Should Women be Allowed in the Special Forces? This Female Soldier’s Response May Surprise You
- Posted on June 20, 2012 at 9:04am by
Liz Klimas
- Print »
- Email »
From nurses serving on the on the battlefield as part of the Red Cross to the establishment the Woman’s Army Corps in the 1940s and disestablishment of it in the 1970s to eliminate distinction between men and women in the U.S. Army, female soldiers have been increasing in number and role in the U.S. Military. As of 2010, there were more than 167,000 active-duty enlisted women in the military.
But the age-old question and concern of many about women serving in the armed forces still remains: should they be on the front lines of combat. Who better to ask than a woman in the field.
The Special Operations Forces Report (SOFREP) recently interviewed a current National Guard member who works on a civil support team and as a “Special Forces enabler” about various aspects of being a female in this field and especially about women in combat.
(Image via SOFREP)
The unnamed female soldier spent 12 years in the Army Reserves, took a 14-year break as a civilian where she earned her degree in criminal justice and worked as a paralegal, and later rejoined the National Guard where from 2008 to present day she has served on the civil support team in Afghanistan. Civil support teams assess weapons of mass destruction attacks, advise civilian responders and facilitate the arrival of additional military forces, according to the National Guard.
When on a typical patrol, she “was part of the security element” and “fought side-by-side with the team” when they were engaged. As a CST she helped conduct female engagements.
Still, she said she had to prove herself as a “capable soldier” that “was not seen as a female that needed to be protected (I was not a distraction on the battlefield).“ SOFREP asked her ”What is it like going out on patrol as a female soldier with Infantry and Special Forces soldiers who are exclusively male?” She said she would much rather work with the guys than a bunch of females any day, acknowledging though that you have to have very thick skin.
Going further SOFREP brings up the debate of putting women in direct combat. She explains that we first have to realize that debate will always be present, but also that women are already serving in that role. If, as many argue, females are a distraction in combat because “it‘s a man’s natural instinct to want to protect women,” she says, they’re doing a poor job of following that instinct.
“Well, if that’s the case then they have failed as a soldier because when we put that uniform on we’re all soldiers,” she said.
Addressing other issues in the argument, this female soldier does acknowledge that you can’t just put any female in the line of duty. It has to be “capable women,” she said.
There are a few things she does have reservations about where women are involved, though:
As far as allowing women into the infantry, Rangers or SF, I have mixed opinions on this one. I believe if women can do the job just as well as men, then why not? We cannot, however, expect any concessions to be made for these women. They have to be held to the same standard as their male counterparts.
[...]
Is it realistic to place female soldiers in a situation where they will have to keep up with male soldiers in eighty pounds of equipment or where they may have to throw a 200 pound man (plus kit) over their shoulder in a fireman’s carry?
This is a valid argument. I realize in the infantry one is required to carry upwards of 80 pounds or more while under movement but as mentioned previously, if a woman can effectively perform at this level and keep up, then I say why not. I believe there probably are women that can in fact carry a 200-pound man, but they’re likely few and far between. I do have to say though that I highly doubt every male in the infantry can perform at this level.
Much like anything else, why not conduct a pilot program and see how it goes? How will we know if we don’t give it a try? But again, the standards have to remain the same for women.
(Image via SOFREP)
This CST member’s advice to young women interested in joining the military? “Something that many individuals (men and women alike) don’t think about is what it truly means to be a U.S. soldier and what they’re promising to do as such. Once they’ve wrapped their head around that and if they’re still interested in joining I’d tell them, ‘go for it!’”
Read more from this woman’s perspective on SOFREP here.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 585 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 413 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 374 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 368 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 413 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 368 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 412 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (294)
LiveforFreedom
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:35amThe one thing I see coming Her way is Movie Rights it has all the makings of a hit movie!!!! And the Army needs a movie!!!
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:11amLet me put this in a light that more folks would understand.
Lets say that tomorrow, we declare that next season, we will force the NFL to not only allow women to play pro football, we are going to force them to have a % of women on each team, and they will not only have to play (not sit the bench), they must be successful when they do play.
What would happen? The NFL may still be called the NFL, but it would radically change. To make woman able to play and compete with men, they would have to change the rules drastically. How many women out there can take the hits that the average NFL player can take.
NFL players are not your average man out walking around. Your Rangers are not your average men walking around in the Army. They are elite for a reason. The average man does not make it through ranger school, or make it into a Ranger unit. There is a very high washout rate.
Forcing the Army to take women in the Ranger units, or Ranger School will force leadership to completely revamp the units and standards, and you will get a drop in lethality and for a higher cost to the tax payer. Why would anyone want that?
Report Post »LiveforFreedom
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:29amRangerP, Rangers Lead the Way! And always will Brother! Women will never be allowed to attend Ranger School!! Or Seal Bud training!! For the one reason that they have not been allowed to so far!! The American People could never handle seeing or hearing of a large number of women all being K.I.A.s all at once!! The public could never stomach something let that!!! Its been talked about before and will be talked about to the end of time!! But what really sickens me is a Army celebrating gay pride month, that sickens me to no end, I’m glad to have retired after 23 years!!!!
Report Post »TheCoffinMaker
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 12:02pmWhy stop with the women?
I think welfare recipients should be put on the front lines.
…they’re more used to standing in line.
Report Post »WAKEUPUSA2012
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 12:06pmWomen should be no where near the front lines, or special forces.
Report Post »BlenGeck
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 12:09pmRangerP is dead right. Pun intended. Lets not lower our standards to be PC. Lowering standards started the housing debacle after all. Did that work??? Not so much.
Report Post »hidden_lion
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 12:42pmThis female is right…let them as long as they can meet the same standards. I think all woman in the service should be required to meet the same Physical standard as the men anyways. There is no reason for woman to not have to do equal pushups, equal run times and sit ups. I know plenty of woman that can, but most could not. Equal standards for equal rights.
Report Post »goldmind
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 12:59pmIf they are good markswomen and can rip out the enemies throat…bring it. Give them their own select name, Feminine Lethal Forces, and let them have at it. They should not be expected to undergo the same regimen as men…after all there are anatomical differences, We accept them in a boxing ring, basketball court…now let them be elite killers. In the years to come (if we even have that long), they will be needed here and abroad.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 2:09pm@GOLDMIND
We accept them in a boxing ring, basketball court…
——–
Uh-huh. And fighting for your country against deadly enemies is a game. Great analogy… but it’s faulty. The day I see a woman fight a man in the ring under equal standards, I’ll buy into your argument.
This is an IQ question:
Report Post »Look at the picture of the three soldiers. Circle the soldier that is different. Got it? Or do I have to spell it out for you: T E S T O S T E R O N E.
@leftfighter
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 2:21pm@rangerp also missed another big point, and that is that the male and female physiology are entirely different as it pertains to size, strength, bone density, and many other things that go into being a soldier.
Yeah, a female can carry an 80 pound ruck 100 yards. Can they carry it 10 miles without getting stress fractures, shin splits, or slowing everyone else down? Can a 120 pound woman fireman’s carry a 200 pound male soldier? If so, can she carry him, her 80 pound ruck, and the 20-25 pounds of weapons, ammo and ordinance that infantry soldiers carry?
Sorry, as a 10 year vet, I don’t buy it.
Report Post »stage9
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 2:59pmRanger p nailed it!
Report Post »LiveforFreedom
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 3:02pmRangerP I just received the lastest ArmyTimes, and page 16 has Lady Sappers trailblazers forging a path into combat!! You are correct they should let women into the NFL,MLB,NBA, everything!!!!! In 2002 we had no women going on missions!!!! We had women at the task force HQ!!!!
Report Post »socialism.rocks
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 4:07pmthey can make all woman special force teams..
faster stronger is not always better…
Report Post »Chappie
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 4:18pmRangerP, you misunderstood the message, along with anyone else that agrees with him. They aren’t asking for a certain percentage like they do in the workplace. They are asking to be given the chance to take every physical and mental test that infantry and special forces have to pass. And if they pass every test, then they should be allowed in. Just like every soldier has done.
If they outperform their fellow soldiers, why shouldn’t they fight on the frontlines?
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 4:58pm@CHAPPIE
RangerP, you misunderstood the message, along with anyone else that agrees with him. They aren’t asking for a certain percentage like they do in the workplace. They are asking to be given the chance to take every physical and mental test that infantry and special forces have to pass.
——–
No he didn’t. Scroll down and read his reply to BUGGIOLLEO. Equal standards for both sexes is a liberal myth. Liberalism is plagued with myths and lies. The best women in combat will never be on par with the best men, and that’s what it takes to win a war — the BEST men. Are men who do not meet combat requirements somehow lesser men? BTW, that would be the majority of the male population.
Liberals are the product of ape mutation. Don’t expect much.
Report Post »dmerwin
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 5:00pmrangerp
Report Post »Bingo, Nail on the head.
How many women would be able to make the minimum PT scores to get into Ranger School? If you do anything like this you CANNOT change the standards. Further, how many women that CAN run 5 miles at a 7minute/mile pace want to be in the military?
gottabekidding
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 5:01pmI say let them in. Hold the standards. They can’t run 5 miles in 32 minutes, 100+ situps and 80+ pushups, guess what — recycle. Don’t want to endure RIP in the freezing cold rain, sweltering heat eff’em. The situation is now is if you try to openly oppose them then they will slap yo with a law suit and a wholly unqualified person may make it though due to FEAR of a PC lawsuit and get someone or many killed though their incompetence or inability.
The Army just has to follow their own standards. Basic, AIT, Airborne, Spec Ops. Each gets harder and more burdensome. The system is set up so the incapable will fall away. Women in this aspect of duty will not be able to compete. Period.
Report Post »eaglesoverhead
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 5:03pmRANGERP, you so have a point … “relaxing of standards.” Special Forces and Rangers and Seals, they’re elite because they CAN be … I know there are women out there who could make the cut, but so few, as so few MEN can make it … it’s a mental discipline as well as physical. If the bureacrats start bureaucratting who and how many, instead of the troops earning a place on merit, our Special Forces are done. They’re elite for a very good reason.
I’m a woman, and as much as I would give ANYTHING to serve my country in the military (I’m too old now … boo hooo) I know that for me, personally, I would be a problem for a unit like these … argue all you want … hormones do make you crazy at certain times of the month and certain times of your life … just sayin’
Report Post »arx
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 8:11pmChappie… I’ve never once seen a woman able to do even ONE pull up. USMC requires 20 for perfect PFT score. At TBS, all the woman, no kidding, carried only two pair of socks in an otherwise empty pack, while all the men carried 100+ lb loads, and the women still dropped out at 3x the rate of men on long humps. Every single woman fell out of the extended training exercises (which were brutal during freezing rain). Ever see a woman pick up a limp 190 lb man and carry him 50 yards? Neither have I.
Maybe there are women out there who could measure up physically. I have never seen one, and she would have to be some kind of gorilla. But that aside, do you think it fair that women could choose not to go to combat, but men are ordered to? I don’t. And forcing women to go to combat would be disastrous on many levels.
Not to mention how the presence of women screws up the psychology and readiness of a combat unit. I’ve seen it first hand, and the differences between units with and without women. Half the unit’s energy goes down the tube called: “who’s screwing who…what officer or NCO is being manipulated by a beautiful woman, or afraid of treating women the same as men for fear of a sexual harrasment charge…whose getting pregnant to go home…or getting favors from ranking members for sex…” It introduces a huge social burden, and seriously effects combat readiness.
Think it through a little more. Next time I’ll tell you what I think of the fudge packers in my be
Report Post »arx
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 8:18pm…beloved Corps.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 9:38pmThis was an interesting little discussion. By enlightening the topic with a little fact and realism, you will notice that not a single liberal troll was able to mount any sore of logical or sensible counter attack to my deduction that women do not need to serve in the Rangers, Special Forces, Seals…..
here is the part that miffs me. Why can’t the higher echelons of leadership in our military reach down, and give their manhood a good squeeze, and step up to the microphone, and speak the truth on this matter.
There is so much of the civilian population that has this misconception that soldiers sit around in a fox hole, smoking cigarettes, and waiting for the enemy to come to them. They do not realize the miles and miles of busting brush, climbing mountains, gouging through swamps with 75 plus pounds on their backs. they do not realize you need the ability to pick your buddy up, and be able to run a half mile to the PZ. They do not realize that our special ops are just as elite, trained, and physical as a pro athlete.
Whether most know it, there are some females that serve in our spec ops world, and they are an elite, hand selected groupd of women. Even they would tell you that females do not need to go to Ranger school, and allowing them would just lower the standard, and take away the meaning or value of the ranger tab, and the training behind it.
I hope our nations can turn it around, and face the fact that PC is destroying us before it is too late.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 9:46pmarx
Very good points. Heck, I am in the Army, I will do knock out a few pull ups for Chesty tonight. Thanks for the comments.
Report Post »GunnyRet03
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:38pmWhy? Really are we shorthanded? What is the gain from turning our ground combat forces upside down? I hear all this BS about allowing women in infantry in general and special forces. Someone pls tell why, and what we gain?
There is no gain there are no pros but just cons. All the physical and biology matters. Combat effectiveness matters. Political agendas do not matter. Political agendas will not save lives or make a combat force more lethal.
So if women can do it why not make female units? Hell, they can do it right? Start with regular infantry once they are trained send them into the first crapstorm, it’s all good right? Does anyone think that females could have taken Iwo Jima? How about Normandy? Come on let’s hear it! Why do they need men in their units. Hey that would cut down on all the mean males from picking up them right?
So we field females in the infantry or special ops. Great if I am the enemy I am fielding K9 units to sniff them out.
Freakin ridiculous even to think about it.
Report Post »arx
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:49pmThanks Ranger. Blaze seems to have eaten or censored my first response, but I was saying I think it has to do with good serviceman getting one piece of bad paperwork that ruins their careers, and the bootlicking wussies making rank. Over the years you get the higher ranks filled with politicians rather than warriors. Stay safe.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on June 21, 2012 at 2:45am@SOCIALISM.ROCKS
Report Post »they can make all woman special force teams..
faster stronger is not always better…
—–
That’s what Barack mumbles to himself every time Mooch tosses him around the bed. Hehehe.
kryptonite
Posted on June 21, 2012 at 3:27am@ARX
Report Post »Not to mention how the presence of women screws up the psychology and readiness of a combat unit. I’ve seen it first hand, and the differences between units with and without women.
——-
If you read the full interview, you’ll notice she calls the problem of sex “a ridiculous argument.” That’s female speak. Any man will tell you the problem of sex is a solid argument.
agsb2
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:34amAs a biologist, I can tell you that men & women are different down to muscle cells and no amount of exercise or political muscle can change that.
Report Post »paperpushermj
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 12:42pmPersonally I don‘t think A Woman’s knees could handle the vertical climb that is most of Afghanistan. Plus don’t get me started on the problems born from a women needing to take off most of their kit to relieve themselves when on patrol. Take 5 turns into take 15
Report Post »edmundburk
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 9:34pmFor all you libertarains and progressives out there, look at the army PT manuals, there are TWO standards for male and female, with the females standards being LOWER. it’s the same for airborne school too. this article is an example of the camels nose into the tent. its how they got coed army in the 1970′s, at first they promised that females would be able to proform at the highest levels and keep the sexes seperate, then progressive congressmen and beurocrats lowed the standards and mixed the sexes. to the point of co-ed barracks. the people who support this monstosity are people who
Report Post »NEVER served a day in our armed forces. this includes glenn beck and his blogging staff. i‘m not saying women should’nt serve in the military, but not in the combat arms. and even if you don’t factor in the differences beteewn the sexes theres still the sexual hanky pankey that goes on when you have males and females serving together and I should know I spent 3 years in the army in a service/support unit for 3 years.(86-89).
Melika
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:33amI’ve never heard anyone discuss what I would consider the biggest issue regarding women in combat: the monthly courses. No one seems to want to discuss all the bleeding, all the supplies that would need to be carried into combat to deal with it, the physical discomfort and filth related to it, both before, during, and for a little while afterwards, or how to dispose of the used materials so that it won’t leave a trail or reveal your position. The smell women put off during their courses (if you haven’t smelled it yet, chalk it up to regular bathing) is never addressed. No one discusses the hormonal chances that occur during ovulation and men do subconsciously react to these. Putting these two issue together, you’re having massive hormonal fluctuations every 2 weeks. If you have a fighting force of 12, and half are women, they will very quickly synchronize so that every 4 weeks, they are all going through bloating, irritation, etc. Women’s bodies react to stress; things become quickly unpredictable in high stress situations. She’s right, if a man starts to see you as his “equal”, he will treat you like any other man, but it’s not just about that or being physically the same. Women’s bodies need more care, not because they are weaker, but because they are much more complex. These are the issues the military needs to consider in an unemotional, logical way. As a society, we need to decide if we want those who carry & raise the next generation, and our culture, in comba
Report Post »JackMurphyRGR
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:38amIf you had actually read the article in question you would see that, yes, in fact this very topic was discussed.
Report Post »supernova1
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:38amyou are an idiot
Report Post »retiredsapper
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:48amGreat point….and you’re right no one wants to talk about it. I served with women and personal hygiene was the biggest issue I had to face. Granted there is a small percentage that would accept minimal hygiene standards but that percentage is so minute it isn’t even a factor.
Report Post »JackMurphyRGR
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:53amIncorrect, I address this very issue with the woman interviewed if you actually take the time to read it.
Report Post »supernova1
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:56amretiredsapper- again, with men with iq’s like yours, it is no wonder we have failed to win this “war on terror”-
Report Post »Melika
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:08am@ JackMurphy: I read THIS article on THIS site. I’m COMMENTING on this article, on this site. The issues that are emphasized TEND to be regarding equal strength or equal mental/emotional abilities and not what I was saying, that doesn’t mean that they are NEVER discussed. You read my opening statement too literally; it is akin to “you understood”. For those like you, what I should have said is, “I’ve never heard anyone in the media…” and I’ll also further amend it to: “…discussing this issue in any detail or with any kind of regularity.” Does get untangle you panties or are you just a troll looking for a fight?
If you have a problem with The Blaze and their editing process, I suggest you leave a complaint comment detailing what they left out of whatever article you read and not try to slam someone who has brought up a valid point that is regularly swept under the rug and purposefully left out of this one.
@ Supernova1: At least JackMurphy leaves enough doubt to question if he is merely a nit-picky jerk or a troll.
Report Post »Melika
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:19am@ RetiredSapper: Yeah, women tend to like to wash more, possibly because they regularly leak fluids in various amounts, so that attracts more dirt, or will at least make a woman fell dirty, especially if she is accustomed to regular bathing. It would be an interesting discussion, but that this site is crawling with trolls, and I’ve landed two of them with one comment, we probably won’t be having it.
Report Post »JackMurphyRGR
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:24amYou said that you NEVER HEARD anyone discuss the subject although we did discuss the topic in the full interview, helpfully linked via this page. Let me help you with that since you missed not just the link, but also the context of my comment: http://sofrep.com/8339/female-cst-special-forces-enabler-speaks/
I’m not even asking you to do any outside research, I‘m just asking that you read the work in it’s entirety before slamming it.
Report Post »JackMurphyRGR
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:27amI’m not trolling, I’m just calling you out for being lazy. Let me know when you’ve read the full interview. I wait with baited breath!
Report Post »wdittgasn
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:43am@MELIKA….. Just join the military and get your unit killed because you have to take an extra bath.
Report Post »Lisa
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 1:08pmIn the article:
“The other concern is the monthly visit from “Ant Flo.” In this day and age, women are able to rid themselves of that annoying monthly visit and most do.”
Really? And how do they do that? Other than having an hysterectomy, I do not know of any way to “rid” a female body of a normal cycle. Birth control pills allow for a regular monthly flow. So please inform me how to safely and in a healthy manner a woman can eliminate her period when she is in her 20′s.
Report Post »focalpoint
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 1:12pm@Melika:
Report Post »Agreed that there is a complex problem with the whole female biological difference. However, this particular problem would be avoided with mandatory use of some modern contraceptive medications, that suspend a woman’s monthly cycle as long as the medication is in effect. As advertised, this could be up to and including a period of over a year in which the woman has no menstruation cycle.
JackMurphyRGR
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 1:36pmLisa…seriously? Damn.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 4:38pm@JackMurphyRGR
Report Post »Lisa…seriously? Damn.
—-
Women don’t just “rid themselves of those annoying periods.” There is a whole medical field dedicated exclusively to women and their female needs for a reason. This woman may dismiss the female monthly cycle as inconsequential, but if a woman wants to suppress her periods, she requires medical supervision. Extended cycles usually cause breakthrough bleeding, and there can be serious side effects for some women. Besides, while it stands to reason that most women in the military would want to suppress their menses, your interviewee admits that some don’t. They would have the right to be accommodated, so we are back to square one. Finally, there are no longitudinal studies on the effects of contraceptive-induced amenorrhea in military personnel, so this female soldier’s opinion on the matter is just that — an opinion.
JackMurphyRGR
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 4:50pmAnd you don’t feel that this issue can be mitigated in anyway and that it is such a health concern that it would prohibit women from functioning in a combat zone? What about all the women who are functioning in combat zones at this very moment? Doesn’t that go a long way to disproving that female hygiene is a show stopper for women in combat?
Report Post »Kozys
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 5:08pmI read the article twice and it did not make one reference to the menstral cycle of women. Maybe you did not read the comment. Which is a valid one. The issue that is discussed that some of the comments ignore is the standards being the same. That is probably because initially, at the begining there will be some manner of standard equality. However these comments are made by men who have seen over and over the pattern of standards being equal initially, and officials assuring everyone that there will be a high standard, only to see them eventually, and usually after a short period of time, being ignored and finally removed in order to make things fair. This is a common theme in this country. If you can read and know your history, it is clear. Out side of our country’s history, this situation usually marks the end of a military’s power. Of course you will not see that in any of the History Channel’s shows.
Report Post »JackMurphyRGR
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 5:18pmRead more carefully. “Aunt Flo” is a reference to the female menstrual cycle. I don’t know how that could have been lost on you.
Report Post »Kozys
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 5:46pmAgain, I am not sure what you are looking at, but it is not mentioned in this article. Another point while I am commenting is this “Combat” soldiers statement that she was not a distraction to her fellow soliers. This is not something that she could state for certian. It would be a question for her fellow soldiers to answer. She may think that this is true, but she may not have any idea.
Report Post »Alessandre
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 7:12pmthere are oral contraceptives that prevent regular periods. Catholics & others who believe oral contraceptives are immoral as well as those women who object to having a dr wreck their healthy fertility system (imagine asking your dr to give you meds that would cause your heart to stop beating for extended periods) son’t take such pills & so they won’t be appropriate candidates for many combat-related positions. such pills are not 100% effective so a woman can have a lighter period each month (no explanation of what “lighter” means) & so the issue remains. women w/ diabetes, elevated cholesterol or triglycerides, who are depressed or have unexplained irregular periods ought not take oral contraceptives. but so many women take oral contraceptives w/o a thorough medical examination anyway: gynecologists ask questions but patients often don’t know, for example, if they have an undiagnosed heart problem. there are many potential side affects of course, they include: blood clots, heart disease, heart attacks, stroke, cervical cancer & fertility problems. such problems are not common but the more women are using long-term oral contraceptives, the more common they they will probably be. for soldiers, blood clots are of concern. they must often spend long period of time sitting in transport vehicles. immobility can cause deadly blood clots in otherwise healthy people. the female soldier interviewed here dismissed the issue but any sane woman would conduct a bit of research.
Report Post »Alessandre
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 8:40pm@JackMurphyRGR: for many women, monthly periods are a huge deal. I’ve had disabling pain from endometriosis since I was a young teen. yet the rest of the month I’m fine & I’ve been a strong, fit, & until recently, extremely healthy dancer. but for 2 – 3 days before & the 1st 2-3 days of my period, I’m out of it unless I take anti-prostiglandins profylactively & allow myself to have a regular period (& it’s heavy). fibroids (even tiny ones), cysts, hormone imbalances (often caused by stress) can wreak havoc w/ a woman’s menstrual cycle overriding the effects of even long-term oral contraceptives. PMS can do the same. and the potential for blood clots for women who take oral contraceptives & then must remain immobile in tanks & other transports ought to terrify any sane woman. David Bloom, the NBC reporter died as a result of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) after riding in a tank for an extended period of time. he wasn’t on the pill. sending women on the pill into combat situations which cause them to be immobile for long periods of time is creating a time bomb: the risk of DVT is already higher for women using oral contraceptives. the soldier who was interviewed dismisses periods as no big deal. perhaps that’s her experience but for as many as 80% of women, periods are a very big deal indeed.
Report Post »JackMurphyRGR
Posted on June 21, 2012 at 4:48amSo how are women like Bobbi and the women I worked with while deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan able to function if PMS is such a show stopper? I suspect that women who have the crippling health issues that you describe would never be allowed into the military much less meet the requirements for combat duty as it stands right now.
Report Post »dmerwin
Posted on June 21, 2012 at 1:40pmLisa
Report Post »Depo Provera or Mirena IUD.
ArcticGulogulo
Posted on June 22, 2012 at 12:28amYou do realize it is the 21st Century and big paharma has that all figured out right?
Report Post »Chabos
Posted on June 28, 2012 at 12:59am@ Lisa and all concerned with the state of deployed female vagaina’s…
So you want to know what a deployed female solider does with her period. I personally would like to know what happens to a male soldiers “happy sock” but I digress…
When I deployed I preferred to not have my period. This was a decision I made with my OB/GYN prior to deployment. She gave me the go ahead with some left/right limits, I did my research (read: medical journals), accepted risk, and made a decision. It’s kinda my job to do so… think of it as Period MDMP.
Did I experience periods during my deployment? Yep.
Was it a mission distraction? No.
How do I know? Well, no one else could tell what bodily secretion I was wiping away during my trips to the latrine, out house, or wherever I did my business. I was just taking a bathroom break like everyone else.
And If you must know, it really is not that complicated to perform period fun-time personal hygiene – simply swipe until clean, preferably front to back and move on about your day. Geeze.
If my response comes of as a bit jaded, sorry. It’s just that during my deployment my period was not an issue, the safety of my soldiers and our mission was simply far too important.
Report Post »Dismayed Veteran
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:31amMy experience is 43 years in the past. We did have female Special Agents in Military Intelligence. Most of them ended up doing Special Investigations. They had an advantage because male soldiers couldn’t see past their gender.
I don’t see them in Special Operations units as direct action soldiers. I suspect that Special Ops has women in the support functions who are armed when on deployment.
As a personal matter to all men who don’t think women should be in the service or near a combat zone, women have earned their way and paid the price. My mother was an Army Nurse during WWII. While serving in North Africa, she was wounded protecting patients during a German air attack. She earned the Purple Heart and Bronze Star (Valor). She also earned a Combat Medic Badge for her work at a front line battalion aid station. She received the CMB in 1946 since the badge wasn’t approved until late in the war.
Report Post »supernova1
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:39amand i thank her for her service and you for sharing it
Report Post »Melika
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:46amThat is not the issue at stake. Women have historically been in the front lines, in danger and behaving bravely, especially if they are serving in a supporting capacity, and they should receive whatever awards are befitting their service. This is a push to put women not just in the front lines, but on them and beyond as combat soldiers. The idea comes from the 60′s feminist movement that dictates that anything seen as “womanly” is somehow beneath a woman and that the only way a female can become one is to do whatever a man does, just not necessarily equally well. Motherhood, kindness, consideration, and all the characteristics that naturally (by genetics) come to a woman are deemed weak, demeaning, and entrapping to these women. By contrast, a woman who is “tough”, physically and emotionally aggressive, and childless is pushed as the new super woman who is worthy of admiration and emulation. The more like a man a woman can become, the more she is acceptable to the feminist crowd, which I find is deplorable. Stripping women of their womanhood and trying to turn them into men is the most offensive form of sexism taken to the extreme, I just don’t understand why there are women who promote it.
Report Post »Dismayed Veteran
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 12:09pmMelika
I understand the issue is women in direct action combat assignments in Special Operations.
My last paragraph was directed to those posting who believe women should not be in the service at all or not in a combat zone.
Report Post »RedheadedStepchild
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 12:11pmThank you for sharing your mom’s courage with us. And thank you Melinka..you were talking about THIS article. A menstrating woman would be a hinderance in a combat situation and many others…sniper ops, etc. I don‘t think a woman’s courage is in question though. We are MORE courageous in certain stuations BECAUSE we are hindered by our physical body not being as strong as a man’s. We walk down any street at night an we are a target…what man has to live with this reality? A strong woman can normally be overtaken by a teenaged male.
Report Post »Litrit
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:24amI’m sorry, but couldn’t they have found an active duty soldier to ask? No offense, reservists and National Guard, but those of us who have served know there is a HUGE difference between active duty and weekend warriors.
Report Post »JackMurphyRGR
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:29amDrop me a line if you have a suggestion. I’d be happy too. That said, I think a six month deployment to Afghanistan is a six month deployment. In that sense it probably doesn’t make much of a difference.
Report Post »w.brent
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:41amMy National Guard unit served in Balad. The Active support unit we replaced left with numerous GOMAR’s, field grade UCMJ’s, and a few officers being relieved of duty. A senior CDR of the unit that we replaced who stayed in country, after working with our unit for 8 months, said that we blew the socks off his unit and that he would rather have us any time. My unit left without a single UCMJ and many awards for outstanding service. The National Guard’s soldiers have tons of civilian experience in various fields that they bring to the table (including NCO’s that in their civilian jobs are lawyers, engineers, scientists, etc) that enhance their soldier abilities. Don’t bag the National Guard. I spent enough time in the Active Army to know that there are just as many lazy, fat, useless, turds in the active Army as there are in the guard.
Report Post »Kozys
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 5:24pmTo be respectful of the NG’s, I think that they served with honor and can be proud of there service. But there is a difference between an active duty infantry unit and any other unit including NG’s. The Ranger’s and Spc. Ops even more so. The missions of the NG’s and the Active duty infantry units are completely different. There are reserve Group or SF units as well. They are a different sort of reserves. That is why when all of the NG‘s were complaining to Donald Rumsfield about their Humvee’s he did not pay them much attemtion. Because the people who really needed the up armor had it. There is a difference in observing combat and provoking it. There is a difference in being in a combat zone and instigating the combat. Females do not need to be in those units who instigate the combat.
Report Post »dmerwin
Posted on June 21, 2012 at 1:43pmReally? Bad place to go. In time of peace you MIGHT have a point but at this time it appears as if Infantry guard units are pulling their weight.
Report Post »ArcticGulogulo
Posted on June 22, 2012 at 12:53amSo 19th and 20th Group arent up to your standards?
Report Post »supernova1
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:13amever heard of WWII and the resistence movement- females involved in that one! Ever heard of the Israeli army? You guys fail to see the benefits of a woman in combat and instead open your mouths and let fear based illogical b*ll**** spill out. Maybe you all married gold-diggers- because those women would only be qualified to do one thing, lol. Some women are stronger and smarter than you guys seem to think.
Report Post »Al Gator
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:25amIsraeli army is segregated. Separate but equal. They have female units, but I doubt they integrate female troops with male troops in special ops.
Report Post »supernova1
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:29amagain, you are completely ignoring the intelligence aspect of military ops- there are women there you know-
Report Post »StanO360
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 4:05pmThat is not the same! The reality is, at most there may be a physical crossover of maybe 5%, where 5% of woman would be physically superior to 5% of men. So we are supposed to revamp whole military structures to accommodate this? With resistance forces it’s all hands on deck, no amount of pretending will change the fact that men are physically and emotionally different than women, 100% of the time? No, but 99% of the time.
Someone mentioned sports, the differences are striking. Most big high school boys teams will beat women’s Olympic teams. Woman’s World Cup soccer works out against a high school travel team (a good one mind you).
Special Forces? Only a fraction of men make it, say 5% (for arguments sake), well only .1% of women would make it. So the question is not why not accept them for it, but why do it for what would literally be less than a dozen women?
Report Post »JBQ
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 4:29pmYou’re kidding me right? Bin Laden was 6 ft 5. 5 ft 2 and eyes of blue just won’t cut it.
Report Post »memphisbelle
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 5:08pmAmen. Women have been proving themselves useful on the battlefield since Molly Pitcher in the Revolutionary War. The Israelis have had good success with separate but equal units for men and women. Why can’t our women have their own Special Ops division with its own high standards? I think they could be highly valuable in intelligence gathering. They could be much better at disguising themselves to infiltrate areas that men could not without being detected. Hell, all you need is a burka. Personally, I would like to see all female sniper units. I admit that I don’t know enough about the military structure to know if this is even possible. But hope springs eternal.
Report Post »Alessandre
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 8:50pmIsraeli army tried integrating men & women until they discovered that the sight of wounded & dying women caused men to protect women as they are psychologically designed to do. thus, they separated men & women. women & men are different & a woman who must be the same as a man isn’t much of a woman &, as Melika has pointed out, she is denying the reality of what it means to be a woman.
Report Post »dmerwin
Posted on June 21, 2012 at 1:48pmThe Israelis use their women soldiers as instructors. Not in combat arms units. There are many places for women in the military. Every woman in logistics, intelligence, personnel, battalion level medical, maintenance, air defense, signals, etc frees up a male to fight in an infantry, engineer, artillery or armor unit.
Report Post »BuggiOlleo
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:01amAhh? Not just No but H3ll No!! We have p-lenty capable not given special privileges to be SF. Standard service creds for females are reduced to give them a shot anywhere in the military..This isn’t a PC issue anymore; it‘s a NO F’n Way issue.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:13ambecause of political correctness, and the new wave military leader who has no spine, and is a “yes” man, the current US public has no clue as to what is going on in the military.
Our sexual assault stats jumped 45% in the last six years. Mixing males and females has been a dismal failure since the first gulf war. The stats in that war would blow your mind, when you see how many females got pregnant, could not deploy because they just go pregnant, and the assault, prostitution….. just ruins morale.
Leaders know not to speak out, because the female senators and congresswomen will see that your career is over.
If American moms and dads knew the rate in which females were raped and assaulted when just entering basic training, they would be shocked.
on the other end, most females just do not have the strength and endurance of a man. So when you put them in an austere environment where strength is needed, it takes a male to do a job and a half to cover for the weaker female. You also have the problem of males naturally wanting to protect a female. Morale and discipline drop when you have unprofessional relationships in combat. The rear units in Afghanistan and Iraq are riddled with these sorts of problems, but you will never hear a word from the commanders. Talk to soldiers who work for female commanders, and you might be blown away by what you hear. Yes, there are some out there that are doing great, but the majority are a train wreck.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:23amif we let females go to Ranger School, will they have an equal standard? I can tell you that they will not.
Currently, the female standard for the PT test is much lower than the male standard. If we made the standard equal across the board, the majority of female ranks would be put out of the Army
Years ago, our Airborne School was a tough school. When they decided the school had to include females, they had to get rid of the pull-up standards, because females could not do them.
Currently if a female soldier (17-21 does 41 pushups on her PT test, she gets 100 points. A male of the same age has to do 71. If that same male did 41, then he would have hit the minimum standard with a score of 60. The female bottom standard is 19 pushups.
Basically we are saying that the weakest of our men will do 41, or get out, and a weakest female will do 19 or get out.
Now, if you are laying there with a sucking chest wound, it is 600 yards to carry your 180lbs self to the Pick up Zone, who do you think is best able to pick you up in the fireman carry, and get you there?
The army is not a civil rights stomping ground. As the tax payer, you should be looking at what is the best for improving or maintaining lethality, and at the lowest cost to the tax payer. While it really makes libs happy to put gays in the military and to let women in the Rangers, they are destroying our military, and there will be a price to pay.
Report Post »supernova1
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:42amRangerP- women pay taxes too- actually in wage comparison to men- they make less and thus pay more taxes: your issue should be with politcos in the military- ladder climbing sycophants that would throw a man just as easily as a woman under the bus!
Report Post »JRook
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:46am@rangerp Well said. In most instance it is better to face and deal with the facts and the truth. And as you noted ALL qualification and performance standards should be equal relative to all assignments and deployments. To do otherwise puts the individual, the unit and the mission at risk. But then again, you have had people trying to make “rules” for war, as though it can be equated to a sporting event. For example, we court marshal soldiers who secondarily kill civilians, while we bomb cities that are primarily made up of civilians. As war has progressively become more of a business there is little concern for even the need for a stated objective or result for a campaign or mission. If we spent half as much time worrying about what we are wasting lives and money on as we do worrying about whether the 1/2 of 1 percent of women who might qualify are recognized, we might do something more useful than just make and use weapons. For the constitutionalists here, how’s about we return to the constitutional notion of DEFENDING our country.
Report Post »wdittgasn
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 12:01pmA chain ( the military) is only as strong as it’s weakest link, this country is being destroyed and women and gays in the military are one of the ways it is being done.
Report Post »wdittgasn
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 12:06pmWell I’ll be, miracles never cease, JROOK actually said something I can actually agree with.
Report Post »Alessandre
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 9:08pm@SuperNova1: that “women make less than men” argument no longer works. there was a time when that was true but now, if you look at the statistics honestly, women make at least as much as men if they do the same job as a man. many women choose to take time out to care for children or a sick relative. other women work part-time for the same reason. some women never work. other women, in my experience because they expect to marry, work at low-paying jobs w/ no future & then never marry. & finally, there are those women who are functionally illiterate just as so many men are these days. what reason ought a woman who hasn’t the necessary education & can barely do the job she has expect to “grow” w/ a small business that has no higher level jobs for an uneducated person of any gender. then there are the “I need to follow my dream” females who believe they will make it as a dancer or singer or writer & work as a waitress or some other “flexible” job only to discover they’re not in the tiny % of people who make it & they’ve not got the ability to even teach their field due to lack of knowledge, experience or education. )I was a follow my dream woman but I began a career in law at the same time & when I wasn’t in the % who makes it, I had a career to fall back on plus, I teach my field.) there are almost certainly other groups – men as well as women. but if we’re willing to give up as men do & have, we earn as much as they do. it’s our choice.
Report Post »retiredsapper
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:01amBeing a retired soldier and serving with women in combat (Iraq and Afghanistan) this is a very tense subject. I do agree that women should be allowed in combat BUT and this is a very big but…ONLY IF THEY ACHIEVE THE EXACT SAME STANDARDS THAT MALES MUST ENDURE!…no deviation at all, no “ a females body is different than a males therefore” that’s B.S. I agree that every male cannot endure as well, they need to be moved out of the MOS but here’s the catch, they get their assess dogged until the get it to standard, I know from experience that JAG will be contacted and complaints will be made. This female even said that she had to have thick skin. War is not politically correct, it is not Band of Brothers on TV, personal hygiene goes out the window, so does taking showers. Before our government makes the decision to send women into combat they better put one hell of alot of time into proving that they they can handle the rigors and stand up to the shitstorm that wil inevitably come with the decision. This is not gays in the military, I can guarantee that there is no self admitted gay serving in the specops community(as a snake eater). America is not ready to see their females blown to pieces. And for all of you that say women are already engaged in combat. True they are….when their convoy gets attacked or when the basecamp is targeted, they are not going out on intently going out looking for bad guys to cause trouble, so your point is moot.
Report Post »D-Fence
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:17amAmen brother.
Report Post »supernova1
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:26amyou’ve never served,lol!
Report Post »Stu D. Baker-Hawk
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 11:44amTwenty-one years of active-duty service here (retired in 2005), and I agree with every point you laid out.
Report Post »kent grotz
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 3:30pmI have met a few women(really women) that could bust the balls of most of GIs I knew in 11years. For most women, no recon or sf.
Report Post »Kuffar
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 9:58amWomen in the Special Forces and Rangers?
Report Post »Well now, isn’t that stylish…
tomizzle2
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 9:55amExactly what I would want next to me in a crossfire. Some thats not doing anything
Report Post »until her make-up is just right.
supernova1
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:17amyeah, well at least she won’t $hit her pants under fire
Report Post »M24
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 9:55amI’m goingto stick my neck out on this one , But There is A reason Why GOD made Boys And Girls Different. In Todays World Women Are A Big Part Of Our Military ,And Do A great Job , But Not In Tier One Spec Ops. SOP Does Many Different Ops And Some Could Incorperate Women ,But Some Not. SEMPER FI
Report Post »supernova1
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:27amyeah, a marine- that figures- never had to work with intelligence huh-
Report Post »wdittgasn
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 12:32pmDamn NOVA, you have a chip on your shoulder, I just hope it is not eighty pounds.
Report Post »kent grotz
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 3:40pmM24, I just knew that Semp Fi would draw some flac. 68-72
Report Post »StanO360
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 4:10pmWomen make up 12% of active duty military, I think “big part” might be a stretch. Sure, important, but let’s not overstate it.
Report Post »Choctaw25
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 9:49amFirst let me say that I have no problem with women in the military. With that being said, this Lady along with a a huge percentage of both men and women considering military service as part of a Special Operations Reaction Force, need to take the time to read some of the wonderful books about Project Delta, Recondo school at Nha Trang, Vietnam, LRRP and the experiences of the one-zero’s and one-one’s that served as Silent Professionals in the untold war in Vietnam. Take the time to perhaps seek out these uncommonly brave men and decide if you have what it took for them to stay alive “in country-in the hole“ and across the fence in Indian country”. You may be in for a very rude awakening. Until you have been there and done that, proceed slowly with your desires to put the lives of your team in harm’s way. I‘m sure the modern day SF’ers are just as brave and commited as were the SF’ers of years past, I just base my thoughts on what I experencied first hand, up close and personal.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 9:59amIf the Gun goes Bang Bang… then it does not matter whom is holding it!
Report Post »Choctaw25
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:14amWhat an assine, ignorant, uninformed, misinformed comment and reply.
Report Post »You are one of those who would have come home in a body bag. I doubt if you have the nerve to even serve in the military, much less meet the standards set forth for Special Ops training.
Just another loud mouth wannabe.
lukerw
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:55am@CHOCTAW…
Report Post »I was in Nam, too… and also detest the Talkers!
LiveforFreedom
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 9:49amAnd I would never lower the Standards for any branch of the Armed Forces to allow anyone to serve!!!!
Report Post »supernova1
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:15amoh really- then why would they allow muslims to join- you daft idiot
Report Post »supernova1
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:25amAfter reading these comments from “soldiers” it is no wonder that the US military is collapsing from within- if you talked about winning, then you would employ every tactical and strategic possibility available- not bicker like old women at a knitting table.
Report Post »Nemo13
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 9:47amI guess women and gheys and whoever misunderstood the title ‘special forces’ haha.. The world laughs at us. Whilst the world trains killing machines, the USA has troops with emotional problems and PC garbage. The USA is fast becoming a joke. Time to get back on track. The military has a purpose OTHER than being a ‘career move’.
Report Post »LiveforFreedom
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 9:43amAnd what is the story here,?? What are you trying to say HERE????? Sense the Civil War Women have been serving in Combat!!!
Report Post »Kinnison
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:12amNo, they have not, at least not legally. I have no problem with women serving in combat jobs, so long as the standards are not dropped for physical performance. In some combat roles, such as piloting helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft, women may actually be better-qualified then men because of their generally higher levels of manual dexterity and resistance to “G” forces, but carrying a full-up infantry load, serving the guns in artillery or mortar units, or as crew on tracked vehicles like tanks or APCs takes too much upper body strength for 95% of women to handle.
Report Post »teddrunk
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 9:43amWomen acting as men goes against God.
Report Post »LiveforFreedom
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 9:51amThe same would be said for men acting as women!!!!!
Report Post »supernova1
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:16amwow. you just won the daily d*mb@ss award
Report Post »wdittgasn
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 12:24pmPresented by queen dumbass, go ahead hand over the tiara.
Report Post »Big Media Bias
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 9:40amHer job was to pat down Afghanistani females. Okay? So as not to insult the Islamic population. She was not assigned to perform combat missions. Even cooks and chairborne rangers carry arms for self protection and fire when fired upon. This article is a joke. Did the Obama administration authorize this interview and story? Women have NO place in special forces or direct combat arms on the ground. Unless they get a sex change like Chaz Bono or Thomas Beatie. Then it will be ok. Women cannot physically and mentally pass any of the rigorous training required for Infantry, Airborne Assault, Ranger or any other school. If they did, the school was watered down for politically correct purposes. Women have a heck of a lot of medical problems which men don’t experience. Obama is pushing a social experiment on the military. We are fricking done as a country. Period.
Report Post »JackMurphyRGR
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:22amHi, I’m the writer who conducted this interview. I just wanted to tell you that you are very astute and intelligent for having figured out the hidden agenda behind the interview. It’s true! I worked very closely with Obama administration insiders such as Cass Sunsein and Samantha Powers to write this article in hopes of brainwashing American and furthering our homosexual feminist agenda, HAHAHAHA!!!! We’re filling the heads of the unwashed masses with poison to pave the way for our sinister communist plan for world domination. Resistance is futile!!!
Report Post »supernova1
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:30amso all you need is a penis to carry a 200 pound man- i didn’t know they could hold that much weight!
Report Post »tangonine
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 12:08pmIf you‘ll actually read the article you’ll find that when the ODA’s were engaged in DA she fought alongside them. Pulling the trigger side by side with some of our best special ops folks. So unless you’ve been shoulder to shoulder with ODA or SEALs or whoever with bullets zipping by your brain bucket, and didn’t wet yourself, shut up.
Report Post »JackMurphyRGR
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 1:04pmQuiet you fools! They are buying into every bit of my femi-nazi propaganda, WHAHAHAHA! Today we have women in combat, why the next thing you know they will be in our shopping malls and dating our children! Total chaos!!!
Report Post »StanO360
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 4:13pmYou are missing the point. Why should we restructure the military based on what a small fraction of women can do?
Report Post »JackMurphyRGR
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 4:34pmBecause it’s a part of my evil socialist Muslim agenda Stan!
Report Post »warrior21
Posted on June 21, 2012 at 12:52pmMy thoughts exactly when I seen her dressed as a killer point her weapon at what might have been down range. She may be able to accompany an SF team on a patrol today in Afghanistan. But these patrols have nothing in common with those conducted during WWII and Korea. Additionally, I certainly won’t want her on a recon patrol. Lastly, she has listed a lot of training she has attended without mentioning the length of the training. In could be from an hour to a week. This tends to mislead you when considering her experience. Should we become involved in a real war where a grunt may be on the front line for periods of up to sixty days before being pulled back in reserve may of the ladies may have other thoughts. One shouldn’t think that the war in Afghanistan is how a real war will be fought. Our biggest problem is that today we have no Generals that have any real combat experience.
Report Post »ArcticGulogulo
Posted on June 22, 2012 at 12:45amDude where have you been? Women go to and pass BAT at Benning every 3 week cycle, as do they pass Air Assault School, Pathfinder School and a bunch of others, and the Marines beat the Army to Infantry,they just started to send them to 0311. As far as Infantry OSUT if you thought that was hard stick with COD.
And do you really think an ODA rolls out with someone they dont trust being attached to their patrol element? If you read the original article Ranger Murphy specifically questions frat, standards and Team Chemistry, he didnt throw softballs and the interviewee answered honestly, she never said she wore a green beenie and never implied she was in Group. She is on a CST attached to Group. She isnt involved in DA Raids wrestling the Haj in hand to hand, and give her props she has dusty boots and lives like an ODA Trooper outside the wire. She has a job to do and goes out and does it. Reset and re read the article in its entirety before spouting off.
A-Dub Out
Report Post »Rickfromillinois
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 9:40amThe PT (physical training) test for both male and female should be exactly the same. It wasn’t when I was in the Army and I doubt if it is now. As the soldier said, if there are women who are capable of performing the same as their male counterparts who are in the Infantry, they are very few. If out of a platoon you have one woman, is it worth it when you have to dig separate latrines or separate hygiene facilities? The most important factor in an Infantry unit is combat effectiveness, not professional opportunities for an individual. These things and many others will have to be addressed. As for the possibility of rape or torture of female soldiers, that is something that as a society we will have to deal with. As long as all soldiers understand the possible consequences of becoming a P.O.W., then it is really their decision to make.
Report Post »supernova1
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:35amphysical training isn’t the end all be all of spec ops- stop talking like they are trained monkeys
Report Post »wdittgasn
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 12:41pmSUPERBABY….. Is it that time of the month, your posts seem to prove such.
Report Post »Conservative for Political Dignity
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 9:35amI do not know the answer to this question. I do know that women are different than men and men are attracted to women. This may cause a problem. Women also can get pregnant, which a lot of women are founding out is a quick way out of the combat zone.
Report Post »There need to be no differentiators. Everyone needs to be viewed as the same by everyone else and if we are not at that point yet than that is a reality of life we must deal with. This includes open homosexuals in the military. All we need in this country is more, “I felt like an outsider on the front lines, I was made fun of and not treated as an equal,” or some other BS sob story that MSNBC will cover to distract from the real issues and show how ‘cruel’ America is.
If we are at a point where we actually have blinders to sex and orientation than go for it, if not, then we have to deal with it. As far as the homosexuals go; MTV, the ‘Real World,’ pop-culture, and the insane news outlets have jammed it down the throat of the youth enough that I think we are almost there, if not now then definitely in the next generation… As a precursor all homosexuals must accept the fact that there are bigots everywhere and it is not the general way of thinking before joining… Unfortunately, many join to become a victim. But as far as women, I think it is going to be a little harder to break the way a testerone-heavy man thinks about any woman after ‘X’ number of months being without there presence.
jblovesAmerica
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 9:27amOnly a small percentage of highly trained men-ever pass the SEAL tests or Ranger Tests.
Report Post »The main point-keeping the standards.
In that business-mistakes kill.
Cavallo
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 9:49amAhh to die for Political Correctness. Do they give medals for that? Most Sensitive Soldier Cross. The Congressional Medal of the Bleeding Heart (awarded post humorously). The Rainbow Heart, for wounds sustained while protecting transgender, bi-sexual, or gay soldiers’ feelings. The standards will be changed because they see the military as a place to perform their little social experiments.
Report Post »HorseCrazy
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 9:56amagree. it wouldn’t be a bad idea to have an all women covert team set up but intermixing? not so sure. I feel like it is affirmative action in a way. that being said I shoot a lot better than my husband but there is no way I can say my hormones don’t cause problems with my thinking for portions of each month. I sincerely hope we don’t lower standards or interject women into this just to be pc.
Report Post »supernova1
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:32amhorsecrazy- you are a man with a wife that shoots better than you
Report Post »wabbithunter
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 9:26amThank you to those women that have it in them to serve. I personally do not have it in me so I will just have to be thankful for those that put their lives out there to protect the rest of us!
Report Post »frogg
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 9:24amThis Lady is correct. Social justice on the Battle field will only get a female killed! Nature made men and women different because they have different roles to play. Mental equality has nothing to do with it. If you Hate women and like to see them die put them in combat with men. Not to count the fact that other people don’t care about what we think is fair. They will be happy to rape and molest them. They do that to our men now if they are captured. This doesn‘t mean that we shouldn’t train them to the same high standard as our men. And it doesn’t mean that we never expect them to be in combat, it means that we shouldn’t purposely put them on combat missions, not as long as we honor then as human beings.
Report Post »supernova1
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:49amjust. don’t. know. where. to. begin. with. this black hole of idiocy.
Report Post »USCAVSCOUT
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 3:55pmwow
Frogg,
Report Post »What is the color of the sky in your world?
Alessandre
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:05pmthat’s really it, @Frogg, though it’s not acknowledged, we hate women & abuse them in many ways. and by that I mean action that harms women physically, psychologically & spiritually. of course, women participate in our own destruction. many of us murder our own children. we walk into a dr’s office & request meds that will stop the normal functioning of our fertility so we can have sex w/ men whose children we will kill if we get pregnant, whom we don’t want to marry, whom we don’t even like. (would we ask our drs for meds that stop our heart beating because we want to avoid feeling it race when we do something dangerous?) we try to be tough like men & we have succeeded so well many men have decided they have nothing to gain & everything to lose by marriage. 50% of us who do marry divorce & many of us end up in poverty even though we can force our ex-husbands to pay child support. some of us engage in serial marriages. others in adultery, others are sex-workers (more & more young girls want to be strippers when they grow up). we don’t value ourselves, our bodies, our souls, our children, or anyone else. we refuse to be what God has made us. we rebel against being women.
yes men abuse us but we needn’t abuse ourselves: we could pray & ask God’s help, stop using contraceptives, stop fornicating, wear modest, feminine dress, care for a man rather than using him to pay for drinks & meals, stop competing w/ other women, learn to be a friend. we could if we tried. some of
Report Post »Alessandre
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:10pm(last sentence of reply truncated) some of us are.
Report Post »sawbuck
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 9:23amI can only echo her feelings and cannot add anything to her stance on this issue..
Report Post »Well said Soldier…!
AllLost
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 9:22amPhysical conditioning and qualifications must be exactly the same for combat women and men.
Women must not leave the field when feminine hygiene issues arise…this was not the case in the 1980′s but may have changed today…I don’t know.
Special rescue efforts by DOD for captured female soldiers must not happen….as it did in the first Iraq war. They must be treated the same as a captured male soldier.
The country must be prepared to endure the rape, torture, and sexual enslavement of a captured female soldier. It is hard for the US population to bear the cost of war when they hear of the wounded, killed, and captured men, it will be ever so much worse when they hear of a woman suffering. Chauvinist? Maybe. But when the success of the mission relies on public opinion one captured woman can cost everything.
Report Post »nzkiwi
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 9:32am@ AllLost
Your last paragraph makes a very good point.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 9:14amWhen you start with the premise that we are all of a Predator Species… and can Hunt & Kill… then, the qualification is simply: Phyisical Ability/’Stamina; and, Desire… which separtes Boys from Men, Girls from WoMen!
Report Post »supernova1
Posted on June 20, 2012 at 10:38amexcellent point
Report Post »