Women do not belong on the front lines, and I'll tell you why. Some of these reasons have already been stated, but bear with me, please.

1. Women as a whole are weaker than men, and sometimes you have to hump over 100 pounds of sh@!

2. Women (especially American) require certain hygeine considerations, which would be impossible to meet in a protracted combat situation. I dont think I need to get in depth here.

3. Women are a distractor, especially to a bunch of guys who've been isolated from women for months. Pretty soon, you've got a whole squad fighting over a chick, instead of fighting the enemy.

I don't think I need to go on. Women in the Army, sure. But keep them where they belong.

I do agree with many of you. I think that women do belong in the military. In Sweden we have a lot of women officers and I have never seen any problems with that. I have shared rooms etc. with women and I didn't jump on them and they didn't jump on me.. We might be more relaxed about this than in the US.

If women are going to be allowed in combat or not is a harder question. I think they should be allowed. They must go through the same test/training as the men and if they pass they should be allowed.

I'm all for women in the armed forces, and I've even trained with them doing Army ROTC. But these women want to be nurses, not soldiers. I personally feel that women don't belong in front line units just cause some aren't built for the physical stains, especially humping all that gear around. But you also have to think about the situation in Iraq. There is really no front line or rear area, so women are having to fight. I don't think that it should be a question of if women should fight, but how much fighting to expose them too.

I would not have any objections as long as they were treated the same as the men, and passed the physical tests for units that were joining. If things then got tough I would not expect to see them running of complaining about unfair treatment in any shape or form.

Originally Posted by ironhorseredleg

If they're willing to fight to defend my country, God bless 'em.

I couldn't have said it better myself! Cheers on that!

EDIT: It's nice to see that this thread is still alive and not closed and deleted. I find this subject pretty important and interesting.

SilverPhoenix what you left out was the option that I would choose. Two things:
1.) I personally feel that any woman in the military who can pass all the same physical and other test as the men, without the use of "gender-norming" should have the choice to be treated no differently than an enlisted man. This means that if the age-based requirement is 45 pushups for a man, it's 45 pushups for a woman. Period. The underlying thing: Should a combat situation lead to hand-to-hand, all soldiers should be at no disadvantage in terms of strenght nor fighting ability. Because women are afforded special standing by the US Armed Forces (and most other Armed Forces throughout the world), the woman soldier gets the choice: "Yes I want to be deployed in combat," or "No I'd rather not."

2.) If the need is great enough, then women should be subject to the same possibility of Draft, etc, as men. Israel is a great example of this sort of need.

Wow, hot topic....as always. I'm late, so I'll toss my .02 cents into the ring, and then shove this ugly little topic back under the rock.

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

Because women are afforded special standing by the US Armed Forces (and most other Armed Forces throughout the world), the woman soldier gets the choice: "Yes I want to be deployed in combat," or "No I'd rather not."

Women are afforded no special treatment in that area. When they're told to deploy, they deploy. You don't get a "Get out of deployment free" card.

It is interesting seeing the differences in opinions between those with military experience, those with actual combat experience and civilians. Military guys with combat experience give women in combat a resounding "NAY!" Civilians say "sure, why not." I gotta go with my brothers on this one.

No women in combat arms, ever.

I won't point out what others have, about the physical and physiological differences between men and women. But I will say that unit cohesiveness is just as important as physical abilities.

I have met some shit hot women in the military, they know their stuff and they know it well, but let's be realistic. More problems would be born out of placing women in combat arms positions than solutions.

These days, being in an urban setting women get to play on first string enough, no need in adding extra pains to the already huge headache of fighting a war.

All male combat arms units are a necessity if we are to keep focused on what matters, and that's the mission.

Some say treat them the same as men, that's not very realistic. Ideally, yeah, sure sounds great, but it won't work in reality. Example:

In SOMC when we did physical exams, we DID physical exams. Examinations consisted of full body assessments (nude patients) and involved rectal and genital exams.

Now, I want you to imagine a 19-20 year old SEAL corpsman or Ranger medic with a nude 20ish year old female Sgt. in front of him.

Exactly, not gonna happen.

Incidentally, it was combat deployment that I was referring to. I'd still say that if a woman is strong enough to enlist in General Infantry, etc, she should be able to BUT, they'd need their own units for it. Equallity be damned, if there are separate restrooms for Men and Women, there's obviously gotta be a reason for it.

BTW, it is EXTREMELY rare to find any woman who can do 45 pushups in 1 shot.

WoW! that was a LONG read , but definately worth it! As a woman who has had this debate many many times with others, I think that women should be allowed to enter into any branch of the forces they can, as long as they can meet the identical standards as the men in the same unit, and as long as they do not detract from the unit. I have female friends who are 5'4" and weigh about 100lbs and want to be on the front lines with men who are almost a foot taller than them and have 100lbs on them. When they are told they cant, they get rather upset, but I don't think that they would be able to meet the standards necessary to do such a job.

Also, I dont think that the government should put extra resources into adapting every branch of the military for women. We are allowed to serve in many, many ways, and personally, the choice to enter into the military will be one I make so I can serve my country, not to prove myself. I don't think vital resources should go into making female barracks in order for women to be able to have a choice. We already have the choice to serve our country. If we can't serve in a certain way, it doesn't matter. I'd rather serve my country in the way I can do so to the greatest effectiveness.

Another point that I though was very valid is the fact that female bodies are built differently then male bodies, and there's a very good reason for this. The way it has always been explained to me, is that thousands of years ago when humans were much more primitive, the women would care for the children and the men would protect the family group. If a predator were to come into the camp, the men would defend it while the women would carry as many children to safety as they could. It only makes sense that men would be better suited to hand- to- hand combat, because their bodies were designed that way. I don't think that the issue here is women's rights, I think it is about doing what is best for the military, and the country as a whole.

Originally Posted by PJ24

Some say treat them the same as men, that's not very realistic. Ideally, yeah, sure sounds great, but it won't work in reality. Example:

In SOMC when we did physical exams, we DID physical exams. Examinations consisted of full body assessments (nude patients) and involved rectal and genital exams.

Now, I want you to imagine a 19-20 year old SEAL corpsman or Ranger medic with a nude 20ish year old female Sgt. in front of him.

Exactly, not gonna happen.

I'm gonna be straight with you, but are you saying that men can keep theyir head straight in war but not during a body exam? I mean, c'mon, there is male gynecologists and I don't seem them having a hard on when they exam a woman. So the soldiers out there can't handle their interest in women but can handle a rifle? I found ait a bit funny.

But I do see your point, but I don't think the example was really a good reason.

Besides women who wants to join the military forces should be allowed to have their own restrooms, showers... etc.

I believe it's time to throw the sexistic view.. (Say what you want but it is sexistic).. aside.

I believe that if a woman can pull of as many push ups as a guy then she should be allowed to at least be given the chance. Combat or not, it doesn't matter.

Have you guys seen the SAS program where a women signed up to try to be a soldier for SAS? If she almost qualified for SAS then I believe she would have been suited into the army. It's just you army guys that can't control your testorone and when a woman enters the picture at a military level she is being somehow "the problem" between the guys.

If a woman can be a police officer and get shot during her duty then it's no one who goes yellign within the police force that women should not be allowed on the streets. But as soon as the discuission about having a woman in the field pops up then alot of military men goes like: NO!!

I find this somehow interesting, because I can not see the difference really. The only difference would be that she had breasts and another gender. (I am going from the point where they both has passed the SAME exams and tests as any other in the military.)