Women to be cleared for combat roles (Page 5)

i'm saying i don't like war no matter who is dying for no reason.  why does it make a difference if it is sons or daughters?  i don't agree with "women and children first."  really, according to some in this thread, women are so useless and helpless and distracting, why would you WANT us to survive?  why is it important for a woman's life to be more valuable than a man?  i don't agree with that at all.  when i say i want equal rights, i mean it.

Please don't take this as snarky, because I'm trying to play devils advocate here. 
Do you really want "equal rights" across the board?  I get where you're coming from as far as the topic of combat roles, but what about everywhere else?  Do you support abolishing men and women categories in sports?  Because to me it seems as though we're being very sexist by saying women aren't as good as men in sports.  I know there are plenty of women who can kick my behind in Triathlons so why do they get to compete in a womens category if we're all the same?

Looks like to me that if you are 5 feet tall, you HAVE to wiegh at least 97lbs?. How many 97lb, five foot tall males do you know? Thats 1 inch taller than my 11 year old son.

Wrong concept.  They are equal because they are allowed to participate in the same sport.  Doesn't have to be in the same category.

I know that traditionally that has been the argument for equal rights in sports, but in the context of the discussion of women in combat we are arguing that women are every bit as capable as men on the front lines so they should be allowed.  I don't think anybody's suggesting a women's category of infantry.

Maybe sports isn't the best analogy, but I'm just trying to describe how in one context "sports" it's OK to say women are "weaker" and get to play the same sport, but in a different category.  However, in the context of women in combat that argument isn't allowed.

I know that traditionally that has been the argument for equal rights in sports, but in the context of the discussion of women in combat we are arguing that women are every bit as capable as men on the front lines so they should be allowed.  I don't think anybody's suggesting a women's category of infantry.

Maybe sports isn't the best analogy, but I'm just trying to describe how in one context "sports" it's OK to say women are "weaker" and get to play the same sport, but in a different category.  However, in the context of women in combat that argument isn't allowed.

Maybe sports isn't the best analogy, but I'm just trying to describe how in one context "sports" it's OK to say women are "weaker" and get to play the same sport, but in a different category.  However, in the context of women in combat that argument isn't allowed.

I know that traditionally that has been the argument for equal rights in sports, but in the context of the discussion of women in combat we are arguing that women are every bit as capable as men on the front lines so they should be allowed.  I don't think anybody's suggesting a women's category of infantry.

If a woman is capable of performing the same as a man in combat, outline just why they shouldn't have the opportunity to do so?  I haven't sen a logical argument yet.  And there have been two military females on this very thread that have done what other men have done and I'm certain there are other women out there that can do it too.  So what's the reason?

I know that traditionally that has been the argument for equal rights in sports, but in the context of the discussion of women in combat we are arguing that women are every bit as capable as men on the front lines so they should be allowed.  I don't think anybody's suggesting a women's category of infantry.

Maybe sports isn't the best analogy, but I'm just trying to describe how in one context "sports" it's OK to say women are "weaker" and get to play the same sport, but in a different category.  However, in the context of women in combat that argument isn't allowed.

At the professional level, at least, women are allowed to play in men's leagues. There are not restrictions in, say, the NBA by-laws saying that teams should be comprised exclusively of men. Do you think that if there was a woman who was able to compete on that level, that a team wouldn't sign her? David Stern has said that he thinks there is a "good possibility" that someday a woman will play in the NBA.

And also, I don't think that anyone is making the argument that as a class, women are equal to men when it comes to physical prowess and that therefore any woman should be allowed on the front lines. The argument that's being made is that there exist women who are physically capable of performing the duties required, and to restrict her solely based on the fact that she's a woman is wrong.

Honestly as I stated earlier I'm kind of on the fence with this one because I KNOW there are many women who are capable of fighting and do fight on the front lines.  I personally don't "like" the idea because I value women above myself and other men.  I am unfortunately considered a sexist for thinking this way, which seems weird to me because I value women higher.  I don't get that.

So with my sports analogy there are women who are capable of competing at high levels in sports, but we still give them a different category to play in because at the "highest" level women cannot compete "equally" with men.  So, in combat there are many women who are capable of fighting at a high level but when it comes to the "highest" level why is it so wrong for somebody to think they shouldn't.

Because the "highest" level does not require anyone to operate at their maximum physical capacity.  You and I in the same scenario, I might be working closer to my max capacity than you are but we are capable of operating at the same level.

There is still a minimum level of physical ability that is required and that should not be dropped.

There is still a minimum level of physical ability that is required and that should not be dropped.

It's controversial for a few simple reasons.

1) It's never been done

2) From a male perspective - I personally struggle with it because I still think a man should open doors for women, walk on the street side of the sidewalk and always step between danger and his female companion. I taught, or at least tried to teach, my sons the same things.  All of those ideas create conflicting issues in combat zones.  That's my failing though, not a womans.

3) It's never been done before

People, do not mistake "combat" and the "battlefield" for what this order is dealing with. It is NOT dealing with the idea of keeping women OUT of or IN combat, it is about opening up certain job specialities for women that weren't previously open. it wasn't even "unofficial" that we were in combat before, but rather the job specialities I just mentioned. Those specialities happen to be ones with the explicit missions of "closing with and destroying the enemy." HOWEVER, that doesn't mean you haven't had thousands of women in direct combat roles in Iraq and Afghanistan already. As a Military Police officer, my primary mission was not to close with and destroy the enemy. BUT, if in the course of securing roads, identifying IEDs, operating checkpoints, and serving as a quick reaction force for logistic units caught in an enemy attack, we would and DID encounter the enemy on SCORES of occassions. Those bullet holes in my truck were real. Those slivers of AK-47 rounds I pulled out of my pant leg (but thankfully NOT my leg) were real. The bullets I sent downrange at the enemy were real. The rounds my soldiers fired at the enemy when I told them to were real. The 4 Purple Heart my 2 male and 1 female (she got two) Soldiers received were real. The Bronze Star with V device for Valor that our medic (SHE) received was real. The combat actions badges that we wear, with pride, on our uniforms are real.  Women HAVE been in the thick of combat for the past 11 years. I have seen more combat than some of my male counterparts who have served in Infantry, Armor, and Field Artillery units.  And while, previously, we couldn't be directly assigned to Infantry units, you COULD be "attached." Just like my platoon and I were from Oct-Dec '04 during the offensive in Fallujah. There we did counter mortar/counter rocket patrols with a heavy infantry platoon and cav scout platoon. I am a woman. I have been in combat, HEAVY combat. And I am not expection to that and have many a close female friends who saw more than I did.

Most of the conjectures in this thread about military life are just that, conjectures. Does sexual assault happen in the military? Unfortunately. You know what helps prevent that--the command climate and leadership that is in the place. In my 35 months as a Platoon Leader and 19 months as a Company Commander, my unit did not have ONE case of sexual assault of any type.  We did have a couple of dirt bags that may have been capable of such, but we didn't let them remain in the Army--and by we, I mean my male First Sergeant and I. 

Allowing women in combat is not the issue the order addressed, it's allowing women in combat designated roles. The switch wasn't suddenly turned on yesterday and women aren't in the infantry today. Significant study and work has yet to be done on how to implement it, and the current timeline for full implementation appears to be 2016.  I did not advocate one way or the other for it because, frankly, I was already doing everything like that as an MP. Are there significant implementation implications that the military must address?  Yes, but I have already seen some of the work that they are doing on such. And you know what, UNLIKE when they first allowed women into the Academies in the mid 70's, they actually have women leaders working on these issues (alongside men) to address the totality of it.  And do not assume that just because a woman volunteered to be in the military that it makes them a hard left leaning feminist.  Some are, some are not. Most are just patriots who want to serve their country, be leaders, and provide for their families. We come from all sides of the political spectrum, and our primary goal is serve, NOT make a statement.    

And shame on some of you for stereotyping the type of male soldiers we have. Are there some knuckle dragging, testosterone driven yahoos that make life for everyone hard? YES, there are. But there are also many of the finest gentlemen with character unlike what you often see in the civilian world and who have no issue working with their female counterparts and crushing the idiots who act otherwise.  The view from my foxhole is that the good outnumber the bad, and the more of the good we get into leadership positions, the better the command climates will be and the less any of the bad stuff against male or female will occur.  But do not think the military can ever become immune to societal ills.  There is nothing that we are faced with that isn't reflected in greater numbers and scope in the civilian world.  Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines come from that society. So before questioning the military as the root of why some of the ills in the military happen--question society and address that first.  We can always be better as a military. We are always striving to be better. We will never be perfect. But find me somew workplace that is. I have always felt safe because of two things: the great people I have served with whom I knew had my back (male and female), and the knowledge that is anyone tried anything with me, they were going to regret it.

In the meantime, as an officer in this United States Army (not as a male or a female, but as an officer) with 11 years of commissioned service and 15 total years in uniform, I will continue to do my best to lead properly, to impact my sphere of influence the best that I am able, to create command climates and work enviornments that foster ingenuity and creativity, to grow leaders of character who excel in peacetime and war, to demonstrate how developing trust and cohesion amongst each other in units leads to greater success both collectively and individually than pursuing personal ambitions (be they worthy or criminal), and to always lead by example. My current position gives me access to many of America's future leaders, and I can assure you that those of us officers that are here are pouring our heart and souls into mentoring, molding, and shaping them into the they type of leader of character that will best serve this country and who will take the mantle of honor of leading America's Sons and Daughters with the utmost seriousness and committment to doing the right thing.

I will not debate with anyone here. This is my statement on this. Do not speculate upon what you do not know, and newspaper articles are not the fullness of information.