Watch Live: Second House Hearing on IRS Scandal

TheBlaze TV

Why Do Some Think Allowing Women in Combat Could Be a Bad Thing?

Jan. 24, 2013 7:16pm Christopher Santarelli

At the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta lifted the ban on women in combat Thursday, opening the door for up to 230,000 fighting positions previously closed to females. The reaction to the announcement has been decidedly mixed.

Many believe that the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have blurred the notion of “front lines” and that women face combat already, yet the ban serves to block certain promotions, compensation and advancement. Others feel that the reality of combat missions will be hampered by the presence of females. Retired Army Lt. General and Family Research Council Executive Vice President Jerry Boykin called the move a ”social experiment.”

On ‘Real News‘ Thursday the panel discussed with guest and former Marine Corps Sergeant Jesse Kelly why some may be opposed to overturning the ban and what major issues are still currently facing women in the military.

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (50)

battles
Posted on January 25, 2013 at 1:23pm
I guess the fact that captured women will most certainly be repeatedly raped is not a problem.
What this is going to lead to is the government forcing a draft upon women as well as men in the future. If this should happen, every Christian father and every Christian women should firmly refuse to this draft, even to the point of moving to Canada and requesting asylum. Women were never meant to be in the military in combat roles. I have also seen that women in ranking positions over men only serve to de-masculinize men. It is bad enough when a woman is a manager over men.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- candymanal
  Posted on January 25, 2013 at 4:45pm
  You paint a preety dim picture, with your negative assessment.
  You fail to see the lighter, brighter, side, of the arguement.
  In 1981, the US Supreme Court dicteted, that women would not be able bodied enough, to drafted. Thus, they would also be exempt, to serve in combat.
  Now, with this new ruling, everyone, who turns eighteen, would by law, have to register, for the draft.
  Those women libbers, want equal? They’re gonna get it. And high time, too.
  Let’s see these blabbering morons, taking about being totally equal, get off their butss and sign up.
  Hey, this hopey changy thing, ain’t all that bad now. Is it?
  
  Report this comment
MaximumBobby
Posted on January 25, 2013 at 12:44pm
If women are the same as men, why does the military still have two separate physical fitness standards? If you can answer that question, then your answer to the question as to whether or not female soldiers should be deployed to combat units.

And being in a combat theater, even a FOB, is NOT the same as actively seeking, maneuvering and engaging the enemy.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
G-WHIZ
Posted on January 25, 2013 at 12:38pm
New: SEAL-TEAM–PMS… DONNA MESS WITH US!!!!!!!!!!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
SPIN_MD
Posted on January 25, 2013 at 12:06pm
One has to really think about this. This decision has NOTHING to do with improving the military. It has NOTHING to do with battle preparedness. That being said, it has to do with either a skewed ideology or a deliberate sabotage of the military. In either case the result is the same, a diminished military.

When one takes into consideration that this current president hates the military along with his SOD, this doesn’t surprise anyone. They have consistently damaged the military from the outset. Look at everything they have done. This is just one more thing to destroy the military.

I don’t have any problem with women in the military…just have all female units. Problem solved. There would be sexual issues, no intimacy issues, no physical inequality issues. That way the women would get their battle experience necessary for the promotions and they would get to serve their country in the ways they want.

Of course this is not what they want but it would be a solution to a very difficult problem.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Whatmeworry-never
Posted on January 25, 2013 at 11:38am
As a retired vet married to a female vetI too have concerns about this, my take is all combat arms jobs need a “true” physical fitness test mimicing what they will face on battle field not some stupid run, situps etc test. If you can pass that then go ahead and let them fight.
They should also be required to sign up for selective service like males with same punishment for not signing up.

Countless times while leading my Combat support troops I had females try to wimp out, I informed them you wanted womens rights, you stepped up for service you picked this job, now do it or I will site you with inebilty to perform your tasks. By God they got the message and humped the load as much as any male soldier did.

Too all those saying a 125 pound female can’t draga 215 pound man, well I sure saw alot of 125 pound men unable to do that too, also a 215 man is considered a “fatty” as all soldiers wereconstantly trying to stay as skinny as possible due to the height and weight standards. I remember carrying a litter with a measly 180 pound casualty with full gear quite difficult and I am no small man. All soldiers will suck it up and drive on as we always have done.

I’m more affraid of how the Female will be treated when captured by the enemy, since those we fight do not follow our code of conduct. Heck my fear when serving was not getting hurt or killed but getting captured, I vowed never to get captured.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- MaximumBobby
  Posted on January 25, 2013 at 12:57pm
  The difference is that a 125lb man is in the extremity of the lower percentiles. A 125lb woman is average. Of that 125lb, the man will possess 50% more muscle mass than the woman, significantly greater bone density and significantly fewer injuries.
  
  We must have had different experiences. I’ve never had female soldiers able to complete the 13 mile forced marches with a 75lb ruck, let along the 20 milers. Even caught a female Captain who completed one march, laughing about how easy it was, when a corporal came over and picked up her ruck. She had a pillow in it.
  
  This policy can only victimize one sex and shortchange the other.
  
  Report this comment
- Wisdom7
  Posted on January 25, 2013 at 2:41pm
  “Too all those saying a 125 pound female can’t draga 215 pound man, well I sure saw alot of 125 pound men unable to do that too, also a 215 man is considered a “fatty” as all soldiers…”
  
  What? I doubt you saw a single 125 pound man unless he was 4 feet tall and 215 pounds isn’t a “fatty”. It depends on body fat percentage. I married a female veteran too. Most of the women I saw were lazy, made excuses, and none of them were held to the same standards as men.
  
  Additionally, what usually happens when you put a bunch of men and women who are 18 or in their 20s together for extended periods of time?
  
  Report this comment
OWLBORE
Posted on January 25, 2013 at 11:31am
Homeland secretary Janet Napolitano has announced that she will consult with the Navy in an effort to form an elite female commando unit similar to the Navy Seals. Inside sources revealed the women’s recon and rescue unit will be called the Navy Squeals.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
omgfolks
Posted on January 25, 2013 at 10:48am
Just plain stupid! How is girl of 125lbs going to drag a fellow soldier 215lbs out of harm way or recover them when downed? To put woman in combat is like throwing a cat in a dog kenne, just plain wrong

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
SquidVetOhio
Posted on January 25, 2013 at 8:35am
Ever notice how all of these insanely stupid decisions made that mostly affect enlisted people are made by pansy freaking officers that sit behind a desk? (There a plenty of good officers who don’t so no offense. And they are generally under the rank of O-4)

They need to move the Pentagon to Montana. Get it the heck away from D.C.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
SquidVetOhio
Posted on January 25, 2013 at 8:31am
I served alongside some very patriotic and hard-working women in the Navy. That said, I will tell you the countless times I had to climb an aircraft with hydraulic servicing unit or some other tool that could weigh 50lbs or more and when I was finished with aircraft, I would have to carry the females up the aircraft to her. Not because she was lazy or didn’t try. She physically could NOT do it. Also, when we would have flight ops on the carrier I was a landing signalman for our helicopters. Some of the females were suppose to run “chocks and chains”. Many of them couldn’t do it. Yet, they carried the same rank and title as I did. Explain to me a) how is that fair and more importantly b) if we were under attack, her aircraft could not get off the deck so how does that make the military stronger?

There is nothing dishonorable about not being able to be in combat. The military is supposed to be a team. When everyone can do their own job at peak efficiency in a coordinated manner is when we are at our best.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- YourVoiceMatters
  Posted on January 25, 2013 at 9:39am
  this puts women on par to get drafted just like the men….some areas women are equal in ability to men but my God in heaven there are limits that liberals are not able to comprehend…perhaps they should run the course first hand an see in some sort of reality before they change the whole paradigm ….I personally do not want to see my granddaughter mandated to military service! And the dems brought us the draft in the vietnam era if i recall right!
  
  Report this comment
- TEIN
  Posted on January 25, 2013 at 10:45am
  Don’t insert logic, practicality, and proven points…this is about “fairness” and “social justice”…the feminist agenda to redefine women as men…this is what social and governmental “progress” looks like…
  
  Report this comment
- MaximumBobby
  Posted on January 25, 2013 at 1:11pm
  SQUID, I couldn’t have said it better.
  
  I’ve worked alongside plenty of female soldiers who did their jobs admirably.
  Nurses, maintenance, logistics, etc.
  
  The only ones who couldn’t hack it were those that insisted that they were the same as men and, upon failing that test, reverted to politics and character assassination to cover their backsides. Same as men in THAT respect, really.
  
  Another thing we don’t consider;
  Their body, their CHOICE.
  
  Women get pregnant. In one capacity, I oversaw THOUSANDS of non-deployable women who suddenly became pregnant when given deployment orders. In almost every case, a man went in her place. Only if women involuntarily take reversible birth control while in the service will things approach equality.
  
  Report this comment
media-bias-steals-elections
Posted on January 25, 2013 at 6:33am
That explanation is a fairy tale and should be ignored, considering that members of Congress have participated in “force reduction treaties” where they tell the brass to get rid of people, and no gender, won’t save you?

Let me put it this way. If a female wants to be a combat soldier, does logic tell you that when she gets bored with that challenge in life, or allows herself to tell her she has overcome an obstacle, what makes you think she won’t want to have a child?

Do we really want little Johnny or little Sally asking mommy one day, what happened to your arm Mommy? Why do all the kids laugh at you, and me? What happened to your leg mommy?

Considering that men do not bear children, I think it is only honorable to draw the line somewhere where women are elevated to the status they deserve. I can not imagine the courage it must take to bear a child, to ask women to bear our children, and fight for us, is just too much to ask?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- clouviere
  Posted on January 25, 2013 at 11:02am
  That is a straw man argument. One that history has shown isn’t useable in this debate. Women any where near a dangerous environment (read a car) can be maimed and injured in ways you describe. You are arguing the wrong thing. As most people do in these areas. You are actually falling, nay, walking head up into the trap set by our opponents. They will point to injured women who were not in combat arms or on the front line and say “there is no front line”. You loose the argument.
  
  The better talking point is that women can not meet the standards that millennia of combat has shown. It takes a litany of abilities that the average man doesn’t have, much less the above average woman. The fact is that women do not have the biology for it, the chemistry for it. Not sustained combat operations. They lack the physical strength, the adrenal system, the hormones. These are not make believe. These are facts. 1 one in 1000 will have what it takes. So now the second point, do you change the entire system for 1 woman? The answer…yes. But she MUST meet the standard. She does not get the protection of her gender. She showers, shaves, sh*ts, sleeps, eats, trains, fights and dies with her unit. She may be the only woman in the company.
  
  But that is not what will be done. They WILL lower the standard, and we will suffer as a nation for it.
  
  cl
  
  Report this comment
loneindividual
Posted on January 25, 2013 at 6:15am
This is preparation for World War…that or Population Management…really the same thing.

The World Hates Us
$16 Trillion In Debt
Weak Economy
Frustrating Interventionist Policy
Allies Distancing Themselves
Enemies Emboldened
Extremely Well-Armed Populous/Militia
Scared Into Buying More Munitions
Women Now Allowed In Combat
Did I Mention The World Hates Us?

There’s more to this list. :)

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
catsmtrods
Posted on January 25, 2013 at 6:03am
Will 18 year old girls have register for the draft now?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- jwpowers41
  Posted on January 25, 2013 at 8:18am
  GREAT QUESTION let’s hear if from the leftist feminists!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  
  Report this comment
Eyeball
Posted on January 25, 2013 at 3:12am
If women soldiers are in the fox with men soldiers and they come under attack and possible hand to hand combat, the men will be worried about taking care of baby sister and not focusing on the on-coming enemy soldiers. Women on the front lines would be a distraction. If you don’t believe me just ask Santa Anna what he was doing at San Jacinto when his men were overrun by a smaller force of Texans.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- savagenatn
  Posted on January 25, 2013 at 6:04am
  eyeballz you nailed it. women will hate to admit it and probably find it demeaning in some pathetic way, but men instinctively protect women in harm’s way. It is a fact that they will take more risks to help a wounded female. All you trolls living in mommy and daddy’s basement have no clue what it’s like in the military, and how this will not work.
  
  Report this comment
Tretka
Posted on January 25, 2013 at 1:04am
May I just say? (I am female for the purposes of understanding my post)

By granting the fondest wishes of some women can we not then explore the notion that several years from now we may find we are killing the only human creatures who can carry life? May I also say that I wish the gay community would also understand the implications down the road? I mean, it is sort of self destructive in the larger sense.

If I am a Mom, I will not man up and go the front line-period. Hopefully females will use their good judgement while practicing their freedom in battle theaters.

I have this bizarre idea that this dream come true works out well for the dark side of power in our country and it bothers me.

Does anyone else see this or am I over the cynical cliff?

On the other hand, I am fully behind defending property and family if I have to and I am able to.

And lastly, I have accepted men have different qualities than I do and I believe there is a reason and vice-versa. I am okay with it.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- donttreadonryan
  Posted on January 25, 2013 at 1:55am
  It requires reason and sense to think that way. Clearly not going to make it nowadays (please note sarcasm). Well said! My wife and her friends have said very similar things.
  
  Report this comment
Karama
Posted on January 25, 2013 at 12:58am
Ohh also did everyone forget the women who actually fought in the American Revolution? (Even Glenn seems to have and he did a show on them.) Mary Samson, Molly Pitcher aka Mary Ludwig Hays McCauley. There were others too, but for some reason we ignore them. Why?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- MaximumBobby
  Posted on January 25, 2013 at 12:47pm
  Define “fighting”.
  Some made their reputation by serving, reloading and tending to injured men.
  NONE of them put on a 100lb ruck and humped 15 miles in 25lbs of body armor.
  
  Report this comment
whitealaskan
Posted on January 25, 2013 at 12:57am
Man it would suck to be in the field in a combat situation and have to worry about menstruating. Or to get captured and worry about getting raped.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Karama
  Posted on January 25, 2013 at 1:04am
  See you are missing something there. They have instant bio weapons every month to throw at unsuspecting men. Talk about the gross out factor especially for islamists! Ha!
  
  Report this comment
Karama
Posted on January 25, 2013 at 12:51am
Audie Murphy nearly got kicked out of basic for passing out, but because he insisted on being a combat soldier they let him stay. He was 5ft. 5in and weighted in at 110 lbs. (My Grandpa was not much bigger when he went to fight.) If they had not taken his desires into account they would have missed out on having one of the greatest soldiers we have ever seen.

Women are capable. They just need to be taught they can be, enough with the **** and make up already. Besides all you lot always want to laud the mom who shoots the bad guy breaking into her house. Why does a woman all of a sudden need “protected” when it comes to a combat situation?

A woman’s place is fighting beside her man not cowering behind him. In a fight it should be all hands, you never know when that extra bullet might be needed to do the job. That’s what an Israeli woman’s life is like and you love them… Don’t be hypocritical.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- donttreadonryan
  Posted on January 25, 2013 at 1:28am
  Nobody is saying a woman can’t pull a trigger or face extreme challenges. A marine that invaded Baghdad spoke of the conditions we went in under. Being in a vehicle and driving 48 hours straight. Having to do business in empty jars and mre bags in front of their team. Being stripped naked and pressure washed while their bio suits were burned because of disease boils skin pealing off and bleeding. Dysentery. Special forces require a soldier carry an injured member their pack and weapon. A 6′ 2 250 lb soldier said this. He doubts a woman will ever make his team.its not about a mindset its about science. Howabout a mans instinct to protect. Women make great soldiers and do what it takes; but my wife defending my home is way different than a combat situation.
  
  Report this comment
- MaximumBobby
  Posted on January 25, 2013 at 12:50pm
  You’ve never picked up a 100lb ruck and marched 15 miles in full gear – rifle, vest and helmet.
  Until you do. Until you fall out and PASS OUT, you’ll never understand what the combat soldier really does. Neither has Panetta or the rest of the brain-dead sycophants that cheer this declaration and think it makes men and women the same.
  
  Report this comment
- donttreadonryan
  Posted on January 25, 2013 at 4:06pm
  @maximum
  My point exactly. Well put.
  
  Report this comment
- Dano.50
  Posted on January 26, 2013 at 10:44am
  Karama, you are talking exceptional cases, not averages.
  
  I’m sure there are some women who can kick ****, and if they can pass the “single standard” physical capabilities, then fine.
  
  But all you need to do is look around to see that the average woman women does not have the physical capabilities of the average man.
  
  Sports proves that.
  
  Report this comment
mewnani
Posted on January 25, 2013 at 12:16am
I can think of one reason and one reason alone why I think we shouldn’t allow women in the same ranks as men: rape. The people we are fighting have no standards, and they would rape and torture these women in a heartbeat if they ever got captured. They would also use that to their advantage. I’m sorry but I’d rather not put women in that kind of danger.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Ted Sheckler
Posted on January 24, 2013 at 11:15pm
From an old 11b-c2 this is not a game not a play thing people will die careers will end its one massive cluster that will keep on giving and it will all end up being Bush’s fault

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
katzkiner
Posted on January 24, 2013 at 11:09pm
I’d like to comment but I can’t stop laughing. Why not? We have become very good at stupid the last forty years. Women make very good snipers if they don’t have to march to far or carry to much equipment. Ask the Germans of WWII. Better to train a man though, no limitations.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- sillyfreshness
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 11:17pm
  They want “equal rights” in everything else. They should have to register for selective service and be drafted just like men. What’s fair is fair.
  
  Report this comment
rufusf43
Posted on January 24, 2013 at 11:04pm
This is the dismantling of our military. Men and women both will die in the field. Women will be required to serve in these positions. Women serve their country honorably now. To put them in forward combat is to abuse that sevice. If this is about requirements for promotion, then change that. But that is not the purpose of this. It is cover for Obama so we do not talk about the economy, debt, and defict.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
BumperMorgan
Posted on January 24, 2013 at 10:57pm
Sex happens!!!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
felixkatt
Posted on January 24, 2013 at 10:08pm
If women want equlty in everything why not accomodate them and have then fight along side men in combat?
I don’t understand why there is such an argument about this
If I was in the battlefield, I would not treat a woman any differently than I would treat a man.
What is the problem?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- stopprintn
  Posted on January 24, 2013 at 10:31pm
  You have a 80 pound ruck, seven miles to go and an hour to get there, plus a 72 hour engagmet, that is as close to he_ll as you ever want to get. Sorry but the demands just can not be met.
  
  Report this comment
- Wisdom7
  Posted on January 25, 2013 at 1:59am
  Have you ever served in the military? As a veteran I can tell you what you hear and what is reality are two different things.
  
  Report this comment
TJexcite
Posted on January 24, 2013 at 9:57pm
Not to worry once they are done with cuts every new position in combat will be eliminated for both male and female. It will be lucky if there is 100K out of the 230K left. Unless they make a quota or affirmative action for woman, they have to fight the men for a slot. All to sit on a base somewhere as there will be no active boots on the ground in combat after they come home from Afghanistan.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
DougHuffman
Posted on January 24, 2013 at 9:30pm
Listen to Elaine Donnelly at http://www.cmrlink.org/ Center for Military Preparedness.

One of the most substantial high security padlocks that I have ever seen was on the door to female enlisted quarters aboard the Ready and Able Frank Cable, the Navy’s 0000 sub tender in the early Nineties.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.