situation where the woman is in danger a man would go out of his way to protect her no matter what the cost. But these points have been addressed in other comments I’m sure. What I haven’t seen addressed is the matter of the consequences should a battle with women involved be lost. If a woman is killed I can not see it having any greater effect than if a male was killed but what if a woman were to be captured by the enemy. There are many disgusting things that could happen to a woman that couldn’t happen to a man or would be of greater intensity to a woman. The public outcry that would occur at hearing a female soldier executed would be immense. People would point the finger at someone for putting a woman in that position. It would get very political.

  147. http://www.amazon.com/WOMEN-WARRIORS-History-Warriors-Potomac/dp/1574887262/ref=sr11?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1395204852&sr=1-1&keywords=women+warriors+a+history If you haven’t read this, then you don’t have a knowledge base to tell me what women have or have not done. If you have never served in an Infantry unit with a Woman who knows her job, or been a woman in an infantry unit, you do not know what they can do. When you have served with a female in a war zone, under fire, talk to me. Or better, talk to the men I served with in Afghanistan and ask them if they want me at their back in a poppy field. Because I was at their back, and I did my job and the general consensus was, and I quote, "You’re balls are bigger than most of the guys here". I’m sick of this debate, and I’m sick of people who don’t know what the hell they’re about trying to comment on issues they have no expertise in

      1. I would humbly impart my .02 here, if I may.Given the standpoint and verbage the author has used in this article, I would deign to say that he does have some experience in a combat zone, in a combat arms unit, serving in a combat arms MOS. Subjectivity is a bitch (oh, I’m sorry… is that a sexist word?), and the fact that you essentially demerit his obvious expertise (I’m just speculating, but probably several years of service in said MOS and several combat tours, judging by the presentation of the material) in the aforementioned lends hardly any value to your claim to having served as you have said. If only you truly understood the implications presented in this dialogue and the truth of the reality he is painting… But instead, you perpetuate the proverbial saying of, "How dare you?" and take offense, rather than try to view things with subjectivity and logic?This is one of many epidemics we face as a society and now, in the military. Our society has grown to embrace a state of being, as I said, perpetually offended. In a community such as the military, which, in my humble opinion, should purely resemble a meritocracy, there is no room for favoritism or stepping over a hard and fast line for fear of "offending someone." I will agree with you and the author – women should be allowed to serve such as they see fit for themselves, and if the individual has the capability to be combat effective in a combat arms unit under the stresses, scarcities, and violence of combat, so be it. If they do not, then there are sure to be consequences as a result. The point that is worth speculating is this: Are the consequences, potentially the life of the individual in question or other members of the individuals unit, worth it? Bonus points for your grammatical purview by the way.

  148. Women in combat have their pros and cons. If I were invading a country however I would not use women as my front line though, as demonstrated by mother Russia, she intends to take all the cookies using men.

  149. This whole article just reeks of misogyny. Along with the obsession of the "brotherhood of soldiers" (something only men are capable of somehow), the author seems to think that women only exist to tear bro friendships apart. Why is it that men can come to mutual respect and understanding, but cannot do the same for women? The author basically just makes the same argument the military made against allowing gays in the army, which turned out to be bullshit.Oh god then the "thought experiment"…I actually came to the opposite conclusion the author intended us to reach. Why would I chose the female soldier without any knowledge of competence? I would argue that the woman is actually more likely to be a good soldier. Because of the constant harassment women in the military endure: the social stigma, the epidemic of sexual assaults, the male-centric culture of the military; for a woman to endure all that just to be a soldier, she must truly be a badass. But a man joining the military already has all the cards in his favor, with few challenges to overcome.Assuming that the reader would choose the man is a circular argument for sexism, by a sexist.But I do agree that finding a Golden Ratio is bullshit, as if the female soldiers need to be compensated for. They should test the effectiveness of a 100% female team, and also a 50% male 50% female team.

    1. Clears throat You are an idiot….. A female would be a better soldier she has to endure social stigma and sexual harassment?? By your logic I could make any numbers of counter arguments and apply the same principal to other scenarios all just for the sake of making a dumbass point based on opinion. This bloke isn’t a sexist, he is clearly a veteran and a REALIST.

    2. Let’s assume the infantry is full of misogynistic, sexist bastards like you say – just a bunch of flawed character A-holes that have blown their anecdotal evidence against this way out of proportion. Can you give a compelling reason why anyone should tamper with our desires, our idiosyncrasies and our methodology given our performance to date? Seriously, what moron looks at the combat record of the infantry in the US and says "Well, yes, they win battles and stuff but we need to cure them of their assholism." Seriously?

  150. I’m speaking from a civilian point of view, what they should do is throw out all the female qualification standards, if women can function as well as the men in the military then have them all in the same standard, literally hair cut as so short as the guys, same fitness standard, same everything, if they can’t hack it they’re out just like any of the guys, if the "feminists" start crying sexism then they obviously have no idea what the word feminist means, in this way women are COMPLETELY equal to men in the military, the men know this way that they can rely on the women to do the same as a guy in combat, and there is no feelings that the women are here because some idiot thinks it looks good, they are there to do the same job and have proven that they can do it without short cuts, exceptions, or lower standards

  151. Great article. I would have added, just to hit home. Imagine if only women marines hit the beach at Iwo Jima and all the other islands in the south pacific? And on D-DAY? No golden ratio, JUST women?Yeah, I thought so. Why do you need a "Golden Ratio"??? I think what they are looking for is how many women can we afford to put into a infantry unit and still be combat effective? If you answered ZERO you’re correct. Stop trying to weaken a nation by trying to be politically correct. The infantry’s job is to KILL our nations enemies, plain and simple and if the 1% of women that could do the job meet the standards without lowering the bar. As every service did just to get them past basic training (yes that’s correct, women don’t have the same physical fitness standards as men, NEVER HAVE) then let them in.s/f

  152. This article took the words right out of my mouth. This is how I felt having women in my MP unit. Every woman in my unit took the spot of a more capable man.

  153. So the point is not that women can not handle it is the fact the men can not handle women being on the front line. Because as you said men are sexually driven, women are not whereas women are more purpose driven. I think they should be separate teams. Personal opinion though.

  154. A. Women have served with infantry in several countries (Canada, Israel, Australia, etc.) for years with no effect pro or con on the unit (assuming equal entry standards; the proposed U.S. Marine experiment has lower standards for females which is wrong on many levels and understandably would make any soldier uneasy knowing a soldier next to him got in on lesser grounds; one standard for any soldier, your either have it or you don’t. B. This argument that keeps coming up about sexual urges and what to do about them is irrelevant when 5-10% of the populace is homosexual, admittedly or not. If these men can somehow magically put their duty ahead of "the most powerful instinct that human beings posses" I’m sure the heterosexual men will also find a way.

    1. Women do not serve in infantry in Australia. They have very recently begun adjusting rules to allow women to begin to try and get into infantry but so far none are capable of passing the watered down tests they are required to pass to be accepted. As the partner of an Australian ADF infantry solider I am completely against women being in infantry.

      1. Kaye, there are women in infantry in Australia, for at least the last 12 months. As for the new employment-based physical standard, it’s still being tweeked because most men in infantry can’t pass it!

  155. People forget there already has been women on the front lines, on combat patrols, outside the gate, etc in Iraq and Afghanistan. There will ALWAYS be resistance to change with discrimination. i.e. African American segregation in the military, Navajo Marines in WW2, open homosexuals (which is funny, because they are still fighting beside you rather they are open about it or not), etc. In 30-40 years, this bitching, moaning, drama from the guys will just be another footnote in history.

    1. People forget that their is a HUGE difference between getting in a gunfight and being Infantry.People forget that the current fight is not indicative of the fight we should be preparing to fight. That we are afforded luxuries we otherwise would not have. No one can debate that both sexes have been OTW. But, there is an unbelievable difference between doing a patrol as a medic in chest rig to stomping 10 hours a day, in the jungle, fighting a move to contact, living out of your pack – for 4 to 6 weeks. I have served with some outstanding women; tough, competent. I have never served with one I believe can soldier to the same standard I can, in the same conditions. This is political correctness in an area where what you perceive as being ‘right’ actually leads to us being dead right.

  156. sounds like you don’t trust men to control their sexual urges, maybe we should neuter all men going into combat if it’s such a distraction when there are woman around.

    1. GREAT IDEA!!! Let’s remove that part of men that makes them aggressive before we send them into combat. Combat is about killing. If there is a distraction, remove the distraction. If we could remove the combat, then this would all be a moot point now wouldn’t it?

  157. I am to the point with this discussion that my true hate and anger are starting to show. Bottom line I do not want to have to deal with all of the female crap that is going to make my life more difficult. How many females are going to shit in the middle of my 360 during a security halt? How many women are going to be okay with pissing themselves in a hide while not moving for hours? The answer is very few if any. There have to be considerations made for women, that I do not have to make for a man. It makes my life more difficult. No warrior needs that at all. To all of you that discount brotherhood and warrior bonds. KISS MY ASS. I will bleed and die for my brothers, and in a gunfight that is what carries you through. I am not saying women cannot be assimilated into that bonding, but it is going to be a lot more difficult for her. The social dynamics that are present in the warrior world are different from any other setting. You build men to be savages, train them to kill and maim their enemy, to accept their brothers falling to their left and right and continue to fight. These are warrior concepts that have been used since the beginning of time. A woman will change this dynamic. Whether it is sexual, over protection, lack of ability it doesn’t really matter. Any distraction can result in warriors dying in combat.

  158. If she can jump from a c130, stomp 25 klicks to the objective with an mg, webbing and pack. Then lug my 220lbs arse (Minus kit) under fire after my being shot, I’m all for it. To those for it, I ask how many women can do that. This is going to happen regardless of the realities. The standard gets dropped until enough pass.

    1. i think u kinda missed the point about this article. Its not just about what they can do its what women do to the men around them regardless of weather or not they intend for it to happen. its natural instinct that gets in our way and until we can find out a way to forget all instincts then women should not be on the battlefield. Which does suck because they do have a right too but the reality is women make men act differently weather it be socially or professionaly or making a choice between life or death

      1. The article isn’t the only point to be made. Instinct can be adjusted with change of social norms. The point is, there are women out there that can cut it. The problem is, there needs to be enough women out there that can do it for it to make sense logistically.

        1. That is a damn good point. However, mixing men and women in this role still isn’t a good idea until our social norms and mores have changed. 100% male unit? Of course. 100% female unit? Absolutely. 50/50? We are not socially ready for that.

      2. I don’t much think it goes much beyond the physical. Plenty of Russian partisans were women. They seemed to function pretty well killing Germans alongside the menfolk and I do believe they lived in very poor and unhygienic conditions. Female medics have conducted themselves well enough, and saved lives attached to infantry units in Afghanistan. But they ain’t lugging the loads of an infantryman. We lug a lot more shit than the those partisan girls did. That’s my objection to it. Attitude wise, it comes down to being professional enough to look past the tits and focus on your job.

  159. If I may…(nyuk nyuk nyuk) 1) There is NOTHING more dangerous than someone saying that "we" should apply "common sense". 2) I have met plenty of men who were never fit for combat, and were sent anyway (and I know you do too, Josh) 3) It has nothing to do with what type of genetalia you have. If you can do the job? The you can DO THE JOB! and if anyone is worried about having a female around a combat unit? THAT IS NOT THE FEMALES PROBLEM! That is YOU being a jerk! Get over yourself! There is NO reason to say that One person cannot do the same job as another simply based on nature deciding what sex they shall be!

  160. To YOU,Your an idiot. Rick and Nato, good points. As an old Marine (0311/1371), I have no problem with anyone held to the same standards. but certainly not lower. Both my daughters serve (1-Navy and 1-Marine). It is and will be difficult to make such a transition to infantry for anyone, I see very few woman that could assimilate, but if they can so be it. One standard, semper fi.

  161. Complete bullshit. Men, like you, are the problem, not women. Women are just a scapegoat for your juvenile lack of self discipline and impulse control. If you lack the ability and character to fight alongside a set of tits without getting all weirded out then you are weak and small and I would not want you in my squad at all. A coward blames the victim for his crimes.

    1. oh so a women screwing dudes is all the GUYS fault huh? your no better, it takes two for sex and from what ive seen FIRST HAND with women at the battalion level is a few dudes will have a female partner but the women sexually involved with someone in the battalion are usually sexually involved with MULTIPLE and dont even car to do it with just a curtain between them and a room full of dudes or heck even right in the open.

      1. oh and btw it definitely DID cause issues and loss of combat effectiveness in the unit, taking multiple soldiers out of the fight and occupying many others with the paperwork. thats why its illegal under ucmj not that it stops anyone

    2. I’ve typed and deleted so many responses. I give up. You have no idea what you are talking about.

    3. Wow you are retarded and probably some fat, rug-munching, POS feminist who knows nothing about the military. It’s not about "getting weirded out by fighting alongside tits". This is not a mental game we are talking about here. If I was shot and laying in a fox hole with only a women next to me I would hope she can either carry my big ass or hold off several male enemies until I could reach definitive care. Lets get one thing clear here, I would love to fight next to a set of nice knockers, but she better be able to hold her own when shit hits the fan. Set aside all of the politics, its not fair to ask the men (or women) of a team to put their lives in the hands of someone who is incapable or ill-prepared. As many others here have suggested, I have no problem fighting alongside a women if she is a certifiable badass that could kick my ass.

  162. I think I’ll speak from my experience with women in combat, on two different occasion with two different groups of females.First, Said Female is part of the Female engagement team attached to our unit, Given special quarters and bath room and everything, that’s okay, half the platoon was stuck sleeping outside already anyways. 3 females in squad sized tent no big deal. (granted this was already several months into our deployment when they showed up so we didn’t mind still being outside..)Anyways, one female on random patrol slips and "Rolls" her ankle, doc wraps it up and she’s out for almost 2 weeks, Awesome, one of our SAW gunners wasn’t afforded that luxary and had to "Tough it out" because we needed him. So would say well yeah that makes sense, I call bullshit, special treatment in a combat zone it doesn’t matter whose getting it or why it’s bullshit. This is still part of the first experience, Another one of those three females, is on a patrol, The Patrol takes contact, Not only does she proceed to go completely winchester, she does so inaccurately and whilst being told to slow rates of fire, and to only shoot at what you can hit because it was just a few pop shots. Granted I;m all for overwhelming superior firepower when returning fire, but How do you dump 5 + mags at nothing, unless you are intentionally trying to empty mags…. So glad they are equal and can be depended on, and that one of my brothers had to cover her ass and split ammo for her.Second Experience, Again, Female engagement team is attached to patrol, again they have 3 people in a squad sized living space… I feel the equality already….Patrol goes out on an "Average" yonder through one of the villages nearby, Patrol settles down, spreads out ina treeline, takes up security, and engages locals, Now I wasn’t there for this part, but I trust my brothers, Apparently they did nothing… didn’t engage any females, and didn’t do anything but sit around talking. So after 30 or so minutes patrol gets up and starts to move on… one problem, The 2 females, failed to let the two male marines that were on rear security and out of line of sight with most of the patrol no they were moving. Patrol hits next checkpoint about 30 minutes away, Realizes, that they are two marines short…..If you know anything about marine patrols especially in semi urban areas you know, You depend on that Marine in front of you make sure information is passed back and relayed to you. People will say well they weren’t infantry and blah blah defense about how they weren’t trained or didn’t know any better… All I say to that is fuck you. That’s like letting a babysitter starve your child to death and letting her off because she claims she didn’t know any better. Why are we even putting the Women into situations NOW that they aren’t ready for, it’s fucking pathetic, This lowering of standards to meet feminist demands is sad, I have met my share of females I think COULD be in the infantry and they don’t want to, a lot of them because of the fact the standards are getting lowered and they don’t want to be thrown in the trash category when the standards are so low, it fails. They also understand War is the province of man, They don’t want to go into something like that. They have no problem supporting the shit out of the Grunts, and helping them as best they can, but they Want US , and by us I mean MEN to be fighting. Even then it all came back all we want are EQUAL standards for everyone, Pass Fail no exemptions, You ether have what it takes or you don’t End of story. The Fact any kind of alternative to equal standards is even being considered is just anoher example of how were are losing as a country.

  163. Oh, yeah, and another thing that I don’t think has been mentioned yet… Just because the authors viewpoint is skewed in an unsavory viewpoint that you don’t like, it doesn’t mean his information is incorrect. Just saying, you can rant and rave all you want about how "sexist" he is, but it doesn’t change the fact that he may be right, even though he might be biased.Also, the whole thing about how the men can’t control their urges, and about how it is their fault? Yes, you guys are totally right. It is sad that they can’t seem to control themselves.Does that mean you should stick women in the military anyway? Yes, we acknowledge that the men are at fault here, but does that make it a good idea to stick women into the mix? Nope, that’s just stupid. It doesn’t matter who’s fault it is. Think about it. Also…I get that you want fairness and all that, but do you really want to go into the military and its awful conditions? So, its not fair to you. Great! Now you won’t be drafted into the next war. You should be happy, right? At least be active on some topic that you actually want to be a part of. I mean, unless you want to go into the military, and then, you are just kind of crazy. I don’t want to be a part of that, thank you very much, and I’m a dude.This whole thing just doesn’t make any kind of sense. Physiologically, psychologically, Aren’t guys more likely to hold up under the strain than women? Men are stronger and the weakest man, is stronger than the average semi-strong women. Yes, there are exceptions, but not very many.Basically, it just makes sense for men to be in the military, and not women.

  164. If women want to serve in infantry they need to be able to pass all tests and requirements to the same standard as any man. Even if they are to pass the same standards I still think they do not belong. Most men’s instincts are to protect females and children in any situation, so how do people expect this to not affect a section in combat. It is also proven that carrying a pack at the required weight for bush exercises or combat etc. that a women can likely become infertile – What women wants to put herself at risk? This of course will also lead to women suing the corresponding Defence Force even though she would have been made well aware of any medical risks prior to joining. As the partner of an infantry soldier I do not want women fighting along side of him as I know that it will add unnecessary risks to his life and those of his section when in combat.

  165. I would approve if they wanted to experiment with an infantry unit comprised of 100% women. That way it can be proved once and for all that women are combat ineffective.

    1. Or it can be proved that women are completely combat effective. I think the issue is that a mix of men and women in the particular way of life we live is completely combat ineffective.

  166. I have served 5 years in the FDF (finnish defence forces) and im currently in the amfibious task unit (kinda like the seals) and I’ve seen alot of women serving. About 90% of the women join the army/navy to get dick. Because everyone knows that a man in a uniform is alfa. 90% of the women does not meet the standards to be a jaeger (finnish special infantry) carrying a pkm lmg with 3 spare cans + standard field package. Wich weighs all together ~70kg. Ive seen 2 women that where as compatible in this task as any strong man. So in my opinion women should be stationed in service tasks etc.

  167. Here is the honest truth. If you are women and you want to be in the infantry you should expect no hand outs. You should expect that you will be treated harshly and unfairly and that everyday that you are going through the screening to be in the infantry to the day you report to your unit to the day you go into combat you will be expected to prove yourself, repeatedly. And proving yourself does not mean getting by with the bare minimum standard. You better shoot as good as the best guy in that platoon and move just as fast. You better be able to articulate properly what you are trying to communicate and you better know your job better than your counter parts (male or female). Here is the reason why, the day you don’t is day you allow someone to say "she cant do it cause she is a girl" or "I told you so." Implying you never should of been their in the first place.You have to look at it this way, all minorities in the past were always questioned for their ability to fight in combat and be in special military organizations. Time and time again they had to prove themselves. You will have to break down stereotypes on a daily basis, just as they did. And as an individual if you excel you will make room for those who follow behind you who carry those same attributes.And I end with this. I am minority in the military. I am an Operator under special operations. I have 9 plus years of experience. I don’t particularly care for women combat MOSs because of my own personal experiences. But if there is a woman that can prove me wrong I will gladly accept her. But don’t be mistaken I will make you know everyday you are going to earn your place in my team (and their is nothing sexual about that). You prove you can swim as fast as I can or faster, run as fast as I can or faster, hump with a hundred pound ruck as fast or faster. Basically shoot move and communicate just as I do or better. Why? If you are even asking that, because no one before me nor did I get a hand out or freebie. The only standard will be that team standard. And besides in combat no one is going to care if your a woman the will kill you the same if not in a worst fashion! And that’s the honest truth.

  168. I’m at the Academy and I beat more than 50% of the men in physical evolutions. In addition women could provide an emotional and physical advantage which most men can’t. I’m also gay. So I guarantee you I didn’t join the Navy to have sex with "alpha" males.

    1. First, let me say that it’s great that you’re at the Naval Academy. Your statement is confusing and poorly argued. I am not quite sure where you are trying to go with your premises. However, when you say you beat more than 50 percent of the men what exactly do you mean? Were you evaluated on a graded scale, i.e., a scale for women and a separate one for men? My husband is a naval officer who previously served as an army officer in a combat unit. He was deployed and saw hostile action. I know that all branches of the military have different standards for men and women, so I highly doubt that you truly beat 50 percent of all the men at USNA. Furthermore, even if you did, what about the other 40-something percent? You did not beat those, right? Also, which percentage of USNA graduates actually go into combat? A relatively small minority joins the Marine Corps each year with the vast majority of graduates entering the Navy. As a Navy Officer, my husband is not engaged in ground combat as the Navy does not have infantry forces. This leads me to my point: How would you fare against those men who have decided or will decide to become Marine Corps infantry officers? As you well know, the Marines also have pilots. Just something to consider.

    2. I’m at Navy too. I am proud to say, that any Mid in my regiment would out PT you. You are not looking at this article for what it is: women in combat units, not women in the military. There are plenty of unrestricted line jobs that women can take on and do well in! They have been for years. However, how do you think you would fare against a Firstie that was a SEAL contract? Or one that is trying to get an Infantry slot out of TBS? Not well I promise you that. You have no emotional or physical advantage over those guys. Compare your PRT standards to ours. They’re completely different. All your post was your feminist views coming out. Nothing fact based.

  169. Right, your in the Navy and at the Academy…WTF do you know about rushing into explosions and gunfire to pull your unconscious battle buddy out of an ambush…I’m sure you’ve covered that in some simulator at the academy…I highly doubt you’ll be buddy-carrying anyone to safety anytime soon…Leave the combat to the MEN in the INFANTRY! From experience, women can only mutate and devolve esprit de corps and unit readiness and raise percentage of single mothers or women in the military with sexual trauma or STD’s

  170. First any female that brags about a higher pt test or evolution, please do not leave out that you are under a different physical standard than the males so while your scores may be in the top 75% but your actual output is significantly lower than your male counterparts. I have witnessed females in combat environments and much of what is said is a true evaluation of actual events that occur, especially the sexual relationships and the strain it can produce on a squad. And often they opted to stay in the vehicle when it hit the fan. Not all but the majority. I give the example of PFC Lynch as an example of that. If a female can ruck up to a male standard go ahead and allow them. But bottom line, not many can. We have had these experiments before, the Citadel comes to mind. Everyday run of the mill women cannot keep up. Even in training they were smoked long before most of the males. I come from 155mm field artillery rounds. They weigh almost 100 lbs apiece. I am 6’4" and 245. Big difference from a 145 lbs counterpart. More so with the physical differences of the sexes. 100 lbs might not be maneuverable at all.

    1. I like how the example you give is probably the worst you could have chosen. Find the real story of Jessica Lynch: a soldier who neglected their first responsibility as a soldier. Every issue came from her lack of respect for combat, the jammed rifle and inability to preform immediate and remedial action to get that weapon system operational, and climaxed with her deserting her squad. The glorification if her actions is probably the best example against women in combat.

  171. The issue at hand as far as this post goes seems to be less with women actually being qualified for combat roles and more with the social norms surrounding the idea. However, this post and most of these comments are choosing to let the norm continue to exist rather than attempting to focus on a legitimate question. The attrition rate of BUD/S is purportedly 75-80%. That means that only roughly two out of every ten men who start SEAL training will be able to finish the program: most MEN are not capable of satisfying those standards. Those that do probably deserve their new warfare specialty and will excel in combat. If a woman can complete BUD/S and SQT and overcome the physical, mental, and emotional adversity tailored to honest-to-goodness combat scenarios that even most men can’t beat, why shouldn’t she become a SEAL? I hate to break it to everyone, but sexual frustration isn’t what qualifies somebody a member of these brotherhoods; completing the training does. You can’t pin men’s inability to control their emotions (as this article seems to suggest men can’t focus on the task at hand if women are around) or thought patterns on women.While I agree that there’s no "Golden Ratio," putting women directly into those combat roles is really the only way to prove that women are capable of performing. I doubt we will see a serious loss of efficiency or morale.

  172. The issue at hand as far as this post goes seems to be less with women actually being qualified for combat roles and more with the social norms surrounding the idea. However, this post and most of these comments are choosing to lead the norm continue to exist rather than attempting to change it so there is only one real question left to answer. The attrition rate of BUD/S is purportedly 75-80%. That means that only roughly two out of every ten men who start SEAL training will be able to finish the program: most MEN are not capable of satisfying those standards. Those that do deserve their new warfare specialty. If a woman can complete BUD/S and SQT and overcome the physical, mental, and emotional adversity tailored to honest-to-goodness combat scenarios that even most men can’t beat, why shouldn’t she become a SEAL? I hate to break it to everyone, but sexual frustration isn’t what qualifies somebody a member of these brotherhoods.While I agree that there is not some "Golden Ratio,"

  173. Frankly, if you want to admit to being something less than human, or as you put it, "Infantrymen are about as alpha as men get. The love to kill and they love women," then that is fine as your own somewhat tragic view of yourself. I, however, like to believe that we as humans, men and women, have a bit more to offer with regards to our chosen professions. Honestly, this dedication to the old ways is a waste of time. Men and women should have the opportunity to try and fail in whatever profession they so seek, including the US Armed Forces. Because that is what this nation is all about. That is what we fight and kill for, so what makes the military any different? Just because you hold a weapon when you go to work does not make the empirics of the laws of sexual discrimination and Article 8 of the UN Declaration of Humans Rights null and void. While your normalized dedication to the boys club is cute at best, it is not indicative of the reality that we currently live in. Realistically, you’re right. Women will most likely not make their splash in the USMC infantry, and I’d be unrealistic to assume that to be the case. However, if we are that fatalist to believe that just by having a woman in the squad she’s going to sleep with everything with a pulse, you’ve got to be kidding yourselves. Not only is that a ridiculous and slut-shaming view on women, but it’s also indicative of your out-of-this-world ego. Come now, you’ve got to be kidding yourself. It is a sad thing to expect the minorities or "the other" to have aspire to such super high i.e. higher than the average male, to succeed and achieve acceptance. There was a tiny number of women who’d meet these requirements in the base case, but that’s just offensive to expect the only way a woman could achieve respect is by not only meeting the average male standards but by also beating all the best males in the platoon. Men try and fail everyday, but they are still allowed to try. I’ve never met Wonder Woman before, but when you find her, do point her out to me. Until then, what needs to be done is a re-evaluation of what is absolutely necessary for combat effectiveness and maximum force lethality. Women can offer particular skills in combat that men just cannot, especially with regards to intelligence gathering and human terrain. If we are to believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the way of the future, and arguably they are (we can get into this argument in the comments section too if we want), then we need women in combat. They’ve been there since the beginning of time (I can provide loads of examples from Russia to Scotland to Ireland to the UK to the US), and to believe otherwise is uneducated, and incorrect. This post lacks quality, depth, and analysis.

    1. "Until then, what needs to be done is a re-evaluation of what is absolutely necessary for combat effectiveness and maximum force lethality."Why? Unless there’s an anticipated benefit from making a change, what’s the point of re-evaluating? For the sake of equality? That’s a BS reason if it’s yours. I don’t know if you understand the concept of combat, but the idea is, you try to kill people that are simultaneously trying to kill you. Putting unnecessary risk into that exchange just so the girls can say they got a fair shake is a stupid idea at best, negligent at worst.

      1. Well said BP! As much as I would love to Disney up war it can’t be done. It is a disgusting event. The tension that builds while in combat is indescribable. Like the OP said "Infantrymen are about as alpha as men get. The love to kill and they love women," I can recall engaging in a bloody fight with one of my best friends over a motor we saw in a magazine (I believed it came out of one car him another). That is not normal behavior and by no means would it have a place in decent society. That’s the kicker though, war is not decent society. War is 100’s of emotions all wound together in one ball trying to escape. Yeah we kicked the living hell out of each other and hugged it out 1 minute later. Did it make sense? No! But that is what happens. Also I had two women engineers on the base we were living on. Both of them had more sex in a year then I have had in my life… I by no means am calling them sluts but, being in combat for men and women alike requires some kind of exit for the stress. Sense and Reason, to make a valid argument you need to experience the feelings that war brings. You cannot sit idly by on the sidelines and preach equality. I’m truly sorry if in someway I have offended your sense of right and wrong but combat is for the wicked and those with a high propensity for violence. In other words, combat is for the "Alpha’s".

    2. "Men and women should have the opportunity to try and fail in whatever profession they so seek." What a sweet platitude! It’s almost as though failure in combat is like missing out on a big sale to a customer or flubbing a presentation in the boardroombut it isn’t. Anybody who goes to into combat with anything less than the best they can find is begging for body bags. Your post belies your stilted viewpoint that combat arms is a "profession" that has some sort of guaranteed outcome. It doesn’t. "Women can offer particular skills in combat that men cannot". Listen closely: a rifle platoon is not an intelligence gathering unit. It’s a heads-on-pikes unit. BTW – are you really arguing that F does not equal M anymore? Because that is the BS math that got this whole thing started. And certainly, you realize how ridiculous it sounds to say "Well, we put together a platoon of 49 steely-eyed killers, but that one, she’s a "people person" in case we decide to parlay with those scurvy dogs." Maybe the School of Infantry will institute a course on "21st Century Interpersonal Relationships and Human Terrain Management (without the use of a bayonet)".

    3. "Men and women should have the opportunity to try and fail in whatever profession they so seek, including the US Armed Forces. Because that is what this nation is all about."-This is immoral, senseless, and without reason (despite what your screen name says). Combat is real, and people really die. A person’s desire to serve does not outweigh another’s right to life. Unfortunately for those women brave enough to volunteer to serve in such adverse conditions, bringing a women into a male infantry unit (something I have commanded), reduces combat effectiveness."so what makes the military any different?"-Life, life makes combat different. In an organization surrounded by death, life makes the difference."Just because you hold a weapon when you go to work does not make the empirics of the laws of sexual discrimination and Article 8 of the UN Declaration of Humans Rights null and void."-You’re right, that’s why there are women police, and security guards, and women in other areas of the military. However, combat units are different and (see above op-ed piece). On an aside, I one escorted a transportation battalion (mixed men and women) through what was then the most hostile area (attacks per square kilometer) of Afghanistan. The difference between my infantry unit and the traspo unit was when attacked, we sought out and destroyed the enemy, while the transpo unit rode though the "combat." Anyone can drive a truck, it takes a TEAM to take down an enemy, and mixing gender degrades those teams."Until then, what needs to be done is a re-evaluation of what is absolutely necessary for combat effectiveness and maximum force lethality."-I’m not sure what you are suggesting, or if you even know what you are trying to say, possibly that our military should run on a lower common denominator. "what is absolutely necessary"? I rode around Afghanistan in an up-armored vehicle, was that absolutely necessary? no, i could have used a light-skin truck like the Afghans do, my legs would have blown off though, and I probably would have got a few 7.62 rounds in my side. I didn’t really need night vision, it only helped during a hand full of night patrols. I’m not sure what you mean by absolutely necessary, but so long as I have a command, I will make sure my solders are the best trained and most prepared. I refuse the notion of good enough, or acceptable for a military at war. "Women can offer particular skills in combat that men just cannot" -Yes, but outside the realm of the infantry platoon. I believe that all flight medics should be women, as research has proven that the female voice calms male patients suffering from shock, which increases the likelihood of surviving a traumatic battlefield injury. From your rant however, it seems the only reason you believe that Women should be allowed in an infantry platoon is for equality, but I’m sorry, your false notion of equality shouldn’t supersede morality." If we are to believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the way of the future, and arguably they are"-invalid assumption (not relevant to the discussion, but I just wanted to point it out)

    4. You are not qualified to speak on this issue, period. You clearly have NEVER been in combat and your simplistic academic assessment of the battlefield is insulting to anyone who has been in battle. War is hell….it is. The mentality of a combat ready soldier is resigned to kill or be killed and our basest human instincts push us to survive. When you face the realities of these extremes DAILY then yes, you do often times behave like an animal. Creating life and taking life are experiences that awaken visceral feelings. As a man I cannot create a life…I can add my DNA but I cant do the powerful and amazing work a woman does. However, as a soldier I can push my body to limits of strength and endurance that, at their extremes, will ALWAYS surpass a woman’s ability in those areas. As a Marine, my mind is conditioned and razor sharp to kill on the battlefield; I will not hesitate or recoil from battle. However, as a man, I will always feel the need to protect and defend the women in my life. That would apply to my family in combat as well. This last assertion in many cases will negate my second. In the infantry we are in the economy of basic combative success and the currency is unfortunately lives. Emotionally, men are generally more able to divorce themselves from the harshness of that world…for a time. It lives in you forever and you always remember the blood, death, desperation, physical exertion, and ever-present terror of combat. This forces you to rely on the person who is most like you. That other person IS you and their strength then becomes your own; that’s brotherhood. If that other person is a woman then I’m not looking for that same thing from her. I want her to comfort me, hold me, I WANT her to keep me tender. Now, I’m not saying that a female soldier is by default going to sleep with anyone in combat. I’m saying that from my perspective that’s what I want. That will also compromise my battle-readiness. Women are not below men; they are capable and powerful in so many ways. In combat, however, under the same physical, mental, and emotional strain as men. They cannot operate as effectively and thereby will compromise the effectiveness of a that unit. I mean no disrespect but unless you’ve been in battle and FOUGHT in battle you are simply unqualified to argue this point.

  174. Great argument, until you brought up the psychological hardship factor. Everyone gets a shot, equal standards. If they fail they are out. In a fight I don’t care who is on my left and right as long as I know they belong there because they met all the same mental and physical requirements I did.

  175. This is extremely well put. I back everything you have written 100%. Infantry and SpecOps are a special breed of men. And that brotherhood should be respected. As much as I wish to prove myself (to myself) and subject myself to the experiences and struggles you men undergo together in order to make myself a stronger individual, I could never invade/potentially cause problems in the function of a team or unit. And I could never live with the idea of someone dying for me due to the psychological instinct of a man moving to save a woman in trouble. Mad respect for what you do and the people you are. Get in, fuck shit up, get out ;) You sexy bastards.

  176. You have some extremely good points. Infantry and SpecOps are a special breed of men. And that brotherhood should be respected. As much as I wish to prove myself (to myself) and subject myself to the experiences and struggles you men undergo together in order to make myself a stronger individual, I could never invade/potentially cause problems in the function of a team or unit. And I could never live with the idea of someone dying for me due to the psychological instinct of a man moving to save a woman in trouble. Mad respect for what you do and the people you are. Get in, fuck shit up, get out ;) You sexy bastards.

  177. The Logical OneCOMBAT. WAR. KILL OR BE KILLED…. i challange any man or woman to explain to me with 100% clairity what equality or being fair have one god damn thing to do with any of those three things. if you want equality and to be treated fair… then stay on the civilian side of life where those things are a reality and can be made possible. the United States Milititary is not in the buisness of being fair or equal. its sole buisness and only purpose is simple, COMBAT. WAR. KILL OR BE KILLED. stop using fancy words and outlying logic to make this something that its not. there is only one side to be on and thats the winning side. not the fair or equal side.

  178. This is VERY well written. And just to put this out there to ‘sense and reason,’… You’ve never seen combat obviously. There is no ‘sense and reason’ in combat, I assure you. Everything that you believe you know about being human, and being civil breaks down as soon as bullets start flying, artillery starts pounding, and mines start exploding. Your entire argument is invalidated purely on the fact that you are basing everything you say off life in a civilized society.

  179. Sense and Reason has not only not seen combat, he has never been in the Military. It is also doubtful that he has lived a life outside of the protected ideology of academia, despite his condescending admonitions about the "real world".

  180. To Combat Infantryman,It’s heartening to know that you so ardently believe that all that we know of humanity and civil society breaks down in the heat of battle. You, as well as this entire piece, makes all infantry personnel out as bloody animals. If you can’t control your emotions, your sense of morality, or your sexual desires because you’re in a tough environment then maybe you should grow a pair and get out. My God, do I really want someone like you fighting for American freedoms if you can’t even keep your wits about you when it’s ‘tough’? I thought that’s why we all went through training, to prepare ourselves mentally and physically, not to be degraded to mere beasts because war is difficult.

    1. Perhaps you should have taken the time to read what I stated. I didn’t say war is ‘tough,’ or things went crazy because it is ‘difficult.’ War is hell, training, though it might be really good training, and might suck, is not. You cannot train for the realities of war. Control yourself in war? Bloody animals? Welcome to combat, in all it’s beastly, animalistic, non-humane glory. I read a lot of these comments, and I can clearly see who has been there and understands, and who is postulating based on what they think they know. I’m not attempting to insult you like you insulted me, but I will say that I feel you have no idea what you are talking about.

    2. Disgusted, we really dont care if YOU want us fighting for you. We fight for our kids and families so they hopefully don’t have to do it when they get older (wild dream that it may be and will never happen). but if we stepped aside and allowed the nutcases of this world to come into this country and destroy the cushy freedoms YOU have, you would probably be the first coward hiding in the fetal position with your thumb in your mouth crying out asking "where is the military". People like you make me really sick and i would love to ship your sorry asses to some other country just so you can learn just how fucking good you have it here. keep your bullshit comments to yourself as no one here wants to here your fucking pussy ass bellyaching!!!!

  181. If you’ve not been in the grunts then go ahead and pipe down. We are animals and operate of that level to do what we do. You don’t see men getting all sad about not being able to have babies.

  182. I want to thank the individual who wrote this. Very well said. I retired from the SEAL teams almost 3 years ago. I started my career by serving my first 2 years in the Marines with 1st Recon BN, during the gulf war and also spent 5 years with Force Recon, before crossing over to the teams. When I finally had the opportunity to start attending college towards the end of my career I wrote a paper on the problems with woman in combat. I’ve only read the paper aloud in class once and my professor only graded me on my delivery so he didn’t even see it. You have almost verbatim regurgitated my exact points I was delivering that day almost 6 years ago in that class room. The only other person who saw eye to eye with me was another SEAL sitting in that same room. The chemistry thing is huge!! Every night when the boys returned from chasing tango’s all night we had a place to drink our frustrations away. A lot of times, as the deployment progressed and more guys were getting hurt or killed, those gatherings would turn violent and arguments would occasionally ensue and like "animals" we would fight until the rage subsided. Thanks again for posting so many valid points bro. SPOT ON!

  183. You could have (and should have) stopped writing midway through your second paragraph. You posed the question: "If women really are fit for combat, shouldn’t I be able to make a unit composed of 100% women and have the potential for combat effectiveness? " The answer to your question is yes. That is the end of the argument. If the United States Armed Forces is willing to place incompetent personnel in combat situations, than there clearly exist much larger issues within the system. Not all women are cut out for the infantry. Not all men are cut out for the infantry. Some people can cut it, and others can not. Those who have the mental acuity and physical stamina to fight on the front lines for our country will make the cut and will be an integral team member. If you consider women too dainty to fight and survive without the help of you and all your "alpha" friends, then you have clearly missed the last hundred years of human history. Most of this trash article is spent making excuses for why you and your "animalistic" counterparts might not be able be able to control yourself in the field with a few perfectly capable women. Perhaps it’s you who can’t cut it. Perhaps it’s you who should remove yourself from your unit as you seem to doubt that you’d be able to be 100% combat effective.

    1. Mark,What experience are you speaking from here? I would venture to bet that you’re making ill informed arguments and pulling experience from thin air… Perhaps Mark, you should gain some perspective on what combat entails before making an estrogen driven opinion on equal rights and "animalistic behavior". To be blunt you have no real world experience and it shows in what you have written. If you want to argue the point go do your time serve on the front lines and report back with your findings.

  184. True, there are plenty of women who are more than fit to be in combat, both physically and mentally. Yet, I agree that the mixing of genders wouldn’t work at all. We’re on a stand down because of sexual harrassment and sexual assault, and some of you think it wouldn’t be a problem? Not only that, but the simple fact of people just sleeping around causes problems, and it happens often. To whoever says "We’re better than that, and if you can’t contain your urges and emotions you should get out"… sorry to burst your bubble, but that statement is ridiculous. It’s called being human, and no matter how mentally rigid and in control you think you are now, combat changes everything. Instincts are your number one go-to when it is kill or be killed. Emotionally distraught, fatigued, stressed, hungry, and often traumatized describes it all. Call them "wild, bloody animals", I just say it’s human, and Mr. Disgusted down there should probably grow a pair himself and tell me what combat is like for him when it’s said and done.There are many women I know who often outshine males when it comes to things like PT (and on the same scale for men, not women), and are ten times smarter and more gutsy. But the mixing will do more harm than good. Women as a whole feel there is something to prove, that they can be ‘one of the guys’, that they are just as tough, just as resilient, and can do anything men can do better. I know because I’m a woman. And I have no problem leaving the fighting to the grunts, because I still out run my NCO’s and have competitions with men in the gym. That being said, I also don’t want unnecessary problems in the infantry units than there already are, because someone wants to do an experimental game seeing how much of us they can take before it’s too much. That in itself is insulting to women anyway, and we cannot afford to lose another American’s life because of these games. I say protect your fellow brothers in arms by doing what’s right for the mission. To save someone’s brother, father, or son by not compromising the unit and therefore it’s combat effectiveness, is far better to me than ‘fairness’.

  185. As a wife of an operator I stand behind this article 100%. For those people commenting on this saying that it is degrading to compare those in combat to "beasts" I shake my head. The selection process that the USA has in place for its Special Operators is stringent, after initial selection it only gets harder, once you are with your team/group/platoon the beatings continue. These men take beatings that many would call abuse, overcome adversity, and TRY to break themselves so that no body else can. For those who don’t know the community, please do not try to, just thank these selfless men for their service and continue on. This is not a game, there is no restart button or way to try again. I want my husband to be surrounded by the fastest, strongest, focused beasts that exist.If a woman can meet every single requirement that is required of a man, take the beatings, take the belittling, live in the same room with men, and maintain the focus and accuracy, then let that individual serve on a team with other women who can do the same. Women have a place in battle, even in Special Operations, but I do not feel that it is along side men. Programs such as the Cultural Support Program are great and need to exist, women have a softer touch that can impact our country and safety greatly. However if these women were in a platoon with my husband and he went down would a woman be able to buddy carry my 185lb husband plus full kit and load-out back to safety? Very few…. 25% I think not. Some women would be able to, and for those that is awesome! You too are beasts (this is a good thing), but trying to find the right mix? Really? Sounds like lowering standards to me…

  186. I wouldn’t mind having them around to make sammiches and give a good blow-job while in combat. Other than that, they aren’t worth anyone’s time.

  187. Well written and thorough. I was a Marine 0331 in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have personal experience with FET/Lioness teams in combat environments. Specifically the team in your title photo while in Musa Qala. It is a bad idea…period(no pun intended). It is inevitable that this "progress" will come to be though. Too many powerful people want it. Political Correctness first invaded American culture and is filtering its way into the finest parts of the military. Now as a college student I am witnessing the true cost feminism has wrought on this country. Our rise and fall as a nation mirrors that of the Roman Empire. The citizenry living a soft idealistic life, paid for by the warrior class eventually turns on their protectors pacifying and contracting out their military duties. The rough men that Hemingway spoke of are a dying breed. Americans live the good life, especially American women. There is a myth that women in America are at a disadvantage to men. The 25 most dangerous job categories are all held by men. Crime sentences for men are tougher than for women who commit the same crime. Sexual Harrasment/Assault is a one way street in favor of women. Women overwhelmingly win custody/alimony in divorces. Women are the benefit of affirmative action in business/ colleges. Women attend and graduate college at a higher rate than men.Lets stop marginalizing men in this country. The infantry is the last bastion of the true alpha male in our society and it is going to go away. Who then will create real men.

  188. People probably did not read the first post I put on here but here is an abbreviation so to speak:If you are going to be a proof of concept you will have to break down all stereotypes and prove yourself on a daily basis. So expect no hand outs from those who already have achieved those goals. If you want the respect you should perform to the standard of the top 5 percentile, if not top 1%. And if an individual excels at being this proof of concept, you will make room for those who follow behind you, who carry those same attributes. And for those of you who have never experienced combat, WAR is one of the most barbaric unfair venues in life there is. The mind can tell the body what it can or cannot do. So man or woman if you are weaker than your enemy in anyway you will fail.

  189. "We all know men are fit for combat, right?"???… Are u that stupid? I see WAY more men than Women, that are overweight, out of shape and disgusting, with guts so big they cant see their feet??? They cloud not save a damn thing, even if they wanted to. You poor sexist Idiot… Male, Female, it DOES NOT matter. I want whomever is fittest for the job, to save me. (As in man or Woman) Do you have any idea how many Women have just as much muscle and strength, as any ‘man’? I am guessing you do not. What a shame. As a student of Psychology, the ONLY reason a person would type up some silly crap like this, is out of pure Jealousy and some negative, past experience with mommy or someone alike… Ill pray for you Hun.

    1. You are telling me that in a platoon of Marines there are " overweight, out of shape and disgusting, with guts so big they cant see their feet"? LMAO you sound like a total idiot. No way in hell does this exist. ANd lets say for shits and giggles there was a disgusting/over-weight/out of shape Marine in a fighting platoon- guaranteed he is stronger than 90% of the women on this PLANET. You clearly are a femi-nazi that has no clue what being in a patrol outside the wire LOOKING FOR THE ENEMY TO KILL THEM WITH YOUR OWN WEAPON is all about. GTFO with that crap.

    2. First, your statement that you have seen way more overweight men than women is irrelevant as those aren’t infantrymen. If we rephrase your question to ask "how many women have just as much muscle and strength as the average infantryman," the answer is undoubtedly in the neighborhood of 0.0001%. Since you are by your own admission merely a "student of psychology" and not a psychologist, your psychological analysis is of zero value, but thanks anyway. Finally, since you have undoubtedly never experienced combat (or you would have thrown that out there in addition to your other impressive credentials like being a student of psychology), your opinion on this topic means nothing. Now, back to the kitchen and make all of us infantrymen some sammiches!

    3. Yeah, because Testosterone is a Social Construct. Gender Feminism is corrupting your mind. And you are a fool for paying for such a worthless degree.

    4. I noticed that you stated "I see WAY more men than Women, that are overweight, out of shape and disgusting, with guts…" but what you did NOT say is that you didn’t see this in a combat effective infantry unit. You won’t see men like that I a combat effective unit. As for your open question, "Do you have any idea how many women have just as much muscle…" I don’t know the answer to that but I suspect you don’t either. But you’re asking the wrong question. Are there AS MANY women as men that can hump 80 pounds of personal gear, along with their weapons, some extra 7.62 ammo for the "pig" and the tripod? The simple answer is no, the extended answer is yes there are SOME women who could. But war is not a place to experiment with political correctness nor the time or place to show that women are just as good as men. As for your sniping at the end of your tirade. I minored in psychology and I have to say you are a really angry woman who obviously has "daddy issues" due to the fact that your daddy really wanted a boy but got you instead.

    5. I’m not going to be hateful here but as a psychology student who is graduating next semester I would really like to know where you get off using that as an excuse to be rude? Nothing you said has anything at all to do with psychology because as a psychology student you wouldn’t make generalizations about whole populations with no backing evidence. In psychology saying something like this would just get you laughed at. Don’t use your education to make stupid arguments, this is why n one takes psychology seriously. You would never have said anything like that or used your psychology training to back up that statement if you were serious about it. You’re angry and wanted to validate yourself but failed. And as for the issue of women in infantry, they shouldn’t be. Very simply put but the truth.

      1. "Nothing you said has anything at all to do with psychology because as a psychology student you wouldn’t make generalizations about whole populations with no backing evidence. In psychology saying something like this would just get you laughed at. . . . [This] is why no one takes psychology seriously."^ This.

  190. Hmmm… I’m torn. If women want to be in combat units, I think the first test is to have a 100% female unit and see how they do. I do agree that the PT standards need to be the same because they need to be able to carry the same amount of gear. Now, once they have proven to be combat effective, make small squads of mixed sexes and see how it goes. But the men and women need to accurately record their thoughts and emotions about what is going on. Once sex starts happening… I think thats where the problem will be. When bullets, explosions, hand-to-hand, and KIA’s start becoming daily life EVERYONE will show their true colors. When someone you had a moment with starts hooking up with someone else, grudges start to become a part of reality. And when the person you have the biggest grudge against needs your own life to attempt a rescue… there is a CHANCE of betrayal or lack of needed effort. No one wants to admit it, but we have all harbored bad feelings towards someone that has done better and made us feel small. The battlefield is simply not somewhere that needs that kind of person. And that one betrayal can do just as much damage as an RPG to an armored vehicle. Bottom line… if women are allowed in combat roles alongside men there needs to be a FIRM rule against hooking up while in the field. Once your back stateside, hump like bunnies with no rules. But out in the field, keep it professional.

  191. I have to admit you make some valid points in your analysis. There definitely should not be a mix of men and women based on some "magic number" formula. I also have to agree with some of the comments made against your argument as well. There is no reason that a unit comprised of 100% women, that are tested and trained with the same standards applied to 100% male units, should not have the opportunity to fight for what they believe in. I am in the military but have not seen any combat so my opinion might not hold as much weight with some people. I believe everyone should have a chance to prove themselves. You can never know until you try. A female unit could prove to be incredibly effective or it might be massacred, in which case you will get your wish and the issue will be shelved until the next war.

    1. The problem with the "experiment" idea is this: People die on battlefields. If the experiment fails, more people die, armies fail, and nations fall.At best, at absolute best, you are postulating that an all female unit will be "as good". So, for a country not engaged in total war, the additional cost to construct these units gets the the taxpayer nothing.You need to come to grips with the fact that this is not about Rosa Parks getting her choice of seating on the bus. This is about how many people get killed in battle. That’s it.Is there a woman here who says "my right to choose an MOS trumps a man’s need to survive combat or a nation’s pursuit of victory?"

  192. I re-post my question since so many apologists have since flocked to the thread: Where are all the historical examples of victorious female infantry battalions? Certainly there are many non-mythical civilizations extant that were able to defeat this so-called misogyny and the enemy simultaneously. Certainly there is a pattern of victory that connects hundreds of pieces of anecdotal evidence? No?Second, why aren’t ALL military females DEMANDING the end of gender based physical fitness tests? Have we somehow attracted females that are so weak minded, they don’t understand the rancor created by these tests? Why aren’t these females, especially the GOFO females, demanding equally shitty field conditions and refusing the showers, tents, and cots that get hauled out just for them? Why do they accept NCO promotions based on PFT scores that would get a male a Page 11 or a discharge? Anyone can refuse a promotion for any reason? Why hasn’t that been done en masse? Every infantry officer I saw in the field ate hot chow last, dead last. Shouldn’t we at least expect female officers to be leading the charge to punish voluntary pregnancy downrange? WHY ARE FEMALES IN THE MILITARY TOLERATING THE UNEQAL BENEFITS? Why do we only hear the lioness roar (in person and in print) when things aren’t going their way? Is this the hall mark of combat leadership?I am not asking anyone to explain why the inequality exists, simply to explain why females regularly accept the benefits of it when it would be so simple to deny oneself something to prove a point to the rest of the military.

  193. I completely agree with your view point on women in combat. I do not believe any female should be selected for any duty without passing the same physical and mental tests as their male counter parts. Worrying about political correctness and gender basis in a combat situation will get people killed.

  194. We live in a society that is patriarchal in nature. Many of your points here only exist because the ideas you are espousing have been taught to you by the patriarchal system since you were a child. From the moment people are born we begin genderizing them by assigning the label "girl" or "boy." These terms do not indicate anatomical sex of a child but instead speak to gender, or at least a prescribed idea of gender. Boys like trucks and being rough, girls like dolls and tea parties. But do they? We assume that boys will like blue but that’s because we stick them in a blue room with blue clothes on them from the first day they get home from the hospital. Peoples preferences, biases, and tastes are subtly formed at a very early age due to their surroundings and the way the parents teach the societal life script to their kids. The patriarchal system is maintained through various methods; men have consistently derided women and their sports abilities. One of the worst insults you can say to a young boy is "you throw like a girl!" (and that would be such a terrible thing because women are so inferior and if you imbue any of their characteristics you will become worthless as a male). Women aren’t given half a chance to be good at sports because the communities and governments (which are run by mostly white males) throw money and advertising at the mens teams. We aren’t expected to be good because sports are considered a male dominated environment and thus we are inadvertently cut out of it. But it’s about more then the money issue. Even though we have more female sports teams now then every before, they are always regarded with some level of derision. If they’re good everyones sort of surprised but at the end of the day doesn’t care very much unless they have a vested interest. Why do we feel this almost ambivalence towards womens sports? Because since we were little the idea that women weren’t really supposed to be serious about sport (because really they could never be any good at it because they’re so delicate and weak) have pervaded everyones subconscious. We have no clue how much untapped female sport potential is out there, but many of the talents will lay dormant because women will be genderized into other, more suitable hobbies. The last thing I want to comment on is your notion that men and women in a platoon would result in sexual relations and ultimately destroy the fabric of the platoon. Why does the issue of sex ALWAYS have to be involved when a man and women enter the equation. And why does the women always get the raw end of the deal? The feeling I get from what you’re saying is that people (men) will become so lustful and sex crazed that the focus on the job will deteriorate if women are there. I feel as though you are seriously underestimating people are and aligning them with the most basic of instincts. In a war zone, I’m sure people have enough discretion to make their own decisions about what is right. Why should women be cut of the military because of an issue that involves two groups, not just one. Men are bafflingly exonerated and women play the role of the archetypal temptress, leading men astray. In Islam women wear the hijabs partly because there is the idea that a women is so tempting that if a male saw her in normal clothing he would be driven into a lustful state and who knows what would happen then… All these elements seemed remarkably intertwined. I’m not trying to shit on you, I think you don’t even intend to be sexist. But your very ideas about society are founded on a sexist platform and thus you ultimately parrot them.

      1. Actually, they need to get back in the textbook. The things we attribute to gender (such as boys preferring trucks and girls preferring dolls) aren’t just learned. There have been rare cases of children receiving sex changes at as neonates due to genital mutilation. Even with hormone replacement therapy, the child (born a boy, now a girl) grew up with many male mental characteristics. The structure of his brain was fundamentally different due to hormones during development, prior to any external stimulus that could have influenced his "gender". The boy-turned-girl later had a sex change to restore his original sex before, sadly, committing suicide later in life.

    1. "One of the worst insults you can say to a young boy is ‘you throw like a girl!’ (and that would be such a terrible thing because women are so inferior and if you imbue any of their characteristics you will become worthless as a male)."If we ignore the physiological differences between males and females that have nothing to do with gender (such as naturally higher lean muscle mass), this is still a misguided statement.Girls, due to hormonal differences, have (on average) less interest in sports — this is not related to the idea of gender. If you disagree with this, then I can’t reason with you. Go pick up a psychology textbook. If you do agree with this, then it directly follows that, on average across the entire population, girls do not perform as well in sports related tasks.People aren’t saying "you throw like a female athelete!" or "you throw like the best female thrower, which is still less than you should able to do as a male!" — they’re saying "you throw like Sally down the street that has never thrown a ball in her life."

  195. We live in a society that is patriarchal in nature. Many of your points here only exist because the ideas you are espousing have been taught to you by the patriarchal system since you were a child. From the moment people are born we begin genderizing them by assigning the label "girl" or "boy." These terms do not indicate anatomical sex of a child but instead speak to gender, or at least a prescribed idea of gender. Boys like trucks and being rough, girls like dolls and tea parties. But do they? We assume that boys will like blue but that’s because we stick them in a blue room with blue clothes on them from the first day they get home from the hospital. Peoples preferences, biases, and tastes are subtly formed at a very early age due to their surroundings and the way the parents teach the societal life script to their kids. The patriarchal system is maintained through various methods; men have consistently derided women and their sports abilities. One of the worst insults you can say to a young boy is "you throw like a girl!" (and that would be such a terrible thing because women are so inferior and if you imbue any of their characteristics you will become worthless as a male). Women aren’t given half a chance to be good at sports because the communities and governments (which are run by mostly white males) throw money and advertising at the mens teams. We aren’t expected to be good because sports are considered a male dominated environment and thus we are inadvertently cut out of it. But it’s about more then the money issue. Even though we have more female sports teams now then every before, they are always regarded with some level of derision. If they’re good everyones sort of surprised but at the end of the day doesn’t care very much unless they have a vested interest. Why do we feel this almost ambivalence towards womens sports? Because since we were little the idea that women weren’t really supposed to be serious about sport (because really they could never be any good at it because they’re so delicate and weak) have pervaded everyones subconscious. We have no clue how much untapped female sport potential is out there, but many of the talents will lay dormant because women will be genderized into other, more suitable hobbies. The last thing I want to comment on is your notion that men and women in a platoon would result in sexual relations and ultimately destroy the fabric of the platoon. Why does the issue of sex ALWAYS have to be involved when a man and women enter the equation. And why does the women always get the raw end of the deal? The feeling I get from what you’re saying is that people (men) will become so lustful and sex crazed that the focus on the job will deteriorate if women are there. I feel as though you are seriously underestimating people are and aligning them with the most basic of instincts. In a war zone, I’m sure people have enough discretion to make their own decisions about what is right. Why should women be cut of the military because of an issue that involves two groups, not just one. Men are bafflingly exonerated and women play the role of the archetypal temptress, leading men astray. In Islam women wear the hijabs partly because there is the idea that a women is so tempting that if a male saw her in normal clothing he would be driven into a lustful state and who knows what would happen then… All these elements seemed remarkably intertwined. I’m not trying to shit on you, I think you don’t even intend to be sexist. But your very ideas about society are founded on a sexist platform and thus you ultimately parrot them.

    1. Well isn’t that lovely, another Gender Feminist who thinks that Testosterone since before birth is nothing but a Social Construct. You know what other things aren’t Social Constructs? Muscle density, bone density, cardiovascular endurance and bullets. None of these are Social Constructs either. So unless you are going to strap on a rucksack and an IBA, keep your mouth shut. What actually happens with sex in the military is that the women are thrust out of their comfortable 1st World life that they desperately seek security and comfort with the men of the group, just like they would in a wild, tribal situation. The men don’t have to do anything because the women jump on them with legs spread.

    2. First of all let me help you understand something. as a leader in the army with both male and female soldiers, having sex was always an issue. my company lost 5 females alone while we were in Iraq last time. that is five less bodies that we had to accomplish the mission with. One of those soldiers was one of mine. when you are deprived of a natural instinct, like sex, then when the opportunity presents itself the brain can be overwhelminly powerful. To try to argue why women in islam wear the hijabs and all that stuff is pointless. The woman could look like a hot mess and i can guarantee that the male would not care after months on end without fullfulling a natural need. this goes for male and female whether you chose to believe that or not. So yes your argument about "why does the issue of sex always have to be involved" is invalid as you obviously have no clue what you are talking about. Until you have been in that position, you really should not try to argue your point as your basis for that argument clearly show you have no first hand knowledge of what you are talking about.

    3. FYI – Title IX and the status of professional softball in society HAS NOTHING to do with the overall physical fitness of women in America as a whole and certainly nothing to do with combat. You didn’t even make an attempt to show the relevance of these points, which is good, because there are none. Further, there is no need to even discuss WHY sexual relations occur in units (although a 9th grade understanding of biology will be useful to you in understanding this). It is enough to simply admit that it DOES CURRENTLY OCCUR, and not just a little bit. As I posted earlier, go back and look at the Navy studies on unplanned pregnancies to single mothers. This is self reported, voluntary, anonymous data – almost 10% of Navy females are either in an unplanned pregnancy or exempt from deployment due to one at ANY GIVEN TIME. Almost none of these children are the product of rape. Most of these women report that the fathers are also service members. All of these women were subsequently ineligible for deployment for at least a year, sometimes longer. Can you explain to me how a woman gets "the raw end of the deal" when free healthcare, free childcare, automatic work schedule adjustments, and guaranteed exemption from full duty during pregnancy while retaining full pay.in addition to regular exemption from UCMJ punishment are the only possible outcomes? Sounds to me like the taxpayer is getting the shaft. Men are almost NEVER exonerated when found to be involved in inappropriate sexual relationships within their chain of command. They are regularly punished for voluntary relationships, even when the female isn’t. Single fathers NEVER get to return home early from a deployment due to pregnancy. Single fathers NEVER get access to work schedule adjustments or free childcare or exemption from deployment unless they get custody, and JAG will not help with a custody case.It really doesn’t matter who tempted who, does it? It is sufficient to understand that the product of sex is a complication a military does not need in order to win wars. Why is that difficult for you?

      1. It does matter who tempted whom. It matters because it’s long past time for the entirety of the world to stop blaming women for being sexually active. No, this may not be entirely relevant to the military, but soldiers sure as hell aren’t excluded from rape culture just by virtue of having served.

        1. So, you are telling me that you agree there is an ongoing issue with how the genders deal with each other sexually on a cultural level.Then why, oh why, would you ever think the infantry is the appropriate place to sort these issues out for the rest of America. It’s not like we have other shit to do.(BTW, no one is "blaming" women for being sexually active or even sexually forward. Quite the contrary, most men find that very attractive. It’s the fact that sexual activity between service members down range has consequences that there is simply no reason anyone should have to deal with with risking their neck.)

    4. You have some valid points. Of course, I disagree with others. But I’m going to ask you something, have you served? If you have you will know how right I am and if you haven’t I will give you some insight pertaining to the sex stuff. You see, when you have male and female things get complicated. In the original post he never intended to say that women should not be in the military. But the nature of the military life sucks. There is something that crappy moments have that they have the ability to create very special bonds. When there are only males they form this "brotherhood". Now, when you have both genders it is almost inevitable that special "bonds" take form. It is only natural because it is defenitely easier to seek comfort in the other gender. I guess you can see where all this will lead. First a friendship then a closer relation and that will most likely turn out to get intimate. There is the big problem. Unit coherence is compromised just like the dramas in movies where someone will face the dilemma of the girlfriend vs his friend or doing the rights thing vs "the wrong thing". So he is right. Even in basic training you get all this stuff happening. Now imagine a year long deployment. The effects of a female soldier getting pregnant. The effect of someone losing his or her "partner" and how will that affect everything. So in my mind it’s not like you think. He didn’t put male like sex craved beings. It is just the nature of the beast. When you have BOTH genders things will most likely turn that way. This is just on this topic. Imagine also with hygiene, sti’s and the like. Finally, women don’t always get the raw end of the deal. Right now in the military men are in a tough spot with all the SHARP thing and everything. And believe me, women in the military are not saints either. I respect everyone that served, serves or will serve. Of course, this is only my opinion.

    5. Another Women’s Studies major here to tell us that everything is a social construct and it’s all the patriarchy’s fault.

    6. This is perhaps one of the most asinine posts I’ve ever read. You say that girls and boys are not referred to as such because of their anatomical sex? Ok, when was the last time you had an infant with a penis emerge from the womb saying, "PLEASE CALL ME A GIRL, MOMMY!"? I mean, seriously, are you dense? They are referred to girls or boys SOLELY because of their anatomy. If an infant has a penis, we call him a boy. If an infant has a vagina, we call her a girl. It’s really THAT fucking simple. And if you don’t like the physical differences between men and women, maybe you can talk to your hormones and chromosomes and reach some kind of agreement.

        1. I don’t know. I’ve never known one, so I have no idea what their parents call them. I would assume it depends on their chromosomes and which sexual organ is functional. Of course, that’s the exception to the rule.

          1. What about folks who have just a penis or just a vagina, but don’t feel as though they’re in the right body? What about transsexuals? What about gender fluid people, who don’t identify as either male or female, regardless of what genitalia they have?It’s really not that fucking simple. There are a lot of exceptions to the rule.

      1. Oy, you know what’s asinine? Someone who gets aggressive over an INTERNET DISCUSSION, and is still wrong. Let me enlighten you… (oh and by the way, when have you EVER heard an infant emerge from a womb saying anything?)Terms:-Sex: refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women (vulva/penis)-Gender: refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.You would use the term MALE or FEMALE to refer to a person solely because of their anatomy. GIRL or BOY describes gender, aka how we as a society believe they should act, the characteristics they SHOULD imbue. Let me tell you dude, it’s not fucking simple at all. We think that there are only two types of people, male and female but that’s only the tip of the iceberg. Anatomical sex as well as gender is a SPECTRUM with people of different preferences and identities spread along it. The sooner you realize that the world is full of a lot of different types of people and actually accept that, the world will become a less oppressive place. Peace and blessings d00d

    7. Lilredridinghood – On a highly intellectual level you are completely right. However, patriarchy and the surrounding power structures spring from a historical context that you have completely overlooked. Biological differences, enhanced by nurture and solidified by their context have prescribed men and women ideal historical roles. In modern society we have, to a degree, begun to understand and overcome these structures with education for women, birth control etc. Combat is different. We do not yet have the ability to level the playing field. There is nothing that will make a woman’s bones dense enough to carry the same weight as a man without sustaining injury a greater percentage of the time. We cannot yet create women whose arms hinge in the same manner as a man’s (allowing for a greater direct application of lifting force). These issues cannot be deconstructed. Although they may in the future be overcome allowing for a further shift in paradigm.To give you some further food for thought. Why should women join the army? Does the struggle for this create a loss of feminism in a search for power, the result of which is the assumption of masculine norms? Is that because combat is a traditionally male pursuit designed for men by men using male orientated equipment? Is this because it is the most effective and efficient way of using force? Are there ways for women to apply the use of force as a political instrument in a different manner to men?My point is that critical thinking is a useful tool but that at some point it has to connect back to reality and how it does so can have dangerous consequences. Which is what I believe this article was trying to point out.

    8. Please explain how women’s olympic scores aren’t as good as males? Top athletes, different sexes, and on the same playing field but just at different times. Best man at a sport beats the best woman. Take your propaganda back to the nursery school and keep feeding it to ignorant children.

  196. I am a woman in the Armed Forces and I am not puny or weak, I have gained the respect of my fellow male Soldier and have been in a few combat situations with them and I have been against woman in combat from the start. I will admit as a young female Soldier I was very "gung-hoe" and felt as though I was equal with the men (most likely because I was very physically strong and superior -not because am better I just worked harder and was more respected- than many of the other females I worked with), but after a few months in my first duty station I quickly realized I was not equal at all. Everything I did required twice the effort and even more will power. I know there will be many females and some males too on here that completely disagree with me and to all of them I say, before we decide to put females in combat we have to demand 100% equality on every other level too… such as, showers, agreeing to postpone periods (can you imagine no showers while your bleeding for days?), mandatory birth control (sexual contact seems inevitable and a pregnant Soldier in combat is 100% ineffective), gender neutral PT tests, etc… I am sure I could go on. Anyway, I fund this post extremely well written with many valid points!

  197. First good article with valid and condensed points, Second after reading many comments I have yet to see one arguing for women in the Infantry written by someone who was in the Infantry. Instead they are, from what I can tell, written by people who either never served, or at least were in actual combat. A side note, there is a reason that the Navy and Air Force have high rates of STI’s, and I would wager it has a lot to do with the close living conditions they experience. However, their living conditions are not even comparable to front line Infantry conditions. To those saying its the fault of men that they cannot "keep it in their pants" I would have you know, the many of 10-14 women that were on my units FOB ( we would see it only 1-2 days out of every 14 days if lucky) were Medevac’d to the Airfield several times each for STI related problems during our deployment. It is not just an issue of controlling urges for men but also women, the difference is the Women can use the ratio to get what they want.

  198. Wow…the comments here that are for women in combat are so insanely ridiculous! You live in a fantasy world….idiots.

  199. Wow, didn’t know softball was a women’s sport. I guess when you approach the argument from an "America is centre of the universe" perspective you make some valid points. Interestingly, the living conditions of "men" in combat probably better describes the daily living conditions of millions of women in the world, all the time. Add to that, the threat of gang rape and child-birth (’cause that’s a walk in the park). Given the choice of rescuer in the poppy field would rather take my chances with an afghan village woman than an American GI.

    1. First do you have any idea what the living conditions in combat are or just your idea of what it is like? I cannot even begin to put into words what MY Combat experiences were and everybody’s experience is different, save that war is in fact hell on earth.Second did you know it is under 1% of the US population that has seen true combat?Third your "comparisons" are apples to oranges unless you care to elaborate on how they are similar.Last, this argument is not whether women should serve in the Infantry in France, or Germany, but the US. So for this arguments sake yes the US, specifically the American Infantry, IS the center of the universe.

  200. To all of the rug-munching, POS feminists who know nothing about the military. The issue being discussed here shouldn’t be focused on political correctness or the sexual desires of men vs. women. If I was shot and laying in a fox hole with only a women next to me, I would hope she can either carry my big ass or hold off several male enemies until I could reach definitive care. That is what I would expect from any soldier in my crew, so why should women be held to a different standard? I would love to fight next to a woman, but she better be able to hold her own when shit hits the fan. Set aside all of the politics, its not fair to ask the men (or women) of a team to put their lives in the hands of someone who is incapable or ill-prepared. As many others here have suggested, I have no problem fighting alongside a women if she is a certifiable badass that could kick my ass.

  201. IF YOU HAVE NEVER SERVED IN THE MILITARY OR BEEN IN COMBAT YOU KNOW NOTHING SO SHUT UP AND KNOW YOUR PLACE! To the rest of you who fantasize and glorify battle to win an argument, you are foolish or were were never in a true combat situation. Sociology, biology and professionalism (Standards) are the questions we have to answer. If you believe you can design a program for all of the services that ensure 100 percent COMBAT READY units then get hot, get it done, run the test and put it together. WHO CARES ABOUT RATIO’S IF YOU CAN NOT WIN THE WAR. If you can’t do anything to resolve the problem, why are you here. Shut up, drink water, and move out. Your "expertise" here is equal to a carpenter trying to do brain surgery.

  202. It would be awesome if women could be encouraged to excel, trained for combat as an infantryman, subjected to the same tests as men, and then accepted without any further ado if they pass. And no, not all women are built for it or interested in it, and not all would pass, but to keep the few who do out of the field because they don’t have dangly bits between their legs is sexist.Also, the article assumes that a woman who joins the infantry will get into a sexual relationship with one of her fellow soldiers. Does the author even think of women as people with their own needs, wants, and desires, or has he been living too long as a (self-described) sex-deprived animal? What concerns me more than breaking the bonds of brotherhood is the fear that the women would be raped by the sex-deprived animals they work with. Talk about a way to destroy any sense of brotherhood with someone; even if it didn’t traumatize them and make them useless in combat, it would sure break that bond.

  203. I’m a woman my partner is in the military. There should be no women in the infantry FULL STOP. There are so many more points to the argument this article could have made. What happens when there is a war and we have women on the front line? There are thousands of other jobs in the world, girls get over it and stop trying to do everything in the world. There are jobs such as this where we need to shit our mouths and let the men do there work. It is not sexist! I’d love to see you go out field for weeks not showering, getting your period, it’d be filthy and unhygienic. This job is physically impossible for women it’s just a fact that SEXIST women have to deal with.

    1. Your partner is probably the weak female that is always on profile and shamming. I’ve started my period in the field for two weeks with no showers. A period cleanses your body idiot. I had my maxi pads and baby wipes and kept training. I am 5’6 and 150 lbs and I have battle buddy carried men over 200lbs. was it rough…yes. but you do what you have to do. Anything is mental. This job definitely is not physical impossible. I have kept my pt on male standards for a reason. You ARE NOT in the military so do not comment on what you do not know.

      1. That’s cute… two weeks. Let me guess, training right? That’s not how it works in combat darling. How far did your battle carry this 200lb man??? 10 feet, just to see if she could? If you were equal, sports wouldn’t be divided. Of course, there are little sissy boys that make it into combat units… some diarrhea always slips through. Those boys usually don’t last long in those units either. So you’re comparing the best woman specimen to the weakest male in the unit??? As an argument to let women in combat? That’s like saying women should be in the NFL because Lolo Jones can compete with the 3rd string practice squad tackling dummy. Pull your head out of your 4th point of contact.

    2. It is sexist. When you’re excluding someone based on his or her sex, you’re being sexist. The question is whether this sexism actually saves lives, which nobody can seem to prove or disprove.

  204. SMH,What a stupid article…opening infantry units up to women is a great opportunity to establish some real physical standards for the infantry and the psychological issues of dealing with women in a combat unit cited by the author are stupid as well…other units have dealt with it in combat situations, and the Army is/should be composed of professionals that can keep their dicks in their pants (yeah, a pipe dream, I know)…As far as 25%, I think that is a BS stat pulled out of the author’s ass…25% happens to be about the ratio of females to males across the Marines…thinking you can come up with a unit with 25% females (unless you only want a few infantry units with women) is stupid…between physical requirements and even desire to participate you would be lucky to get 10%, probably not even 5%.I would welcome a 6 foot, 180 lb woman serving beside me in my unit over that 5 foot, 120 lb nancy-man on my gun team whose T&E I have to carry in addition to my own gun. Is she few and far between? Yep, but by created real, non-gender based physical standards for the infantry we can start to weed out the out of shape fatties and 90lb weaklings in our infantry units that get to be there simply because they have a penis.

  205. Seems we can argue for eternity on this question, but at the end of the day it will be political correctness that wins. And the majority will have this forced upon us. Now I see this as a fairly simple question, with simple answers. Let’s think of this the way a grunt likes to keep things. KISS.The defence force is one big machine, it will chew you up and spit you out. Now within this machine there are components that make up this huge machine. What do we gain from letting women into the infantry. Keep political correctness out of it. What will benefit the infantry to its full potential. The pros and cons. Pros – women feel good because they have entered a male dominated part of the Military. – we now have a larger gene pool to select from. Now, remember, this is a machine, feelings do not matter. Woman do not bring empathy, a different view point or different standards. That’s irrelevant. A women is fulfilling a role as an infantry man. I true lay don’t know what else a woman will bring. I don’t care if she’s been a good mother, sister, daughter. I don’t care how she was brought up. Doesn’t worry me…..just can she do the job without disturbing the team. Cons – if the standard for entry is kept at the current standard for a man, then I don’t see the physical test being compromised. However, if there is a separate standard, then already before we have begun, the physical attributes of the woman has already altered that position within the team. – pregnancy…. I see this as a big problem. It means time away from the teams and. I may add, that once you become a mother there seems to be a shift in your thinking towards your child. This is from women telling me, I haven’t invented this. Although this can be said for men, I suppose due to some biological twist that we don’t carry a child for 9 months, we seem easier to detach ourselves. – sex is the biggest problem. You can not deny this problem. How many office affairs in a normal civilian job happen. There is no difference between civilian and Military. Doesn’t matter how many times it is enforced, it will happen…and does happen. I can tell you that there is nothing more pleasant than seeing some fit female at the gym kicking a males arse in cross fit. Before you add…crossfit and combat are different. Your mate can’t die if he doesn’t do the last rep. I can go on about more cons, however, as I see it, the cons have out weighed the pros. So in doing this, my thoughts would be "why introduce more cons than what positives you can bring " …what because it’s politically correct….I say fuck political correctness. Political correctness gives us some arsehole not standing up and giving them a seat on the bus. I see political correctness as destroying what it is to be male and female. I tell you…our enemies are tough, hard, politically incorrect men. I do not see infantry as a male orientated last frontier boys club thing. I see the integrity of the team and anything that destroys that team, or makes it weaker, doesn’t belong in that team machine. I’m not anti women in the Forces. I’m just pro team and anything that has the potential to weaken it should not be forced upon us.

  206. Putting a number on anything makes it anything but equal rights! I was in the process of having a guaranteed aviation spot back in the early 90’s when Clinton came in and made it possible for women to be in combat roles. My billet was denied at the last minute (3 days from shipping out to the PLC) and only women went that year! They were flunking too many out and were told to push the rest through. The result was several of them crashing their planes ($5 million ones) and killing themselves in the process. Equal rights for ya now your dead! I am the father of three daughters and hope they get an equal opportunity in life and never ever get anything only because of their gender!

  207. First, when it comes to physiological differences, get over yourself. Physical standards for infantry may be above run of the mill military, but they are not anywhere close to Olympic athlete levels. Some women can achieve them. As far as I’m aware, no one is talking about lowering physical standards for women.The argument that sex-deprivation increases combat effectiveness is comical. I can’t really argue against it; it’s just comical. When I hear bullets snap over my head (and oh yes, I’ve been there), the last thing I’m thinking about is sex. In this section however, you bring up an interesting point: You say "…when you insert a woman into the fold…". That is exactly the problem with things like the FETs that are inserted into various units. They haven’t gone through common experiences that the rest of the unit has gone through, and further, these units are isolated from women in general so their presence is extremely awkward and detrimental. If they were there all along as another Joe (or Jane I guess), it wouldn’t be a big deal.The thing about sex in the unit: It’s called GO1.Your question at the end is deceptive. Based on gender alone, men will more often be the better choice, but we’re not talking about gender alone, we’re talking about infantry. I would much rather have a fit woman, who is cool under fire and trained in combat medicine rush up to my loved one than some random male finance troop. That being said, fewer women are cut out for the military than men, and the ratio only gets worse when you talk about people cut out for combat. I personally think the Marine experiment puts the percentage of women way too high. If women were allowed to be infantry, I think the percentage will naturally be something like 95% male anyway due to the mindset and physical requirements.I saw a documentary of a Dutch infantry unit in Afghanistan. It’s commander was a woman. If I recall correctly, she was the only woman in the unit. The unit was still aggressive (or at least as aggressive as you can be in Afghanistan), and the primitive living conditions weren’t an issue. The men just gave her a minute or two when she needed to change. She went on patrols, she got shot at, and she shot back. Her men respected her because she was a competent leader.

    1. So many logical fallacies that I don’t know where to begin. I suppose that leaves it to chronological order.He never said sex deprivation increases combat effectiveness. I mean, did you even read this? He said nothing of the sort. He said that a combat environment is a reduction to man’s most primal and basic instincts: surviving. The attempt at survival usually takes on a multifaceted approach. Eat, sleep, avoid death, kill what is trying to kill you. Oh yeah, and that little biological evolutionary trait called sexual attraction. You see, it is quite accepted that most beings have a strong desire to pass on their genes, to reproduce. Reproducing involves having sex. A women’s body, touch, smell, presence, stimulates sexual attraction in men. Men in combat, existing at their most basic levels, well, do I really need to go on with this? If I do, you’re pathetic.If you want to argue logically, you should stick to the parameters of debate. If an infantryman is an infantryman, it’s sort of a given that he’s trained as an… infantryman. Your stupid example of this finance guy vs. an infantry woman is a really crappy straw man. We’re not talking about finance people. We’re talking about infantry. If you want to compare the effectiveness of a man vs. a woman in the capacity of an infantry soldier, you don’t introduce irrelevant variables like a finance soldier. That’s just illogical. I don’t think you understand the role of a commander in the military. In fact, I’m certain you’ve never even served.

    2. GO1? Seriously? You think some words on a piece of paper is going to stop people? GO1 applies to EVERY service member in the AOR, even those back at the nice semi comfy Air Force bases, but that little piece of paper doesn’t stop them from getting some of that bunker love! If people want it, they’ll get it. Mixing the 2 genders ALWAYS causes drama in every situation.

  208. all i know is this. when i see 2 MALE mps carrying a .50 to a new firing position, walking away and shortly after a female mp mounts it, i naturally went to the male mps and ask if they do that for her all the time, and they said no…. they do it for ALL the females in their unit. So your telling me when a AVERAGE female needs to pull more than her weight in a tense combat situation, shes not gona be able to accomplish much because she cannot move a .50 multiple times in a firefight. its situations like that that seriously make me doubt this whole topic

  209. I liked the article. However, I guess I’m pretty damn "sexist" though. If I had my way, we would have no women in the military to begin with. There are so many other places that women can outshine men, like dishes. Just my thing I guess. :D

  210. I agree. I was a woman in the military…better pt scores than most of the males and straight. There were men that wanted me sexually and others who loved me like a sister. The instinctive roll of a male is to protect a female. I may have been able to keep up with a ruck, but any mission could be compromised from the instinct to protect. Woman are not designed equal to men and men are not designed equal to women. Instead of forcing androgyny, women must take pride in how they are different by design. There’s no shame in it. This experiment is damaging to females in that it is expecting women to deny their feminity and be more male. And even for the lesbian who feels male, there is still that whole monthly visitor issue….

    1. Outstanding points! I’ve deployed to combat and done so with women mounted atop a truck working a 240. It’s possible, but these women weren’t grunts, they were in supporting roles, taking combat action. There’s a huge difference. I see nothing wrong with a female, say a communicator for example, in a combat unit; I think that’s reasonable. One is able to get the experience of tactics, roles, and small unit leadership in an infantry unit. And like you, I know women who can run 3 miles in 18 minutes, do 20 pull-ups and get their 100 crunches. I’m sure there are women who can hump 10-20 miles with an 80lbs pack, vest, rifle and kevlar. But how does the delicate situation of pregnancy get addressed for a gal who’s undergone a ton a training and then decides she wants to have a child; and given the choice, decides to get out. These are realities. The government would have expended a lot of time and resources to train and equip only to have the young lady decide on a career change. Or as you point out, the hygiene thing. I was in iraq in 2003 at the start of the war. I was there for months and there wasn’t a shower in sight for the infantry unit I served with. After a few months some of the guys made up a make-shift shower with buckets and water, but I was with the headquarters. The guys in the rifle companies, the actual grunts didn’t get to do that stuff because they were pushed out to remote locations. As I’ve said before, there are lots of things that get overlooked with this social experiment, and I don’t think the brass is being realistic with the planning process. I hope for the best for everyone, but I think it’s going to be a bumpy road.

  211. I don’t think that the reason researchers are attempting to find a perfect ratio of women to men is to simply avoid combat ineffectiveness. I interpreted it as an effort to find cohesiveness between the sexes without disrupting the general order of things too quickly. Sex, jealousy, and violence within a unit in the field is definitely an issue to be concerned about. However, with a certain level of women in the mix, they will be able to forge their own bonds, sense of camaraderie, and sisterhoods. A gradual adjustment is needed. Furthermore, from a fairness and equality standpoint, why should women be denied the opportunity to participate in combat if they so desire? The answer to that question should never be because men couldn’t handle it. Have a little more faith in men. We, as a nation, trust these men to uphold values and demonstrate exemplary moral standards during stressful times and combat. If they can fight the enemy justly and treat foreign nationals in a hostile nation with respect, I assume they could do the same with their fellow marines. Times are moving forward, and women are completely strong and capable. Just like there are weak men, there are strong women. It is the Marine Corps system you should trust to weed out those who are incapable via PT standards. Fight for those systematic changes rather than inhibiting the rights of fellow Marines based on gender alone.

    1. Oh please stop with fairness and equality. Those are meaningless when bullets are flying. The world isn’t fair….. Accept it.

    2. Marines have the right to qualify based on their demonstrated ability, and that’s about it as far as rights go. I don’t buy the whole fairness thing; one can either make the standards of the infantry or they can’t. There are lots of issues that I think people don’t want to talk about when it comes to this experiment and future service of women in combat roles. I’m not saying it’s not possible, but there is a rush to make this happen as some sort of feel good movement, and I’m not sure if there aren’t important things being overlooked. I suppose only time will tell, I just hope it’s not at the expense people’s lives. I’ve served with the grunts, artillary, airwing, schools, and base; so I’ve seen it all, serving in all male units and units with females. So when I say there are things that get overlooked, I say it with a great deal of experience from both sides of the argument.

      1. When you say that Marines have the right to qualify based on their demonstrated ability, that IS fairness. As far as the push for a feel good movement, I see where you’re coming from. BUT, it’s the system (not the women) that should be scrutinized. The question is no longer "should women serve in combat?" It is now, simply "how?"

    3. 1.Men and women are not created equal; deal with it 2. You don’t know the infantry 3. If the USMC were to make the PFT standards the same, 50% of females cannot meet the minimum of the male standard–that’s thousands of females who would find themselves without jobs–couple that with the ones who will now have no career progression because their minimal PFT score will not be able to compete with the men for promotions. It does not help women in the military in general–it will only screw people over for the interest of a few. Speaking of a few, do you know what 7.5 is? It’s the percentage of females in the army who favor females in combat. So 92.5% of females don’t want this

      1. Show this to your wife.2. True.3. Where are you getting these statistics? Also, not all women even want to serve in the infantry. Therefore, not all would be required to meet these standards.I guess I’m the 7.5%? What is your point?

          1. PFTstatshttp://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-boland/female-marines-not-required-do-1-pull

          2. Victor, those percentages represent women who would be interested in pursuing a combat job themselves. I would expect this number to be low. Did you read the article you’re quoting? I’m not sure why you couldn’t have 2 standards for 2 different jobs. Wouldn’t you want your unit to have elite standards if it is performing a more difficult job?

          3. I read the article and you misunderstood it. Nothing about two standards is equal. So you want two standards for females, yet men are only permitted the one standard? That in itself says we are not equal. Let me say it again, if you have two standards and I have one, we are not equal. Men who are not in the infantry would not be afforded the lower standard. If we go "fair" then lets go fair across the board and see how most of your female friends are out of a job. Don’t scream equality if we are not ALL going to be on an equal playing field

          4. "Less than 8% of Army women who responded to the survey said they wanted a combat job. Of those, an overwhelming number said they’d like to be a Night Stalker a member of the elite special operations helicopter crews who perhaps are best known for flying the Navy SEALS into Osama bin Laden’s compound in 2011."No, I didn’t read it wrong.And in the second article you referenced, It states that 45% of females DID meet the minimum pull-up requirement. That is more than 5 times the amount who actually desire to serve in combat.Nothing about these articles "debunk" any theory of mine.

          5. By quoting those articles you made no point whatsoever. All you said of 8% of females in the Army wish to be GI Jane. That’s still 92% who are not for it. Common sense is not so common after all–did you see where it said that only 1% of males did not meet the standard vs. 55% of females who didn’t? Last I checked, 1 and 55 are not the same numbers. Did you also see the part which said they were given a year to prepare? I found it even more hilarious when the female said she was up to 8 pull-ups not, lol–I’ve been out for almost 10 years but if I remember correctly, less than 1st class pft’s will not get you promoted.

          6. After all the studies so far, there is nothing to support women in the infantry, aside from the few females you passed the enlisted SOI (aside from a couple long humps, any one should be able to pass SOI). Any Marine grunt will tell you that the real test comes when you get to your unit and of course combat. Still, no female Marine officer has passed IOC. The vast majority of females in the services do not want this. Statistics and science more than show the physical gap between males and females in general. I don’t intend to shoot your dreams down on a personal level, however I know I know the seriousness of combat and what it entails. It’s people’s lives we are talking about here. It shouldn’t be about making a social or political point. Our infantries have always gotten the job done–tell me what you can do that would help it. No real case has been made for that.

          7. You are not making any sense. That article does NOT say that 92% of women support banning women from combat. My point is that 8% of women wish to be in combat roles, and 55% exceed the PT standards required to do so. One example of a woman who can only do 8 pull-ups is not a statistic. When is the last time you improved your physical performance by 800% in one year, anyway? That’s pretty impressive. I’ve tried to have an intellectual argument with you, but your arguments are nonsensical. The patriarchal argument that women are weak is so old fashioned it’s laughable. I know, I know… women serving in combat threatens your masculinity and feeling of self worth. And your girlfriend hates the idea of you possibly having to work with an attractive woman on the front lines. It’s a tough life being insecure, I’d imagine.

          8. "The patriarchal argument that women are weak is so old fashioned it’s laughable."Women and men do not even have to compete against each other to show men are physically stronger. You can verify this with science or simply look at athletic performance. If you cannot admit to yourself, that men are in fact stronger, and faster than women, then you are simply delusional. Also, I am not pretending to have an intellectual conversation with you, because you are obviously about 20 years old, therefore I have to speak in a way you can understand. You keep twisting the words in the articles and putting words in my mouth to make a ridiculous point. I accept the fact that this will happen at some point–it’s just a horrible idea. For people like yourself, its not about serving or what is in the best interest of the mission–its all a self-serving, ego stroking idea, which ignores everything that we already know. I have always supported causes for the betterment and advancement of women in the workplace or elsewhere for that matter. However, science and common sense should always prevail. I mean, come on kid, stop arguing with facts. Stay motivated.

    4. Combat is not a PFT. carrying two 60lb rucks and your buddy while still showing the intestinal fortitude to fight on and complete the mission is not a few pull ups and a run with your own body weight, i can’t think of a time that i’ve gone on a mission with less than 80lbs that’s almost 3/4 of many females’ body weights. the weight of the ruck will not be relative to your body composition, nor will the weight of your 220 lb buddy in kit, oh yeah don’t forget your SAW and all of your drums while your at it.

      1. So you’re saying that intestinal fortitude is a characteristic limited to men? Do all women weigh 106 lbs? Aren’t there thin men as well as strong women? I get it, you have to carry a lot of weight. I think it would be simple to weed out those who aren’t capable during training, given you train as you fight, no?

    5. Combat is not about being fair and equal, combat is about killing plain and simple. If you, or these researchers, can guarantee that adding women to the infantry will make the Infantry a better fighting force than by all means go ahead and do it. But as a 9 year Marine EOD veteran I can tell you that the amount of women that could do infantry is slim to none. I have heard from many of my Infantry buddies that the Female Engagement Teams, or FET, would constantly complain and literally bawl about how hard it was and how tired they were. They also had times when under fire the female Marine froze and wouldn’t move. This endangered the rest of the patrol since they would have to send a combat effective Marine to deal with this combat ineffective Female Marines. Now these females were in combat and they were patrolling with the Grunts and I have heard ZERO positive things about these women from the grunts. This whole argument about equality is BS anyway, the Marine Corps is not some social experiment, we are a killing group and we have been doing fine for a very long time. Now you are obviously not someone in the Marines, because if you were you would see some of the women that are in the Marines. Now I am not saying there aren’t ones that aren’t PT gods, or ones that aren’t great Marines, but in every single formation run we do, women start falling out in the first 100 yards. These are not fast runs either, they are very slow, and only go about 1.5 miles, but without fail women start falling out. If I can’t trust the majority of women to be able to run in a slow run without failing almost immediately, why should I trust the majority of women in combat conditions which are infinitely harder, more stressful and dangerous.

      1. I realize that it’s difficult to separate personal experiences and biases from your opinion. I’ve met plenty of women who would fit into the category you’ve described. But the "PT gods" and "great Marines" that you’re talking about–why should they be deprived of a shot? No one is saying that the majority of women are capable. The majority aren’t interested in being combat infantrymen anyway. The Marine Corps is constantly evolving, adapting, and growing into a better fighting machine. They have already determined that women could serve as an asset. Now, researchers are attempting to fine tune the specifics. I should say that I am in no way furthering my personal interests (as victor accused below). I have been out of the service for 4 years now, graduated from college, gotten married, and entered a civilian career. However, I truly believe that the right women could add to combat effectiveness.

  212. "Last year top Pentagon officials signed an order saying women must have the same opportunities as men in combat jobs and the services have been devising updated physical standards, training, education and other programs for thousands of jobs they must open Jan. 1, 2016. The services must open as many jobs to women as possible; if they decide to keep some closed, they must explain why." ~Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/25/army-women-combat/5811505/I'll save them the time and explain why right now: I served in Iraq with an MP unit that (naturally) had females with us. It was a 50 yard distance from our CHUs to our trucks. A few complained about carrying the weight of a .50cal to their truck and as such were issued 240B’s instead.1: Never substitute larger firepower for lesser firepower2: What happens when a truck becomes inoperable (unit gets ambushed) and that weapon system needs to get dismounted and humped to say, a CCP to set up a defense? During a firefight, the last thing any soldier wants to worry about is whether or not someone can "hold their own".3: …more people will get torn up because of # 1 and # 2.There’s your explanation why certain jobs should stay closed. I don’t care if women can pass a PFT. (The one in my unit did, 300pts, but, if you can’t man handle a .50cal (without the barrel attached!) around for a few minutes each day for a couple months, you have no business being a unit trained for combat; especially when said unit is expected to engage and destroy an enemy. Sorry, I just don’t see it.I’d pick the man every time, twice on Sundays. Haters gonna hate

    1. I had to carry the .50cal up to my point on monthly alerts for a year in Korea. It was uphill for a quarter mile. I had the barrel in one hand and the weapon over my shoulder and I had to hear the KATUSA complain the whole time because HE had to carry the tripod and it was SOOOOO heavy. Some men are just as bad as some women. Just saying.

      1. Ah, touche! Point taken. I think when it really comes down to it, the genetic make-up of males and females coupled with the amount of males and females serving is what makes this issue touchy; putting it lightly.Majority of men serving in high intense combat positions are better fit and far outweighs those females who are serving in combat positions and are at the same peak fitness level. Men = bigger beefcakes. Women = not so much.I speaking about natural growth rate and development of muscles. It’s genetics so, it really cannot be argued. More men in the world have a greater muscle mass and endurance than women. Sorry, that’s just the way it is. Men are mules.I do not discredit ‘heart’ here though and I understand having a lot of heart can get someone a long way. However, heart will get you so far and when muscles fail because they’ve been pushed to limits, well…again I have to state… the average enlisted man has more muscle mass than the average enlisted female.This is a bitter pill for females, I know, I served with many. Women have a hard enough time getting respect and are always seemingly policing the bad ones (thanks) for making the ‘female soldier’ have an even tougher time standing above the shit-bags.All those in my unit, they are soldiered well, but I’m being brutally honest here when I say: Even in an MP unit such as what I was in (we PT’d our guts out, and while deployed), even the ‘hard’ females began to lag behind or keep their shit together after months of humping the mountain. This is not to say that there were men who faltered but, the numbers don’t lie. There’s a reason certain people occupy certain tiered positions. My point: If you can’t hack it at level 8, you’re not going to hack it at level 9 or 10.

  213. i was with 5th marines on Jan. 1 2003 and was working as a POG (don’t care what ya think we play the same game) with a new technology of microwave comm. and sat. comm. we went through 2 months CAX 1 month MWT and did everything a grunt within the 5th did so i have seen the male marine hardass salt side of it…. at the beginning of 03 second rotation we were cut out of the unit movement due to the fact that we were still not known to be viable to the mission… i was sent to 3rd Mar Div HQ and was culture shocked into an integrated unit… I can name three females that were "Marines" in the sense of perfect PFT, Kill mentality, 100% trust if they had to do it they could… I’ve seen females at Mt. Fuji go 2 weeks without shower and perform just as well as the next… I believe in one standard for Marines, One level to reach for each job and if you don’t meet it than it has nothing to do with you gender, sexual preference, or whatever…. it has to be …. YOU DIDNT make the cut….moving on!

  214. I am by no means an expert on this issue, and I do not know the ‘right’ answer, but what I do know is that I am a female in an infantry unit. I don’t just keep up with the men on exercise, I sometimes grade better on exercise. When women officers commission, they’ve endured the same 44wks of infantry training at Sandhurst as men. What are we saying the difference is? Not all women are fit enough, or strong enough to fill an infantry position, not many women even want to be. But those few that do, should at least be given the opportunity. You’re not expected to carry a .50 cal the minute you join the military, you train up to it, and become comfortable with it. Who is to say women can’t train up to it too? We’re not designed the same, no, but because of that, women that do prove themselves, receive more respect from their male comrades. I’m not saying all women should be able to join the infantry. I’m saying we should entertain the idea, and give women the opportunity to prove themselves.

    1. Wrong. All female officers who have actually tried the IOC have failed. It’s not the same thing. That’s like saying all sailors went to Navy boot camp, they are basically Navy Seals–smh–however, thank you for admitting you are not an expert on this issue. I was not a machinegunner but the one’s who were in my company, were carrying their weapons 50cal and everything else on humps. Do you think there is a grace period or something when checking in to a unit? Like they wait for you to be comfortable with the weapon before they work you like a dog? Did you know the USMC gave females a year to prep for the male PFT and still, 50% of them cannot meet the minimum standard?

  215. how about we just start with putting women in the NFL and in the UFC fighting against men and see the outcome. This whole women can pft the same as men stuff is dumb. different hormones for different reasons different thoughts and different actions. The British already did this experiment for 2 years and it failed. I believe there is a place for women in a infantry unit, its in H@S company cleaning our weapons in the armory/paperwork/ the rest of logistics, not in the field getting their faces blown off acting like it doesn’t effect men who see that just to prove a point.

  216. OK.first of all its nothing to do with being sexist or opinions. Its science.Science has proven that females are not built the same as males. Bones and muscles. Its purely physiology. The guy who is doing this study has a PHD. I expect him to know this. I also expect him to conduct his study over a number of years and the females should be treated exactly the same as males. This means most females will be at times carrying more then their own body weight for 15km. I would expect him to be putting the ladies through the same physical treatment and then after 4 years of this treatment assess the injuries sustained which there would be. Also effectiveness against an all male infantry unit to see comparisons. Research and science and clinical study has shown that females are not as strong and their bodies are more likely to be damaged. especially over time. Male body do as well but females are more likely. I have no doubt some females would pass the standard but question is how long before their back or their joints give out costing the government hundreds and thousands of dollars compensation and pension payments and treatment. If females were built the same why don’t they play sports against males or fight against males. It is nothing to do with being sexist once again or opinions. It is facts proven by physicians.

  217. The simplest way to objectify this highly subjective debate is to imagine you are incapacitated on the battlefield. You are no longer combat effective as you are wounded and bleeding out. There is now only 2 of you left and only your buddy next to you can save your life. Now imagine this: Your both out of ammunition but your buddy is the best hand to hand combat expert on planet earth within his/her gender. Wait, debate over. WITHIN his/her gender. If it was Ronda Rousey (reigning female UFC champ) defending my dying ass and Chuck Liddell came waltzing in that trench to kill us in hand-to-hand combat guess what; we are going to die. The best female fighter in the world cannot defeat the best male fighter in the world and it’s as simple as that. We should assume any force we fight has the best fighters in the world and we should never compromise our infantry. This is posted by a 7 year infantry veteran.

      1. Our strongest women in our military would lose a fight to the strongest man of any other military. Lives can be saved simply by winning the fight.

    1. I have to agree with them Anthony. If I found Ronda Rousey, I’d be f’d. Most of us would be. There are women that are physically capable of doing the job. IF there are men that cannot control themselves sexually, then they need to find another profession. 5 year Combat Arms Officer.

  218. The reason this is being researched is very, very simple. No matter what you THINK is true, it isn’t until there’s hard data to back it up. Look at any major breakthrough in technology in the past 100 years and you will find there were groups who knew for CERTAIN it could never happen. That it was a waste of time. Truth is, we would still be living as cavemen if we always lived by what we "thought" was true. This experiment isn’t a game. It isn’t risking the lives of your supposed man lying in a poppy field. It’s one more reason why America has an edge. Because we don’t just sit there and live by what others think is right and wrong. We push boundaries. We do what no one else does. This is the reason America has the strongest military presence in the world. Research leads to cutting edge advancements that give a leg up on anyone who steps on our toes. You could say it’s the valor of our soldiers. But take 5,000 of our finest infantry men and give them swords and a shield and see how well they fare on the modern battlefield. Dicks and guns don’t win wars. Innovation does.So, leave it to the people with the PhD’s. They’ll win your war.

    1. You must be an officer. The idea that PhD’s win wars are absurd. Empirical research is vital to any progression, but the assumption that their data will come out tamper free is presumptuous and naive. I get it. A blind study is hard to conduct considering the telescoping on this issue. You are correct, though. America has been founding on breaking boundaries that others refused. We have also remained consistent in many forms, because sometimes it is wiser to leave the wheel as it is.

    2. Wow I did not see anyone with PhD’s with a gun in their hands in combat, matter of fact is the "armchair warriors" are what cost us lives because until you experience combat you have NO clue what is going on and need to STAY out of it