We Knew this was coming.

[Vikrant]

More American women have fought and died in Iraq than in any war since World War Two, yet as soldiers they are still painfully alone. In Iraq, only one in ten troops is a woman, and she often serves in a unit with few other women or none at all. This isolation, along with the military's deep-seated hostility toward women, causes problems that many female soldiers find as hard to cope with as war itself: degradation, sexual persecution by their comrades, and loneliness, instead of the camaraderie that every soldier depends on for comfort and survival. As one female soldier said, "I ended up waging my own war against an enemy dressed in the same uniform as mine."

In The Lonely Soldier, Benedict tells the stories of five women who fought in Iraq between 2003 and 2006. She follows them from their childhoods to their enlistments, then takes them through their training, to war and home again, all the while setting the war's events in context.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-Lonely-Soldier-Private-Serving/dp/0807061492]The Lonely Soldier: The Private War of Women Serving in Iraq: Helen Benedict: 9780807061497: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

 

[MikeK]

More American women have fought and died in Iraq than in any war since World War Two, yet as soldiers they are still painfully alone. In Iraq, only one in ten troops is a woman, and she often serves in a unit with few other women or none at all. This isolation, along with the military's deep-seated hostility toward women, causes problems that many female soldiers find as hard to cope with as war itself: degradation, sexual persecution by their comrades, and loneliness, instead of the camaraderie that every soldier depends on for comfort and survival. As one female soldier said, "I ended up waging my own war against an enemy dressed in the same uniform as mine."

In The Lonely Soldier, Benedict tells the stories of five women who fought in Iraq between 2003 and 2006. She follows them from their childhoods to their enlistments, then takes them through their training, to war and home again, all the while setting the war's events in context.

The Lonely Soldier: The Private War of Women Serving in Iraq: Helen Benedict: 9780807061497: Amazon.com: Books

When I was in the Marine Corps our Women Marines were very well trained in the use of most small arms (up to .50 BMG and rocket launchers), which they qualified with and were quite proficient in the use of. It was understood this proficiency was reserved for last resort circumstances and the idea of assigning them to combat line companies wasn't even vaguely considered.

The WMs were assigned to such MOS fields as motor pool, clerical, supply and support services, base maintenance, etc. They were good at their jobs, we respected them, and there was no hostility toward them. But I can't imagine what the Corps would be like if women were included in such fields as infantry, combat engineers, artillery, and the like.

Armed combat units are the modern equivalent of primitive tribal warrior cults. They are the very essence of machismo. To allow contemporary feminists to encroach upon this ancient and very natural circumstance is a serious mistake -- as evidenced by the problems of rape, harassment, and fundamental discord it has caused in today's Army.

Women do not belong in combat line companies and they should stop trying to cross this line.

 

[Vikrant]

More American women have fought and died in Iraq than in any war since World War Two, yet as soldiers they are still painfully alone. In Iraq, only one in ten troops is a woman, and she often serves in a unit with few other women or none at all. This isolation, along with the military's deep-seated hostility toward women, causes problems that many female soldiers find as hard to cope with as war itself: degradation, sexual persecution by their comrades, and loneliness, instead of the camaraderie that every soldier depends on for comfort and survival. As one female soldier said, "I ended up waging my own war against an enemy dressed in the same uniform as mine."

In The Lonely Soldier, Benedict tells the stories of five women who fought in Iraq between 2003 and 2006. She follows them from their childhoods to their enlistments, then takes them through their training, to war and home again, all the while setting the war's events in context.

The Lonely Soldier: The Private War of Women Serving in Iraq: Helen Benedict: 9780807061497: Amazon.com: Books

When I was in the Marine Corps our Women Marines were very well trained in the use of most small arms (up to .50 BMG and rocket launchers), which they qualified with and were quite proficient in the use of. It was understood this proficiency was reserved for last resort circumstances and the idea of assigning them to combat line companies wasn't even vaguely considered.

The WMs were assigned to such MOS fields as motor pool, clerical, supply and support services, base maintenance, etc. They were good at their jobs, we respected them, and there was no hostility toward them. But I can't imagine what the Corps would be like if women were included in such fields as infantry, combat engineers, artillery, and the like.

Armed combat units are the modern equivalent of primitive tribal warrior cults. They are the very essence of machismo. To allow contemporary feminists to encroach upon this ancient and very natural circumstance is a serious mistake -- as evidenced by the problems of rape, harassment, and fundamental discord it has caused in today's Army.

Women do not belong in combat line companies and they should stop trying to cross this line.

In addition to rape, I just learned that women soldiers were subjected to prostitution as well. There were 48K reported incidents of rape against female soldiers last year. I think this is wrong. If a woman wishes to serve her country in the capacity of soldier she should be allowed to.

---

Several "young, cash-strapped female privates" from Ft. Hood testified this week that they were pressured to prostitute themselves to superiors—and that the senior soldier who pressed them was his unit's sexual assault prevention officer.

The revelations came in the military trial of Master Sgt. Brad Grimes, who was found guilty late Tuesday on two charges after meeting with one of the women at a La Quinta Inn for paid sex. The 17-year Army veteran, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, was demoted and given a letter of reprimanded. He will be permitted to remain in the service.

Amazingly, no charges have been filed against the alleged mastermind of the ring, Sgt. First Class Gregory McQueen, who continues to serve on active duty but was recently stripped of his responsibilities as a battalion sex-assault prevention officer on the Texas base.

The female soldiers, who were relatively new to the service and have not been charged with any crimes, testified that they were recruited into prostitution by McQueen. One private alleged that McQueen made "abusive sexual contact" with her during an "interview" to be in the ring, according to the Austin American-Statesman.

One reason McQueen hasn't been arrested is because Grimes wouldn't testify against him—what the New Republic called "the buddy-buddy refusal to report on a predatory peer," part of "the military's corrosive gender culture."

For his part, Grimes attempted to evade by punishment by testifying that he never had sex with the soldier he'd gone to see at the La Quinta. "He was tempted, and it's not a crime to be tempted," Grimes' civilian lawyer said. He added: "At the end of the day, Master Sgt. Grimes chose to do the right thing and not have sex with that young lady."

The young lady, however, disagreed: She said Grimes indeed had sex with her, and paid her $100.

Female Soldiers Were Goaded Into Prostitution on Texas Army Base

 

[gallantwarrior]

[...]

Ya know, there was a time, back in your good ol' days, where women couldn't vote either and I thank god for tired and weak women who didn't feel like standing up on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama.

There is a significant difference between voting and exposure to intense combat conditions over sustained periods of time, conditions which women are neither physically nor psychologically adaptable to.

I was never in combat but I was in the Marine Corps during the time (1956 to 1960) when the notion of assigning women to combat line companies was first tested and quickly shown to be impractical in the simplest terms. The women could not endure forced marches nor could they compete with men in any of the physical or psychological stress trials.

The bottom line is political correctness has no place in this issue. While there are occasional exceptions, women in general are not designed by Nature to contend with men in kill-or-be-killed confrontations. And that's what men love about them.

I beg to differ. Some of the toughest troops I've ever encountered we're women. Case in point: I had a gal, weighed all of 92 lbs. our basic issue weighed just around 85 lbs. she always finished every ruck march. She was slower than most guys, but she did the same things they did. Disregarding lean body mass index, based solely on percentage, a 210 guy would have to hump around 183 lbs to match this woman's accomplishment. I guarantee they'd be moving a bit more slowly, too.

 

[Kondor3]

[...]

Ya know, there was a time, back in your good ol' days, where women couldn't vote either and I thank god for tired and weak women who didn't feel like standing up on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama.

There is a significant difference between voting and exposure to intense combat conditions over sustained periods of time, conditions which women are neither physically nor psychologically adaptable to.

I was never in combat but I was in the Marine Corps during the time (1956 to 1960) when the notion of assigning women to combat line companies was first tested and quickly shown to be impractical in the simplest terms. The women could not endure forced marches nor could they compete with men in any of the physical or psychological stress trials.

The bottom line is political correctness has no place in this issue. While there are occasional exceptions, women in general are not designed by Nature to contend with men in kill-or-be-killed confrontations. And that's what men love about them.

I beg to differ. Some of the toughest troops I've ever encountered we're women. Case in point: I had a gal, weighed all of 92 lbs. our basic issue weighed just around 85 lbs. she always finished every ruck march. She was slower than most guys, but she did the same things they did. Disregarding lean body mass index, based solely on percentage, a 210 guy would have to hump around 183 lbs to match this woman's accomplishment. I guarantee they'd be moving a bit more slowly, too.

That's not the point.

The point IS...

Can your average 92 lb female Infantry soldier stand up to your average 210 lb male Infantry soldier in hand-to-hand combat, when it gets up-close and personal, as it does often enough, even in our present age?

The answer to that question is "No".

Not 'on the average' or 'in-the-main' or 'for the most-part'.

And, for that reason, I am totally opposed to women serving in the Infantry.

They can do any of a hundred-and-one support and logistics and admin roles.

They can fly combat aircraft on combat missions, as they do now, although that's pushing it, if they're shot down and need to play Infantry trooper.

They can drive combat armor (tanks, etc.) on combat missions, although that's pushing it, if their rig is disabled and they need to bail and play Infantry trooper.

But, in the final analysis, my own feedback would be: 'No Infantry service for women. We'll fix the Combat Badge career-boost issue for you, but, no, sorry, no Infantry service."

Nature did not equip females for this purpose.

 

[gallantwarrior]

There is a significant difference between voting and exposure to intense combat conditions over sustained periods of time, conditions which women are neither physically nor psychologically adaptable to.

I was never in combat but I was in the Marine Corps during the time (1956 to 1960) when the notion of assigning women to combat line companies was first tested and quickly shown to be impractical in the simplest terms. The women could not endure forced marches nor could they compete with men in any of the physical or psychological stress trials.

The bottom line is political correctness has no place in this issue. While there are occasional exceptions, women in general are not designed by Nature to contend with men in kill-or-be-killed confrontations. And that's what men love about them.

I beg to differ. Some of the toughest troops I've ever encountered we're women. Case in point: I had a gal, weighed all of 92 lbs. our basic issue weighed just around 85 lbs. she always finished every ruck march. She was slower than most guys, but she did the same things they did. Disregarding lean body mass index, based solely on percentage, a 210 guy would have to hump around 183 lbs to match this woman's accomplishment. I guarantee they'd be moving a bit more slowly, too.

That's not the point.

The point IS...

Can your average 92 lb female Infantry soldier stand up to your average 210 lb male Infantry soldier in hand-to-hand combat, when it gets up-close and personal, as it does often enough, even in our present age?

The answer to that question is "No".

Not 'on the average' or 'in-the-main' or 'for the most-part'.

And, for that reason, I am totally opposed to women serving in the Infantry.

They can do any of a hundred-and-one support and logistics and admin roles.

They can fly combat aircraft on combat missions, as they do now, although that's pushing it, if they're shot down and need to play Infantry trooper.

They can drive combat armor (tanks, etc.) on combat missions, although that's pushing it, if their rig is disabled and they need to bail and play Infantry trooper.

But, in the final analysis, my own feedback would be: 'No Infantry service for women. We'll fix the Combat Badge career-boost issue for you, but, no, sorry, no Infantry service."

Nature did not equip females for this purpose.

I do not disagree with you about women in combat arms. I was trying to point out to someone else that women can be, and often are, pretty tough soldiers. As to your hand-to-hand observation, how many 150 men could take a 210+ guy in hand-to-hand combat? About as many as my 89 lb woman could. Unless the smaller opponent had some additional training, of course.

 

[SFC Ollie]

2 things.

1st " deep-seated hostility toward women" Bullshit.

2nd. Women do not belong in forward combat Units to include forward support units.

And that's from what I saw in 22 years..............

 

[MikeK]

[...]

The bottom line is political correctness has no place in this issue. While there are occasional exceptions, women in general are not designed by Nature to contend with men in kill-or-be-killed confrontations. And that's what men love about them.

I beg to differ. Some of the toughest troops I've ever encountered we're women. [...]

That is quite a statement.

I can't challenge it with any authority because my military experience took place at a different time in America. And what you've said is American men are not what they were in my time -- and my father's time. I suggest what our troops are facing today is very different from what our troops faced on Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, The Bulge, and the jungles of Viet Nam.

I'm thinking your reference might be the kind of warfare which is common to our combat actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, which typically involve well-rested patrols who depart from a base in the morning, engage significantly inferior adversaries, and return to base at night if they don't trigger an IED. I'm wondering how these "combat ready" women would deal with Russian troops under sustained (weeks/months) field operations.

So essentially we are talking about a different time and vastly different circumstances. And the problem is these circumstances are subject to change and our contemporary military could encounter well-trained, well-equipped troops rather than cucumber farmers with AK-47s, wearing pajamas and sneakers.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I agree, SFC Ollie. It's a very sad thing. I truly believe that women have a place in the military BUT I strongly disagree about putting them in combat situations. Sorry. I'm "old school".

I guess I am too. I do not believe women should be there. They are endangering the lives of others as well as their own.

 

[Vikrant]

As Qualified Men Dwindle, Military Looks For A Few Good Women


As Qualified Men Dwindle, Military Looks For A Few Good Women : NPR

 

[SFC Ollie]

Bullshit.

 

[HenryBHough]

The Marines being the most fierce they'll likely be the first branch to constitute a PMS Battalion.

 

[MikeK]

As Qualified Men Dwindle, Military Looks For A Few Good Women


As Qualified Men Dwindle, Military Looks For A Few Good Women : NPR

We need to restore the DRAFT for several good reasons. (And not include women in it.)

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm sorry call me a male chauvinist pig woman hater, but average women does not have the upper body strength as the average male does. Keep the standards as is or you are no longer maintain equality.
OH an yes equal does not mean lowering the standards already set and tested to see who is the best of the best.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Life is not made up like GI Jane.

 

[MikeK]

Life is not made up like GI Jane.

Quite right.

Back in 1957 or '58 (while I was stationed on Okinawa), in response to a political issue concerning the draft and women serving in the military, the Marine Corps experimentally ran women through the standard Parris Island boot camp program. Not one of them got past the sixth week of the thirteen week regimen. They could not endure forced marches. They could not get through the obstacle courses. A substantial number of them "cracked" from the brutally intense psychological stress. I recall the Commandant at the time, Brig. General Larsen, said "under no circumstances will Women Marines be assigned to (combat) line companies!"

What most people don't realize is Parris Island is thirteen solid weeks of continuous, constant, uninterrupted, increasingly intensified pressure, from reveille to taps, seven days a week, from day one to graduation. There are no breaks. No relief. Its main objective is to determine if recruits are able to withstand the pressure and demands of sustained combat conditions. While there are exceptions, women generally cannot because they are designed by Nature to perform a very different function.

 

[Vikrant]

Life is not made up like GI Jane.

Quite right.

Back in 1957 or '58 (while I was stationed on Okinawa), in response to a political issue concerning the draft and women serving in the military, the Marine Corps experimentally ran women through the standard Parris Island boot camp program. Not one of them got past the sixth week of the thirteen week regimen. They could not endure forced marches. They could not get through the obstacle courses. A substantial number of them "cracked" from the brutally intense psychological stress. I recall the Commandant at the time, Brig. General Larsen, said "under no circumstances will Women Marines be assigned to (combat) line companies!"

What most people don't realize is Parris Island is thirteen solid weeks of continuous, constant, uninterrupted, increasingly intensified pressure, from reveille to taps, seven days a week, from day one to graduation. There are no breaks. No relief. Its main objective is to determine if recruits are able to withstand the pressure and demands of sustained combat conditions. While there are exceptions, women generally cannot because they are designed by Nature to perform a very different function.

Women have changed. I remember in the 90s women used to have hard time lifting TVs and stuff like that. That is not the case anymore I see them working with weights in the gym that are pretty impressive even from men's standard. I see them lifting heavy items. Their attitude has changed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Life is not made up like GI Jane.

Quite right.

Back in 1957 or '58 (while I was stationed on Okinawa), in response to a political issue concerning the draft and women serving in the military, the Marine Corps experimentally ran women through the standard Parris Island boot camp program. Not one of them got past the sixth week of the thirteen week regimen. They could not endure forced marches. They could not get through the obstacle courses. A substantial number of them "cracked" from the brutally intense psychological stress. I recall the Commandant at the time, Brig. General Larsen, said "under no circumstances will Women Marines be assigned to (combat) line companies!"

What most people don't realize is Parris Island is thirteen solid weeks of continuous, constant, uninterrupted, increasingly intensified pressure, from reveille to taps, seven days a week, from day one to graduation. There are no breaks. No relief. Its main objective is to determine if recruits are able to withstand the pressure and demands of sustained combat conditions. While there are exceptions, women generally cannot because they are designed by Nature to perform a very different function.

Women have changed. I remember in the 90s women used to have hard time lifting TVs and stuff like that. That is not the case anymore I see them working with weights in the gym that are pretty impressive even from men's standard. I see them lifting heavy items. Their attitude has changed.

Women have not physically changed.

 

[Kondor3]

God or Nature or Fate did not see fit to give women the physical ability to serve as Infantry soldiers in parity with men. I see no point trying to override that which cannot be overridden; protestations by some progressives and hyper-egalitarians and a variety of well-intentioned but naive, unrealistic souls to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[Vikrant]

Quite right.

Back in 1957 or '58 (while I was stationed on Okinawa), in response to a political issue concerning the draft and women serving in the military, the Marine Corps experimentally ran women through the standard Parris Island boot camp program. Not one of them got past the sixth week of the thirteen week regimen. They could not endure forced marches. They could not get through the obstacle courses. A substantial number of them "cracked" from the brutally intense psychological stress. I recall the Commandant at the time, Brig. General Larsen, said "under no circumstances will Women Marines be assigned to (combat) line companies!"

What most people don't realize is Parris Island is thirteen solid weeks of continuous, constant, uninterrupted, increasingly intensified pressure, from reveille to taps, seven days a week, from day one to graduation. There are no breaks. No relief. Its main objective is to determine if recruits are able to withstand the pressure and demands of sustained combat conditions. While there are exceptions, women generally cannot because they are designed by Nature to perform a very different function.

Women have changed. I remember in the 90s women used to have hard time lifting TVs and stuff like that. That is not the case anymore I see them working with weights in the gym that are pretty impressive even from men's standard. I see them lifting heavy items. Their attitude has changed.

Women have not physically changed.

In my observation they have. This realization is recent for me and it happened at a gym when I noticed a girl who was working out next to me. Afterward I started paying attention and I realized that the current generation of girls in their 20s are not shy of flexing their muscles. They are not apologetic about their diet and strength.