Do you think women belong in direct combat duty roles in the armed forces?

YES

Should there be any limits at all?
NO
(Naturally, I mean no more than the limits placed on males. Any female with a future in talk radio and a butt cyst would be excused!)

I've often thought that if women were completely in charge of wars, they would be rare, but far more nasty and cruel. That's mostly something provocative to say in bars than a reasoned opinion... mostly.

No. Not direct on the ground fighting. I think that using women as pilots or snipers - is perfectly fine though.

I'm not saying that I think women can't be capable fighters on the ground. I actually think that they could be.

I don't think that the public could handle seeing women in bodybags. And it could jeopardize the men fighting because it is almost instinctive for men to protect women. It would be an unnecessary risk to our fighting force.

I've often thought that if women were completely in charge of wars, they would be rare, but far more nasty and cruel.

Oh MY GOD!!!!!

You have got to kidding. Women in charge of wars -we would be fighting somebody about every three weeks. When that PMS kicks in - LOOK OUT! And yes - they would be far nastier and cruel - with that I agree.

That is why I will NEVER vote for a woman to be president - unless she is a post-menopausal Republican!!!!!

Women should be in direct combat roles if they qualify for them, period. All of the social arguments against women in combat have been used before whenever women enter a hitherto forbidden field or activity, and have proven to be groundless.

I am absolutely and totally opposed to women being placed in combat roles, ever! Why, you ask? Unlike much of the liberal thinking that would like to pretend it doesn't exist, I believe that there are basic differences between men and women. I believe that God made women the more nurturing sex and He made men the more agressive. I just think that men in general are better equipped emotionally, physically and mentally for what occurs on the battlefield. I also think that the prospect of what can happen to any POW, but let's be honest, to a female POW is just about unthinkable to me. When Pfc Lynch was a POW I could not get it out of my mind that she was most likely being raped as part of her torture. I hope that wasn't the case, but I don't think anyone would be surprised if we find out that it did happen.

Call me old fashioned, but I believe I could somehow come to grips with my sons going to war, but if my daughter were in combat, I think I would lose my mind with worry.

Women in the military? Bad idea. Period. There is not a woman I have met in 50 years that I would trust to guard my back. Ever. I won't work for them, with them and I rarely befriend them. As far as a woman as president, we could kiss this country good-bye.

If that's where they feel they're needed, and they want to go....why not?

Nobody asks this question for men.

I think women are fully capable of fighting in direct combat. I also think it's a bad idea to have women fighting in direct combat.

Look at how the US reacted to a maintenance person (Pfc. Jessica Lynch) that was taken as a POW. As maintenance she wasn't supposed to encounter much combat, but she did, held her own, and survived.

But as a general rule, I still think it's not a good idea.

Whoever dreamt up that bit 'women are more nurturing' bit as though it were dogma should be shot. It's just not true, believe it or not. That comes mostly from upbringing, not the gender gene.

If, and only if, a women meets the necessary requirements for any military slot, without the requirements having been softened to a point they're useless, then, why not. Women are people.
There are many men in the military who deliberately take specialties that are almost guaranteed to be non-combat related.

That old question of rape is not really an issue; women have been raped in EVERY IMAGINABLE PLACE.

If a women truly wishes to be in a unit that would routinely face combat, she should be allowed to try to qualify and serve.

My reservations concerning women in combat is not to protect women. They can take care of themselves. They do have physical limitations, however, that could make it difficult, if not impossible, to bring a wounded buddy off the battlefield. Side-by-side ground fighting would not be a good idea, IMO. Anything else, they could do as well or better than their male counterparts. Semper Fi!

I'm not inclined to see women in combat in the same roles as men. I don't think that it is in a woman's nature to respond the same as men in the given situation. While women can be equally capable, I agree with the idea that they shouldn't be used in ground combat. Doesn't seem right somehow.

My background is working as a missionary and being in the Army National guard in a medical unit. I recognize women can be shot and raped. Some of my missionary friends suffered both fates.

Can women serve in combat? Yes they have. Women served in Israel in the war of Independence, and as guerillas all over. Women as "camp followers" have always been in wars in support services (not just as prostitutes, which is how we usually see camp followers, but as nurses, laudresses and cooks).

In modern war, support services are vulnerable to "asymmetrical" warfare, and must therefore be soldiers. So unless you want them slaughtered, they'd better be able to fight.

Women were POWs at Bataan and corrigedor. Women helped in the american revolution. A woman accompanying Cortez actually wielded a sword and killed some Aztecs.

But women often suffered much more as POW's than did the men. This is why Israel no longer allows women in front line combat. Yes, rape can occur any place. What is usually called "rape" (feminists usually mean date rape) is not what happens to women brutalized over and over in prisons.

The argument for women in the military nowadays is not about an occassional woman joining the men in combat. It is about the denial that men and women are different, and the idea that we should not "discriminate".

Alas, nature discriminates.

Ignoring the physiological differences between women and men and ignoring that sex can easily rear it's lovely head in awkward situations has to be discussed, but have not really been discussed.

What happens to traditional men who are trained to protect the weak, and now have to be trained to ignore a woman tortured in front of them? WHat happens to unit cohesiveness when a woman flirts and causes fighting between two prospective suitors? What happens to young men, often teenagers, who are in close contact with a woman for hours day and night? What happens to unit cohesiveness when rape occurs? Or when the men know their units will be short handed because too many women deliberatly get pregnant to get out of combat? What about the danger of a pregnant woman being exposed to NBC warfare: remember, the average of ten percent of US female soldiers are pregnant at any one time.

The reason Irish women stopped fighting is when a monk saw a dead woman soldier with a dying babe at her breast. He saw this as a terrible thing.

When a single mother dies in combat and leaves two orphans, like that Hopi woman soldier killed in Iraq, who of us will say: No this is not right.

Lori was in a support unit, and I support her life and her death was a tradgedy. But to deliberatly make many such deaths a policy of a country shows the coarsening of both feminity and masculinity.

I don't see how you can base your decision on how *you* would feel seeing women in combat. Let's keep in mind that whatever the general public sees of a war or armed conflict or whatever is a marketing decision made by the government and the media.

The fact (?) that men might feel the need to be more protective of the other women on the the ground with them is also irrelevant. Are men in the military not already super-protective of each other? If they are inclined to behave differently around the women - their *peers* - then that's their problem that they need to deal with and if they can't, they're not being the best soldier they can be. This is the same argument used to keep gays out of the military (because they make everyone else around them uncomfortable and thus unable to do their job properly) and that's hardly fair.

If a woman qualifies to participate in direct combat, let 'er rip. If it so happens that the standards are that much higher and most women are unable to meet those higher standards, so be it. This, of course, is not to say that "someone" should jack up the requirements to effectively prevent women from qualifying.

Does anybody have any idea what the qualifications to participate in direct combat are or how many women do/might meet those qualifications? I'm just curious.

Women in the combat IF they can meet the same physical requirements as men. Otherwise stick to the sniper or scout or fighter pilot scenarios. If subs are at a really low risk of being boarded (I just assume they are), let women serve wherever on them.

I do not believe women belong in combat roles.

Here's my opinion: if women want to serve in combat situations, then so be it. It's a given that they know what they're getting into; as long as they can pass the same qualifications that the men do, why not allow them to go?

And for this nurturing stuff? I personally think its a huge load of BS and I'll agree with MommaBear on that one.

if a woman is capable of serving - and that means meeting all the necessary requirements, physical and otherwise of the job - let her serve.

my guess is that few would meet all the requirements. but - so what? even if it's a small percentage ... those who are able to do so ought to be able to serve. discrimination is wrong, no matter where the venue. but then recognizing that there are differences between the sexes is a reality, too.

As one who was planning to go into the Army for six years (no more, due to medical ineligibilities), I've got to agree with several of the posters and say that women absolutely can and should be on the frontlines if they have measured up to the same requirements as the men. About the public perception; I've got to admit that I'm hit just as hard when a man is captured or killed as a woman.

As the daughter of an Air Force officer, I've known many women in the military. I would never join, but that's because of my attitude (you won't hear "how high, sir" when someone tells me to jump) not because I don't think women belong in the military.

For me, I think women should be able to go wherever they are physically qualified to go. The physical qualifications for front-line fighting should be the same for men and women. Women should only be placed in front-line units if they volunteer, however. This would help keep those who weren't emotionally ready for it from being there.

Discrimination is wrong, but sometimes we as women just have to accept that in some ways we really are the "weaker" sex. God made us that way for a reason, and while I believe that there's lots of things I could do as well or better than men - there's also some things in which they've definetely got me beat. Most of them are related to physical strength and endurance.

That was rather rambling and vague, but I'm in the middle of finals week, so my brain is fuzzy. I hope I've gotten my point across.

Isn't the sniper bit a frontline position?

I've been hearing a lot of blanket statements about how women should either be prohibited from entering the armed forces period or should not be anywhere near the frontlines of combat. I'll issue a blanket statement of my own: women who believe they can handle being on the frontlines should go for it. However, I have reservations about co-ed units; I think men and women should be in their own units while in a direct combat situation.

I'm a retired Air Force Officer. I spent my career in non-combat jobs. If a woman qualifies for combat duty, she should be allowed to fight. As we've seen recently, sometimes there isn't much distinction between non-combat and combat jobs. You've still got to be able to protect your fellow soldiers and yourself. As for the rape issue, the ugly little secret is that sometimes men are raped, too. Men are single fathers, too. Men have mothers, spouses, sisters, brothers, children, who care about them just as much as they care about their daughters, sisters, etc. As my mother said when questioned about how she felt about my military service (and remember this was back when there weren't nearly as many women in the military), "Why is there a difference between how I would feel about my daughter in the military and how I would feel about any of my sons in the military. I would still worry about them either way."

You know you gals are all right!

I wanna know one thing from all you Women should be able to fight - if they can...group.

What if we let those women that are capable - do fight...Then someone in their infinite wisdom reinstates The Draft?

They had plenty of not really capable men drafted to go when necessary so what happens when the flood gates are open for all?

Allowing the women that are currently in the military to fully participate in direct combat does not necessitate that women would be eligible for the draft should it be reinstated. But if it did, then I guess I'll all have to go, won't I?

I would think reinstating the draft under those circumstances would require rules like "only one adult per family" (so as not to leave the children without anyone to care for them). I also see a lot of women getting pregnant in short order in that case.

I would also think that by having a larger pool of eligible people there might be a larger percentage of capable people actually going off to fight.

How 'bout this scenario. Woman plan the wars, men fight them. Because we're some of the most conniving bitches you'll ever run across.

Even better idea, have lesbians with PMS fight them. I'd put a pissed off lesbian up against a man anytime!

I think the choice is individual. If a woman chooses to serve in the armed forced, than so be it. It is her right as a citizen and human. If her choice is to serve, than I feel she should also choose whether or not to actually fight. As for women with families, it goes the same as for those men who sign on with the U.S. Military. They don't pay you to have a family. They pay you to defend your country.
If there was a similar war, here on the homefront, as in Iraq,I would think it safe to bet that those women who were in jeapordy of being hurt,maimed, raped or killed (or their children) they would take up arms and fight as viciously,if not more so,then the men.

Yes... but they would have to be physically qualified for the job, whatever it might be. No exceptions, no allowances.

I'm going to echo the people who say let them fight as long as they qualify in the same way as men.

I remember back when they first wanted to let women into the New York City Fire Department. A lot of my father's colleagues were aghast at the thought, but my dad said basically what applies here: If they pass the same exact test and meet the same exact standards as their male counterparts, then why not?

As for that nurturing BS, I don't buy it. But that's a whole other rant.

Why Dean, you really know how to get the girlies to swarm around you! Seriously, speaking of physical differences: in the boggy jungles of Viet Nam, didn't the tiny Cajun men kick the most ass thanks to their petite sneaking-sized frames? And isn't one of the differences between men and women that women (in general, in general, of course) have a higher pain threshold and greater endurance?

And I'm still saying if a woman can lift the dead weight and jump the high jump or whatever the test is, then she can be Audie Murphy.

Even the most evil women figure out that on a boat, if you don't do your full share of work, everybody goes in the water. I'm assuming catty women would either connive to keep themselves out of combat or learn teamwork real darn fast.

Re. the draft: Yeah, women should be drafted. If they're not physically capable of serving on the front lines, ok, they should be drafted to serve in support areas.

Women in combat: yes. Sure, the public may freak out over it for a while, as the commenter above pointed out with the Pfc. Lynch situation. But like anything else, they'll get used to it. And PMS jokes aside (and that's all they are: jokes), there is no inherent reason why women can't perform just as well as men in the battlefield.

Women in combat? Of course. But we women should meet the same physical standards as the men.

Sexual intercourse in the trenches? Get over it.

Actually, it is a pity that women's strength drops off with age. I am much meaner and tougher mentally now that I am post-menopausal that I was when I was combat age.

Like most of the others who've commented, I also tend to think women should have the option of frontline duty if they pass the same physical requirements as the men. The problem we face is that once it is allowed, some woman is going to sue claiming that she should be allowed to fight with a ground unit even though she couldn't pass the physical.

I'll admit I'm not 100% convinced of this position, though. One thing the "Sexual Revolution" showed me was that it was a *bad* idea to convince men that they could have sex without consequences. I'm not sure it's a good thing to train men not to try to protect women.

Absolutely women should be allowed in combat, if they can meet the requirements for the job they want. And, as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing wrong with drafting women, either. We wanted all the privileges of full citizenship, and I think we should be prepared to fight for what we say we believe in.

There are practical considerations, but I don't think they are insurmountable, and that's a whole 'nother post. I have no objection on philosophical grounds.

I'd like to see physical standards evened up, even if there are fewer women in uniform because of it, though. Either it's important to be able to do x, or it's not. They are definitely sending a mixed message now.

Maybe I'm so fierce because the Navy kicked me out for medical 16SEP01, and I still want a piece of those bastards.

Alright already! I'm sorry I said that awful word - nurture.

I still don't want women in combat roles.

I think women should be allowed in combat roles, but only if they can meet the same requirements as the men. There should be no grading on a curve here. Pass the physical, girls, and it's all yours. No whining allowed. And never EVER ask for special treatment once you get through all of that.

I don't think there is anything inherently peaceful and nurturing about women, or anything inherently violent about men. I know way too many exceptions to the rule to accept it unthinkingly. I know quite a few bad-ass women and I know plenty of men who are like Ferdinand, the bull from the children's story, who doesn't want to go in the ring with the matador. The thought terrifies him. He wants to sit in a field and smell the flowers.

Combat clearly isn't for everybody. But if a woman can compete physically with men, and measure up to the standards already existing in the armed forces, then yes. She should be allowed to fight.

If a woman can pass the same tests as a man, she should be able to fight. If there is another draft, women should be eligible for it as well. Perhaps a wider pool of applicants will make it easier to find people more qualified for combat. If not, you deal with it precisely the same way we dealt with the not-so-qualified men. The person/people least not-so-qualified goes/go into combat; the rest go into support positions. If the percentage of least not-so-qualified people who wind up in combat skews higher towards men, so be it.

As for the rape issue, as horrid as that is, men do get raped also. Just think of what goes on in the average prison in the United States. I don't think it's different in other countries, especially not in POW situations. We seem to accept sending 18-year-old boys into that kind of danger. I don't know about anyone else, I find it just as horrific to think of an 18-year-old boy being raped as I do an 18-year-old girl.

I've been in the Army, and I see one bad thing about some of the comments. A few of you said we women can go if we chose to go. What about the men? They don't have that choice, they are going.

I had a couple of friends desperately trying to get pregnant in 1990, so they would not have to deploy with our unit. I had to leave my kids with my Hubby and spent some miserable months as a second class human in Saudi Arabia.

Cathy A.

I think women should be allowed in combat. I think they should be included in the draft. I don't see any reason why young men should be subjected to having to register with the government and young women shouldn't be. I don't think it's fair for us, as women to ask to be treated as equals, but only when it's convenient for us. Some people have brought up the issue of rape, more women are raped every day in the US than probably all the woman who have served in the military have been. Women in most major cities are at a higher risk of being raped and murdered. As others have pointed out, rape exists for men too, I'm not sure why some people think it's more horrific for women to be raped. Women in the US serve as police officers, fire fighters, construction workers etc, women are more than capable of physically handling the military, after all, not all young men are 6' with bulging muscles. We can't have it both ways.

Cathy -- I don't want to sound too harsh towards your friends, but if they didn't want to be deployed, why did they join the Army? Why did you?

I grew up as a Navy brat (my father was aboard ship when I was born), and we always knew that we went where the Navy sent us. That included eighteen months in the Philippines (including seven months offbase in very primitive conditions) where they have three seasons -- hot, dry, and rainy -- and all three were miserable.

I had always thought the charge that women were trying to get out of their duty by getting pregnant was a propaganda myth. If what you're saying is true, I'm rather distressed to learn that it's not.

If an individual *wants* to do the job and is *able* to do the job, good on ya!

(*able* meaning objective requirements - no grading on a curve, no affirmative action nonsense.)

My mother was active duty in the Air Force, and served in the Gulf War. It's funny how I tell people I was a military brat growing up and they ask "Oh really? What branch was your dad in?" The look on their faces when I tell them it was my mother, moron, is priceless. It's amazing how much close-mindedness there still exists out there. My mom wore army boots, my mom died wearing army boots, and if your mom wants to wear army boots, too, well goddammit, tell her to wear some good, thick socks and bring it on.

http://www.cmrlink.org/international.asp?docID=113

Women should have the same opportunities as men in the military. It's horrible that we have to send men to fight, but they signed to fight for their country, just as women have. So, what's the difference? If women weren't ready to take the responsiblity of fighting in combat, they should not have signed up.

What is with all the feminist BS. Women are not superior to women, and can't do the same things as men.
God intended women and men to have different roles, and to put us in this one is way out in left field.
For everyone saying if women can meet the standards men do to go to combat then go....well then not one woman should be out there. Because the standards are even different for getting in the military, just imagine what they are to serve in combat!
Women by nature are weaker! That does not mean we are worse, just weaker!

Stupid.

Strength, women dont have the same amount as men.

Men are wired to protect women. It is instinctual. Something
you can talk about and be all uppity and objective in front of computer.
As soon as youre in the heat of combat, in a situation where theres no time to think
all that logical bullshit is thrown out the window.

Men need to rely on instincts in combat, throwing women in the mix WILL offset that balance. Not to mention the comraderie that exits in
male exclusive environments. Heck women have plenty of groups where men arent alllowed, thats fine. Its called 'empowering'. But anything a man does, well women
should be able to do too. WTF!

Combat life is not a career, its not a notch in the feminist totalitarian progression belt. Makes me sick that people think they are so smart.

Why do people feel the need to argue things like this? God, it makes me question all of you. Men and women are made a certain way, you
are only gonna bend that so far before you are just delluding yourself.

Guess what happens when you bend yourself too far? You arent a man or woman anymore. Is that what we want? A race of greys, no contrast. No differences.
Yeah that will REALLY help the species along.

Just watch any nature program, the species with the LEAST diversity are the ones that survive the longest. Yeah right.

I think women should be drafted because women fought for equal rights and should take the rsponsibility that come with it. Women should be drafted and placed in positions in which there are best capable and treated the same as any man. Women always want equal rights when it benefits them but when it dont its a different stody. Also rape can happen but women use this as excuse why not to be drafted if America passed a law that banned women from leaving thier house because of rape American women would be upset.

I view battlefield combat as a job that some Americans choose to work. If a woman can qualify for the job position, and fully qualify, and she understands what her job might entail, then let her at it.
As far as women in the draft, I have to disagree. The point of a draft is to put together a group fit for combat. The point of a war is to win. Most women would not heighten our chances of winning. Ground combat requires extreme physical strength and that's something a lot of us women don't have.

I think women can do anything men can even a military career. Were tough enough

I think theyre would be no wars if I was prez you bitches! And NO Iam not nasty you mfing freaks!

I think this talk is a lttle late, women have been fighting and dying for this country before it was a country. A better question would be why do we not honor there memory?

Leah i agree we should honor them. We should as women get equal rights as men do. That means equal standards as well. Women should be able to do just as men can.

all of the men out there and women who does not support women in combat, hear this
DO YOU REALLY NEED TO HAVE A DxxK JUST TO JOIN THE COMBAT.